|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 2, 2021 11:48:13 GMT -6
And forgot to mention- In the museum gift shop prominently displayed with the coffee table fantasy art books for sale were 5E Player Handbooks, and DCC RPG core books (with cover art I'm not familiar with). So yep, I'm guessing D&D is more popular than it has ever been. I read earlier today that they're revising and expanding the three core books again in 2024, but supposedly it's still 5e and will be backwards compatible. If that turns out to be true, it's gonna be the longest running edition so far. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 2, 2021 12:02:43 GMT -6
And forgot to mention- In the museum gift shop prominently displayed with the coffee table fantasy art books for sale were 5E Player Handbooks, and DCC RPG core books (with cover art I'm not familiar with). So yep, I'm guessing D&D is more popular than it has ever been. I read earlier today that they're revising and expanding the three core books again in 2024, but supposedly it's still 5e and will be backwards compatible. If that turns out to be true, it's gonna be the longest running edition so far. Yep, there's been a bunch of hub bub over the past few days about 5.5 since it was talked about at D&D Celebration. I think I mentioned it in another thread somewhere here in the forums, but can't recall which thread- maybe the HP thread... (?) |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 2, 2021 13:13:07 GMT -6
I read earlier today that they're revising and expanding the three core books again in 2024, but supposedly it's still 5e and will be backwards compatible. If that turns out to be true, it's gonna be the longest running edition so far. Yep, there's been a bunch of hub bub over the past few days about 5.5 since it was talked about at D&D Celebration. I think I mentioned it in another thread somewhere here in the forums, but can't recall which thread- maybe the HP thread... (?) The thing that caught my eye was sourcebooks on two classic settings. Blackmoor and Greyhawk, one might hope, considering the 50th Anniversary. Tangential to this thread and Holmes, they already explored a bit of Greyhawk with Saltmarsh. I wanna say it's the only major 5e adventure book in an official capacity that's not set in Faerun by default. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 2, 2021 16:23:19 GMT -6
Yep, there's been a bunch of hub bub over the past few days about 5.5 since it was talked about at D&D Celebration. I think I mentioned it in another thread somewhere here in the forums, but can't recall which thread- maybe the HP thread... (?) The thing that caught my eye was sourcebooks on two classic settings. Blackmoor and Greyhawk, one might hope, considering the 50th Anniversary. My personal hope is WOTC stay far far away from any more old TSR properties. They have completely gone off their rocker with socio political BS in D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 2, 2021 16:43:49 GMT -6
The thing that caught my eye was sourcebooks on two classic settings. Blackmoor and Greyhawk, one might hope, considering the 50th Anniversary. My personal hope is WOTC stay far far away from any more old TSR properties. They have completely gone off their rocker with socio political BS in D&D. Well, Hasbro wants to make money first and foremost, same as TSR or any other company, so I imagine whatever they try that creates significant backlash won't be pushed too hard. As for ruining classic settings, meh. They are ignoring our canon but that street runs two ways. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 6, 2021 7:13:15 GMT -6
My personal hope is WOTC stay far far away from any more old TSR properties. They have completely gone off their rocker with socio political BS in D&D. Well, Hasbro wants to make money first and foremost, same as TSR or any other company, so I imagine whatever they try that creates significant backlash won't be pushed too hard. As for ruining classic settings, meh. They are ignoring our canon but that street runs two ways. Don't be so sure. I saw yesterday or the day before where a WOTC designer (Crawford?) says Devils and Demons can be any alignment in the new revision  |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 6, 2021 7:50:39 GMT -6
Well, Hasbro wants to make money first and foremost, same as TSR or any other company, so I imagine whatever they try that creates significant backlash won't be pushed too hard. As for ruining classic settings, meh. They are ignoring our canon but that street runs two ways. Don't be so sure. I saw yesterday or the day before where a WOTC designer (Crawford?) says Devils and Demons can be any alignment in the new revision Eh. I mean, I grew up with Hellboy comics so maybe it's a generational bias but to me it makes a kind of sense. Remember I play Basic Fantasy and Alignment isn't even included there. It's not a major sticking point on my end. The optimistic part of me wants to believe these new looser character and monster descriptions are meant to engender creativity. I think we could take this to a new thread, though. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 6, 2021 8:19:32 GMT -6
Don't be so sure. I saw yesterday or the day before where a WOTC designer (Crawford?) says Devils and Demons can be any alignment in the new revision maybe it's a generational bias but to me it makes a kind of sense. Remember I play Basic Fantasy and Alignment isn't even included there. It's not a major sticking point on my end. The optimistic part of me wants to believe these new looser character and monster descriptions are meant to engender creativity. I think we could take this to a new thread, though. Feel free to start a new thread, if you like. At this point, I have pretty much nothing positive to say about WOTC/5E- maybe others would like to discuss though! |
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Oct 6, 2021 9:10:14 GMT -6
Well, Hasbro wants to make money first and foremost, same as TSR or any other company, so I imagine whatever they try that creates significant backlash won't be pushed too hard. As for ruining classic settings, meh. They are ignoring our canon but that street runs two ways. Don't be so sure. I saw yesterday or the day before where a WOTC designer (Crawford?) says Devils and Demons can be any alignment in the new revision Does that mean these entities are winning? Hah! Stay alert, eh. Fight on!  |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 6, 2021 10:35:58 GMT -6
As some of you may know, WoTC recently announced an "evolution" of D&D in 2024 which will supposedly be a refinement of 5e and be backwards compatible with everything released since 2014.
People invariably have strong opinions about such things, so how do we all feel? I don't personally participate in 5e culture presently but I know the current edition always drives the majority of discussion about the game online. The cute thing to me is that the people who started with 5e are about to discover edition wars for the very first time. "I paid all that money for nothing?" Etc.
I can only think of the Buster Scruggs meme."This your first time?"
|
|
Parzival
Level 3 Conjurer
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 94
|
Post by Parzival on Oct 6, 2021 12:11:07 GMT -6
Well, from an early praiser of 5e, I’ve converted into a detractor, so I’ve next to no interest in 5.5, as it’s the elements I dislike which are the least likely to change. My con list are: Advantage/Disadvantage— which replaces an incremental 5% penalty/bonus structure to a range which can spread from 10% to 90%. The probabilities are a mess, hard to grasp on the fly, and typically make the roll superfluous— if you have Advantage, you’ll most likely succeed, if you have Disadvantage, you’re guaranteed to fail. Don’t bother rolling. Special ability tracks— too many options which can produce unpredictable character capabilities which will drastically alter the potentialities of a campaign. This is hugely popular with players who like rapidly gaining PC powers, but it’s a DM’s nightmare for adventure design and prep. Of course 3e-3.5e and PF are worse, but there’s no way the “cool character build” is going to be removed from the system. Even if the DM strips the race and class choices down to a core few, the weight of options will still be overwhelming for adventure prep and game running. Overly rapid “natural” healing— Some is needed, yes, but a “long rest” (essentially one night’s sleep) healing everything !!! That’s stupid (if not unintentionally hilarious): www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmD0ZCDuozkNerfed spells— the descriptions so restrain usage one might as well not bother learning the spell. (PF2 is worse, but 5e is still pretty bad.) Combat “Action Economy”— hate, hate, hate this. It’s too gamey, and promotes and provokes rules lawyering. Old school rules where the DM makes decisions approving PC actions on the fly is far superior. But I don’t see this being removed from a game that places such an emphasis on a guided combat structure (as if players can’t figure out reasonable processes on their own). Investigation/Insight Checks— not always a bad idea, but I’ve noticed that these have become shorthand for “That sphinx riddle is too hard. Can I roll for the answer instead?”  Monster stat blocks— at first these seem like a good idea, but for me they’re too much. We really don’t need to know a creature’s Wisdom score (or his modifiers), and the DM shouldn’t be having to calculate all the different penalties and bonuses for everything that happens involving a monster. In this case, the charts were better— or even THAC0. There’s also a ton of stuff tied to the Forgotten Realms setting, but these can be stripped. The few things I like— finesse weapons, perception checks, cantrips— are largely hold-overs from previous editions, or house rules that go back to the early days and are easily inserted in previous editions without dragging in the baggage of the rest of 5e. I expect it will sell well, but I also expect there will indeed by “edition wars,” nerds being what we are. Who knows— it might provoke interest in the old school stuff, even OD&D and Classic as players start going, “Why did they change this? What else is out there?” |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Oct 6, 2021 14:18:20 GMT -6
As I've been running 5e pretty much by the book for the last 4 years, I can comment on what I'd want to see change.
Monster design and challenge rating needs to be rethought top to bottom, with new calculations and new stat blocks. I think there's a lot of room to nail good monster creation and 5e did not do it off the bat. I use a lot of variant monsters as a result. For instance, of the 5e humanoids, goblins are pretty much the only well designed example, with an actual activity to do in combat through their bonus action. Too many monsters are just large HP totals waiting to get whittled down. There's a lot of design space that is not well used. I'm hopeful that this is the area most likely to be addressed.
The Warlock class is boring, since it more or less commits the spellcaster to using Eldritch Blast (which pretty much works around most monster resistances because of its damage type) and only rarely using any other spell. If the patron concept were worked out better and had more of a direct in-game impact, I think it could get interesting. I think the Cleric and Druid are too powerful and the Ranger needs to be rethought.
I wish there was some downside to coming out of a barbarian rage. It seems so silly to me to have the berserkergang be something you can pop into and out of at a moment's notice.
I'd like to see a change on missile fire into melee combat. It's relatively quite powerful at low levels, particularly when you get rogues who stack it with Sneak Attack, and shouldn't be so easy. There are cover rules but not much else.
Healing is silly rules as written. I'd be happier if they kept the hit dice concept and used that for recovery even during a long rest.
I'd love for them to re-evaluate the saving throws, and make more Strength, Intelligence, and Charisma saves. As it is 5e basically has the fortitude (Con), reflex (Dex), and will (Wisdom) saves from 3e.
The big thing I'd love to see is for them to take the backgrounds an extra step or two. I feel like they had the potential to be more like 2e's kit system (without the absolutely broken entries) but have kind of fell neglected by the wayside. Instead that niche has been filled by subclasses, which have some variety but add tons of cruft to the system. I'd love to see a reworked background system that contributes mechanically in-game.
I'm of the opinion that 5e is fine, and it's what my current group likes, so I'm okay running it - but it could be better. Even if most of the above were simply well thought out options I'd prefer it.
|
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on Oct 6, 2021 15:27:16 GMT -6
I think it's more of a 5e reboot. Different art, different options. I think it will mostly be a celebration of 10 years of 5e and 50 years of D&D. With a reason to buy the core books again.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Oct 6, 2021 17:23:32 GMT -6
One and only one 5th edition thing (pictured below) has any interest for me, and that solely as a gateway to 1974-85 era A/D&D.  |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 6, 2021 19:38:52 GMT -6
One and only one 5th edition thing (pictured below) has any interest for me, and that solely as a gateway to 1974-85 era A/D&D. Sadly, and I hate to report this, it isn't very good. The 5e Starter Set and Essentials Sets are far better. Really, they are some of the best intro sets since Holmes and Moldvay. |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 6, 2021 19:42:18 GMT -6
As some of you may know, WoTC recently announced an "evolution" of D&D in 2024 which will supposedly be a refinement of 5e and be backwards compatible with everything released since 2014. People invariably have strong opinions about such things, so how do we all feel? I don't personally participate in 5e culture presently but I know the current edition always drives the majority of discussion about the game online. The cute thing to me is that the people who started with 5e are about to discover edition wars for the very first time. "I paid all that money for nothing?" Etc. I can only think of the Buster Scruggs meme."This your first time?" As someone who came to 5e reluctantly kicking and screaming the whole way, I finally gave in and was pleasantly surprised. It has really grown on me. Which means I hate the idea of a 5.5 Now, if they were to just do a revised Player's Handbook and make it clear it isn't a new edition, I might be okay with that. I feel that book could be better organized, and friendlier to new players. |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 6, 2021 19:45:45 GMT -6
I should also mention I do not love the 5e Core Rulebook covers. They do NOT sell the game to me very well. In particular the DMG is a mess, barely legible as to what the heck is going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 6, 2021 19:52:07 GMT -6
I should also mention I do not love the 5e Core Rulebook covers. They do NOT sell the game to me very well. In particular the DMG is a mess, barely legible as to what the heck is going on. That's the only one I like! |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 6, 2021 19:57:57 GMT -6
I should also mention I do not love the 5e Core Rulebook covers. They do NOT sell the game to me very well. In particular the DMG is a mess, barely legible as to what the heck is going on. That's the only one I like! What is that saying about beauty? Something about...  |
|
|
|
Post by spellslingsellsword on Oct 6, 2021 20:08:25 GMT -6
I've been enjoying running 5E via Roll20. I've run sessions about twice a month since May or June of 2020. I think the new version will just be incorporating some of the options in later releases as the default rule (like racial attributes being fluid) and dropping the all evil racial groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 7, 2021 7:09:02 GMT -6
I should also mention I do not love the 5e Core Rulebook covers. They do NOT sell the game to me very well. In particular the DMG is a mess, barely legible as to what the heck is going on. The inner cover says it's Acererak in Lich form raising some undead soldiers, but yeah. Weird perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 7, 2021 8:04:47 GMT -6
That's the only one I like! What is that saying about beauty? Something about... Of course. I just find it funny that we are always on the opposite sides of the coin, especially art. I'd much rather see YOUR art up there on the 5.x covers. And FWIW- I think the GH cover beholder is far creepier than the 5E MM (which IMO is the worst of the 5E book and looks like a cartoon scene.) So yeah, I'm all for new covers in 5.5. And interior art. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 7, 2021 8:06:04 GMT -6
On topic for rules changes-speaking strictly from core 5E, as I don't own Xanathar/Tashas.
They need to take a step back into 4E for monster stat blocks and the way monsters work at the table. Many monsters need more "stuff". Humanoids are boring again and just get inflated HP (actually everything does). Casters need built in magical attacks, not references to spells in another book. CR is as bad or worse than 3.X. Lair actions need to be expanded. Demons like the Marilith need a re-work. Whoever did those 4E to 5E conversion MMs (MM expanded series) on the DMs Guild needs to be hired. That guy knows what to do.
They need to take a step forward in the HD mechanics by limiting magical healing (and removing revivify or at least jacking it up a few levels). As long as they keep representing HPs as endurance, luck, etc as HP have always been, then the HD mechanics and the rate of "refresh" make complete sense. The real problem is that unlike 4E, they don't tax surges/HD. Monster special abilities/Poison/Disease/Environmental exposure/Fatigue/Healing spells. etc were all used in 4E to tax the # of surges that PCs had each day. It makes complete fictional and game sense. They should do the same in 5E, and then all the complaints of PCs that are too resilient, and the "complete refresh of HP after a long rest is too powerful", will disappear. when I ran 4E, and 13th Age I was always attacking Surges/Recoveries as much as I was HP. Super cold environment..gonna start wearing you down. Swimming across that river and you fail a check, gonna wear you down. Ate that rotting food covered by an illusion, gonna wear you down. Players and their characters feel far more threatened by loss of ability to be healed, than they do actual loss of HP in games with bloated HP totals (4E, 13th Age, and 5E). It makes them actually think through situations and also makes them less gung-ho to solve everything with combat. i.e. they come up with better/more interesting solutions to problems, which makes for better gameplay.
Remove all the subclasses that introduce casting to non-casters- its ridiculous to have all of those as well as multiclassing. One or the other needs to go. I prefer to remove multiclassing, most of the non-caster casting subclasses (eldritch knight, etc), and make classes focused again (as 4E did, after 3E's multi/prestige classing hot mess), but I know that would never fly.
Beef up the Champion Fighter in regards to combat, saves and skills.
Ranger needs a complete re-write ..see 13th Age.
Re-examine some of the Cleric domains- they are often better Fighters than the Fighters.
|
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 7, 2021 8:16:38 GMT -6
I recently read "Of Dice And Men" by David Ewalt, and the last couple of chapters reminded me of the various phases of the D&D "Next" playtest period and the stated intent of Next as a toolkit with a simple framework that DMs could build in different directions as they wished. Like OD&D, in a way.
Do you guys believe 5e lived up to this promise? Or does the revision have a chance of steering the ship in that direction again if not? I fear the opposite is happening. I think this will be more like the OD&D to AD&D transition wherein optional material is codified and made core. And it will be in a way that fractures the 5e community. I think they're about to have their "Pathfinder incident" soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 7, 2021 8:35:23 GMT -6
I think this will be more like the OD&D to AD&D transition wherein optional material is codified and made core. And it will be in a way that fractures the 5e community. I think they're about to have their "Pathfinder incident" soon. I don't think they will, because of one key difference between the 3/4/PF and PF/PF2 debacles. The mass success of 5E as the best selling/most popular version of the game has resulted in community that is mostly new blood. It is comprised mostly of players who are not coming from prior editions and players who have been playing 5E for way longer than any previous edition. For the first time ever, this will be an edition change where the majority of a D&D community are not likely to make a stink because they are A) loyal to a fault with WOTC and their design team and B) have asked for many of these changes. It certainly may alienate the much smaller numbers of players who have come from PF,4E, 3E, 2E, etc on down the line. But I don't see it nearly having the same effect as times past. And WOTC is not concerned about those folks anymore in the grand scheme. That number gets smaller every year and has already been eclipsed by the new blood pouring in. |
|
Parzival
Level 3 Conjurer
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 94
|
Post by Parzival on Oct 7, 2021 8:54:18 GMT -6
In my own efforts at game design, I have a cautionary mantra: “Rules breed.” (And a corollary: “Rules breed rules lawyers.”) What I mean by the first is that the more rules you add to cover a situation, the more rules you’ll need for exceptions to the situation, and the more complex (and less playable) your game will become. This is the trap that often infects 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. “editions” of a game— the desire to make specific rules for specific situations, and the corresponding desire to make specific exceptions to those rules, which invariably introduce complexity, argument, and distaste among previous players. Game designers, like authors, can get into “power trips” over their words, wanting to establish the way they intended the game to be played and understood as The Only Way To Do It. (Gygax fell for this for a time, but later became wiser about it.) They thus add more words to “clarify” what they meant, or to restrict what they personally don’t like, and wind up mucking up something that already works— just not in the way they imagined it would. While I’m not a fan of 5e, before Xanathar’s and Tasha’s they had a fairly simple system going on. It had its “rules breed moments” (the combat Action Economy bonus action rules are an example, IMHO, and the nerfed spells), but overall it was fairly straightforward. But as more and more exceptions became added through the addition of character classes, races, and special abilities, the game becomes increasingly convoluted. Confusion, disagreement, and distaste wander in. And from hence come the rules lawyers and the “Edition Wars.” A game should always follow the guidance of KISS— Keep it Simple, Senor.  If the rules are open to interpretation, that’s okay— let the players interpret them as they see best. People falsely think they need clarity from the rule designers, when what they actually need is to make a logical and satisfying decision for themselves. It doesn’t matter if Joe’s group in Milwaukee players the game slightly differently from James’s group in Edinburgh— they’re both playing the game and having fun— and that’s true even if they’re not playing the game as Bigtime Game Designer intended. Your baby has gone out into the world; let it fend for itself now; it’s doing just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 7, 2021 9:50:51 GMT -6
I think that WotC has a couple of things in mind for 5.5:
(1) A celebration of 50 years of D&D
(2) A chance to rebundle rules together (much like AD&D rebundled OD&D+supplements since stuff was scattered and hard to find) because of rules changes from some of the optional supplement books.
(3) A chance to fix some stuff that wasn't well balanced the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 7, 2021 12:04:32 GMT -6
I think that WotC has a couple of things in mind for 5.5: (1) A celebration of 50 years of D&D (2) A chance to rebundle rules together (much like AD&D rebundled OD&D+supplements since stuff was scattered and hard to find) because of rules changes from some of the optional supplement books. (3) A chance to fix some stuff that wasn't well balanced the first time. See, option 2 is what concerns the folks who enjoy the modularity of the current edition. They may be a vocal minority but I can foresee a bit of a fracture incoming. That's always gonna happen no matter what to some degree, of course. I just get the feeling that there's been a few staff changes at Wizards since 2014 and their vision has shifted away from the build-a-game idealism of Next. For better or worse depending on who you ask. I plan on continuing to enjoy OD&D so it doesn't directly impact me, but I can speculate about the hobby in general since whatever the current edition of D&D is has historically driven the discussion and participation. |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 7, 2021 13:39:44 GMT -6
What is that saying about beauty? Something about... Of course. I just find it funny that we are always on the opposite sides of the coin, especially art. I'd much rather see YOUR art up there on the 5.x covers. And FWIW- I think the GH cover beholder is far creepier than the 5E MM (which IMO is the worst of the 5E book and looks like a cartoon scene.) So yeah, I'm all for new covers in 5.5. And interior art. OOPS, I need to make a correction! When I said DMG I was picturing that awful PHB cover in my mind. So, I meant to say the PHB cover is a mess. You're right, the DMG is the best of the 3, but far from what it should be. The figures on the MM are cartoonishly bad. I'll probably do a 3 book retro-clone homage to 1st edition someday, so you might get to see how I'd illustrate it. I've sketched out fan art before and have some ideas. I'd basically redo the originals but with modern compositional angles. |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 7, 2021 13:43:17 GMT -6
I think that WotC has a couple of things in mind for 5.5: (1) A celebration of 50 years of D&D (2) A chance to rebundle rules together (much like AD&D rebundled OD&D+supplements since stuff was scattered and hard to find) because of rules changes from some of the optional supplement books. (3) A chance to fix some stuff that wasn't well balanced the first time. Right, they'll certainly do something for the 50th. My dream would be for them to do a collection of single-volumes, like the Rules Cyclopedia, but for each of the editions: Original through 5th. There are hundreds of rabid fans who are excellent writers & designers that would jump on an opportunity to collaborate on those, so it wouldn't cost them much to make. |
|
!!!
If the rules are open to interpretation, that’s okay— let the players interpret them as they see best. People falsely think they need clarity from the rule designers, when what they actually need is to make a logical and satisfying decision for themselves. It doesn’t matter if Joe’s group in Milwaukee players the game slightly differently from James’s group in Edinburgh— they’re both playing the game and having fun— and that’s true even if they’re not playing the game as Bigtime Game Designer intended. Your baby has gone out into the world; let it fend for itself now; it’s doing just fine.
