Quote from: VisionStorm on October 04, 2022, 09:19:20 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2022, 09:02:20 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 04, 2022, 03:34:52 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on October 03, 2022, 06:35:01 AM
I think Banshee's point was that 48 isn't a nightmare for a DM. You have 60+, not counting Wizard schools and PHB Cleric domains, by the time you add in Xanathar's.

Across all supplements, 5e has a total of 116 subclasses:
- Artificier (4)
- Barbarian (8 )
- Bard (8 )
- Cleric (14)
- Druid (7)
- Fighter (10)
- Monk (10)
- Paladin (9)
- Ranger (8 )
- Rogue (9)
- Sorcerer (7)
- Warlock (9)
- Wizard (13)

The 48 for "D&D 5.5" are just the Core. That will certainly get expanded.

And?

Seriously, the "subclasses" part of each class amount to about 3-4 class traits spread across the entire level range of the class. Some of them are literally just adding options to the spell list or picking another item from a list of options available at 1st level.

The subclasses rarely alter the core function of the class enough that the GM would have to memorize all hundred of them; just maybe reference the half-dozen or less actually in use at their table (and if the feature is relevant enough, they'll be able to account for it just like they do the wizard unlocking 5th level spells (i.e. figure it out when it happens).

I also don't see too many people use many options outside of core and Xanathar's Guide... almost all the others are extremely edge case and niche. Is a subclass no one uses or even goes looking for actually a problem?

So, yeah, this subclass thing just feels like a whole lot of bitching over a non-issue to me. 5e's got way more structural problems to complain about than the existence of "too many" subclasses.

ETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

I already addressed some of this at another one of the half a dozen threads or so essentially dealing with this same topic:

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/will-we-look-back-and-view-the-5-0-to-one-dd-transition/msg1232115/#msg1232115

Also, I complain about the spell bloat all the time. I HATE endless variants of "Inflicts X damage type", "heals damage", "imposes condition", etc. spells. And the 9 arbitrary spell levels only compound this, by spreading them out across 9 poorly defined levels that need to be filled with inconsistently powered spells.

The existence of other poorly implemented bloat in D&D doesn't justify more of it, though.

I also think spell bloat diminishes the flavor of the different caster classes. In looking at OSE spell lists I think their is something to be said to keeping to small spell lists with minimal overlap. The difference between the Magic-User and Illusionist spell list allow the Illusionist to remain flavorful, and could have the Magic-User looking with envy at some of the Illusionist spells. My group runs with ACKS, which is often about having more options, but in my next campaign I may look at shrinking the spell list.

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 10:11:47 AM
At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

   Yes. D&D's major selling points are being ubiquitous, being well-supported, and being D&D--a specific type of psychotronic fantasy born in the 70s and refined and refracted through every decade and numerous forms of media since then.

  People who privilege something else--elegance, simplicity, flexibility, detail--over the D&Dness typically move on to other systems eventually.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 04, 2022, 01:21:00 PM

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 10:11:47 AM
At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

   Yes. D&D's major selling points are being ubiquitous, being well-supported, and being D&D--a specific type of psychotronic fantasy born in the 70s and refined and refracted through every decade and numerous forms of media since then.

  People who privilege something else--elegance, simplicity, flexibility, detail--over the D&Dness typically move on to other systems eventually.

Out of weird, idiosyncratic, and bloated, one of those things is not like the others.  Granted, "bloat" is subjective in some case.  Where I think you can make a real case against it in D&D is where the bloat fails to deliver on the other two.

Having 30 first level spells for a wizard to pick from is bloat.  If they are all decent spells, or at least weird spells with a niche, then the GM can always say no.  (There won't actually be 30 decent first level spells, but for the sake of argument ...)   The GM can cut down the list to a more manageable 8 to 12 as starting options (or options period), and/or have some of them be gained randomly.  That's bloat, but it is bloat the same way that a lot of pulp magazines had bloat.  You throw a bunch of crazy stuff against the wall, only some of it will stick.  Not a coincidence, either, given D&D's imaginative roots.

However, if half the spells are merely rehashed, restated versions of the same thing, then better to drop them altogether.  That's pure bloat that serves no useful purpose and makes the GM's job harder.

This has been an on again, off again problem with D&D even from the mid to late 1E days.  It gets worse in all the WotC versions due to the same drive to be somehow comprehensive and complete that they inherited from 2E that sucked some of the charm out of the 2E core books.  2E at least had the somewhat valid excuse that the rules were running complete and bland to service the charm in the various settings.   The one time WotC really took some chances and exercised some imagination with a setting (4E), they managed to all but drown it in extreme power bloat.  The same problem is there in 3E and 5E, but it's more hidden because they don't make the mistake of jumping, screaming, and pointing to their mistake.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 04, 2022, 01:50:59 PM
Out of weird, idiosyncratic, and bloated, one of those things is not like the others.  Granted, "bloat" is subjective in some case.  Where I think you can make a real case against it in D&D is where the bloat fails to deliver on the other two.

Having 30 first level spells for a wizard to pick from is bloat.  If they are all decent spells, or at least weird spells with a niche, then the GM can always say no.  (There won't actually be 30 decent first level spells, but for the sake of argument ...)   The GM can cut down the list to a more manageable 8 to 12 as starting options (or options period), and/or have some of them be gained randomly.  That's bloat, but it is bloat the same way that a lot of pulp magazines had bloat.  You throw a bunch of crazy stuff against the wall, only some of it will stick.  Not a coincidence, either, given D&D's imaginative roots.

However, if half the spells are merely rehashed, restated versions of the same thing, then better to drop them altogether.  That's pure bloat that serves no useful purpose and makes the GM's job harder.

   Granted ... but one person's bloat is another person's "essential element of D&D." Witness the angst over assassins (who were only a slight thief variation) being absent in 2E, or the relegation of gnomes (who have always had trouble finding a niche) to the PHB2 in 4E.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 04, 2022, 01:58:15 PM
   Granted ... but one person's bloat is another person's "essential element of D&D." Witness the angst over assassins (who were only a slight thief variation) being absent in 2E, or the relegation of gnomes (who have always had trouble finding a niche) to the PHB2 in 4E.

It becomes an editorial decision.  I'm more hardcore on the cut side of that argument.  If I've got 12 classes, then I'll cut out the weakest 4, whatever they are, in principle.  (It's never quite that easy, but you get the idea.)  However, even assuming I lose that battle, I still think there is a separate line of minimum usefulness and quality.  Either put in the work to make it worth having or leave it out.  For the assassin, either make it more than a variant rogue and keep it, or accept that you can't and drop it.  Possibly robbing some element of it that appealed as an option or starting point for something else that you can run with.  People would have been a lot more accepting of the "assassin" going away if they had spun the idea off in another direction that seemed to many players more interesting than what it replaced.

Edit:  For all such changes, there is a certain amount of knee jerk reaction that is thoughtless and essentially bogus.  There is a certain amount of reaction to having one's ox gored (especially with power gamers that see their tricks getting blown up).  However, on the more thoughtful side, I think some of the negative reactions to changes are because the change is seen as essentially intellectually and imaginatively bankrupt.  Or in some cases, a change is seen as evidence of a trend in that direction, even if the person can't quite put their finger on exactly why that is.

Many spells could be boiled down into simplified templates, it's true. You could have "Direct Damage Dealing Spell - [Level]d6 damage. Choose one save type for half damage."

And while this would probably more elegant, clear, allow for better roleplaying of specific characters ... it'd also bland-enough that I don't think players would appreciate it. Even though theoretically this type of thing can be solved with proper setting material, the casual playerbase would see the architecture being exposed and get turned off.

Quote from: FingerRod on October 04, 2022, 06:57:06 AM
Help me out. Are you trying to counter a point I made? Are you adding emphasis?

Just adding emphasis and pointing out that WotC will almost certainly expand subclasses once the new edition rolls out.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 04, 2022, 09:02:20 AM
And?

And nothing.
I was just adding context to the discussion.

I have nothing against sub-classes as a mechanic, but with an average of 9 per class (many so niche they're practically useless, as you point out), I think it's clear that it's just content for content's sake.

QuoteETA: You want bloat, every time the spellcasters gain access to a new level of spells from a massive and ever growing list adds way more bloat than any of the subclasses do... but no one ever complains about the massive bloat of ever more niche spells because... tradition?

I do. I've being complaining about spell bloat and feat bloat back during the 3.x days. It's one of the main reasons I turned my back on anything D&D for almost two decades. I skipped out on PF, 4e, and only played my first game of 5e three years ago. For me, both as a player and GM, bloat is a huge red flag. It slows down the game, and it's often a gigantic waste of money since the "new content" is either severely underwhelming or results in power creep. Two things I don't want in a game.

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 02:54:20 PM
Many spells could be boiled down into simplified templates, it's true. You could have "Direct Damage Dealing Spell - [Level]d6 damage. Choose one save type for half damage."

And while this would probably more elegant, clear, allow for better roleplaying of specific characters ... it'd also bland-enough that I don't think players would appreciate it. Even though theoretically this type of thing can be solved with proper setting material, the casual playerbase would see the architecture being exposed and get turned off.

Well, that's what Hero System does, which does have an audience, but not a huge one.  Not sure how much of that is because of the "effects-based" design.  My experience is that people who want that sort of thing (and I did, once), really appreciate it, while no one else does.

However, to expand your example, what I would consider bloat is something like this:

1. Having avoided the simplified template, we instead get "Fire Bolt" that does 2d6 fire damage to a target within 30 feet. 
2. For sake of the illustration, assume an otherwise minimalist system that leaves the result of "fire" up to the GM.
3. We've put a thin veneer on the effect to avoid some of the blandness, especially if the GM is instructed to make rulings about "fire", and does so.
4. Then someone wants to add "Ice Bolt" that does 2d6 ice damage to a target within 30 feet.  Or perhaps to hide their lack of imagination, they make inconsequential changes to 3d4 ice damage to a target within 20 feet.

My contention is that this does essentially the same thing as your template.  It takes a pretty dense player to not see the architecture being exposed.  Moreover, even if we pull just enough inconsequential changes to keep many casual players from seeing it outright, some still will, and even more will sense it. 

There are many ways to get around this problem in a better design.  It could be a little more complex, moving some of the distinctions out of GM adjudication and into actual system differences between, say, fire and ice.  The GM could be encouraged in text to really play up the differences.  There could be a theme where ice tends to be more specific targets while fire is an area.  To use the design buzzwords, the designers need to stop worrying so much about balance that they make everything parallel, when they need the courage to risk a little imbalance by deliberately going asymmetric. 

But in no case is the carbon copy "ice bolt" needed as is.  Any GM worth the title, confronted with a player wanting "ice" magic, can come up with those kind of translations on the fly.  Given even a modicum of inspiration, they'll probably even tweak it a little to fit their idea of how it works, getting an even better result than the default bland approach.  Given some experience in actually running a game for awhile with such changes, they'll probably get pretty darn good at it.  Given a better "ice bolt" as an example, they'll do all that growth faster.

Well, we do know for a fact that simplifying the spell list is, unfortunately, not part of the OneDnD Agenda. 17 zero level Arcane spells...dios mio.

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 10:11:47 AM
...
At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

No.

What people like is that D&D has the dominant player network effect making it easy to get a game. The system just has to have the vague feel of D&D and be just 'good enough' to not drive away players. That is not a high bar...


In other The OneDnD Agenda news:

Hasbro Appoints New Senior Vice President of Dungeons & Dragons
https://investor.hasbro.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-appoints-new-senior-vice-president-dungeons-dragons#:~:text=Hasbro%20Appoints%20New%20Senior%20Vice%20President%20of%20Dungeons%20%26%20Dragons,-04%20Oct%2C%202022&text=PAWTUCKET%2C%20R.I.,Vice%20President%20of%20Dungeons%20%26%20Dragons.

QuoteSenior E-Commerce and Business Line Executive Dan Rawson Joins Wizards of the Coast to Expand Digital and Tabletop Opportunities for World's Greatest Roleplaying Game

PAWTUCKET, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 4, 2022-- Hasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ: HAS), today announced Dan Rawson has joined Wizards of the Coast in a newly created role as Senior Vice President of Dungeons & Dragons. Mr. Rawson, formerly COO of Microsoft Dynamics 365, brings decades of leadership in strategic business, e-commerce, and product management. In this new role, he will lead overall Dungeons & Dragons brand growth and profitability across digital, physical, and entertainment.

"We couldn't be bringing on Dan at a better time. With the acquisition of D&D Beyond earlier this year, the digital capabilities and opportunities for Dungeons & Dragons are accelerating faster than ever," said Cynthia Williams, president of Wizards of the Coast and Digital Gaming. "I am excited to partner with Dan to explore the global potential of the brand while maintaining Hasbro's core value as a player-first company."

In May, Wizards of the Coast completed its acquisition of D&D Beyond, the popular digital companion to Dungeons & Dragons used by over 10 million registered players. Since then, Wizards has continued to build upon the success of D&D Beyond, expanding the toolset's capabilities to bring communities together for world-class digital RPG play. Mr. Rawson's e-commerce skillset and digital-first experience will lend itself to continuing to support the growth of D&D Beyond alongside Dungeons & Dragons overall.

"Leading D&D is the realization of a childhood dream," said Rawson, senior vice president of Dungeons & Dragons. "I'm excited to work with Cynthia once again, and I'm thrilled to work with a talented team to expand the global reach of D&D, a game I grew up with and now play with my own kids."

Prior to Microsoft, Rawson lived in Seoul, Korea and Bangalore, India where he held leadership positions for Coupang and Flipkart, respectively. At those companies, Rawson held diverse general management responsibilities, including marketplace development, customer logistics and experience, and product, marketing, and operations management. In both instances, he helped make those companies the leading e-commerce companies in their country. He is an Amazon-veteran, a U.S. Marine veteran, and received his B.A from Harvard and MBA from Northwestern.

And some think that the OneVTT will be just another option among other VTT...

"...for D&D Beyond, you need perfect translation between VTT and in-person play. Whatever ruling is made for how something works in the VTT, it must be the standard rule for in-person play as well. People will use the VTT to justify rules arguments and will run simulations to prove how things should work. ..."

"While people who play other systems can lean more into Rule Zero; D&D will have rigidly enforced rules. The entire Min-Max community will be able to get definitive answers on a lot of things. Imagine the videos people will put out showing their optimized builds in action. Players will get upset when things that work in the VTT don't work at the table. ..."


The D&DBeyond One VTT will impact tabletop play among groups that almost exclusively play WotC D&D.

"But Rule Zero!" "Ruling not Rules!" "My table, my game!" !!!

Yeah, yeah, whatever...

The reality is that this will have an effect on the wider player culture going forward.

If you thought that the SJW Sparkletrolls were annoying before, just wait until they actually know the rules...

Quote from: Jaeger on October 04, 2022, 09:13:56 PM

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 10:11:47 AM
...
At a certain point you have to recognize that one of the things people like is that it's weird and idiosyncratic and bloated.

No.

What people like is that D&D has the dominant player network effect making it easy to get a game. The system just has to have the vague feel of D&D and be just 'good enough' to not drive away players. That is not a high bar...

Unfortunately we can see based on observed history it actually is a high bar. There's a lot of things many systems do better than D&D in many ways, but none has really made a dent on the 800lb gorilla except WotC itself with 4E.

I don't think any one aspect makes much difference, but collectively they do. For example, recent threads here talked about how some people hate the Barbarian class because it is (legitimately) not a very well designed class with a weird niche that would be better suited to some type of race/culture and subclass of Fighter. Nevertheless, I remember a lot of complaints about missing Barbarians when 4E came out.

Similar complaints about other kinds of stuff like Gnomes or Halflings -- Races that really don't serve any meaningful purpose and are just expressing something that was in Lord of the Rings, even though D&D doesn't try to match that work's tone or themes.

Most of it is junk, but we all have pieces of this junk we (probably) care about.

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 02:54:20 PM
Many spells could be boiled down into simplified templates, it's true. You could have "Direct Damage Dealing Spell - [Level]d6 damage. Choose one save type for half damage."

And while this would probably more elegant, clear, allow for better roleplaying of specific characters ... it'd also bland-enough that I don't think players would appreciate it. Even though theoretically this type of thing can be solved with proper setting material, the casual playerbase would see the architecture being exposed and get turned off.

I think this is the issue with Pathfinder 2ed. I think they went all in with simplified templates and somehow it ended up being boring.

Quote from: zincmoat on October 05, 2022, 04:11:31 AM

Quote from: Zelen on October 04, 2022, 02:54:20 PM
Many spells could be boiled down into simplified templates, it's true. You could have "Direct Damage Dealing Spell - [Level]d6 damage. Choose one save type for half damage."

And while this would probably more elegant, clear, allow for better roleplaying of specific characters ... it'd also bland-enough that I don't think players would appreciate it. Even though theoretically this type of thing can be solved with proper setting material, the casual playerbase would see the architecture being exposed and get turned off.

I think this is the issue with Pathfinder 2ed. I think they went all in with simplified templates and somehow it ended up being boring.

Yeah I have a Pathfinder 2E game and it's everything 4E was, except with less flavor.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 04, 2022, 09:13:56 PM

"...for D&D Beyond, you need perfect translation between VTT and in-person play. Whatever ruling is made for how something works in the VTT, it must be the standard rule for in-person play as well. People will use the VTT to justify rules arguments and will run simulations to prove how things should work. ..."

"While people who play other systems can lean more into Rule Zero; D&D will have rigidly enforced rules. The entire Min-Max community will be able to get definitive answers on a lot of things. Imagine the videos people will put out showing their optimized builds in action. Players will get upset when things that work in the VTT don't work at the table. ..."


The D&DBeyond One VTT will impact tabletop play among groups that almost exclusively play WotC D&D.

"But Rule Zero!" "Ruling not Rules!" "My table, my game!" !!!

Yeah, yeah, whatever...

The reality is that this will have an effect on the wider player culture going forward.

If you thought that the SJW Sparkletrolls were annoying before, just wait until they actually know the rules...

If you read that carefully you'll find that those of us that said they wanted to enforce "The One True Way" were justified. First in the VTT and then in the real world.

You will play it as the designer wants you to play it or else.

Fuck WoTC, Fuck Hasbro.

Trying to force everyone into a box is bullshit.

In their hubris, they've made D&D generic, boring, and safe.

IMO, D&D in no longer cool.

It was cool when it was niche and a bit scary. Shit, even Chaosium has ruined CoC by divorcing themselves as much from HPL as they can (yes, HPL was a racist, but who wasn't in the 20s and 30s. He was a product of his time and place. They can suck a dead Deep One's cock.)

I don't want safe.

I want niche and scary. A bit off the rails.

That's why practically anything OSR is going to get my hard earned cash if I think it's good enough to purchase.

They can take their politically correct, gender swapping, safe space, CandyLand bullshit of a game and shove it up their ass sideways.