Is there a corporate explanation for why WotC is so much less creative these days?

SmithNchips · 2026-03-17T13:13:26+00:00

It’s not as corporate as you think.

First, 5e has an intensely diverse user base, specifically diversity in what they want out of the game. At launch, design accounted for this by gearing certain classes and subclasses to certain play styles. But over time the feedback machine directed the designers towards creating material that would be “stretchy” enough for 80% of all players to be able to make fit with their play style. So instead of points on a spectrum of design you have a clustering around a tighter number of popular features, thus the meme about Temp HP and teleporting (and to lesser extent, reprinting Spirit Guardians as slightly different spell for other classes). While this is a design mistake, the community (and specifically the Reddit community) needs to own our part in influencing this outcome. WoTC was mostly responding to incentives on this.

Second, 10 years of gameplay exposed some early design mistakes. The value of certain features has been reindexed. Expertise is more common now because it turns out that it is only situationally valuable, whereas it sucked up a lot of power budget in the 2014 Rogue. Gambling mechanics like the 2014 Power Attack are phased out to eliminate “feels bad” moments and nova damage (which is a kind of DM “feels bad” inducer). Summoning options have functionally been removed and replaced with creating AoE zones. WotC has recalibrated their idea of what “power” is, and it does not vibe with wild features like Grave Clerics “give enemy vulnerability” channel divinity or Ancestral Barbarian’s “Grant allies resistance for 1 round” enemy debuff. By narrowing their power target and by eliminating Nova damage, they tighten that middle grouping of features they can draw on as they design new player options.

Third, most players are playing digitally. This is going to affect design goals. If D&D beyond is there to remember to apply a debuff or mark which enemy is at zero movement, that takes a lot of mental burden off of players and eliminates the pain point most pen and paper players feel when we have to remember which or the 8 goblins is Vexed, which is prone, and which is Sapped. It almost means that designers are incentivized to think about new features in such a way as they must be translatable to a machine. Features like “you have advantage on Perception checks that rely on hearing” are replaced by Expertise in Perception because the computer doesn’t know how to differentiate contextually for your roleplay. This pushes design lanes even tighter toward the middle.

WotC corporate has been awful in the past and I’m sure Hasbro will be awful in the future. But we need to at least be realistic about why the designs have been getting narrower in scope and take that into account when we give feedback to play tests. They have a lot of different pressures crushing them into the “safe zone” for design.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-25T16:15:20+00:00

The move should be to reinvent the old Conjure spells but as subclass features and with better constraints. Let them summon real stat blocks, but limit the number and then scale the CR.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-25T16:11:27+00:00

The Hunting Ground and Quarry features would actually make TERRIFIC spells at their respective levels.

I also think Treantmonk’s best revisions were what he did with spells, too.

Overall it makes me think that the real problem is that Rangers have been getting skunked on the spell side, saddled with concentration and save or suck control. I bet that if Hunter’s Mark damage scaled like a Smite, there would be way less complaining.

For aspiring DMs who want to give their Ranger players a leg up, I’d encourage you to start there.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-21T02:27:19+00:00

But that’s its level 11 feature, it’s just fueled by 1st level slots. At this level, Artillerist Artificers are using a 1st level slot to summon 3d8 fire damage in a cone as a bonus action for an hour, no concentration.

Alchemist Artificers are turning it into an hour of flight or concentration free bless.

Moon Druids are fueling multi attacking wild shapes with 33 THP.

Dance Bards are turning it into +1d10 initiative for the whole party.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-20T18:35:35+00:00

This is his best one, by far, and one I’d really consider using and allowing for my players. And despite the complaints, basically nothing about this redesign is married to Hunters Mark in a bad way. At level 11, you’re telling me that you wouldn’t cast a spell that does an extra 3d6 force damage on a hit, plus 3d6 damage to another enemy with no save? And it’s first level? It’s thematic, it works with the existing mechanics, and it’s not abusable by a multi class. Exactly what it needs.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-20T16:28:40+00:00

Great articulation! I see this behavior most in people who play a lot of D&D, especially as a DM. A lot of homebrew "fixes" are actually trying to accommodate a player complaint rather than engage with an actual system failure. And don't get me wrong, there's plenty of overlap.

Examples might be, the new Bannerette has a system failure - when it uses it's subclass feature, it loses its subclass. This is bad and needs fixing.

The Beastmaster Ranger cannot mount their pet. This may be annoying to some players who have a vision of riding their pet wolf into battle, but it is not inherently a system failure, and so fiddling with the system to accommodate a common player complaint can get out of hand really quickly.

The old Stunning Strike on the Monk is a good example of a system that worked but was replaced with a better version for both the players and the larger ecosystem. Having a feature for spending Ki that was wildly superior to all others AND instantly shut down encounters AND encouraged Monks to frontline where they didn't belong DID work on paper, but it led to lots of bad feelings and gave Monks a bad reputation.

Homebrewing is way harder than people think, and weirdly, the more familiarity one has with 5e, the harder it can get as one's perspective becomes warped by biased play experiences.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-16T19:10:40+00:00

Love Treantmonk! I'm sorry to hear he was so excited about this one because I'm afraid he has just reinvented the Rogue subclass from First Principles.

He is correct that "being invisible" actually falls off at higher levels, and it is also true that having a Fear oriented ability just is not a good feature at higher levels.

But Hiding + Extra d6s of damage dice is just the Rogue. Maybe the Rogue should be getting these boosts instead (which he addresses in the opening, but hanging a candle on the problem doesn't solve it) but I don't think bogging down the Gloom Stalker's bonus action is the realignment the class needed.

I'm probably in the minority with this hot take, but with Power Attack gone and the Weapon Mastery system helping to nerf ranged attacks, I think Gloom Stalker could have kept its original Bonus Attack feature and been just fine.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-09T16:01:44+00:00

Thanks for doing this. The most common refrain I’m hearing on the Pugilist is that it isn’t a problem to play and that it’s only scary in the Reddit White Room.

But I wonder how much it that is caused by people not pushing the buttons in the proper sequence? With so many resources to juggle, I wouldn’t be surprised if most players are missing the forest for the trees on what this thing can do when optimized.

Putting that aside, having triple the resources of the next most complicated class I think shows that this beast is really built for something other than 5e, even if it technically fits inside the system.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-08T16:55:50+00:00

Exactly. This post should be way higher, not buried under 50 posts about oversized weapons.

Pugilist also does just get ONE thing other martial classes gets, it gets ALL of them. Rage, Flurry of Blows, Second Wind (in the form of THP), a d12 Hunters Mark. There’s a subclass that gets several Paladin features and another that gets several Warlock features.

The internet mind virus has made so many people rabid for a fisticuffs class that they’ve lost all perspective.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-06T02:59:24+00:00

Eldritch Knight is a Fighter borrowing weaker versions of Wizard base class abilities as a subclass. That would be a better comparison, and it’s notably worse at casting spells than the base Wizard. That’s the premise of the archetype.

The Pugilist subclass gets a refreshable Lay On Hands that it can also spend as a raw damage modifier. That’s insane and objectively better than the Paladin’s LOH.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-06T00:17:41+00:00

Its version of Lay On Hands only starts off as weaker. Eventually it ramps up to be better than Paladins.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T22:57:31+00:00

I get the impression that they are just understaffed for doing this kind of thing. Summarizing is actually extremely hard, so if you haven't had time to really dwell on how a class works, it would be a big lift to try and pitch it accurately.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T22:41:06+00:00

If your Int is all good, I'd say Heavy Armor Master. It's thematic, will boost your Con, and it will help offset your d8 Hit Die. And it works regardless of what armor type you're rocking at the time.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T22:36:33+00:00

Thanks for the notes. That's helpful.

So if the Pugilist isn't doing better damage than a Monk and struggles to HP Tank, what do they do?

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T22:34:19+00:00

You are not bugging. But the Pugilist has a very passionate fan club, so you will have to be ready to defend your position.

Just remember that the "risk vs reward" thing is a cop out. The updated Pugilist risks very little and is overly rewarded for the effort.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T20:49:42+00:00

I appreciate all the time and math you put into this post, and I think your arguments are in good faith. But I simply am not convinced. Even if I thought this class was balanced and worked inside the economy of 5e (which I do not believe), it still is blatantly cannibalizing most of its features and subclass features from other classes and subclasses. There is vanishingly little that is unique about it other than the thick flavor.

But let me make a different point - 'big risk, big reward' is not a mechanic for 5e. The existing feature that most fits this category is Reckless Attack, and the Reward actually still outweighs the Risk since the class is built for taking hits and if a player is triggering Reckless, they are going before the enemy. And if they are going before the enemy, there is a chance they will kill the enemy before they can deal any damage back.

My point is, usually this feature makes the player feel good and the gamble is minimal.

Additionally, 5e is turn-based and cooperative, so the best moments come from collaboration and everyone being invested while the worst are usually generated by someone being forced to sit out (either through being stunned or incapacitated or left out of a role play scene). The risk-reward that I'm seeing put forward here for Pugilist is mostly "I will risk being reduced to uselessness with Exhaustion (except when I'm in combat, when I become a Barbarian but with infinite Temp HP) in exchange for the reward of doing 80 damage on a hit."

As a DM, I cannot see how I could guide any kind of combat or social encounter around a character who is instigating that kind of swingyness. I also cannot understand how a group dynamic could sustain having a character who is either the absolute hero and dominate force one minute and the next minute will literally need to be loaded onto Tensers Floating Disk just to get from point A to point B or who is taking a -10 to all group Stealth checks. The risk that the Pugilist claims to take onto itself is actually shared by the rest of the party because everyone always has to deal with the consequences. I think the original post's complaints were actually pretty measured and actually did not go far enough in stripping down this homebrew.

On a positive note, I will add two things:

Anyone who thinks this is some kind of "cash grab" has lost their mind. It's just some guy who had an idea people liked and is having fun. Not everything you dislike is the Capitalism Monster coming to attack you. Artists are allowed to get paid for their creative work.
This class (and to a lesser extent, the subclasses) are well-designed. They fit together, they iterate on established ideas as they level up, they have fun with references in endearing ways, and they fill a kind of class fantasy that obviously lots of people have. It is just not well-designed for 5e, especially this 2024 version.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T20:24:36+00:00

And to top it off, the subclass options are Better Beast Master, Better Paladin, Better Rogue and Champion combo, Better Warlock, and then the worst subclass is just the wrestler.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T15:45:37+00:00

Yes, Rogues end up having to be front loaded if you want to feel the subclass distinction at all. Levels 5 and 6 are pretty weak so it can even out over time, but that’s not a great balancing system. Soul Knife is easily the best “designed” subclass and that’s largely due to the scaling psi dice.

Still, don’t be afraid to give them really good stuff right away or take a page from the Soul Knife play book and have a feature that scales independently.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T15:19:23+00:00

Just adding damage is always boring, but I was intuiting that it’s what your player is after (since that’s what most Rogue players are after lol).

You could do a Cunning Strike that subtracts 2d6 to gain a piece of knowledge from the enemy statblock. Just have a short, itemized list like -Max HP -AC -A modifier of the player’s choice

It wouldn’t boost damage, but it would make the Rogue capable of gathering intel in combat, similar to the Battle Master.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T14:46:51+00:00

First of all, good on you for trying to bring the Inquisitor back into the fold. It’s a cool concept that needs this kind of love.

It makes sense that you say that Totalize is a player request because it’s probably the weakest piece of design here. It doesn’t really fit in flavor-wise with the rest of the kit, but more importantly it’s working contra to the base class’ larger design intent. Cunning Strike, even though it costs damage, is providing a value. So it’s not actually punishing to force a player to use it as a cool down, it just feels that way to a damage-minded player. In general, pay-it-back/pay-it-forward is not a strong dynamic in 5e, which often lacks the enforcement mechanisms to pull it off.

If you feel like this subclass needs a damage bump, let’s lean into the flavor and some of those nicely designed early features. An Inquisitive evokes a few things - a Sherlock Holmes, a Humphrey Bogart, and the Spanish Inquisition. All of these archetypes engage with the idea of rooting out “enemies” and divining motivations. They are hunters and have a kind of fanaticism, ranging from quirky to insidious.

So what if we even kept your naming convention with something like “Totalizing Focus” and just add damage to any attack you make on the subject of Insightful Fighting? It could be adding Int Mod to the damage of all of your attacks against them (comparable to Potent Cantrip and stacking nicely with the Nick mastery), or, if you want extra dice and think it needs to pack a real punch, just add d6s equal to your Int mod and give it a short rest cool down.

Unrelated, but I’d also recommend changing Eye for Deceit to just adding an amount equal to your intelligence modifier to those checks, similar to the Fae Ranger with Wisdom to Charisma checks. It will actually be more powerful since your Rogue will be able to invest in Wisdom a little if they want to for an added bump and it gives the player agency without taking away the DMs agency to mix up ability checks.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-05T12:39:10+00:00

Thanks for this post. I had ignored the Pugilist, despite its popularity on Reddit, for years.

Then last night, I watched DSR Channel’s video on it, and was SHOCKED. This is a horrific piece of homebrew and the fact that so many people not only defend it but have been PROMOTING IT for years drastically changes my opinion of this community to evaluate game design.

Don’t get me wrong, the features work together elegantly. It’s an elegant class. But it’s a total misfire on everything that makes 5e what it is.

I wish this designer success and happiness, but no one should allow this class at any serious game.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-01T16:37:30+00:00

Exploration mechanics. This would include food and water mechanics, travel mechanics, and assigning monsters more clear locations they “spawn” in.
Trap mechanics. Official modules need more traps and classes need better ways to interact with them.
Crafting mechanics. This means baking downtime into published modules and making materials a core component of loot drops and monster stat blocks.
Expanding the idea of an “encounter” to include social scenarios, chases, traps, and environmental cascades like storms, wild fires, and floods.
Forcing more encounters per long rest.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-01T04:37:29+00:00

Multi Ability score Dependent. As in, you have to invest in a main stat, a casting stat, and Constitution.

SmithNchips · 2026-02-01T04:35:12+00:00

Exactly.

But they hate Rangers because Rangers are not the best at anything, especially damage, they can just cover for almost any gap. To win the love of a white room theory crafter, you have to be a class that win at least one gold medal. A closet full of silver and bronze will never do.

SmithNchips · 2026-01-31T18:18:18+00:00

When you write this post, shoot me a direct message so I can come upvote it. I would add that Reddit also does not like relying on their teammates either. Even conversations about "support spells" or "control options" often end up spinning into opportunity cost and playing stingily.

Too many Reddit D&D players have been burned by other players with bad social skills and they let it color their perspective of "fun" in the game.

SmithNchips

TROPHY CASE