|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 8, 2021 6:43:21 GMT -6
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. Looking forward to them ! |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 8, 2021 7:22:13 GMT -6
What about the allusion the developers made to bringing back two classic settings for the Anniversary?
One would hope they would honor the two men credited as co-authors on the original rules by providing players with Greyhawk and Blackmoor content. The Ghosts of Saltmarsh module was set in Greyhawk by default after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Oct 8, 2021 7:48:38 GMT -6
What about the allusion the developers made to bringing back two classic settings for the Anniversary? One would hope they would honor the two men credited as co-authors on the original rules by providing players with Greyhawk and Blackmoor content. The Ghosts of Saltmarsh module was set in Greyhawk by default after all. Well you know what I think about them doing so, already. One would hope lots of things, but this is a company that has taken a negative stance towards it's own legacy products, and the D&D online community have been "cancelling" legacy personalities such as Mentzer, Ward, and the Hickmans over the past few years. They do not have the same "good feels" for Gygax & Arneson as we do. Even FGG can't give credit where credit is due to Gygax on the new Necropolis. Though I am not as active as I once was in the 5E community, for the past several years the 5E crowd have really been clamoring for Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Dragonlance (which is now an issue). I would not get too hopeful about any legitimately well done homage to legacy settings as they will have to be heavily edited and rewritten due to current "standards". |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 8, 2021 8:01:15 GMT -6
What about the allusion the developers made to bringing back two classic settings for the Anniversary? One would hope they would honor the two men credited as co-authors on the original rules by providing players with Greyhawk and Blackmoor content. The Ghosts of Saltmarsh module was set in Greyhawk by default after all. Well you know what I think about them doing so, already. One would hope lots of things, but this is a company that has taken a negative stance towards it's own legacy products, and the D&D online community have been "cancelling" legacy personalities such as Mentzer, Ward, and the Hickmans over the past few years. They do not have the same "good feels" for Gygax & Arneson as we do. Even FGG can't give credit where credit is due to Gygax on the new Necropolis. Though I am not as active as I once was in the 5E community, for the past several years the 5E crowd have really been clamoring for Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Planescape, and Dragonlance (which is now an issue). I would not get too hopeful about any legitimately well done homage to legacy settings as they will have to be heavily edited and rewritten due to current "standards". They seem to still have a pretty solid relationship with Luke and Gary Con at least. They still do the Founders and Legends Day yearly. I know Mearls is the driving force behind that because he's a fan of AD&D. I'm not sure exactly what happened with the Hickmans but there's screen caps of Frank being very creepy and then there was also his bizarre meltdown at DF. A reasonable person might second guess his involvement for non political reasons. I believe Jim's exclusion is political, however. He doesn't tow the party line. That's brushing up against the no no topic for these boards, though. I'm okay if it turns out to be Planescape or Spelljammer, actually. Those are interesting settings, too. Dark Sun might not be in line with the happy, inclusive image WoTC is going for. Luckily there's a third party product by Web DM that's kind of a mix of Dark Sun and Gamma World. DMsguild might be the backdoor method for sneaking old school aesthetic back into 5e, until they alter the SRD again that is |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2021 8:03:16 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  Eh. I mean, I grew up with Hellboy comics (...) I would guess that Hellboy would fit more as a "Tiefling" as a race. He is a Demon, that's right, since IIRC he was summoned from hell, but, considering he grew up with humans I think the concept would resemble more of a Tiefling. I can't imagine for example Orcs being good. Not only social political matters inside a game being boring as hell, but it really destroy the fantasy settings as you know it. I don't remember an Orc or Uruk-hai leaving Isengard to live peacefully in The Shire, but I'm not really well versed in Tolkien, who knows? At this point the "generic fantasy" is too much generic for my tastes. I can't imagine what else they will try to mess next when they're done with races and alignments. Maybe they will try to remove "blood" from the game, so attacking don't really cause any harm. Forget Hit Points, who needs it? The combat might end when the players feel like it, so no one dies and no one get sad during the game. I know that's kind of a Reductio ad Absurdum, but sometimes it's the only way to show how things tend to turn more and more absurd and non-sense with all these changes. |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 8, 2021 8:24:00 GMT -6
If they push too many dramatic changes too hard, it will drive more people to seek alternatives, whether that means FATE, Dungeon World, Osr, PF, whatever. I would assume there's a marketing person involved at some level to check whatever agenda is being pushed. If they're smart they'll keep the Tasha style revamps as supplements and not phb material. There's a vague threshold you cross where it no longer feels like D&D.
Saying some devils can be good sometimes might work as a fun side story, sure. Saying good and evil don't exist at all doesn't belong in this game. There are entire classes devoted to fighting evil. Of course, this can be entirely story driven and not mechanical per se, as with BFRPG or Lamentations.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 8, 2021 8:31:09 GMT -6
ampleframework said: Man, I would love to go into a gamestore and throw down some Dark Sun on a 5e group! Dark Sun was our jam, after college. Our DM read ALL the paperbacks. It was harsh and unforgiving and it stood wayyy out with it's wasteland-themed setting. Real roleplaying was to be had with Dark Sun. I've never played Tekumel, but I have the impression that some of the social dynamics, they have in common. I'll ask directly: Is slavery the no-no feature of Dark Sun that would keep it from being re-booted? I swear that every time my guys died in combat, our DM would just knock them unconscious so they woke up, chained, in some slave caravan. They always escaped, though. Also, what is Web DM? That sounds familiar. Are there any other Mad Max style rpg's I might like. That's the way we played.
|
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 8, 2021 8:42:16 GMT -6
Web DM are these two pretty cool old school DMs with a YouTube channel. They did a Kickstarter a while back and released a book called Weird Wastelands that adds a lot of hex crawl and procedural generation mechanics for a 5e game. For my tastes, if I had to play 5e, it would be building off the three core books with DMsguild supplements like this rather than the official direction.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 8, 2021 12:14:21 GMT -6
What about the allusion the developers made to bringing back two classic settings for the Anniversary? One would hope they would honor the two men credited as co-authors on the original rules by providing players with Greyhawk and Blackmoor content. The Ghosts of Saltmarsh module was set in Greyhawk by default after all. I've read some complaints on this board before about general dislike for thick campaign books, but I for one would LOVE to get giant thick hardback compilations of Greyhawk and Mystara for 5th edition. (to me 5th edition is fairly easy to retro back to Original D&D). |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 8, 2021 13:16:24 GMT -6
What about the allusion the developers made to bringing back two classic settings for the Anniversary? One would hope they would honor the two men credited as co-authors on the original rules by providing players with Greyhawk and Blackmoor content. The Ghosts of Saltmarsh module was set in Greyhawk by default after all. I've read some complaints on this board before about general dislike for thick campaign books, but I for one would LOVE to get giant thick hardback compilations of Greyhawk and Mystara for 5th edition. (to me 5th edition is fairly easy to retro back to Original D&D). I could see them resurrecting Mystara for the sheer volume of available material to draw from, plus it comes with Hollow World as a bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 8, 2021 19:44:42 GMT -6
What about the allusion the developers made to bringing back two classic settings for the Anniversary? One would hope they would honor the two men credited as co-authors on the original rules by providing players with Greyhawk and Blackmoor content. The Ghosts of Saltmarsh module was set in Greyhawk by default after all. As appealing as a Blackmoor campaign setting book would be, wouldn't it be pretty thin? Alright, many here would see that as a virtue. But I'd like a little more meat, however I'm not sure how much I trust the current regime to flesh out Blackmoor. |
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 9, 2021 7:24:50 GMT -6
What about the allusion the developers made to bringing back two classic settings for the Anniversary? One would hope they would honor the two men credited as co-authors on the original rules by providing players with Greyhawk and Blackmoor content. The Ghosts of Saltmarsh module was set in Greyhawk by default after all. As appealing as a Blackmoor campaign setting book would be, wouldn't it be pretty thin? Alright, many here would see that as a virtue. But I'd like a little more meat, however I'm not sure how much I trust the current regime to flesh out Blackmoor. There's a fairly thick d20 sourcebook they could draw from. Arneson consulted on it so it's official enough. 5e sourcebooks usually contain class options, monsters and treasure to pad things out, anyway. |
|
asaki
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 436
|
Post by asaki on Oct 9, 2021 9:12:29 GMT -6
From what I've seen of all of the "we're going to incorporate this into a future edition" stuff that's been released over the years, none of it sounds any good to me.
Even the Ranger class they were going to fix, seems pretty lame compared to the Unearthed Arcana version.
And "no more racial bonuses or penalties", no thanks. Why bother choosing a race at all if it's just cosmetic?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 9, 2021 18:18:20 GMT -6
From what I've seen of all of the "we're going to incorporate this into a future edition" stuff that's been released over the years, none of it sounds any good to me. Even the Ranger class they were going to fix, seems pretty lame compared to the Unearthed Arcana version. And "no more racial bonuses or penalties", no thanks. Why bother choosing a race at all if it's just cosmetic? Neapolitan ice cream is bad. Why should the strawberry get to be reddish, while the vanilla is white? We know everyone likes chocolate the best. That is so racist. Stir them all together into one flavor in the name of equity. |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 9, 2021 18:44:41 GMT -6
As appealing as a Blackmoor campaign setting book would be, wouldn't it be pretty thin? Alright, many here would see that as a virtue. But I'd like a little more meat, however I'm not sure how much I trust the current regime to flesh out Blackmoor. There's a fairly thick d20 sourcebook they could draw from. Arneson consulted on it so it's official enough. 5e sourcebooks usually contain class options, monsters and treasure to pad things out, anyway. Alrighty then. Looking forward to it if WotC gets the notion to make it. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 10, 2021 2:38:04 GMT -6
Man, I would love to go into a gamestore and throw down some Dark Sun on a 5e group! Then maybe this would be a good starting point. This version of Dark Sun 5E has some nice ideas on how to make survival on Athas more difficult for a 5E character. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 10, 2021 4:47:36 GMT -6
I would love to see both Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns return, but it seems like they would rather have those go away in favor of Forgotten Realms. My guess would be more like Dark Sun and Spelljammer, or Planescape and Spelljammer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 10, 2021 7:45:17 GMT -6
I would love to see both Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns return, but it seems like they would rather have those go away in favor of Forgotten Realms. My guess would be more like Dark Sun and Spelljammer, or Planescape and Spelljammer. See, that first perception is common but unfortunate. People assume Gh and Bm are standard fantasy realms but imo they're unique in their own ways and deserve at least modules. If not a Greyhawk sourcebook then at least a rehash of a classic adventure path. Same with Blackmoor. Maybe Return to the Temple of the Frog or City of the Gods redux. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 10, 2021 7:47:00 GMT -6
Since the option of the Ranger subtype "Horizon Walker" is pretty much useless unless you play Planescape, I'd bet on that and Greyhawk. I'd love to see Dark Sun, but as was said before, the brutal setting either won't be appealing to enough folks, or it would be soft-washed down to a wimpy copy of the original.
|
|
|
|
Post by ampleframework on Oct 10, 2021 8:29:41 GMT -6
Yeah. Dark Sun today would come with a disclaimer of some type or be watered down, for better or worse. I could easily see it being Planescape since they recently did another Baldur's Gate video game and the other popular titles in the series were Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights and Planescape: Torment. All Forgotten Realms except the latter. If they want to do another Planescape computer game, a tabletop setting book for 5e would be a logical release for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 10, 2021 16:12:28 GMT -6
Man, I would love to go into a gamestore and throw down some Dark Sun on a 5e group! Then maybe this would be a good starting point. This version of Dark Sun 5E has some nice ideas on how to make survival on Athas more difficult for a 5E character. I like what I see, so far. Thanks, hamurai! |
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 149 
|
Post by aramis on Oct 10, 2021 17:56:12 GMT -6
I've not kept up with 5E; I quit before the rules-heavy expansions (Tasha's, Mordenkainen's). I've no particular need for rules changes; 5E is mechanically good for me as released. Of the older settings...
- Dark Sun would get ruined by making it politically correct, as a large part of the texture of DS was the racism.
- Planescape - wasn't interested then... not interested now
- al Quadim¹: Given the recent wars with ISIS/ISIL, and the political incorrectness of the setting, I don't think it would survive the transition recognizably.
- Menzoberanzan¹: Given the drow, and the political correctness movement, this would be retcon-city²... not interested
- Kara-Tur¹: given that Rokugan has been announced, I doubt KT will get relaunched.
- Rokugan: I hated the crappyness of the d20 version. I love L5R 5e. I thus have no incentive to even hold out hope it will be decent
- Greyhawk: one of the 3 kitchen sinks... lots of ready lore, but would be revised for PC-ness, and lose some of its flavor
- Blackmoor: Was a product of its era. (Officially, it's part of Mystara's past, not Greyhawk) It could be redone in a new light, and few know it well enough to care.
- Mystara: Of the kitchen sinks, this one is really a collection of separate subsettings. Some of them will likely need PCification (Glantri, Orks of Thar, Ethengar Khanate, Clans of Vestrii) I doubt it would remain lore-compatible, but it would be close.
- Hollow World²: All the issues of Mystara, plus the addition of Immortal-imposed mild xenophobia
- Ravenloft: already partially done. Not a fan of either.
¹: Subsetting of FR ²: Subsetting of Mystara |
|
|
|
Post by thomden on Oct 10, 2021 21:33:05 GMT -6
Greyhawk and or Blackmoor really are the best candidates for a 50th anniversary.
I'd still most like to see a deluxe compendium of Mystara + Hollow World.
At this point and the direction things are going though political correctness are going to wreck them.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 11, 2021 3:31:51 GMT -6
My thoughts: The more art that exists in the world, the better. I consider RPGs an art. I hope 5.5 allows many the ability to find a game that a system suits their individual preferences.
|
|
|
|
Post by kipper on Oct 11, 2021 8:44:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Oct 11, 2021 21:38:03 GMT -6
I thought it was going to be 3 classic settings?
|
|
|
|
Post by ThrorII on Oct 12, 2021 20:56:55 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?” I agree with you on all of that, except for Advantage/Disadvantage. I do think that was an elegant and intuitive solution.
I would seriously double down on your complaint of Special Ability tracks and Healing. I would also add that 5e makes magic 'too easy' and 'too prevalent'.
The 5e rules engine (the skeletonal frame of the game) is solid and good. But magic, healing, and 'class build' stuff ruined it for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 13, 2021 6:00:28 GMT -6
Advantage and Disadvantage are similar to a +5 or -5 modifier. They're absolutely not guaranteed successes or fails. Parzival , I agree that the Action Economy makes 5E more "gamey" - if you like to play tactically in combat with a battlemap, that's actually a nice feature. If you prefer more cinematic, free-form combats, then I can see how this delays your game. Healing is quite fast, agreed. I've played 5E for about 5 years now and there's a quite simple "trick" to get this under control: Keep the PCs moving. When we played dungeon adventures, we hardly had time for long rests. We had to carefully manage our resources to make it and we were far from being healed up all the time. It's true: a small encounter on the road will hardly be more than a nuisance, because you can easily rest up afterwards. That fits well with how HP were described originally, being loss of luck, exhaustion, some small injuries maybe. Personally, I think it's still too fast. My house rule is, you can regenerate Hit Dice and use Hit Dice to heal, but not heal completely and still regain HD. The DMG has some optional rules for slower healing, iirc. Concerning monster stat blocks: As DM you need to know all the stats of the monster, because some spells will need saving throws based on those stat numbers. For a 5.5E I'd see a compiled book with all the spells and race/class options. Personally, I won't get it, though. I'd rather use the Basic Rules and add some Feats, because I do enjoy some of these ideas. |
|
Parzival
Level 3 Conjurer
Is a little Stir Crazy this year...
Posts: 94
|
Post by Parzival on Oct 13, 2021 7:56:41 GMT -6
Advantage and Disadvantage are similar to a +5 or -5 modifier. They're absolutely not guaranteed successes or fails. I would point out that even in old school D&D, a +/- 5 modifier is an extreme— a very severe and very rare level of modification. Even fighting an invisible opponent typically draws a -4 modifier, and most “debilitating” effects in old school simply draw a -1. Yet in 5e the simplest curse typically produces disadvantage. Let’s assume a target roll of 14+ is needed. That’s a 30% chance of success. In old school D&D the typical minor curse would reduce the chance to 25%. A big deal, but not that big. You go from needing a 14 or better to needing a 15 or better. You’re not happy about it, but it ain’t likely to kill you before you can find a solution. But in 5e, that curse is a disadvantage, and reduces the chance of success to 9%— which might as well be 5%. So you go from needing a 14 to needing a statistical 20, in terms of the odds. In the scheme of things, that’s an enormous penalty, and could mean disaster. That’s why I say the probabilities weren’t thought out. The mechanic has the appearance of elegance (which I also thought at first), but in the long run the penalty effect is massive. I’d much rather subtract 1 from a die roll (or even 2, 3, or 4) than have to reroll it and take the lowest result. Plus, it’s much easier for me to calc my odds of success or failure with a 5% increment modifier than to calc the odds of a double roll, choose worst/best. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Oct 13, 2021 8:31:11 GMT -6
True, but in old D&D editions you don't have a +5 bonus to attacks at first level either, for example.
I think your point is a lack of granularity with the (dis)advantage mechanic. There are some examples where that isn't applied, though, cover probably being the most prominent example. One could also argue that a Shield spell, which raises AC by 2, could have been made with the (dis)advantage mechanic too, but it wasn't.
In the end, there are lots of instances where you get advantage and lots which impose disadvantage, which cancel each other out.
Having a +4/-4 modifier to dice rolls or (dis)advantage doesn't bother me, but if I have the choice between counting all the little +1s and -1s and do the math, or just say we roll with (dis)advantage, I'd prefer the latter but use it more rarely.
|
|
!!!