May Poll
Added 2019-01-18 09:24:56 +0000 UTCI think it's safe to say that the Digits are feeling rested and rejuvenated, having spent most of December taking a break. Most of this month, we've been working on Modern Rules (we'll talk about what I mean by that in this post), and we'll be doing more for that next month, until March 1st. The month after that, we should have a Tavern Book ready for you! This poll is for what we knock out after that (and you should notice a theme of 'Complete' going on.)
Comments
Warden _does_ win because of the Producer poll, but I'll try to make some bonus Investigator stuff in the meantime
Mage Hand Press
2019-02-19 03:19:18 +0000 UTCSince it's pretty much a tie, can we have both???? *puppy dog eyes*
Damian Spurling
2019-02-19 00:38:29 +0000 UTCOof... Warden lost by one vote. I hope the producer poll put it in the lead!
Ben Fowler
2019-02-17 01:24:03 +0000 UTCYeah, realistically I'm not the target audience for these classes. I support y'all on Patreon largely for the archetypes and Splatbooks you produce dealing with settings. I have several binders of such materials I crack open at my gaming table. Wholecloth new classes are problematic for me and my D&D group because they're not really supported outside of this space. For me it's easier to use vanilla classes because they're easy to find online, and exist on most character creators. The only time I'm motivated to do so is when said classes bring something to the table I couldn't do otherwise. Marshal, Alchemist, and Craftsman are great examples of this design philosophy. Outside of that I'd rather use existing classes with new archetypes. That's not to say your classes aren't really cool on their own merits, they're just a hard sell to my players. I still greatly appreciate the effort you put into creating them.
Kristopher R. Hunter
2019-02-02 00:22:53 +0000 UTCOoh an epic level handbook.
Joan Mulberry
2019-02-01 20:19:33 +0000 UTCI'm honestly a little surprised that the Complete Investigator is on here, when the base class hasn't even been finished and released on the website yet. Considering that, and how lesser-known it is as a result, I think the fact that it's doing as well as it is speaks volumes.
Erin Gruenzner
2019-01-29 21:10:21 +0000 UTCRight now, it's basically a dead-tie between Warden and Channeler. I totally get what you're coming from Kris, (and I think the Marshal will be getting a lot more love from us soon), but I'm actually of two minds about your 'adding new things complaint'. On one hand, I really want every one of our classes to do something unique, which the system doesn't satisfactorily provide in other ways, but on the other hand, things like the Warden and Channeler fit more nicely into the system's thematic and design assumptions (as well as many parties), without rocking the boat too much. By contrast, it's easy to see why some tables would outright ban the Warden or Gadgeteer for being too radical. Ultimately, this is for the vote to decide. All the classes will get their time in the sun; it's just a queue.
Mage Hand Press
2019-01-29 06:38:56 +0000 UTCFrankly, I'm a little iffy on the prospect of doing one. I haven't ever done a proper epic-level campaign, and I'm of the opinion that it's not really where D&D it at its /best/. I think a lot of GMs and players avoid those sorts of campaigns because the complexity is intimidating and because the pool of appropriate monsters is very low. Moreover, I don't /disagree/ with these complaints. If someone twisted my arm and made me write an epic-level handbook, the solutions I'd come up with for these problems would fly in the face of what people expect from epic-level games. I think people generally expect high-power abilities that come in the form of epic classes, boons, and feats, but I'd be creating options which /remove/ features from your level 1-20 class to replace them with epic options that pivot your class concept, rather than add to it. Moreover, 80% of the book would be monsters, traps, and mean tricks that can actually harm epic characters. It's not something I'm interested in the near future, but I've given it some thought. There's some potential there, but I don't know if the system (and my design sensibilities, in particular) are well-suited to an epic book.
Mage Hand Press
2019-01-29 06:29:46 +0000 UTCYeah, but the issue for me is that I don't feel like those classes really add anything to the game for me. I can comfortably build a mage of that variety with current mechanics. Similarly, I don't need an Investigator with an Inquisitive Rogue on hand. Those niches are occupied, often by archetypes MFOV built. What I look for with original classes are ideas that can't be satisfactorily built with existing game mechanics. For instance, I like the alchemist because there isn't a class that brews potions or throws bombs. That's something new, and outside of a rather underwhelming UA is something not attempted in the base game. Marshal, at its core adds what I think is a missing element from 5e class mechanics, but there isn't enough in its implementation to make it worthwhile on it's own yet.
Kristopher R. Hunter
2019-01-28 21:44:27 +0000 UTCMarshal is a lot newer than several other classes that haven’t seen much love (looking at you Channeler.)
Levi Rendon
2019-01-28 21:14:43 +0000 UTCI think that theyd be open to that when they complete all their classes.
Josue Valle
2019-01-28 17:12:49 +0000 UTCWhat are MFoV’s thoughts on an epic level handbook? Sticking with epic boons or designing level progression beyond 20?
Michael Djangali
2019-01-27 05:51:46 +0000 UTCThis poll is a bit of a bummer for me, not gonna lie. Marshal is by far my favorite MFOV class concept, and I really want to see it fleshed out some more.
Kristopher R. Hunter
2019-01-27 03:48:54 +0000 UTC
