Quote from: S'mon;1071841Yes, since Paths are the new Subclasses, Ranger & Paladin should have been Fighter paths IMO.

Agreed. Wilderness fighter and holy warrior. Though I guess you could tweak certain selections with a basic fighter to get a similar feel (but no spells?)?

Quote from: mhensley;1071803an editor that would take an axe to about 50% of the bloated text

I agree, but for me personally I'd prefer an game designer to axe about 50% of the bloated rules, and 90% of the spells.

I did roughly that with 5e trying to slot the 12 PHB classes into the Basic 5e 4 classes -- sorta like 2e had major Archetypes and then classes within. (2e Warrior Arch had Fighter, Paladin, Ranger within as classes, as per PHB. this got lost in translation during kits, but whatever...)

Warrior - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Rogue - Rogue/Thief, Barbarian, Bard
Priest - Cleric, Druid, Monk
Mage - Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock

Could be interesting to make a "root archetype" suite of features, then drop down into class, and finally into sub-class (5e 'archetype') features. That way certain redundancies can be moved into the 'prime root', like Warriors have X base Fighting styles.

It'd also help check for gaps, like no Warrior class has Ritual casting. (Notice Priest get two classes that can Ritual cast, Cleric & Druid, which makes sense for a "root archetype" that also serves the community through rites. Mage gets one, Wizard, which is the most flexible Ritual caster, never having to take up Prep slots or Spells Known. Bard gets Spells known like a Ranger, but they also get Ritual Casting, which helps mitigate that restriction. And Rangers could really, really benefit from Ritual casting as most of the "animal" spells are ritual tagged -- but instead get nothing. Would have been a good parity solution.)

edit: Also note, rogue 'root' having both rogue/thief and barbarian makes quick work of a Conan analog! I am sorta on the side of dropping down the Rogue 'root' Hit Die to d8 across the board, and then let Barbarian Rage damage soak work the rest. Tamps down on those shenanigans, especially in bear totem sub-class ('archetype') territory.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1071928I did roughly that with 5e trying to slot the 12 PHB classes into the Basic 5e 4 classes -- sorta like 2e had major Archetypes and then classes within. (2e Warrior Arch had Fighter, Paladin, Ranger within as classes, as per PHB. this got lost in translation during kits, but whatever...)

Warrior - Fighter, Paladin, Ranger
Rogue - Rogue/Thief, Barbarian, Bard
Priest - Cleric, Druid, Monk
Mage - Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock

Could be interesting to make a "root archetype" suite of features, then drop down into class, and finally into sub-class (5e 'archetype') features. That way certain redundancies can be moved into the 'prime root', like Warriors have X base Fighting styles.

It'd also help check for gaps, like no Warrior class has Ritual casting. (Notice Priest get two classes that can Ritual cast, Cleric & Druid, which makes sense for a "root archetype" that also serves the community through rites. Mage gets one, Wizard, which is the most flexible Ritual caster, never having to take up Prep slots or Spells Known. Bard gets Spells known like a Ranger, but they also get Ritual Casting, which helps mitigate that restriction. And Rangers could really, really benefit from Ritual casting as most of the "animal" spells are ritual tagged -- but instead get nothing. Would have been a good parity solution.)

edit: Also note, rogue 'root' having both rogue/thief and barbarian makes quick work of a Conan analog! I am sorta on the side of dropping down the Rogue 'root' Hit Die to d8 across the board, and then let Barbarian Rage damage soak work the rest. Tamps down on those shenanigans, especially in bear totem sub-class ('archetype') territory.

Yes, something like that would be great (although my barb would still be a warrior)!

So you could have:

- One page describing the "warrior"
- One page each for fighter, ranger, barbarian.
- And one page each for sub-classes (some of which are unnecessary, probably).

90% of the content, 50% of the page count, a lot simpler for everyone involved.

I could even go the FF way (or RC/AD&D 2 IIRC...) and let you choose barb/fighter/ranger etc. only after level three or something.

The amount of choices you get at level 1 is ridiculous and discourages new players.

Quote from: Jaeger;1071918Please.

They're in the corebook.

99.9% of the groups out there don't bother to distinguish between any of this common/uncommon nonsense. 99.999% of players will consider them all equally fair game as a character choice.

Outside of forums like this; rare is the GM that will even think of putting his foot down on a corebook race.

I disagree.

Quote from: Jaeger;1071918Please.

They're in the corebook.

99.9% of the groups out there don't bother to distinguish between any of this common/uncommon nonsense. 99.999% of players will consider them all equally fair game as a character choice.

Outside of forums like this; rare is the GM that will even think of putting his foot down on a corebook race.

Wrong. It's not WotC's fault you play with entitled douchebags.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1071935I disagree.

Yeah, I don't feel obligated to allow Tieflings to join the LotR.

Quote from: Razor 007;1071943Yeah, I don't feel obligated to allow Tieflings to join the LotR.

Or as PCs in Greyhawk. Sure, you could have them in the Great Kingdom instead of those undead nobles (what were they called again?) or among the Scarlet Brotherhood if you want to abandon the "pure Suel" idea, but you can just as easily ban them for a more traditional Greyhawk.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1071845The 5e adventures are more like half adventures, half sourcebooks. They decided to do this so everyone has a reason to buy them and they don't make a ton of extra books.

Well, since half the book is essentially useless to me, I'll never buy one. The only 5E WotC books I bought (besides the core 3) are Xanathar's and the Screen. I considered Volo's and Mordenkainen's this Christmas, but went with Midgard and Creature Codex instead.

The only D&D edition of which I have fewer books is 4E (zero).

Quote from: Jaeger;1071918Outside of forums like this; rare is the GM that will even think of putting his foot down on a corebook race.

Outside of the Forgotten Realms, in MY experience, which is LOCAL, it's the other way around.  Most DMs put their foot down on anything that doesn't fit their homebrew.

Quote from: Jaeger;1071918Please.

They're in the corebook.

99.9% of the groups out there don't bother to distinguish between any of this common/uncommon nonsense. 99.999% of players will consider them all equally fair game as a character choice.

Outside of forums like this; rare is the GM that will even think of putting his foot down on a corebook race.

Well I'm running Primeval Thule tomorrow, the Uncommon races don't exist in that setting. But it does have the Common ones.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1071946Or as PCs in Greyhawk. Sure, you could have them in the Great Kingdom instead of those undead nobles (what were they called again?) or among the Scarlet Brotherhood if you want to abandon the "pure Suel" idea, but you can just as easily ban them for a more traditional Greyhawk.

Tieflings fit very well in the Horned Society, though.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1071935I disagree.

That sir, is your privilege.

Quote from: Haffrung;1071941Wrong. It's not WotC's fault you play with entitled douchebags.

I don't.

When I GM it's my way, or the highway.

Anyone on these forums is in the RPG hobby minority.

We just care more than most GM's.

It has nothing to do with entitlement of any kind. DnD has become its own gonzo fantasy genre. Most groups are just happy to play "D&D".

Outside of places like this, or small hardcore local scenes, no one cares about uncommon this or common that.

Players pic a corebook race, roll a character and start to play. It just doesn't cross most rank and file GM's minds to restrict this or that race. Why would it? Certainly not gonna happen in an Adventurers League game.

Who cares if it makes sense, the fanbase likes their many PC race options!

WotC put everything on that list there for a reason - because there is demand to play more than humans, elves, dwarves, and halfings...

And most GM's buy into it and just don't care enough to bother restricting anything in the core book. Too busy playing D&D and having fun.

I would guess most GMs allow everything in the PHB (not sure about multiclassing, but I expect so), but that OTOH most players are not entitled douchebags, and are happy to play with restrictions. A guy wanted to play a Tortle in my Primeval Thule game, but did not complain when I said no - he was just happy to play!

In general I think the kind of bad attitudes (of various types) which you see on some forums is not at all typical of most players, or most GMs.

If WotC stays off the edition treadmill.