# Dungeons and Dragons future? Ray Winninger gives a nod to Mike Shea's proposed changes.



## darjr

He posts what he'd love to see for an updated 5th edition core rules at his blog SlyFlourish.









						What I'd Love from the Next Iteration of D&D
					

I love 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. Many have complaints, some justified, and some making mountains out of mole hills. But none can ignore how successful D&D 5th edition has been over the past eigh...




					slyflourish.com
				




Ray acknowledges his twitter post with "I think you're going to be pleased"

A great quick summary by user @overgeeked is below.



	
		His main points are: Make 5.5 Fully 5e Compatible. Include Easier Encounter Building. Include "Theater of the Mind" Guidelines for Combat. Strengthen High-CR Monsters. Fix Certain Spells and Abilities. Include Tasha Upgrades. Provide Less Problematic Race Descriptions. Update the System Resource Document under the Open Gaming License. Leave the Rest Be.

Of those only one or two need any more explanation than the above. And a few of them we've been told are definitely how they're moving forward, such as backward compatibility, and they've already included others into newer products, such as Tasha's racial bonus flexibility and beefing-up higher CR monsters (as seen in Monsters of the Multiverse).


----------



## Davies

This inspires with that most deadly of all emotions -- hope.


----------



## overgeeked

Thanks for the shout out. Just a note, the author's name is Mike *Shea*.


----------



## J.Quondam

(Thread title: Did you  mean Mike *Shea*?)

_* ninja'd by seconds by overgeeked!_


----------



## darjr

Ope! thanks! it's not like I've been following him since 4e or anything......


----------



## Nikosandros

Mike Schley does some great maps, though...


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Ope! thanks! it's not like I've been following him since 4e or anything......



Only reason I remember it is because his dad co-authored the Illuminatus! Trilogy with Robert Anton Wilson. One of my favorite reads.


----------



## Vaalingrade

"Leave the rest to be"

Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.


----------



## Nikosandros

overgeeked said:


> Only reason I remember it is because his dad co-authored the Illuminatus! Trilogy with Robert Anton Wilson. One of my favorite reads.



Fnord


----------



## bedir than

Vaalingrade said:


> "Leave the rest to be"
> 
> Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.



He had several improvements listed


----------



## darjr

Vaalingrade said:


> "Leave the rest to be"
> 
> Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.



Note Ray doesn't say what specific things he'll be happy about.

But if they follow Mike's recipe? I'll be happy.


----------



## Parmandur

Vaalingrade said:


> "Leave the rest to be"
> 
> Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.



Depends on what you mean by "people." Some people ≠ all or most people.


----------



## CleverNickName

I'm already doing most of the things in the SlyFlourish blog...already adopted the changes in _Tasha's_, I'm already using less-problematic race descriptions, already using theater of the mind, already buffing higher-CR monsters, etc.  So the last four words of the first paragraph are crucial for me, and are the parts that I hope Ray was referring to.


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> The post Mike Shea humbly submitted to Ray Winninger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I'd Love from the Next Iteration of D&D
> 
> 
> I love 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons. Many have complaints, some justified, and some making mountains out of mole hills. But none can ignore how successful D&D 5th edition has been over the past eigh...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slyflourish.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His main points are: Make 5.5 Fully 5e Compatible. Include Easier Encounter Building. Include "Theater of the Mind" Guidelines for Combat. Strengthen High-CR Monsters. Fix Certain Spells and Abilities. Include Tasha Upgrades. Provide Less Problematic Race Descriptions. Update the System Resource Document under the Open Gaming License. Leave the Rest Be.
> 
> Of those only one or two need any more explanation than the above. And a few of them we've been told are definitely how they're moving forward, such as backward compatibility, and they've already included others into newer products, such as Tasha's racial bonus flexibility and beefing-up higher CR monsters (as seen in Monsters of the Multiverse).



Overgeeked original post if you wanna go over and click like on it.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

Vaalingrade said:


> "Leave the rest to be"
> 
> Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.



That was white Mike asked for, not Ray’s promise. That being said, my personal taste align with Mike’s so those are the things I was hoping to get.


----------



## Parmandur

CleverNickName said:


> I'm already doing most of the things in the SlyFlourish blog...already adopted the changes in _Tasha's_, I'm already using less-problematic race descriptions, already using theater of the mind, already buffing higher-CR monsters, etc.  So the last four words of the first paragraph are crucial for me, and are the parts that I hope Ray was referring to.



And I reckon that many if not most tables are, or would if they found them in the PHB.


----------



## CleverNickName

Parmandur said:


> And I reckon that many if not most tables are, or would if they found them in the PHB.



A while ago on Reddit, there was a discussion about the "upcoming edition" of D&D, and people were quickly divided into two camps.

One group insists that it will be a complete rewrite, a brand-new edition, the oft-mentioned 6E.  They insist that Wizards of the Coast is going to discontinue 5th Edition in order to sell a whole new product line.  This camp says that all of the crosstalk about "5E compatibility" will boil down to brief notes for converting your stuff to the new edition...like the conversion notes for converting 3.5E to 4E, and for converting 4E to 5E.  Most of it was wishful thinking, in my opinion: some people genuinely want 5E to end.

The other group insists that they are going to bundle all of the 5E books into a revised set of the core rules, and call it "the Deluxe Edition" or something.  They insist that this new book will just be a reprint of the core rulebooks plus the added material from _Xanathar's, Tasha's, Fizban's, _and so forth.  This camp insists that we've already seen everything that they are going to include, and it's intended as an item of convenience--a way to have everything neatly in one place.  Most of it was wishful thinking as well, in my opinion:  some people genuinely want 5E to be the elusive 'evergreen' edition of D&D.

Obviously, the new product will fall somewhere between the two camps.  But it sounds like it'll land a lot closer to Team Evergreen.


----------



## pukunui

CleverNickName said:


> Obviously, the truth will be somewhere between the two camps.  But it sounds more like the line will be drawn a lot closer to Team Evergreen.



Yes, I think the changes will be relatively small, in the grand scheme of things. Refinements, perhaps.

I also suspect they'll play on the fact that it's the 50th anniversary in some capacity, even if they don't refer to it directly as the 50th anniversary edition.


----------



## overgeeked

CleverNickName said:


> A while ago on Reddit, there was a discussion about the "upcoming edition" of D&D, and people were quickly divided into two camps.
> 
> One group insists that it will be a complete rewrite, a brand-new edition, the oft-mentioned 6E.  They insist that Wizards of the Coast is going to discontinue 5th Edition in order to sell a whole new product line.  This camp says that all of the crosstalk about "5E compatibility" will boil down to brief notes for converting your stuff to the new edition...like the conversion notes for converting 3.5E to 4E, and for converting 4E to 5E.  Most of it was wishful thinking, in my opinion: some people genuinely want 5E to end.
> 
> The other group insists that they are going to bundle all of the 5E books into a revised set of the core rules, and call it "the Deluxe Edition" or something.  They insist that this new book will just be a reprint of the core rulebooks plus the added material from _Xanathar's, Tasha's, Fizban's, _and so forth.  This camp insists that we've already seen everything that they are going to include, and it's intended as an item of convenience--a way to have everything neatly in one place.  Most of it was wishful thinking as well, in my opinion:  some people genuinely want 5E to be the elusive 'evergreen' edition of D&D.



That's weird. I get wanting 5E to end, in part I do, too. But only because I love RPGs and D&D and 5E doesn't do what I want. But, there are other versions of D&D out there that do, so no problem. Being left out kinda sucks thought. But to think they'll do a complete rewrite when the sales are increasing, is nonsense. But then, thinking they're going to intentionally obsolete books they just reprinted is a bit out there, too.


CleverNickName said:


> Obviously, the truth will be somewhere between the two camps.  But it sounds more like the line will be drawn a lot closer to Team Evergreen.



I would be a lot more onboard with Team Evergreen if there were more robust optional rules in the main books. Some of the modularity they promised in the playtest...oh so long ago. Build out some of the options from BECMI, etc.

Eh. Maybe it's too late for me and I'm doomed to be Team Old Grog Yells at Clouds.


----------



## rooneg

This is promising. I’d personally like them to go a bit further on updating some of the classes, but I also don’t think that’s necessarily ruled out by any of what’s said here. Here’s hoping for more specific news soon.


----------



## CleverNickName

overgeeked said:


> That's weird. I get wanting 5E to end, in part I do, too. But only because I love RPGs and D&D and 5E doesn't do what I want. But, there are other versions of D&D out there that do, so no problem. Being left out kinda sucks thought. But to think they'll do a complete rewrite when the sales are increasing, is nonsense. But then, thinking they're going to intentionally obsolete books they just reprinted is a bit out there, too.



Yeah, some of these arguments were really petty.  Stuff like "I don' t want 5E to be the longest-running edition," or "I want 5E fans to feel what it was like when (X) Edition got discontinued," or "take THAT, Matt Mercer!"  It was on Reddit, after all.

Personal grudges aside, it's just absurd to think that Wizards of the Coast is going to discontinue a product line when its sales and player base are both at all-time highs (and still increasing).  



overgeeked said:


> I would be a lot more onboard with Team Evergreen if there were more robust optional rules in the main books. Some of the modularity they promised in the playtest...oh so long ago.



Same here.  For example, I would like to see the psionic subclasses in _Tasha's _get moved to the _Dungeon Master's Guide_ under a more robust "Optional Rules" section for Psionics, rather than leaving them in the _Player's Handbook_.  I want them to include psionics in the core rules, but I want psionics to truly be modular--something that can be added easily by choice, instead of included by default.


----------



## Sacrosanct

As someone who is currently releasing a 5e project (Twilight Fables), it's a sigh of relief that my design of TF has incorporated some of these elements:


Include Tasha Upgrades​
Provide Less Problematic Race Descriptions​
It means that my book is utilizing some of the go-forward designs WoTC will be using in the new edition, keeping it relevant for a while.  For once I feel a bit ahead of the game lol.


----------



## Parmandur

CleverNickName said:


> A while ago on Reddit, there was a discussion about the "upcoming edition" of D&D, and people were quickly divided into two camps.
> 
> One group insists that it will be a complete rewrite, a brand-new edition, the oft-mentioned 6E.  They insist that Wizards of the Coast is going to discontinue 5th Edition in order to sell a whole new product line.  This camp says that all of the crosstalk about "5E compatibility" will boil down to brief notes for converting your stuff to the new edition...like the conversion notes for converting 3.5E to 4E, and for converting 4E to 5E.  Most of it was wishful thinking, in my opinion: some people genuinely want 5E to end.
> 
> The other group insists that they are going to bundle all of the 5E books into a revised set of the core rules, and call it "the Deluxe Edition" or something.  They insist that this new book will just be a reprint of the core rulebooks plus the added material from _Xanathar's, Tasha's, Fizban's, _and so forth.  This camp insists that we've already seen everything that they are going to include, and it's intended as an item of convenience--a way to have everything neatly in one place.  Most of it was wishful thinking as well, in my opinion:  some people genuinely want 5E to be the elusive 'evergreen' edition of D&D.
> 
> Obviously, the new product will fall somewhere between the two camps.  But it sounds like it'll land a lot closer to Team Evergreen.



I think T3am Evergreen is correct, but that they will it 6E anyways. But mostly stick the marketing to "D&D" at any rate.


----------



## pukunui

overgeeked said:


> But then, thinking they're going to intentionally obsolete books they just reprinted is a bit out there, too.



Well, it wouldn't be the first time they've done it, but I don't think that's part of their SOP any longer.


----------



## overgeeked

pukunui said:


> Well, it wouldn't be the first time they've done it, but I don't think that's part of their SOP any longer.



Yeah. I totally get the cynicism about editions and half editions and promises of backwards compatibility. Though I wasn't playing 3X I was still paying attention. I can't imagine the anger fans must have felt about that.


----------



## MockingBird

This is good, I was really hoping the compatability is going to be fully backwards. I know it isn't "official" but this gives me hope.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

If including Tasha's optional class features in core is the extent of their revision, I'll be sad.

While those changes were nice, some more deep tinkering is needed in some cases. I'm thinking 4E Monks, the bland progression of Fighters and Wizards, the ''table scraps'' feel of the Sorcerer chassis, extra spells for PHB's Rangers etc

My hope is that a ''revisit'' of the PHB goes a little farther than just quality of life improvement without going full-on experimental.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

MockingBird said:


> This is good, I was really hoping the compatability is going to be fully backwards. I know it isn't "official" but this gives me hope.



I had assumed I was not going to buy much.

However, if it really is compatible, I would love some good adventures and campaign settings to look over.  

If they do an overhaul—a big one—-I am not making the shift.  I have invested in 5e and we are just gaining steam with more than one group and getting the kids into playing.

Compatible means I cherry pick and keep buying some stuff here and there.


----------



## Parmandur

Tales and Chronicles said:


> If including Tasha's optional class features in core is the extent of their revision, I'll be sad.
> 
> While those changes were nice, some more deep tinkering is needed in some cases. I'm thinking 4E Monks, the bland progression of Fighters and Wizards, the ''table scraps'' feel of the Sorcerer chassis, extra spells for PHB's Rangers etc
> 
> My hope is that a ''revisit'' of the PHB goes a little farther than just quality of life improvement without going full-on experimental.



Tasha's is probably about as experimental as D&D will ever be again.


----------



## CleverNickName

Parmandur said:


> Tasha's is probably about as experimental as D&D will ever be again.



I think _Unearthed Arcana_ will remain the experimental testing-ground for D&D mechanics and concepts, even after these new changes go into print.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Parmandur said:


> Tasha's is probably about as experimental as D&D will ever be again.




Dont take it bad, but I sooooo wish you are wrong!

Like I said, those rules were nice and all, but in terms of...daringness...it makes my own homebrew stuff looks like it was taken from the feverish dreams of Monte Cook on crack!


----------



## Parmandur

CleverNickName said:


> I think _Unearthed Arcana_ will remain the experimental testing-ground even after these new changes go into print.



Oh, yes, I think theybwill keep developing the game. But I don't think they will ever overhaul the system on a fundamental level again. A 5E base is probably just...D&D. For any foreseeable future. It just doesn't make sense in brand terms to overhaul it and risk alienating anyone.


----------



## Parmandur

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Dont take it bad, but I sooooo wish you are wrong!
> 
> Like I said, those rules were nice and all, but in terms of...daringness...it makes my own homebrew stuff looks like it was taken from the feverish dreams of Monte Cook on crack!



Yeah, D&D doesn't need to be daring, it needs to stay consistent and sell t-shirts and media tie-ins. It's just not where the game is going. Experimentation is the realm of the small publisher.


----------



## CleverNickName

Parmandur said:


> Oh, yes, I think theybwill keep developing the game. But I don't think they will ever overhaul the system on a fundamental level again. A 5E base is probably just...D&D. For any foreseeable future. It just doesnmake sense in anrand level to overhaul it.



I mean...I don't practice Santeria, I ain't got no crystal ball, so I can't say that they won't fundamentally change the game in the future.  But _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything _was not a fundamental overhaul of the 5th Edition game.  It was some optional rules that the DM could adopt (and they were clearly labeled as such.)


----------



## MockingBird

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I had assumed I was not going to buy much.
> 
> However, if it really is compatible, I would love some good adventures and campaign settings to look over.
> 
> If they do an overhaul—a big one—-I am not making the shift.  I have invested in 5e and we are just gaining steam with more than one group and getting the kids into playing.
> 
> Compatible means I cherry pick and keep buying some stuff here and there.



Same, I'm heavily invested and as you said, gaining steam. My kids have really taken to it. I was thinking the same, if it's a new edition I was gonna pass.


----------



## Parmandur

CleverNickName said:


> I mean...I don't practice Santeria, I ain't got no crystal ball, so I can't say that they won't fundamentally change the game in the future.  But _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything _was not a "fundamental overhaul of the 5th Edition game."



Exactly! I think that any future change will be of a similar type and level, no greater. As long as the game is in print, basically. Risks will be more along the lines of a daringly themed product like Spelljammer, or Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel...not rules.


----------



## Parmandur

Warpiglet-7 said:


> I had assumed I was not going to buy much.
> 
> However, if it really is compatible, I would love some good adventures and campaign settings to look over.
> 
> If they do an overhaul—a big one—-I am not making the shift.  I have invested in 5e and we are just gaining steam with more than one group and getting the kids into playing.
> 
> Compatible means I cherry pick and keep buying some stuff here and there.





MockingBird said:


> Same, I'm heavily invested and as you said, gaining steam. My kids have really taken to it. I was thinking the same, if it's a new edition I was gonna pass.



This, right here, is why they won't make any fundamental changes: the game as it exists is good for new players, and keeping older players in the loop is good for the long term health of the game...particularly parents with kids who will be picking up the game.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Here’s my prediction: some people will be disappointed. And we will hear about their disappointment. Frequently.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I think for some the changes will be too much, and for others the changes will be too little.


----------



## Sacrosanct

D&D has never done a rules revision until the sales indicated it was a necessity.  Nothing is changing here, so don't expect major revisions.   To be honest, much of the talk I'm hearing about what people want and/or they are worried about are the exact same things I heard in the late 80s when 2e was being created.


----------



## CleverNickName

Bill Zebub said:


> Here’s my prediction: some people will be disappointed. And we will hear about their disappointment. Frequently.



I have no idea what you're talking about.
(closes 34 browser tabs of edition war threads that I was re-reading)
No idea at all.


----------



## darjr

CleverNickName said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> (closes 34 browser tabs of edition war threads that I was re-reading)
> No idea at all.



Homework?


----------



## CleverNickName

darjr said:


> Homework?



If we don't study history, we are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bill Zebub said:


> Here’s my prediction: some people will be disappointed. And we will hear about their disappointment. Frequently.



Constantly. In every single thread discussing any 5e book that comes out after 2024 (official or not). And I already know who most of those people will be.


----------



## Krachek

If it’s 100% compatible, then should say 5.01ed!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Vaalingrade said:


> "Leave the rest to be"
> 
> Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.



There are improvements listed, and it was never going to be what everyone was hoping to get, but it is exactly what many of us are hoping for.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

overgeeked said:


> Only reason I remember it is because his dad co-authored the Illuminatus! Trilogy with Robert Anton Wilson. One of my favorite reads.



I never got around to reading those, but I loved Shike.


----------



## ad_hoc

They can tweak classes and feats and still have it be backwards compatible.

Just like they can update monsters but we can still use the old ones if we want.

I hope they're not afraid to do that.

Just leave all the actual rules everything hangs on the same.


----------



## GMMichael

"Make balors as dangerous as wolves." Could this request be for any game other than D&D?

Some of those points suggest a return to what 5e was supposed to be: streamlined.


----------



## Smackpixi

None of these suggestions sound like changes, except the Tasha’s bits, which, being already published, also aren’t changes, but standardizing options.  I mean, don’t all these suggestions just seem like little tweaks they should have been making all along, as they go, with each print run?


----------



## Parmandur

Smackpixi said:


> None of these suggestions sound like changes, except the Tasha’s bits, which, being already published, also aren’t changes, but standardizing options.  I mean, don’t all these suggestions just seem like little tweaks they should have been making all along, as they go, with each print run?



I mean, that's the point.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I think T3am Evergreen is correct, but that they will it 6E anyways. But mostly stick the marketing to "D&D" at any rate.



I really don’t understand why you think this is likely? 

From my perspective, it seems like something with a nearly 0 percent chance. They won’t call it 6e, 5.5e, or anything like that.


----------



## Malmuria

Pulling out some pieces from the slyflourish article.  The tone of his article and his video on the subject suggests that the proposed changes are minor, but looking at the specifics I'm not sure this is the case



> I want _Monsters of the Multiverse_ to work with the new version of D&D. I want _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything_ to work with it. I want _Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel_ to work with it.




Characters from Tasha's work with PHB characters, yet many have noted that the former are more powerful, have more options, and more complexity.  As I mentioned in another thread, the complexity was enough to turn me away from playing a Tasha Bard.  Similarly, the types of options they put in the latest UA add a lot of per rest abilities.  All of which is to say that compatibility is subjective, and could be broadly interpreted.   Speaking of...



> Better, faster, easier, and looser encounter building guidelines could help DMs quickly measure encounters built either before or during the game. Building a reasonably balanced encounter should be easy and fun.
> 
> High CR monsters are often weak for their challenge rating when compared to lower CR monsters. They often don't do enough damage to threaten high level characters.




Is this an easy fix?  Shea recently said in a video that there was enough variability in 5e encounters that it would be impossible to precisely balance encounters.  He has his own version of simple encounter building rules, but he acknowledges that he often wings it and the main toggle for him is between deadly and non-deadly encounters.  Which works for me, but is different from the demands I see for very precise and reliable math for building easy/medium/hard/deadly encounters.  Similarly, adding damage to high CR monsters is easy, but it seems that high level play brings a host of other problems.  Will those be fixed?



> Provide Less Problematic Race Descriptions​It wouldn't surprise me if one of the main reasons for a refresh of 5th edition is to cover problematic race descriptions like the racial essentialism of goblins and orcs in the _Monster Manual_. Other fans offer much better advice on this than I and I support such changes for a wider, richer, more interesting, and more inclusive game.




Very necessary, and I'm happy with the steps they are starting to take, but this is going to require a fairly extensive rewrite of some sections of the monster manual, including changing art styles for several entries (hobgoblins for example).  

I don't think they are going to change anything too drastically.  But, they could, and in some areas if they don't, I don't know they will meet Shea's criteria except in a very superficial way.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I really don’t understand why you think this is likely?
> 
> From my perspective, it seems like something with a nearly 0 percent chance. They won’t call it 6e, 5.5e, or anything like that.



I mean...why wouldn't they? I don't think they will call it 6E anymore than they currently call the game 5E (barely ever, really). But it is a new Edition of the game theybare talking about, with revised Core books. Calling it anything other than 6E, even casually and occasionally, would be as dishonest as calling their 2003 new Edition "3.5" instead of 4E.


----------



## Parmandur

Malmuria said:


> Very necessary, and I'm happy with the steps they are starting to take, but this is going to require a fairly extensive rewrite of some sections of the monster manual, including changing art styles for several entries (hobgoblins for example).



I mean...I expect entirely new art in the new Monster Manual or equivalent? As well as new flavor text and stat blocks.


----------



## Shardstone

Bill Zebub said:


> Here’s my prediction: some people will be disappointed. And we will hear about their disappointment. Frequently.



You really hate discussion, don't you?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I mean...why wouldn't they? I don't think they will call it 6E anymore than they currently call the game 5E (barely ever, really). But it is a new Edition of the game theybare talking about, with revised Core books. Calling it anything other than 6E, even casually and occasionally, would be as dishonest as calling their 2003 new Edition "3.5" instead of 4E.



Except it isn’t a new edition, in the sense that D&D has traditionally used that terminology. 

You will be able to play a Anniversary-PHB Ranger with Gloomstalker subclass from Xanathar’s and Deft Explorer from Tasha’s. 

Or whatever other combination you like. 

It would be _*extremely*_ foolish to make it a new edition.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> I mean...I expect entirely new art in the new Monster Manual or equivalent? As well as new flavor text and stat blocks.



Here’s to hoping the stat block is trimmed down. Such a waste of space in its current form.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Except it isn’t a new edition, *in the sense that D&D has traditionally used that terminology.*
> 
> You will be able to play a Anniversary-PHB Ranger with Gloomstalker subclass from Xanathar’s and Deft Explorer from Tasha’s.
> 
> Or whatever other combination you like.
> 
> It would be _*extremely*_ foolish to make it a new edition.



Note the bolded part: that is what I see WotC as changing. D&D has had an idiosyncratic use of "Edition" for over 30 years, that doesn't match up with other RPGs or publishing in general.

Call of Cthulu 6E to 7E is what I see them doing, or Magic the Gathering Editions to be more pointed: they exist, but compatibility and continuity is how they work.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Here’s to hoping the stat block is trimmed down. Such a waste of space in its current form.



I expect the new Monster Manual to look like Monsters of the Muktiverse, or any other book since Candlekeep introduced the newer Monster style.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Shardstone said:


> You really hate discussion, don't you?



*Mod Note*:

This is making it personal without even TRYING to address any part of the thread’s discussion. 


Also note Bill Zebub got a warning for threadcrapping and baiting the hook.  

PLAY NICE.


----------



## tetrasodium

Malmuria said:


> Is this an easy fix?  Shea recently said in a video that there was enough variability in 5e encounters that it would be impossible to precisely balance encounters.  He has his own version of simple encounter building rules, but he acknowledges that he often wings it and the main toggle for him is between deadly and non-deadly encounters.  Which works for me, but is different from the demands I see for very precise and reliable math for building easy/medium/hard/deadly encounters.  Similarly, adding damage to high CR monsters is easy, but it seems that high level play brings a host of other problems.  Will those be fixed?



In the surface it looks like that should be an easy fix, but the devil is in the subsurface details where things break down.  Not every class is impacted the same by cranking the cr or using the clone stamp tool on monsters. One class might feel great because the monster ac & tohit is still  too low matter.  A second class might be shut down completely because the saves are suddenly too high & msgic/legendary resistance are too common.  Worse still there aren't tools that can be given in the form of magic items to give the hard hit class a meaningful hand up without causing new problems.

No its not really a simple change

Edit: the wish list seems so conservative it makes 3.0-> 3.5 look like a total rewrite of absolute incompatibility


----------



## FitzTheRuke

My dream would be a complete reworking of the format (from Core book layouts to better Character Sheets to reworked Monster Statblocks to the language used to write the rules... but very little (to almost no) rules changes (beyond balance-fixes). 

Freshen it up for clarity and crispness. Keep it working essentially the same.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Note the bolded part: that is what I see WotC as changing. D&D has had an idiosyncratic use of "Edition" for over 30 years, that doesn't match up with other RPGs or publishing in general.
> 
> Call of Cthulu 6E to 7E is what I see them doing, or Magic the Gathering Editions to be more pointed: they exist, but compatibility and continuity is how they work.



Sure, they’ll keep revising 5e, while making sure the absolute smallest number of 5e books become “legacy” in the process. 

But the people who are making most of the D&D related content are not new to D&D. They remember past editions. What’s more, past edition works are available via DMsGuild. They aren’t going to try to change what a new numbered edition means. If they call it something new, it will use a different nomenclature from past new editions, because it isn’t the same type of thing, _and_ because they don’t want to screw with sales by giving people like Mike Shea and the most popular actual play games, etc, to magnify controversy over a confusing name change.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure, they’ll keep revising 5e, while making sure the absolute smallest number of 5e books become “legacy” in the process.
> 
> But the people who are making most of the D&D related content are not new to D&D. They remember past editions. What’s more, past edition works are available via DMsGuild. They aren’t going to try to change what a new numbered edition means. If they call it something new, it will use a different nomenclature from past new editions, because it isn’t the same type of thing, _and_ because they don’t want to screw with sales by giving people like Mike Shea and the most popular actual play games, etc, to magnify controversy over a confusing name change.



In publishing, a new "Edition" is signified when a text is substantially rewritten and needs to have the type set redone (as opposed to errata which can change between printings of one edition). 

What they are talking about is a new Edition, albeit one with a backwards compatible rule set, similar to the change from B/X to BECMI to Rukes Cyclopedia. I think they will acknowledge that, as Innis the reality of what they are doing and a totally refreshed set of Core books with new art and text will sell...perhaps better because theybare backwards compatible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> In publishing, a new "Edition" is signified when a text is substantially rewritten and needs to have the type set redone (as opposed to errata which can change between printings of one edition).



Jeebus, yes, I am aware, as indicated by the text of the post you’re quoting. 

Did you read the post you’re replying to?


----------



## SakanaSensei

FitzTheRuke said:


> My dream would be a complete reworking of the format (from Core book layouts to better Character Sheets to reworked Monster Statblocks to the language used to write the rules... but very little (to almost no) rules changes (beyond balance-fixes).
> 
> Freshen it up for clarity and crispness. Keep it working essentially the same.



Gimme one of them Necrotic Gnome OSE style book collections in a slip case. Here's the 50 page core rules book, here's the 100 page character options book, here's the spell book, here's the section of the DMG about items, here's the section on variant rules... If they keep monster statblocks as big as they are, though, we probably can't get similar treatment for the MM.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

SakanaSensei said:


> Gimme one of them Necrotic Gnome OSE style book collections in a slip case. Here's the 50 page core rules book, here's the 100 page character options book, here's the spell book, here's the section of the DMG about items, here's the section on variant rules... If they keep monster statblocks as big as they are, though, we probably can't get similar treatment for the MM.




They could do Monsters separate from NPCs and Animals, though.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

FitzTheRuke said:


> They could do Monsters separate from NPCs and Animals, though.



I think an efficient use of templates and/or tables for monsters with many incarnations through the MM might gain a huge amount of space. 

I mean, and hear me out, dragons...dont need 30 different stablocks if all it changes it the type/shape of breath and some specific movement speed. Give me dragon statblocks based on age, then a table with the shape/damage/type of breath and special movement (and probably thematic spells) to add to make a red or silver or ruby dragon. 

Orc/Hobgoblin/Goblin chieftains can be a little side note on how to buff a basic one. 

Beast with 1 hit points probably dont really require statblocks beyond a generic ''tiny beast'' block where you can add a fly/swim speed or whatever. 

This would leave some space to add a section on generic, plug-able lair/legendary actions and features to create solo monsters using any of the basic statblock.


----------



## JEB

Malmuria said:


> Very necessary, and I'm happy with the steps they are starting to take, but this is going to require a fairly extensive rewrite of some sections of the monster manual, including changing art styles for several entries (hobgoblins for example).



I'm hoping that they also live up to Shea's desire for "wider, richer, more interesting, and more inclusive" content in this area. The trend for races since Tasha's has focused mainly on making character race lore significantly leaner... which is freeing for some, but leaves others cold. I think it's well within Wizards' capabilities to keep lore as inspirational as it's been in the past, while still keeping inclusivity in mind. It's more work, but worth it, I think.


----------



## JEB

> Update the System Resource Document under the Open Gaming License
> 
> As a producer of 5th edition material, the Open Gaming License helps me publish material any DM can use to make their game better. While I can still publish under the current 5th edition System Resource Document (SRD) (and will do so should it not be updated), a new SRD would help further connect the widespread community of 5th edition publishers to this new edition of D&D. The OGL and SRD helps bring D&D to the whole community and ensure it lasts the ages. Please update the SRD with new changes and continue to support third party publishers who love this game as much as you do.



This is one area I'm particularly concerned with in 2024, so I hope Winninger was including this in his response.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Jeebus, yes, I am aware, as indicated by the text of the post you’re quoting.
> 
> Did you read the post you’re replying to?



Errr, what? You were saying that a substantial rewrite of the text warrants calling it a new Edition, even if the rules remain compatible...? Then I am glad that we agree..?


----------



## cbwjm

Some of his requests seem like pretty safe bets, things like backwards compatibility and Tasha's changes, for instance. 

Others would be good. A better CR encounter calculation would probably be useful for some players, personally I don't bother with it anymore, I just create encounters. They normally end up as hard or deadly since I set them up in the encounter builder in dndbeyond but that doesn't make me change them.

For the rest, TotM support I think I'd likely find quite useful, from memory the only thing I can recall is that they suggest the amount of creatures caught in an AoE by spell level. I'm not too worried about race descriptions, and I'd have assumed the SRD would be updated as a matter of course.


----------



## darjr

I am so very glad to see them acknowledge folks commentary on 5e. I know they pay attention but it sure is nice to be able to show people.


----------



## grimslade

5E can support a lot more rules and system diversity than we have seen to date. I hope the Anniversary edition will provide a nice stable platform to expand to new magic systems and different avenues of play in post-2024 releases. Fold in the design principles in the later splats to the core, refine messy/inappropriate lore, and give better guidance to new and old DMs. It will sell like hotcakes


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Errr, what? You were saying that a substantial rewrite of the text warrants calling it a new Edition, even if the rules remain compatible...? Then I am glad that we agree..?



Maybe I need a break from this site. I am extremely frustrated by this interaction. 

You unnecessarily explained to me how editions work in other industries, in reply to a post wherein I explicitly indicated my understanding of exactly what you were explaining. 

I am now much more uncertain as to whether you’ve been bothering to read what you are replying to.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Maybe I need a break from this site. I am extremely frustrated by this interaction.
> 
> You unnecessarily explained to me how editions work in other industries, in reply to a post wherein I explicitly indicated my understanding of exactly what you were explaining.
> 
> I am now much more uncertain as to whether you’ve been bothering to read what you are replying to.



I honest to goodness have looked over that post several times, and do not see that there.

At any rate, they will do what they do: whether they acknowledge it as a new Edition or not is immaterial.


----------



## Li Shenron

"Including Tasha's free classes boosts" and "being 5e backward compatible" are... not compatible. Unless those free boosts are in the DMG under a paragraph labelled as optional.


----------



## Parmandur

Li Shenron said:


> "Including Tasha's free classes boosts" and "being 5e backward compatible" are... not compatible. Unless those free boosts are in the DMG under a paragraph labelled as optional.



So, if a 2014 PHB character play in a 2024 Adcenture, or a 2024 party can play through Hoard of the Dragon Queen without any conversion...that is backwards compatible.

Note that the Tasha's options are power neutral with the PHB, and can already ne mixed and matched anyways.


----------



## Li Shenron

Parmandur said:


> So, if a 2014 PHB character play in a 2024 Adcenture, or a 2024 party can play through Hoard of the Dragon Queen without any conversion...that is backwards compatible.
> 
> Note that the Tasha's options are power neutral with the PHB, and can already ne mixed and matched anyways.



Yeah I know that I have a bit too strict notion of backwards compatible... but the free boosts of Tasha to me mean that if you play e.g. a 2014 PHB character without those boost and another at the table plays a similar character with 2024 PHB boosts, that is unfair. If the whole set of boosts was optional (as it is currently, as long as Tasha remains a separate optional book and the boosts are not integrated to the PHB) then it's everyone or no one, and it's still fair within a group. Other Tasha's stuff is not a problem because it's not "free", you always have to give something up to get a variant class feature for example.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

overgeeked said:


> I would be a lot more onboard with Team Evergreen if there were more robust optional rules in the main books. Some of the modularity they promised in the playtest...oh so long ago. Build out some of the options from BECMI, etc.
> 
> Eh. Maybe it's too late for me and I'm doomed to be Team Old Grog Yells at Clouds.




I hope you get what you want.
I use some of the optional rules already, but I think there is room for improvement.

I think optional rules are the way to hae your cake and eat it.


----------



## Parmandur

Li Shenron said:


> Yeah I know that I have a bit too strict notion of backwards compatible... but the free boosts of Tasha to me mean that if you play e.g. a 2014 PHB character without those boost and another at the table plays a similar character with 2024 PHB boosts, that is unfair. If the whole set of boosts was optional (as it is currently, as long as Tasha remains a separate optional book and the boosts are not integrated to the PHB) then it's everyone or no one, and it's still fair within a group. Other Tasha's stuff is not a problem because it's not "free", you always have to give something up to get a variant class feature for example.



There are basically two sets of Class options in Tasha's, as you day: replacements that are equivalent (like the Ranger exploration cha ges: they aren't "better" strictly speaking), or completely power irrelevant. There is no issue from mixing and matching as it stands, so it seems plausible that they will continue the trend line.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Li Shenron said:


> Yeah I know that I have a bit too strict notion of backwards compatible... but the free boosts of Tasha to me mean that if you play e.g. a 2014 PHB character without those boost and another at the table plays a similar character with 2024 PHB boosts, that is unfair. If the whole set of boosts was optional (as it is currently, as long as Tasha remains a separate optional book and the boosts are not integrated to the PHB) then it's everyone or no one, and it's still fair within a group. Other Tasha's stuff is not a problem because it's not "free", you always have to give something up to get a variant class feature for example.




I don't think any of Tasha's power boosts will improv a character beyond full spellcaster power.
If you play a 2014 4e monk and someone plays a 2024 4e monk, I hope they will see a (small) power difference.
But 2024 4e monk vs 2014 wizard would be no problem.

Not upgrading the weaker classes and subclasses would make a rules upgrade obsolete.


----------



## Li Shenron

UngeheuerLich said:


> I don't think any of Tasha's power boosts will improv a character beyond full spellcaster power.
> 
> 
> Not upgrading the weaker classes and subclasses would make a rules upgrade obsolete.



The Rogue's free Steady Aim option might be the biggest offender. "Upgrading the weaker classes" is an evergreen excuse, and subjective to say the least. In any case, Steady Aim boosts ranged weapons Rogues which are as far from being a weak character concept as possible in 5e.


----------



## Parmandur

Li Shenron said:


> The Rogue's free Steady Aim option might be the biggest offender. "Upgrading the weaker classes" is an evergreen excuse, and subjective to say the least. In any case, Steady Aim boosts ranged weapons Rogues which are as far from being a weak character concept as possible in 5e.



The design assumption is that all Eogues should be getting Sneak Attack every time that they attack. So as far as the decanters are concerned, it isn't a power boost, simply making the assumed action easier and more clear for players and DMs.


----------



## Sabathius42

Li Shenron said:


> The Rogue's free Steady Aim option might be the biggest offender. "Upgrading the weaker classes" is an evergreen excuse, and subjective to say the least. In any case, Steady Aim boosts ranged weapons Rogues which are as far from being a weak character concept as possible in 5e.



I tend to view Steady Aim as a patch the designers used to ensure sneak attack is being granted as often as the designers meant for it to be used in combat.  If there was better guidance in the PHB about the expected frequency of sneak attack damage I don't think it would have ever come up.

In my games it's not an upgrade because rogues already are hiding and sniping in almost every encounter round they choose to without the patch.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Shardstone said:


> You really hate discussion, don't you?




Really I was just trying to make people laugh.


----------



## Parmandur

Sabathius42 said:


> I tend to view Steady Aim as a patch the designers used to ensure sneak attack is being granted as often as the designers meant for it to be used in combat.  If there was better guidance in the PHB about the expected frequency of sneak attack damage I don't think it would have ever come up.
> 
> In my games it's not an upgrade because rogues already are hiding and sniping in almost every encounter round they choose to without the patch.



Exactly: it's basically a ribbon, since the 2024 Rogue should be getting Sneak Attack just as often. Crawford actually explained on air when discussing thebUA for Tasha's Rogue options that the Rogue Subclasses granting Sneak Attack are about story, not power.


----------



## Li Shenron

Parmandur said:


> The design assumption is that all Eogues should be getting Sneak Attack every time that they attack. So as far as the decanters are concerned, it isn't a power boost, simply making the assumed action easier and more clear for players and DMs.




Did WotC say so explicitly? If "every time" was the intended rule, why isn't sneak attack simply written a such? It certainly would be a lot more clear.



Sabathius42 said:


> I tend to view Steady Aim as a patch the designers used to ensure sneak attack is being granted as often as the designers meant for it to be used in combat.  If there was better guidance in the PHB about the expected frequency of sneak attack damage I don't think it would have ever come up.
> 
> In my games it's not an upgrade because rogues already are hiding and sniping in almost every encounter round they choose to without the patch.




That's you games. In other games it requires more thinking. If you interpret the hiding rules more strictly, is it not that easy. This patch helps you, but ruins somebody else's game on the assumption that everyone plays like you do.

And the bottom line is, just because the majority likes a change, it doesn't make it "backward compatible".


----------



## Parmandur

Li Shenron said:


> Did WotC say so explicitly? If "every time" was the intended rule, why isn't sneak attack simply written a such? It certainly would be a lot more clear.
> 
> 
> 
> That's you games. In other games it requires more thinking. If you interpret the hiding rules more strictly, is it not that easy. This patch helps you, but ruins somebody else's game on the assumption that everyone plays like you do.
> 
> And the bottom line is, just because the majority likes a change, it doesn't make it "backward compatible".



Yes, Crawford has said explicitly as such in response to being questioned about whether there is a balance.issue for giving Rogues more opportunities for Sneak Attqck. By design, a Rogue player should be getting Sneak Attack every time. So, from that perspective, it is a non-change for the game: 100% is not more than 100%. It does work to bring more tables into line with design assumptions, but that isn't a boost.


----------



## rooneg

Parmandur said:


> Yes, Crawford has said explicitly as such in response to being questioned about whether there is a balance.issue for giving Rogues more opportunities for Sneak Attqck. By design, a Rogue player should be getting Sneak Attack every time. So, from that perspective, it is a non-change for the game: 100% is not more than 100%. It does work to bring more tables into line with design assumptions, but that isn't a boost.



This is one of those design assumptions that rests on top of other assumptions about how the rules would be read. Like, if you are the sort of DM who makes it practical for a rogue to cunning action hide and shoot with advantage afterwards then this was basically how it already worked. If you're the sort of DM who structures encounters or interprets the stealth rules such that this isn't possible then ranged rogues in your games often didn't get sneak attack (or had to jump through other hoops like obtaining a familiar or whatever to make it happen). I hope some of the wording on this stuff is cleared up to make the intent more obvious in 5.5e, it would make things easier for everyone.


----------



## Parmandur

rooneg said:


> This is one of those design assumptions that rests on top of other assumptions about how the rules would be read. Like, if you are the sort of DM who makes it practical for a rogue to cunning action hide and shoot with advantage afterwards then this was basically how it already worked. If you're the sort of DM who structures encounters or interprets the stealth rules such that this isn't possible then ranged rogues in your games often didn't get sneak attack (or had to jump through other hoops like obtaining a familiar or whatever to make it happen). I hope some of the wording on this stuff is cleared up to make the intent more obvious in 5.5e, it would make things easier for everyone.



Exactly! The difference is between a DM interpretation nerfing the Rogue being made more unlikely, and the Rogue getting a boost.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> His main points are: Make 5.5 Fully 5e Compatible. Include Easier Encounter Building. Include "Theater of the Mind" Guidelines for Combat. Strengthen High-CR Monsters. Fix Certain Spells and Abilities. Include Tasha Upgrades. Provide Less Problematic Race Descriptions. Update the System Resource Document under the Open Gaming License. Leave the Rest Be.
> 
> Of those only one or two need any more explanation than the above. And a few of them we've been told are definitely how they're moving forward, such as backward compatibility, and they've already included others into newer products, such as Tasha's racial bonus flexibility and beefing-up higher CR monsters (as seen in Monsters of the Multiverse).



this has me disappointed... there are more then a few systemic issues. Things like Wizards and Clerics getting major power ups everytime they put out new spells while other casters have much more limited lists, to the caster supremacy over non casters (what few non casters there are) to overall the hitpoint increase that has happened in every WotC D&D over the TSR numbers... 

more and more this looks like where I get off


----------



## delericho

CleverNickName said:


> If we don't study history, we are doomed to repeat it.



Yeah, but if we do study history we are doomed to watch everyone else repeat it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> this has me disappointed... there are more then a few systemic issues. Things like Wizards and Clerics getting major power ups everytime they put out new spells while other casters have much more limited lists, to the caster supremacy over non casters (what few non casters there are) to overall the hitpoint increase that has happened in every WotC D&D over the TSR numbers...
> 
> more and more this looks like where I get off




The hit point increase in the latest two editions came with the decrease of AC and the Idea that recovering HP is easy and possible during short rests.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> The design assumption is that all Eogues should be getting Sneak Attack every time that they attack. So as far as the decanters are concerned, it isn't a power boost, simply making the assumed action easier and more clear for players and DMs.



I don't get why put the restrictions on it then?


----------



## Bill Zebub

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't get why put the restrictions on it then?




Because it's more fun/rewarding to feel like you "earned" it through skilled play.  Even if there are so many options that it's easy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> The hit point increase in the latest two editions came with the decrease of AC and the Idea that recovering HP is easy and possible during short rests.



I still think front loading HP but having less (like PCs with over 100hp should be rare high level characters, and getting even close to 200 should not be possible) would make the game flow better...

a barbarian with a 20 con at 12th level has 12+60+11d12 (min 11 avg 77 max 132) for about 140hps... at 12th level. by 20th level that character can easily have (remember now a 24 con) 12+140+19d12 (min 19 avg 133 max 228) about 290hps


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bill Zebub said:


> Because it's more fun/rewarding to feel like you "earned" it through skilled play.  Even if there are so many options that it's easy.



I disagree.  it feels childish and boarder line insulting to tell someone they 'earned' something every turn.


----------



## bedir than

Li Shenron said:


> And the bottom line is, just because the majority likes a change, it doesn't make it "backward compatible".



It existing in the current game means that it is backwards compatible.


----------



## Micah Sweet

CleverNickName said:


> I mean...I don't practice Santeria, I ain't got no crystal ball, so I can't say that they won't fundamentally change the game in the future.  But _Tasha's Cauldron of Everything _was not a fundamental overhaul of the 5th Edition game.  It was some optional rules that the DM could adopt (and they were clearly labeled as such.)



The fact that those "optional" rules immediately became the law of the land moving forward makes that claim by WotC suspicious.


----------



## Reynard

Man, there are going to be some disappointed folks here. Spoiler: no matter how much you want it to be the case, the 2024 "edition" isn't going to be a return to either of the previous two editions of the game.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Micah Sweet said:


> The fact that those "optional" rules immediately became the law of the land moving forward makes that claim by WotC suspicious.



It didn't "Immediately" happen. It's happening over a period of four years. It's called making phased changes.


----------



## amethal

tetrasodium said:


> Edit: the wish list seems so conservative it makes 3.0-> 3.5 look like a total rewrite of absolute incompatibility



From what I remember, the 3.5 rewrite suffered from a lot of "mission creep" and was initially intended just to clear up a few rules, make a couple of classes a bit more interesting and maybe nerf the Haste spell.

Then the Pathfinder "re-write" changed lots of things (we were still finding changes years later; Sleep is now a 1 round casting time?) but some things they refused to change. You can change the Paladin's casting stat, increase the wizard's hit die and allow/force barbarians to track individual rounds of rage, but apparently giving Fighters more skill points would have ruined backwards compatibility?

So once you start a rewrite it is very easy to get carried away. I don't play much D&D these days, so it's more of an academic interest for me, but if they fix it so I never see the words "Leomund's Tiny Hut" on this forum ever again I'll be very happy.


----------



## FireLance

GMMichael said:


> "Make balors as dangerous as wolves."



The irony is, this is 5e working as intended, specifically, CR assumes the PCs don't have magic items because they are supposed to be bonuses and not a requirement. Then, people complain when a party of high-level PCs decked out with magic items (random rolls on the DMG's treasure hoard tables using the guidelines for a "typical" campaign on DMG page 133 mean that a party of 4 PCs can expect about 5 major magic items per person by 20th level - something also stated in Xanathar's page 135) curb stomps something that is supposed to be a challenge.


----------



## rooneg

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't get why put the restrictions on it then?



Flavor. It's entirely about providing a mechanical hook that ensures a Rogue is actually being played like the fictional archetype the class is supposed to emulate.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't get why put the restrictions on it then?



It is meant yo be easy, not automatic.


----------



## Micah Sweet

FitzTheRuke said:


> My dream would be a complete reworking of the format (from Core book layouts to better Character Sheets to reworked Monster Statblocks to the language used to write the rules... but very little (to almost no) rules changes (beyond balance-fixes).
> 
> Freshen it up for clarity and crispness. Keep it working essentially the same.



What would be the point of buying those books if you already own the 2014 versions?  Is the new print intended only for new players going forward?  I mean, if you care about the stuff they're supposedly updating, aren't you already playing that way now?

I just don't see why anyone who is playing now would buy these if the changes are as minor as everybody says.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I disagree.  it feels childish and boarder line insulting to tell someone they 'earned' something every turn.



This is a game aimed at 12 year olds.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> What would be the point of buying those books if you already own the 2014 versions?  Is the new print intended only for new players going forward?  I mean, if you care about the stuff they're supposedly updating, aren't you already playing that way now?
> 
> I just don't see why anyone who is playing now would buy these if the changes are as minor as everybody says.



New art.

But anyone playing now isn't the target audience, new players are.


----------



## rooneg

Micah Sweet said:


> What would be the point of buying those books if you already own the 2014 versions?  Is the new print intended only for new players going forward?  I mean, if you care about the stuff they're supposedly updating, aren't you already playing that way now?
> 
> I just don't see why anyone who is playing now would buy these if the changes are as minor as everybody says.



I mean, it's pretty clearly going to revamp the core ancestries (MotM didn't give us new versions of them, so this will), and consolidating all the changes to the core classes along with whatever other tweaks is worth a new PHB to me. Better monsters in a new MM are also worthwhile.


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> I'm hoping that they also live up to Shea's desire for "wider, richer, more interesting, and more inclusive" content in this area. The trend for races since Tasha's has focused mainly on making character race lore significantly leaner... which is freeing for some, but leaves others cold. I think it's well within Wizards' capabilities to keep lore as inspirational as it's been in the past, while still keeping inclusivity in mind. It's more work, but worth it, I think.



Not work I would expect them to do.  Bland, inoffensive, and short are the words of the corporate zeitgeist.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> The design assumption is that all Eogues should be getting Sneak Attack every time that they attack. So as far as the decanters are concerned, it isn't a power boost, simply making the assumed action easier and more clear for players and DMs.



If you're supposed to have Sneak Attack all the time, what's the point of there being conditions on it at all?  Why not just add the damage straight to their attacks as a class feature?


----------



## Nikosandros

Micah Sweet said:


> If you're supposed to have Sneak Attack all the time, what's the point of there being conditions on it at all?  Why not just add the damage straight to their attacks as a class feature?



That's a fair observation. My impression is that they included conditions for "compatibility" with previous flavor, but balance-wise they meant for it apply almost all the time.


----------



## Micah Sweet

rooneg said:


> This is one of those design assumptions that rests on top of other assumptions about how the rules would be read. Like, if you are the sort of DM who makes it practical for a rogue to cunning action hide and shoot with advantage afterwards then this was basically how it already worked. If you're the sort of DM who structures encounters or interprets the stealth rules such that this isn't possible then ranged rogues in your games often didn't get sneak attack (or had to jump through other hoops like obtaining a familiar or whatever to make it happen). I hope some of the wording on this stuff is cleared up to make the intent more obvious in 5.5e, it would make things easier for everyone.



Interviews and social media posts are a terrible way to communicate design intent.  Not everyone follows the designers on Twitter.  If you're not going to make your intent explicit in the game itself, at least put it on your website.  4e got that right at least with their pre-edition books.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> New art.
> 
> But anyone playing now isn't the target audience, new players are.



You know which other company assumed indefinite growth?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Because it's more fun/rewarding to feel like you "earned" it through skilled play.  Even if there are so many options that it's easy.



I'm not a huge fan of tricking the players into thinking something is challenging when it isn't.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

rooneg said:


> Flavor. It's entirely about providing a mechanical hook that ensures a Rogue is actually being played like the fictional archetype the class is supposed to emulate.



yeah put fluff in fluff spots and mechanics in mechanics please


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> This is a game aimed at 12 year olds.



okay... by 12 I was ready not to be patronized.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Paul Farquhar said:


> It didn't "Immediately" happen. It's happening over a period of four years. It's called making phased changes.



It is obvious to me that they never intended for those changes to be optional.  They just wanted people to think they were at first.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> New art.
> 
> But anyone playing now isn't the target audience, new players are.



New art is literally the worst reason I can think of to re-buy a book i already own.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> New art is literally the worst reason I can think of to re-buy a book i already own.



I can't imagine someone sitting in a business and saying "Most of our customers wont want this, but some will... but don't worry we are opening up new markets with it" and it ending well for them.

Edit: Okay we have this smash hit TV series... lets end it and make this spin off that isn't going to be for the old TV fans...


----------



## Micah Sweet

rooneg said:


> I mean, it's pretty clearly going to revamp the core ancestries (MotM didn't give us new versions of them, so this will), and consolidating all the changes to the core classes along with whatever other tweaks is worth a new PHB to me. Better monsters in a new MM are also worthwhile.



Not $200 worthwhile.  And that's assuming you like all the little changes of course.  Which if they matter to you, you're probably already doing.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> What would be the point of buying those books if you already own the 2014 versions?  Is the new print intended only for new players going forward?  I mean, if you care about the stuff they're supposedly updating, aren't you already playing that way now?
> 
> I just don't see why anyone who is playing now would buy these if the changes are as minor as everybody says.



There are many reasons; however, it is primarily for new players. Here are a few possible ones for me:

new art
new monster statblocks
better layout / organization


----------



## DEFCON 1

If people aren't looking to buy a new set of books, I fail to see how WotC releasing a set of small changes that don't inspire them to buy new books is a bad thing?  Seems to me the person is getting what they want?


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Not $200 worthwhile.  And that's assuming you like all the little changes of course.  Which if they matter to you, you're probably already doing.



It is likely to be a lot less than $200 and of course what is the value is subjective. I just spent $100 on a KS for one book. $200 for 3 is a value by that standard.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> New art is literally the worst reason I can think of to re-buy a book i already own.



It is one of the best reasons for me.  The D&D art since the beginning of the game has inspired me more than anything else.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

DEFCON 1 said:


> If people aren't looking to buy a new set of books, I fail to see how WotC releasing a set of small; changes that don't inspire them to buy new books is a bad thing?  Seems to me the person is getting what they want?










Some people just need to be able to complain. And they haven't found yelp reviews yet.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Not $200 worthwhile.  And that's assuming you like all the little changes of course.  Which if they matter to you, you're probably already doing.



TBF... we will have to preorder to get the discounted price or wait to see if the changes are good... I am SURE WotC will get money from people for this set that will not be going forward... and they HAVE to know that.


----------



## Jer

Micah Sweet said:


> What would be the point of buying those books if you already own the 2014 versions?  Is the new print intended only for new players going forward?  I mean, if you care about the stuff they're supposedly updating, aren't you already playing that way now?
> 
> I just don't see why anyone who is playing now would buy these if the changes are as minor as everybody says.



How does baseline Risk sell copies every single year without changing the rules?  Or Catan?  Or any other evergreen game?

If we've actually moved into a world where D&D has become a real mass market game rather than the purview of a small number of hobbyists who need to be milked for their cash like cows every 10 years, that would actually be a good thing IMO.  The game shouldn't be changing so much that they have to force players to buy new rules every decade to "stay current" to turn a profit on the game.  If they're able to reach a point where they can get a consistent profit from new players aging into the game combined with people having to replace books periodically, then that's actually an astonishingly good thing for D&D as a game and for Wizards as a company.  Even if there are a lot of folks who wish that D&D had settled into being that kind of game at some different point in its development history.

If the game ever hits that point - whether its now or in the future - then I could see a cycle where every decade or so a revised rulebook is published to gather together errata, cleaner explanations of existing rules, and any new rules that have been published in the interim.  That's basically how Call of Cthulhu works for example and it's on its 7th edition.  D&D is in a weird state where everyone expects edition changes to be huge changes to the game because of how 3rd edition brought 20+ years of game development advances into the game all at once, but it doesn't actually have to be that way.  

Also - and I think this gets underestimated - tying themselves to DDB means that any major changes to the game have to be supported by DDB or else they lose all of that work the same way they basically threw away all of the 4e tools when 5e came out.  When they bought DDB that was another mark to me that they were planning on the core of the game being pretty stable long term because if they were thinking about making big changes, the DDB purchase would have been a bad move on their part.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> If people aren't looking to buy a new set of books, I fail to see how WotC releasing a set of small; changes that don't inspire them to buy new books is a bad thing?  Seems to me the person is getting what they want?



here is the thing... 3 new core books will cost WotC money to make, and they will (fairly) expect it to make Core Book money backk for the investment. IF they are not planing on selling it to the current players (or at least most current players) they must be hopeing the number of new players if brings in will be on par or over the amount of current players not buying it.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> Man, there are going to be some disappointed folks here. Spoiler: no matter how much you want it to be the case, the 2024 "edition" isn't going to be a return to either of the previous two editions of the game.



Or substantial improvements on the existing one!

Though I did find on silver lining in stagnation: maybe this means Per Short Rest becoming Proficiency Per Day is dead.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> It is one of the best reasons for me.  The D&D art since the beginning of the game has inspired me more than anything else.



All the old inspiring art is still out there.


----------



## Jer

DEFCON 1 said:


> If people aren't looking to buy a new set of books, I fail to see how WotC releasing a set of small; changes that don't inspire them to buy new books is a bad thing?  Seems to me the person is getting what they want?



I think folks are trained to expect editions of D&D to be major changes because every previous one has been a major change.  But the publishing realities of 5e are different than the previous 4 editions.  When 2e came out TSR was seeing major dropoffs in their sales and needed a boost.  When 3e came out Wizards put 20+ years of game design advancements into the game all at once to get back the folks who had drifted away.  I don't have the numbers, but my impression is that 4e was similar to 2e in that Wizards was seeing major dropoffs in sales and needed a boost - and needed one so quick they rushed 4e out the door before it was done.

5e just isn't in that kind of situation.  In fact I strongly suspect that if it weren't for the fact that we have a 50th Anniversary coming up in 2 years there wouldn't be any talk of a revised edition at all.  The timing of the anniversary is, IMO, driving this new release rather than financial realities that have driven so many others.


----------



## billd91

Jer said:


> If the game ever hits that point - whether its now or in the future - then I could see a cycle where every decade or so a revised rulebook is published to gather together errata, cleaner explanations of existing rules, and any new rules that have been published in the interim. That's basically how Call of Cthulhu works for example and it's on its 7th edition. D&D is in a weird state where everyone expects edition changes to be huge changes to the game because of how 3rd edition brought 20+ years of game development advances into the game all at once, but it doesn't actually have to be that way.



There have been innovations brought into the CoC rules over time, in relatively small steps. If WotC gets into that mode with D&D, I could be reasonably content. 
Plus books do wear out eventually if you tote them around from game session to game session. My PH is doing fine, but my Monster Manual has a substantial section that has broken out of its binding. I'll have no difficulty justifying buying a new one in 2024 as long as its compatible with the rest of my 5e kit.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jer said:


> How does baseline Risk sell copies every single year without changing the rules?  Or Catan?  Or any other evergreen game?



yes ones that boards wear out and parts get lost... you aren't buying a game you are buying 3 books... 


Jer said:


> If we've actually moved into a world where D&D has become a real mass market game rather than the purview of a small number of hobbyists who need to be milked for their cash like cows every 10 years, that would actually be a good thing IMO.



it CAN be a good thing


Jer said:


> The game shouldn't be changing so much that they have to force players to buy new rules every decade to "stay current" to turn a profit on the game.



but by that logic they should never have needed to... Honest question, Do you think ANY edition has improved on previous ones? If so you might find it surprising that people who joined in 3e+ would NOT have if thac0 was still a thing... and we don't know what the new Thac0 is until they show us a better way.

yes an evergreen game sounds good in theory, but think how stagnant that is... no growth no change?


Jer said:


> If they're able to reach a point where they can get a consistent profit from new players aging into the game combined with people having to replace books periodically, then that's actually an astonishingly good thing for D&D as a game and for Wizards as a company.  Even if there are a lot of folks who wish that D&D had settled into being that kind of game at some different point in its development history.



TSR thought so too.


Jer said:


> If the game ever hits that point - whether its now or in the future - then I could see a cycle where every decade or so a revised rulebook is published to gather together errata, cleaner explanations of existing rules, and any new rules that have been published in the interim.  That's basically how Call of Cthulhu works for example and it's on its 7th edition.  D&D is in a weird state where everyone expects edition changes to be huge changes to the game because of how 3rd edition brought 20+ years of game development advances into the game all at once, but it doesn't actually have to be that way.



yes and no... WotC totally changed it... but basic 1e and 2e have as much in common as any 2 editions of Call of Cthulhu... 


Jer said:


> Also - and I think this gets underestimated - tying themselves to DDB means that any major changes to the game have to be supported by DDB or else they lose all of that work the same way they basically threw away all of the 4e tools when 5e came out.  When they bought DDB that was another mark to me that they were planning on the core of the game being pretty stable long term because if they were thinking about making big changes, the DDB purchase would have been a bad move on their part.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> You know which other company assumed indefinite growth?



All of them. Capitalism is predicated on infinite growth.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> There have been innovations brought into the CoC rules over time, in relatively small steps. If WotC gets into that mode with D&D, I could be reasonably content.
> Plus books do wear out eventually if you tote them around from game session to game session. My PH is doing fine, but my Monster Manual has a substantial section that has broken out of its binding. I'll have no difficulty justifying buying a new one in 2024 as long as its compatible with the rest of my 5e kit.



yeah... books wear out... but not digital info


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm not a huge fan of tricking the players into thinking something is challenging when it isn't.



No wonder you dislike 5E.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> All of them. Capitalism is predicated on infinite growth.



please can we not go into this sort of thing... this thread is already in danger of falling into edition waring no need to add real life drama


----------



## Jer

GMforPowergamers said:


> but by that logic they should never have needed to... Honest question, Do you think ANY edition has improved on previous ones? If so you might find it surprising that people who joined in 3e+ would NOT have if thac0 was still a thing... and we don't know what the new Thac0 is until they show us a better way.



No you're not reading what I'm saying.  Changes that accumulate over the course of a decade worth of play, not changes that come all at once in a new edition.  Like how Call of Cthulhu does things (which @billd91 clarifies better than the way I might have said it).

You still get change, just not on the radical scale we've been trained to expect in editions of D&D.  Because you aren't dumping all of the changes all at once but are rolling them out over time.  Editions become a way of incorporating already existing rules into a single rulebook, not a radical rewrite of the game that we all need to learn how to play again.

Also - there are other games out there.  If a stable D&D encourages people to go explore other RPGs for things that are radically different that would be a good thing in my book.


----------



## darjr

Well looking at how things stand if they get half the rate of sales of the current core books out of the new, it’ll be the biggest D&D seller besides 5e.

I think it’ll do much better than that though.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> All the old inspiring art is still out there.



Sure, but it has already done its thing for me. I need new art to take me new places.  I've built up a bit of a drug tolerance to the old art. It doesn't give me the same kick it once did, so I a new drug/art.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jer said:


> No you're not reading what I'm saying.  Changes that accumulate over the course of a decade worth of play, not changes that come all at once in a new edition.  Like how Call of Cthulhu does things (which @billd91 clarifies better than the way I might have said it).
> 
> You still get change, just not on the radical scale we've been trained to expect in editions of D&D.  Because you aren't dumping all of the changes all at once but are rolling them out over time.  Editions become a way of incorporating already existing rules into a single rulebook, not a radical rewrite of the game that we all need to learn how to play again.
> 
> Also - there are other games out there.  If a stable D&D encourages people to go explore other RPGs for things that are radically different that would be a good thing in my book.



Its undeniable, however, that a fair number of people here would like changes that are in advance (by a little or a lot) of what that model would ever be able to accomplish.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> All the old inspiring art is still out there.



RPG books are the best money to entertainment ratio product you can buy!

Except when it’s new edition time. Time to upgrade everyone. Out with the old and useless, in with the new and useful.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Jer said:


> No you're not reading what I'm saying.  Changes that accumulate over the course of a decade worth of play, not changes that come all at once in a new edition.  Like how Call of Cthulhu does things (which @billd91 clarifies better than the way I might have said it).




except how do you gradually change from AC 10 through -10 and Thac0 to bonus to hit and ascending AC?
how do you gradually change from 6 different charts to 1 unified formula for stats?
how do you gradually change from non weapon prof and % skills to a skill system like we have now?

sooner or later the editions HAVE to make major changes.


Jer said:


> You still get change, just not on the radical scale we've been trained to expect in editions of D&D.  Because you aren't dumping all of the changes all at once but are rolling them out over time.  Editions become a way of incorporating already existing rules into a single rulebook, not a radical rewrite of the game that we all need to learn how to play again.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Sure, but it has already done its thing for me. I need new art to take me new places.  I've built up a bit of a drug tolerance to the old art. It doesn't give me the same kick it once did, so I a new drug/art.



Why?  I really don't get why new art is so important that some people will buy expensive products they already own so they can look at new pictures.


----------



## Sacrosanct

overgeeked said:


> RPG books are the best money to entertainment ratio product you can buy!
> 
> Except when it’s new edition time. Time to upgrade everyone. Out with the old and useless, in with the new and useful.



I probably have played Moldvay's B/X over 8000 hours (or about a full year's worth of time non-stop).  For $9 that was spent on it.  Ain't no movie, book, or video game that comes close to that lol.


----------



## Bill Zebub

GMforPowergamers said:


> I disagree.  it feels childish and boarder line insulting to tell someone they 'earned' something every turn.



Uhhh….that’s not what I said.

I said it’s more fun. Meaning, I’d rather have to make decisions and use my abilities to get sneak attack than just attack any target from anywhere and get it automatically. Even if it’s not “hard”.

Funny how people complain that the fighter is just “I attack” but the rogue requires even the tiniest bit more interactivity and the reaction is “why can’t it be automatic?”


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> here is the thing... 3 new core books will cost WotC money to make, and they will (fairly) expect it to make Core Book money backk for the investment. IF they are not planing on selling it to the current players (or at least most current players) they must be hopeing the number of new players if brings in will be on par or over the amount of current players not buying it.



And?

Seems to me that a lot of current players won't care if the books have a small amount of changes, because any amount of new material is fine to spend their cash on and they'll buy them.  It's $200 and we have 2 years to save our cash to buy them.  For some of us, putting $8 a month in our sock drawer for when the times comes is not that much of an issue.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Why?  I really don't get why new art is so important that some people will buy expensive products they already own so they can look at new pictures.



If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.  Nothing wrong with that, people are just different. I am an amateur artist and a professional designer (architect) so maybe that plays into it. I am a visual person and am more inspired by visual art than written art (though both inspire me more than movies generally do).


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Its undeniable, however, that a fair number of people here would like changes that are in advance (by a little or a lot) of what that model would ever be able to accomplish.



not just what we want now... but that module would have us still useing Thac0,


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> Why?  I really don't get why new art is so important that some people will buy expensive products they already own so they can look at new pictures.



Some people eschew the book content altogether and just buy art! Wacky I know!

Edit:: to be clear I meant art like art books or sculpture or drawings, not a book of rules just for art. Thiugh im shure there are some, it’s not what I meant.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bill Zebub said:


> Uhhh….that’s not what I said.
> 
> I said it’s more fun. Meaning, I’d rather have to make decisions and use my abilities to get sneak attack than just attack any target from anywhere and get it automatically. Even if it’s not “hard”.
> 
> Funny how people complain that the fighter is just “I attack” but the rogue requires even the tiniest bit more interactivity and the reaction is “why can’t it be automatic?”



except if it is so easy to just get it most to all turns what are you really working for?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Li Shenron said:


> "Including Tasha's free classes boosts" and "being 5e backward compatible" are... not compatible. Unless those free boosts are in the DMG under a paragraph labelled as optional.



Just to clarify this is not what is normally meant by not being backwards compatible.

Changes are normally considered backwards compatible when there are no knock-on changes that mean that you need to clarify which ruleset you are using. So, for example 3.0 -> 3.5 was not backwards compatible change because they did things like change the shape of a horse from 5ft by 10ft to a 10ft square (leaving nothing rectangular in the game) and tweaked the skill list, removing skills such as Animal Empathy, Innuendo, and Read Lips that (theoretically) apply to every character. Meanwhile if just the 3.0 bard and ranger had been replaced with the 3.5 versions that would have been entirely backwards compatible as you could play a 3.5 bard alongside a 3.0 wizard and no one would care. It would also be considered backwards compatible if spells were erratad (as Haste was) as long as fundamental rules were unchanged.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Its undeniable, however, that a fair number of people here would like changes that are in advance (by a little or a lot) of what that model would ever be able to accomplish.



And there are some of us who would like changes that will never happen (like me), but it is not big deal if can do them myself easily.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> And?
> 
> Seems to me that a lot of current players won't care if the books have a small amount of changes, because any amount of new material is fine to spend their cash on and they'll buy them.  It's $200 and we have 2 years to save our cash to buy them.  For some of us, putting $8 a month in our sock drawer for when the times comes is not that much of an issue.



um... why would you put ANY money into something that you can just keep useing the old one? and how many people do you think would rather rebuy the core 3 books then buy new add on books?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

dave2008 said:


> If you don't get it, I can't explain it to you.  Nothing wrong with that, people are just different. I am an amateur artist and a professional designer (architect) so maybe that plays into it. I am a visual person and am more inspired by visual art than written art (though both inspire me more than movies generally do).



would not a art book for D&D (or any adventure or new book with new content AND art) do the same but without rebuying things?


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> except if it is so easy to just get it most to all turns what are you really working for?



I get what @Bill Zebub is saying, but I don't think I can explain it better.  I think you just need to accept that people are different and we enjoy different things.


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> Do you think ANY edition has improved on previous ones?



Not many, but yes. 4E was an improvement on 3X in just about every way imaginable. Layout & design, art, rules, balance, monsters, encounter design, teaching people how to run and play, etc. 5E was an improvement on 4E in a few places, namely playability, though massive steps back in many ways, like monsters, encounter design, balance, rules, etc. 


GMforPowergamers said:


> yes an evergreen game sounds good in theory, but think how stagnant that is... no growth no change?



No growth and change? The core will remain and likely be slightly altered over time, but WotC will always put out new splat books. New spells, new feats, new subclasses, new classes (maybe), new modules, new settings, etc. There will always be growth and change.


----------



## Yaarel

darjr said:


> His main points are: *Make 5.5 Fully 5e Compatible*. Include Easier Encounter Building. Include "Theater of the Mind" Guidelines for Combat. Strengthen High-CR Monsters. Fix Certain Spells and Abilities. Include Tasha Upgrades. Provide Less Problematic Race Descriptions. Update the System Resource Document under the Open Gaming License. Leave the Rest Be.



Oh.

So.

5.5 it is.

More like 5e refinements and developments.


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> would not a art book for D&D (or any adventure or new book with new content AND art) do the same but without rebuying things?



Yes and no. I can only buy what they produce.  And for some reason I do like buying a Monster Manual more the a "Dragons" book or whatever.  The art is really important to me, but even more so when a stat block comes with it.  I'm still a DM after all.  So it is not just art, but art is a huge component for me.

To give an example, I completely skipped 3e because I couldn't stand the graphic design.  Different things matter to different people


----------



## darjr

You give and you take as DM. If the rogue has to have conditions to do sneak attack then as a DM you can take that away and preserve verisimilitude. Like a mage needing to be able to talk and wiggle their fingers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Neonchameleon said:


> Just to clarify this is not what is normally meant by not being backwards compatible.
> 
> Changes are normally considered backwards compatible when there are no knock-on changes that mean that you need to clarify which ruleset you are using. So, for example 3.0 -> 3.5 was not backwards compatible change because they did things like change the shape of a horse from 5ft by 10ft to a 10ft square (leaving nothing rectangular in the game) and tweaked the skill list, removing skills such as Animal Empathy, Innuendo, and Read Lips that (theoretically) apply to every character. Meanwhile if just the 3.0 bard and ranger had been replaced with the 3.5 versions that would have been entirely backwards compatible as you could play a 3.5 bard alongside a 3.0 wizard and no one would care. It would also be considered backwards compatible if spells were erratad (as Haste was) as long as fundamental rules were unchanged.



the 3.0-3.5 changes took pages and pages (a whole free booklet at Gencon that year) to explain... and still very few if any people truely used it as backwards compatible...


----------



## Reynard

Obviously we can't assume our discussions here are representative. I spend only a little time on reddit and none on twitter, so I don't know what the attitudes are there, but it seems to me that encouraging rampant speculation is a bad thing. I wonder if they will just tell people straight out what 2024 is going to look like, sooner rather than later. If this is a minor revision -- something more along the lines of the black border 2E reprint -- it would be good to know that going ahead. Fears of too big a change might cool book sales for the next 2 years, and if 2024 really is about future growth, it shouldn't matter if current players give it a pass until they need to release their books.

The real question, i think, is what is it going to look like relative to Beyond. Does Beyond become _necessary_ with the new "edition"? I have no conception of how many people are using Beyond compared to how many buy books and what the crossover is between those two groups. What percentage of people that play D&D only buy via Beyond, versus only buy paper? What percentage play on a VTT? Which ones? Those all seem much more relevant questions than whether the ranger gets another crappy redesign, or whether gnomes finally get excised from the multiverse.


----------



## darjr

Yaarel said:


> Oh.
> 
> So.
> 
> 5.5 it is.



_sigh_

Note, again, Ray didn’t specify exactly how Mike’s going to be happy.


----------



## rooneg

Reynard said:


> The real question, i think, is what is it going to look like relative to Beyond. Does Beyond become _necessary_ with the new "edition"? I have no conception of how many people are using Beyond compared to how many buy books and what the crossover is between those two groups. What percentage of people that play D&D only buy via Beyond, versus only buy paper? What percentage play on a VTT? Which ones? Those all seem much more relevant questions than whether the ranger gets another crappy redesign, or whether gnomes finally get excised from the multiverse.



There is absolutely zero chance that Beyond will become "necessary" to play 5.5e. It would be so far from everything they've said about backwards compatibility that it's not even in the realm of the possible.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> No growth and change? The core will remain and likely be slightly altered over time, but WotC will always put out new splat books. New spells, new feats, new subclasses, new classes (maybe), new modules, new settings, etc. There will always be growth and change.



again... if this was 1996 that would mean we would still need thac0 today... no growth or change will not help mass markets going forward


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> the 3.0-3.5 changes took pages and pages (a whole free booklet at Gencon that year) to explain... and still very few if any people truely used it as backwards compatible...



I dint think that’s true. I think many people didn’t have any idea that they were.

I give you the Forgotten Realms Setting book as evidence. To this day I remind people that it is a 3.0 book.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

GMforPowergamers said:


> um... why would you put ANY money into something that you can just keep useing the old one? and how many people do you think would rather rebuy the core 3 books then buy new add on books?




Well, in addition to the fact that the 5e PHB (for example) _continues to sell very well_, there are a few factors-

1. People who bought early in the cycle ... well, they will want to _replace their old books_. If you play a lot, the wear and tear eventually gets to them. Stuff spills. Pages and bindings get a little frazzled, etc. 

2. Others will simply want a new version because their older books do not have all of the _collected errata and updates_. It's a one-stop shop instead of having to remember all the changes spread across multiple sources.

3. Some people will be gaming with new entrants to the game, and those people will be playing with the new books. So you might want to buy them so that you can stay consistent.

4. Of course, if you are among the contingent of people who doesn't play 5e but enjoys complaining about it on this forum, you need to buy the books to make sure your complaints can be sourced! Or ... just keep referring to the SRD. Yes, other people notice.  

5. Some people really enjoy new art, too!

6. Finally, this isn't a massive investment. When you compare the cost to, say, a major videogame, or going to the movies, or dining out, the cost of the core three RPG book as an investment in a decade of RPG playing seems ... more than reasonable.

Now, all of that said- everyone is different. But there will be a large number of people that will want to keep current- in addition to the constant influx of new entrants.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Everyone in this thread, Ray, and everyone at WotC should be reaching out to Steve Winter and Skip Williams, because these are the exact same questions and comments that they went through when 2e was planned.  They could probably answer a lot of them from lessons they learned.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> Uhhh….that’s not what I said.
> 
> I said it’s more fun. Meaning, I’d rather have to make decisions and use my abilities to get sneak attack than just attack any target from anywhere and get it automatically. Even if it’s not “hard”.
> 
> Funny how people complain that the fighter is just “I attack” but the rogue requires even the tiniest bit more interactivity and the reaction is “why can’t it be automatic?”



I think the issue is that people feel it's just theatre and _not _actually making decisions and using abilities to get SA. As long as you can weasel the DM and play the meta game (which I guess is skilled play of a sort), you get it.

I'd love to have decisions and abilities in 5e, but real ones rather than all roads leading to the one result.


----------



## Reynard

rooneg said:


> There is absolutely zero chance that Beyond will become "necessary" to play 5.5e. It would be so far from everything they've said about backwards compatibility that it's not even in the realm of the possible.



How are "backwards compatibility" and Beyond related?


----------



## darjr

Several OSR games have BOTH thac0 and ascending AC. It’s possible to do both at the same time and so I think it would have been possible to introduce it to an existing edition. In fact I think it might have been a less controversial change for many.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Micah Sweet said:


> I just don't see why anyone who is playing now would buy these if the changes are as minor as everybody says.



They are incremental. Since I'm already using Tasha's and MoM, further changes are small. If you are still using launch day 5.00, then the changes will be much bigger.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> I wonder if they will just tell people straight out what 2024 is going to look like, sooner rather than later. If this is a minor revision -- something more along the lines of the black border 2E reprint -- it would be good to know that going ahead.



yes 100% this... back then I didn't buy that black boardered PHB cause I had one already... knowing that will set expectations.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Micah Sweet said:


> It is obvious to me that they never intended for those changes to be optional.  They just wanted people to think they were at first.



Everything is optional. House rules are actively encouraged.


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> um... why would you put ANY money into something that you can just keep useing the old one? and how many people do you think would rather rebuy the core 3 books then buy new add on books?



So you’ve never changed editions of any RPG? You still play the first edition you came across of every RPG you’ve every played? That’s wild.


----------



## rooneg

Reynard said:


> How are "backwards compatibility" and Beyond related?



You're not talking about the existence of Beyond, you're talking about Beyond being "necessary" to play in some sense. The current game is exceedingly far from requiring something like Beyond to play, so I can't envision a world in which a backward compatible version of the game changed it sufficiently such that you could reasonably say that Beyond was needed to play it.


----------



## payn

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Well, in addition to the fact that the 5e PHB (for example) _continues to sell very well_, there are a few factors-
> 
> 1. People who bought early in the cycle ... well, they will want to _replace their old books_. If you play a lot, the wear and tear eventually gets to them. Stuff spills. Pages and bindings get a little frazzled, etc.
> 
> 2. Others will simply want a new version because their older books do not have all of the _collected errata and updates_. It's a one-stop shop instead of having to remember all the changes spread across multiple sources.
> 
> 3. Some people will be gaming with new entrants to the game, and those people will be playing with the new books. So you might want to buy them so that you can stay consistent.
> 
> 4. Of course, if you are among the contingent of people who doesn't play 5e but enjoys complaining about it on this forum, you need to buy the books to make sure your complaints can be sourced! Or ... just keep referring to the SRD. Yes, other people notice.
> 
> 5. Some people really enjoy new art, too!
> 
> 6. Finally, this isn't a massive investment. When you compare the cost to, say, a major videogame, or going to the movies, or dining out, the cost of the core three RPG book as an investment in a decade of RPG playing seems ... more than reasonable.
> 
> Now, all of that said- everyone is different. But there will be a large number of people that will want to keep current- in addition to the constant influx of new entrants.



7. Folks (like me) that never bought the original prints and might be interested in a refreshed PHB, DMG, MM.


----------



## Reynard

rooneg said:


> You're not talking about the existence of Beyond, you're talking about Beyond being "necessary" to play in some sense. The current game is exceedingly far from requiring something like Beyond to play, so I can't envision a world in which a backward compatible version of the game changed it sufficiently such that you could reasonably say that Beyond was needed to play it.



I put "necessary" in quotes for a reason. I am implying more or a marketing and distribution form.
For example: what happens if they move DMsGuild to Beyond? Or, what happens if they pull VTT licenses? That sort of thing.


----------



## Nikosandros

WotC should take a page from AD&D 1e and move back the combat rules to the DMG. Try not to read it now!


----------



## billd91

GMforPowergamers said:


> again... if this was 1996 that would mean we would still need thac0 today... no growth or change will not help mass markets going forward



Nothing like hyperbole to make an argument sound like it makes sense. 
Switching AC to ascending is a pretty easy conversion - there's no reason to think it couldn't be a change made in an evolutionary context - rather like CoC changing how professional skill points are calculated a couple of times, changing how Luck works, switching to a % for stat checks, adding some advantage/disadvantage mechanics, etc. over the course of its life.


----------



## Yaarel

Personally, I want:

• Systematically calibrated spells list.
• Theater of the Mind combat.

Tashas and race revamps are standard for me. Mind Theater is too but I appreciate the rules supporting it better.

Making DMing easier is generally good idea, like encounter building and reliable CR assessment.

There are a few more things I want to see. So, not so much "leave it be". But a focus on making 5e better is a solid product.


----------



## tetrasodium

UngeheuerLich said:


> The hit point increase in the latest two editions came with the decrease of AC and the Idea that recovering HP is easy and possible during short rests.



That shift is not without consequences though.  Shifting the gane from players getting better magic items & working together with competence to _survive_ as it was makes one of those a trivializing problem element the gm is still expected to provide somewhat regularly while the other is swapped out for working together to hold the session hostage & bully the gm into accepting the players _demand_ a rest *now*.  


That shift is hardly  fair position 5e puts the gm in, it's just a position that makes them easier to dismiss when their frustrations can be painted as a complaint that ayers no longer "earn it".  Things might work for a while but the GM has a huge influence on what game a group plays & 5e runs into trouble there by relying heavily on the experience & ability to deeply grok the system obtained running past editions for years while obfuscating what a new gm would need to obtain it leaving them wondering why they have so much trouble when they _seem_ to be doing everything they should be.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> So you’ve never changed editions of any RPG? You still play the first edition you came across of every RPG you’ve every played? That’s wild.



no, I upgraded from 2e to 3e because we were having issues with 2e 3e was supposed to solve. We quite 3e and came back for 4e... we held onto 4e for a while but wanted to try to bring back players that left and 5e was the compromise... but even today most of us are not happy with 5e. 
      Today we are hopeing for a 6e to fix issues we have.

Rifts I loved the setting but not the system so I got savage world rifts... and no one will play it with me.

Deadlands we liked the original game more then savage world so we still play that.

SHadow run it is an older edition we would play if we were to start a new game

World of Darkness is funny... we tried to update to new systems and didn't like most of it but wanted to take some ideas back to the old world of darkness but the system didn't always work... when V20th and M20th and W20th came out we went to those finding that system suiting us best... another new world of darkness came out and we ignored it... we had a system we liked

the 3 games of Call of Cathulu I have played/run were all out dated editions becuse someone had the books.

we only got into TORG after the relaunch.


----------



## CapnZapp

Vaalingrade said:


> "Leave the rest to be"
> 
> Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.



Either it is a new edition or it is the same.


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> um... why would you put ANY money into something that you can just keep useing the old one? and how many people do you think would rather rebuy the core 3 books then buy new add on books?



Because buying new copies of old books that have edits and small changes made to them isn't a problem?

You might as well ask why I would buy a new pair of sneakers when my old pair still fits?  It's because I'd like a new pair of sneakers.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> I still think front loading HP but having less (like PCs with over 100hp should be rare high level characters, and getting even close to 200 should not be possible) would make the game flow better...
> 
> a barbarian with a 20 con at 12th level has 12+60+11d12 (min 11 avg 77 max 132) for about 140hps... at 12th level. by 20th level that character can easily have (remember now a 24 con) 12+140+19d12 (min 19 avg 133 max 228) about 290hps




I don't disagree here.
5e playtest started with a bit of frontloading but it was rejected.
I stated with level 0 characters and 6+4+2x con recently and it worked quite well. I think giving everyone a buffer of 10 hp or so, then only adding a fixed number for a class (without con bonuses) and just keeping the classic hit dice with con bonuses for regenerating, would be a good Idea.


----------



## Sacrosanct

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes 100% this... back then I didn't buy that black boardered PHB cause I had one already... knowing that will set expectations.



I created a poll to get a better idea around this topic.


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> I think the issue is that people feel it's just theatre and _not _actually making decisions and using abilities to get SA. As long as you can weasel the DM and play the meta game (which I guess is skilled play of a sort), you get it.
> 
> I'd love to have decisions and abilities in 5e, but real ones rather than all roads leading to the one result.



There are lots of decisions and abilities that come into play in 5e. Or a least there can be, depending on what and/or how you play.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

billd91 said:


> Nothing like hyperbole to make an argument sound like it makes sense.
> Switching AC to ascending is a pretty easy conversion - there's no reason to think it couldn't be a change made in an evolutionary context - rather like CoC changing how professional skill points are calculated a couple of times, changing how Luck works, switching to a % for stat checks, adding some advantage/disadvantage mechanics, etc. over the course of its life.



because what ever printing did away with Thac0 would be the big change people are saying to avoid (even though those big changes saved the game multi times now)


----------



## CapnZapp

overgeeked said:


> Eh. Maybe it's too late for me and I'm doomed to be Team Old Grog Yells at Clouds.



Welcome!


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> I think the issue is that people feel it's just theatre and _not _actually making decisions and using abilities to get SA. As long as you can weasel the DM and play the meta game (which I guess is skilled play of a sort), you get it.




Except...sometimes you just can't get it.  And sometimes it does in fact take a bit of cleverness, using cunning action and movement.

And god forbid there's "theater" in a roleplaying game.  /shudder

EDIT: I get it that "real" decisions are more desirable, and I agree.  But that makes it sound like, "If I can't have exactly what I want I don't want anything at all!"  Which is an...interesting...position.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

CapnZapp said:


> Either it is a new edition or it is the same.



I would add "or half edition that both sides will have issues with" as a 3rd option


----------



## UngeheuerLich

tetrasodium said:


> That shift is not without consequences though.  Shifting the gane from players getting better magic items & working together with competence to _survive_ as it was makes one of those a trivializing problem element the gm is still expected to provide somewhat regularly while the other is swapped out for working together to hold the session hostage & bully the gm into accepting the players _demand_ a rest *now*.
> 
> 
> That shift is hardly  fair position 5e puts the gm in, it's just a position that makes them easier to dismiss when their frustrations can be painted as a complaint that ayers no longer "earn it".  Things might work for a while but the GM has a huge influence on what game a group plays & 5e runs into trouble there by relying heavily on the experience & ability to deeply grok the system obtained running past editions for years while obfuscating what a new gm would need to obtain it leaving them wondering why they have so much trouble when they _seem_ to be doing everything they should be.




I am not sure what you want to say here, but we tried to bully or DM into getting a rest in ADnD.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would add "or half edition that both sides will have issues with" as a 3rd option



Or half edition everyone is happy with?


----------



## Vaalingrade

CapnZapp said:


> Either it is a new edition or it is the same.



D&D has historically disagreed with its half editions.

I was just hoping for what 3.5 said it was going to be, only ending up with good changes rather than 'undead are inherently evil for reasons and you need magic to stir'.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

CapnZapp said:


> Either it is a new edition or it is the same.



It's not going to be marketed as a new edition, but it won't be the same as the rules released in 2014.

D&D is simply marketed as D&D, not "5e". In a sense "editions" are dead. Welcome to patches.


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> no, I upgraded from 2e to 3e because we were having issues with 2e 3e was supposed to solve. We quite 3e and came back for 4e... we held onto 4e for a while but wanted to try to bring back players that left and 5e was the compromise... but even today most of us are not happy with 5e.
> Today we are hopeing for a 6e to fix issues we have.



Cool. So answered your own question.


----------



## Jer

GMforPowergamers said:


> except how do you gradually change from AC 10 through -10 and Thac0 to bonus to hit and ascending AC?



You release a supplement showing how to do ascending AC as an optional rule and then in the next revision it becomes the actual rule.


GMforPowergamers said:


> how do you gradually change from 6 different charts to 1 unified formula for stats?



You release a supplement showing how to consolidate the stat charts into a single chart as an optional rule, and then in the next revision it becomes the actual rule.


GMforPowergamers said:


> how do you gradually change from non weapon prof and % skills to a skill system like we have now?



Release the supplement, optional rule, next revision it's the standard rule.

In fact that's a good example because non weapon proficiencies _entered the game_ via a supplement in 1e and then become an official rule in the 2e PHB.  That's the process I'm talking about.


GMforPowergamers said:


> sooner or later the editions HAVE to make major changes



Sure - but you can seed the ground beforehand so that when you do make the major changes everyone knows they're coming and many folks have already been using them.  Tasha's and MoM are both really good examples of this kind of approach and are part of the evidence of why I think that Wizards is planning on taking this approach.

Also again - D&D was in a very different spot when Wizards released 3e than they are with 5e.  3e came after TSR has basically been basically intentionally ignoring any game design that didn't come from within TSR itself.  3e was the "catch up" edition where D&D was brought up to date with where RPGs basically were in the 90s.  5e isn't suffering from being 2 decades behind in game design the way that D&D was when 3e game out.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> Because buying new copies of old books that have edits and small changes made to them isn't a problem?
> 
> You might as well ask why I would buy a new pair of sneakers when my old pair still fits?  It's because I'd like a new pair of sneakers.



I guess I WOULD ask why someone would buy new shoes if there old ones were still good...

Yes somepeople collect (books, shoes, what ever) but we can't assume most people do...


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bill Zebub said:


> Except...sometimes you just can't get it.  And sometimes it does in fact take a bit of cleverness, using cunning action and movement.
> 
> And god forbid there's "theater" in a roleplaying game.  /shudder
> 
> EDIT: I get it that "real" decisions are more desirable, and I agree.  But that makes it sound like, "If I can't have exactly what I want I don't want anything at all!"  Which is an...interesting...position.



you can just aim now


----------



## Sacrosanct

GMforPowergamers said:


> except how do you gradually change from AC 10 through -10 and Thac0 to bonus to hit and ascending AC?



OSR games already do this.  They have the older way of doing it, and then the ascending way in ().  Admittedly other areas are more problematic (like saving throws), but some things are pretty simple.


----------



## overgeeked

GMforPowergamers said:


> I guess I WOULD ask why someone would buy new shoes if there old ones were still good...
> 
> Yes somepeople collect (books, shoes, what ever) but we can't assume most people do...



Considering how many “DMs” have clearly never bothered cracking open the DMG and how many “players” don’t understand the basic mechanics of the game, maybe we should assume far more people are collectors rather than actually gaming with these books.


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> I guess I WOULD ask why someone would buy new shoes if there old ones were still good...
> 
> Yes somepeople collect (books, shoes, what ever) but we can't assume most people do...



Nor should we.  But why would that impact what people choose to produce, and what others choose to buy?

If WotC finds they have a reason to edit, change and print a new set of 3 core books... and there are people out there who are happy to buy new core rule books... why wouldn't we expect that exchange of goods for money to take place?

And if there are others who choose not to buy... that's fine too.  Not every book is going to be bought by every person.


----------



## darjr

Supplements that change core rules go back to the very beginning of D&D. D6 damage for every weapon was core before a supplemental book changed it.

A supplement changed out an entire combat section.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

overgeeked said:


> Cool. So answered your own question.



no becuse again... we upgrade when we buy new (or hope to then turn back) we don't buy new the same system (You could argue we did with 3.5 but my current group all agree we should have just quite D&D then until 4e came out)


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> I wonder if they will just tell people straight out what 2024 is going to look like, sooner rather than later. If this is a minor revision -- something more along the lines of the black border 2E reprint -- it would be good to know that going ahead. hether the ranger gets another crappy redesign, or whether gnomes finally get excised from the multiverse.



I feel like they have told it us what it is going to be, but people still don't believe them. I guess they can be more explicit, but it is still 2 years out. I assume they want some wiggle room at this point.


----------



## CapnZapp

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would add "or half edition that both sides will have issues with" as a 3rd option



Well, quick zinger aside, no not really.

Either it is perceived as compatible or it is not.

Your "half edition" shares with "completely new edition" what probably is a fatal flaw - dividing up the customer base in two camps.

The only way to prevent that is to do more of a 5.1 edition regardless what it is named.

I would be very surprised if WotC doesn't err on the side of caution, basically just compiling what now exists in various supplements in a new PHB.

I would be very surprised if WotC did something akin to 3.5, an edition that claimed to be compatible with 3.0 but really isn't, thanks to changing a zillion little things. Trying to play in a 3.5 group with the 3.0 books was hopeless, and that's what causes customer bases to split.

While such a strategy certainly could be successful I highly doubt WotC is inclined to give it a go now.


----------



## Vaalingrade

CapnZapp said:


> Your "half edition" shares with "completely new edition" what probably is a fatal flaw - dividing up the customer base in two camps.



So does 'releasing a new book with vibrant colors on the cover'. This is D&D fans we're talking about.


----------



## Yaarel

Tales and Chronicles said:


> If including Tasha's optional class features in core is the extent of their revision, I'll be sad.
> 
> While those changes were nice, some more deep tinkering is needed in some cases. I'm thinking 4E Monks, the bland progression of Fighters and Wizards, the ''table scraps'' feel of the Sorcerer chassis, extra spells for PHB's Rangers etc
> 
> My hope is that a ''revisit'' of the PHB goes a little farther than just quality of life improvement without going full-on experimental.



I expect some tinkering with classes.

But probably with preview UA articles without too many surprises when 2024 comes out.


----------



## dave2008

CapnZapp said:


> Either it is perceived as compatible or it is not.



That is a different stance than your previous statement: it is the same or a new edition. The '24 books can be different, but compatible.


----------



## Bill Zebub

GMforPowergamers said:


> you can just aim now




....and give up your movement.  Which has been known to be useful. 

That's known in the vernacular as "a trade-off".

Also, ranged rogues are lame.


----------



## Reynard

dave2008 said:


> I feel like they have told it us what it is going to be, but people still don't believe them. I guess they can be more explicit, but it is still 2 years out. I assume they want some wiggle room at this point.



"Mike Shea is going to be happy" is NOT telling us what it is. Just look at this thread.


----------



## Jer

Micah Sweet said:


> Its undeniable, however, that a fair number of people here would like changes that are in advance (by a little or a lot) of what that model would ever be able to accomplish.



Sure that's understandable.  But there's a difference between "what I want" and "what I think Wizards is going to do" or even "what I think makes the most financial sense for Wizards to do".

What I want is for them to put out a perfect game by my standards.  What I think makes the most financial sense for Wizards to do is to look at the sell through on their current 5e rulebooks and see if they can sustain that sell through for as long as possible.  If their sell through really is as good as everything suggests it is then they would be foolish to change the game in a major way at this point even if they do it in ways that I think make for a better game because they are far more likely to kill the golden goose that is pumping out golden eggs for them right now than they are to do anything else.  The time for a major shake-up edition is when the game has fallen into the doldrums and sales are bad - you don't make major changes to a game when sales are at an all time high.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> Nor should we.  But why would that impact what people choose to produce, and what others choose to buy?



to me it's not... but selling something that will last and then hoping to resell it is not the way business works today... this is why people talk about planned obsolescing.   the point is (or at least was before the pile on here) that WotC has more incentive to get people to buy the books... not just new people but the people who are playing today.

never in a million years would I have guess "Just selling as a growing market and not to current base isn't a great strategy" would be so controversial a statement. 


DEFCON 1 said:


> If WotC finds they have a reason to edit, change and print a new set of 3 core books... and there are people out there who are happy to buy new core rule books... why wouldn't we expect that exchange of goods for money to take place?



um what???  who said anything about not expecting exchanges of goods for money?  


DEFCON 1 said:


> And if there are others who choose not to buy... that's fine too.  Not every book is going to be bought by every person.



correct, but my post was about how the investment in core books over years would expect core book money comeing in...

but this is an assumption on my part. WotC could be like "Hey I want this new book and I am publishing for me not you" and that is fine, it's there money and there IP


----------



## tetrasodium

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am not sure what you want to say here, but we tried to bully or DM into getting a rest in ADnD.



Difference being that it took long enough & the game was dangerous enough to pcs back then that you needed more than a closet and could easily wind up worse than you were before digging in.  The 5e rules ensure that it's practically guaranteed to succeed and never result in backsliding.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

CapnZapp said:


> ur "half edition" shares with "completely new edition" what probably is a fatal flaw - dividing up the customer base in two camps.



yup... my number 1 fear right there...  just enough change to get people mad not enough change so it makes others mad... basicly standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars going both ways.


CapnZapp said:


> I would be very surprised if WotC doesn't err on the side of caution, basically just compiling what now exists in various supplements in a new PHB.



and then again that seems to ALSO be a risk... because the players who have the 2014phb (some that bought it in last year or so) and have tasha's need a reason to buy a new book... some will buy it to collect, some to not 'have  to carry both' but that one in a digital age seems less likely. 


CapnZapp said:


> I would be very surprised if WotC did something akin to 3.5, an edition that claimed to be compatible with 3.0 but really isn't, thanks to changing a zillion little things. Trying to play in a 3.5 group with the 3.0 books was hopeless, and that's what causes customer bases to split.



that is what I have been saying


CapnZapp said:


> While such a strategy certainly could be successful I highly doubt WotC is inclined to give it a go now.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I see it as more of a change from 3.0 to 3.5, I think 3.5 was "backwards compatible" with 3.0, you wouldn't be too lost if you used the newer content. For the most part 3.0 played it relatively safe for mechanics and story ideas with the possible exception of the Psionics Handbook, 3.5 started to experiment more in both mechanics and story, some things landed better like the Warlock class and Expanded Psionics Handbook (which made the Psionics Handbook completely obsolete), other things flopped like Magic of Incarnum and most of the Tome of Magic.


----------



## CleverNickName

Micah Sweet said:


> The fact that those "optional" rules immediately became the law of the land moving forward makes that claim by WotC suspicious.



If they put those "optional" rules in the _Player's Handbook,_ yes.  For better or worse, all of those so-called Optional Rules that get printed in the PHB (feats, multiclassing, variant humans, etc.) become 'the law of the land' and all players will assume that they are available for use in all campaign settings.  It creates a lot of work for DMs who do not wish to employ those rules in their games.  (Ask me how I know!)

Meanwhile, all other optional rules (Spell Points, Renown, Mixing Potions, etc.) that were printed in the _Dungeon Master's Guide _are not assumed to be ever-present and available...they languish unnoticed in the DMG, barely read by anyone.  Players don't build their sorcerers with the Spell Point variant without checking with their Dungeon Master first, and they don't automatically start rolling on the Spell Mishap table when they botch a spell scroll.

All that to say:  if a rule is to be truly optional for all games, it cannot be printed in the _Player's Handbook_.  Otherwise, it's not really an optional rule.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

GMforPowergamers said:


> yup... my number 1 fear right there... just enough change to get people mad not enough change so it makes others mad... basicly standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars going both ways.



The point of backwards compatibility is no one needs to change right away. As with the Tasha's rules, you can have characters made with them, and characters made with the old rules in the same game, and nothing breaks.


GMforPowergamers said:


> need a reason to buy a new book...



They don't need to sell every new book to every current player. That isn't WotC's business model. New players will buy the new books, old players can continue to use their old books until they wear out.


----------



## darjr

Yea, I do intend to keep around the old PHBs even if I set them back in preference to the newer ones.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Paul Farquhar said:


> They don't need to sell every new book to every current player. That isn't WotC's business model. New players will buy the new books, old players can continue to use their old books until they wear out.



nor was that my argument (complete warrior 2 or dragon magic, or martial heroes, or ravenloft do NOT need to sell to everyone)

my argument is the investment in new core books will expect core book returns.


let me put this another way.  If come 2024 wotc finds that less then 50% (even if we say 49.5%) of people who are playing the game buy 1 of the new 3 core books do you think that will be a success in there minds?  (remember 3.5 outsold 3e 4e outsold 3.5 and 5e outsold 4e)


----------



## Paul Farquhar

GMforPowergamers said:


> nor was that my argument (complete warrior 2 or dragon magic, or martial heroes, or ravenloft do NOT need to sell to everyone)
> 
> my argument is the investment in new core books will expect core book returns.
> 
> 
> let me put this another way.  If come 2024 wotc finds that less then 50% (even if we say 49.5%) of people who are playing the game buy 1 of the new 3 core books do you think that will be a success in there minds?  (remember 3.5 outsold 3e 4e outsold 3.5 and 5e outsold 4e)



They will expect the new editions of the core rules to sell in the same way as the current editions, *which continue to have good sales*.

They are simply updated replacements to keep the game current. They are not intended as cash cows.


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> nor was that my argument (complete warrior 2 or dragon magic, or martial heroes, or ravenloft do NOT need to sell to everyone)
> 
> my argument is the investment in new core books will expect core book returns.
> 
> 
> let me put this another way.  If come 2024 wotc finds that less then 50% (even if we say 49.5%) of people who are playing the game buy 1 of the new 3 core books do you think that will be a success in there minds?  (remember 3.5 outsold 3e 4e outsold 3.5 and 5e outsold 4e)



Do you mean existing players?
If so I think it’s possible WotC could be happy. 
For instance they’ve sold a lot of PHBs, if half those people buy one of the new core I. The first year that would be a lot of books!
Second, I dint think most of the new purchased PHBs are going to existing customers and if the new books are good I think that will
continue.


----------



## overgeeked

CapnZapp said:


> Your "half edition" shares with "completely new edition" what probably is a fatal flaw - dividing up the customer base in two camps.



Every release does this, which is why there are so many camps in 5E fandom. Those who play RAW, those who don't. Those who play core three only, those who don't. Those who play with Gritty Realism, those who don't. Those who play with only core three plus one book, those who play anything official. Those who use 3PP, those who don't. Those who use Tasha's, those who don't. Those who allow Eberron, those who don't. Those who allow Theros, those who don't. Those who use official modules, those who don't. 

Every book released creates factions and camps. Every one. When new editions come out, even half editions, the overwhelmingly vast majority of fans get onboard. It's only happened...twice...that the bulk of fans didn't adopt a new edition with enthusiasm.


CapnZapp said:


> The only way to prevent that is to do more of a 5.1 edition regardless what it is named.



Which is exactly what they've said they're doing. We don't know if that's what they're actually doing. But it is their stated intent.


----------



## Jer

billd91 said:


> My PH is doing fine, but my Monster Manual has a substantial section that has broken out of its binding. I'll have no difficulty justifying buying a new one in 2024 as long as its compatible with the rest of my 5e kit.



My MM is also the book that has received the most abuse and is most in need of replacing (I blame myself - I will stuff notes into the book sometimes and I suspect that I broke the binding by doing it).  I'd be getting a new one sooner or later even if there weren't a revision coming along (in fact I'd probably get one sooner if I didn't know that there would be a revised one coming in 2 years tbh).


----------



## Paul Farquhar

CapnZapp said:


> The only way to prevent that is to do more of a 5.1 edition regardless what it is named.



It would be 5.3. Tasha's was 5.1, MoM was 5.2.


----------



## overgeeked

CleverNickName said:


> If they put those "optional" rules in the _Player's Handbook,_ yes.  For better or worse, all of those so-called Optional Rules that get printed in the PHB (feats, multiclassing, variant humans, etc.) become 'the law of the land' and all players will assume that they are available for use in all campaign settings.  It creates a lot of work for DMs who do not wish to employ those rules in their games.  (Ask me how I know!)
> 
> Meanwhile, all other optional rules (Spell Points, Renown, Mixing Potions, etc.) that were printed in the _Dungeon Master's Guide _are not assumed to be ever-present and available...they languish unnoticed in the DMG, barely read by anyone.  Players don't build their sorcerers with the Spell Point variant without checking with their Dungeon Master first, and they don't automatically start rolling on the Spell Mishap table when they botch a spell scroll.
> 
> All that to say:  if a rule is to be truly optional for all games, it cannot be printed in the _Player's Handbook_.  Otherwise, it's not really an optional rule.



Weirdly, the one house rule I got no push back on was banning multiclassing. It mostly seems to be a hard-core power gamer thing to insist on multiclassing. Maybe I just got lucky in that regard.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> If you're supposed to have Sneak Attack all the time, what's the point of there being conditions on it at all?  Why not just add the damage straight to their attacks as a class feature?



I mean, that's why theybadded a free ability to make that more clear. And maybe even more explicit in the new Core.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Paul Farquhar said:


> They are not intended as cash cows.



true I forgot they didn't care about sales... Your right I give up


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Do you mean existing players?
> If so I think it’s possible WotC could be happy.
> For instance they’ve sold a lot of PHBs, if half those people buy one of the new core I. The first year that would be a lot of books!
> Second, I dint think most of the new purchased PHBs are going to existing customers and if the new books are good I think that will
> continue.



okay you win


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Interviews and social media posts are a terrible way to communicate design intent.  Not everyone follows the designers on Twitter.  If you're not going to make your intent explicit in the game itself, at least put it on your website.  4e got that right at least with their pre-edition books.



Yet people seem to get that Rogues are supposed to be able to Sneak Attack, by and large. It's already in the rules as written, making the rules as intended more clear is the role of revisions.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

overgeeked said:


> Weirdly, the one house rule I got no push back on was banning multiclassing. It mostly seems to be a hard-core power gamer thing to insist on multiclassing. Maybe I just got lucky in that regard.



The curious thing I have noticed about multiclassing is the players who use it tend to make gimped characters with it. I haven't banned it, but I try to discourage it, because I get things like monk/wizards!


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> You know which other company assumed indefinite growth?



Who said anything about indefinite? But if their core audience is teenagers, not 40-somethings, then it is reasonable to expect new books to sell primarily to teenagers.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> I mean, that's why theybadded a free ability to make that more clear. And maybe even more explicit in the new Core.



Sure. But that just adds cruft to the game. It doesn't work as intended so they add more rules to make it work as intended. 

Or, they could simply make it explicit in the first place. That seems like the cleaner, more clear design route to take. 

Obfuscate the intend behind rules that the referee can possibly misinterpret, then patch things to remove that potential for misinterpretation...or simply be explicit in your design in the first place.


----------



## DEFCON 1

GMforPowergamers said:


> never in a million years would I have guess "Just selling as a growing market and not to current base isn't a great strategy" would be so controversial a statement.



I presume it's because of what appears to be your assumption that no current players of D&D are going to buy the new books?  Unless that is not what you are saying, in which case I have misunderstood what you are trying to get across.


----------



## bedir than

Paul Farquhar said:


> They are simply updated replacements to keep the game current. They are not intended as cash cows.



I expect a high end anniversary set to be a cash cow though. Maybe a bundle of original Gygax basic with the 50th anniversary edition


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm not a huge fan of tricking the players into thinking something is challenging when it isn't.



That's kind if the game, though: the odds are always stacked for the house, and in 5E the players are the House.


----------



## Yaarel

Regarding creature challenge rating.

I hope 2024 translates all "CR" formulas into plain character "Level" formulas.

If a level 8 party fights a level 10 monster, great.

If a level 8 party fights a level 6 monster, great.

If a level 8 party fights five level 4 monsters, great.

Stick with "levels" as the unit of measurement. Make it easy for the DM to know how to go about this when pulling together an encounter on the fly.


----------



## dave2008

Reynard said:


> "Mike Shea is going to be happy" is NOT telling us what it is. Just look at this thread.



No, I'm not talking about the tweet at all, but it does reinforce what they have already told us. I'm referring too when they announced the '24 edition. They said it will be backward compatible and the books released before '24 could be used with the updated core books. They said they would playtest somethings before '24 via UA (IIRC). I can't remember 100% if they said it will contain errata but that is my recollection. Then later they have repeatedly said that MotM and changes in the recent adventures / setting books preview what we will see in the '24 updates. They have given every indication it will be minor incremental changes that we have already seen.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Weirdly, the one house rule I got no push back on was banning multiclassing. It mostly seems to be a hard-core power gamer thing to insist on multiclassing. Maybe I just got lucky in that regard.



It has literally never, ever come up. Also, that's not a houserule, the PHB notes that it using Multiclassing is a variant, not a standard rule.


----------



## Yaarel

Micah Sweet said:


> It is obvious to me that they never intended for those changes to be optional.  They just wanted people to think they were at first.



I agree. But the designers did test the waters before full implementation.

There were things the designers wanted to do, but werent able at the time. Such as, dropping the jargon of "race", and using "species" instead.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> New art is literally the worst reason I can think of to re-buy a book i already own.



That's literally my main motivation for buying most RPG books. No compelling art, no sale. And I know that I'm not unique. I went for Monsters of the Multiverse because of the new art.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

GMforPowergamers said:


> true I forgot they didn't care about sales... Your right I give up



The thing about cash cows is they bring in short term profit but alienate the customer base and harm long term profits. The difference between Hasbro and TSR and (indy)WotC is they look to LONG TERM profits, not just surviving into the next quarter.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can't imagine someone sitting in a business and saying "Most of our customers wont want this, but some will... but don't worry we are opening up new markets with it" and it ending well for them.
> 
> Edit: Okay we have this smash hit TV series... lets end it and make this spin off that isn't going to be for the old TV fans...



What data do you have to suggest that new art isn't a motivating factor for most customers...?


----------



## Paul Farquhar

bedir than said:


> I expect a high end anniversary set to be a cash cow though. Maybe a bundle of original Gygax basic with the 50th anniversary edition



But that cash would still come in even if they made no rule changes at all.


----------



## dave2008

CleverNickName said:


> All that to say:  if a rule is to be truly optional for all games, it cannot be printed in the _Player's Handbook_.  Otherwise, it's not really an optional rule.



I disagree.  I would reverse that and say it is only option if it is in the PHB. As you noted, so few even realize optional rules are in the DMG.


----------



## Parmandur

Jer said:


> How does baseline Risk sell copies every single year without changing the rules?  Or Catan?  Or any other evergreen game?
> 
> If we've actually moved into a world where D&D has become a real mass market game rather than the purview of a small number of hobbyists who need to be milked for their cash like cows every 10 years, that would actually be a good thing IMO.  The game shouldn't be changing so much that they have to force players to buy new rules every decade to "stay current" to turn a profit on the game.  If they're able to reach a point where they can get a consistent profit from new players aging into the game combined with people having to replace books periodically, then that's actually an astonishingly good thing for D&D as a game and for Wizards as a company.  Even if there are a lot of folks who wish that D&D had settled into being that kind of game at some different point in its development history.
> 
> If the game ever hits that point - whether its now or in the future - then I could see a cycle where every decade or so a revised rulebook is published to gather together errata, cleaner explanations of existing rules, and any new rules that have been published in the interim.  That's basically how Call of Cthulhu works for example and it's on its 7th edition.  D&D is in a weird state where everyone expects edition changes to be huge changes to the game because of how 3rd edition brought 20+ years of game development advances into the game all at once, but it doesn't actually have to be that way.
> 
> Also - and I think this gets underestimated - tying themselves to DDB means that any major changes to the game have to be supported by DDB or else they lose all of that work the same way they basically threw away all of the 4e tools when 5e came out.  When they bought DDB that was another mark to me that they were planning on the core of the game being pretty stable long term because if they were thinking about making big changes, the DDB purchase would have been a bad move on their part.



All of this, absolutely. And I think D&D has hit that critical cultural threshold to be something one just gets their 12 year old nibbling or godchild as a Christmas present, like Monopoly or Risk. And Hasbro is an expert at that sort of evergreen product.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

DEFCON 1 said:


> I presume it's because of what appears to be your assumption that no current players of D&D are going to buy the new books?



1st I didn't say none, I gave no estimate... second I give up fine 


DEFCON 1 said:


> Unless that is not what you are saying, in which case I have misunderstood what you are trying to get across.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> It has literally never, ever come up. Also, that's not a houserule, the PHB notes that it using Multiclassing is a variant, not a standard rule.



LOL. No one in any of your games has every multiclassed? You're lucky.

That it's not a house rule is the point. Every player so completely assumes that multiclassing is standard that I had to exclude it as a house rule. That speaks to the other poster's point. If it's in the PHB it's standard. That's how players treat things in the PHB, even when they're called out as "optional."


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> here is the thing... 3 new core books will cost WotC money to make, and they will (fairly) expect it to make Core Book money backk for the investment. IF they are not planing on selling it to the current players (or at least most current players) they must be hopeing the number of new players if brings in will be on par or over the amount of current players not buying it.



I am sure many current players will buy...but the core audience for a 2024 is people born in the Teens.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Paul Farquhar said:


> The thing about cash cows is they bring in short term profit but alienate the customer base and harm long term profits. The difference between Hasbro and TSR and (indy)WotC is they look to LONG TERM profits, not just surviving into the next quarter.



okay you win... I admit I was wrong


----------



## Parmandur

billd91 said:


> There have been innovations brought into the CoC rules over time, in relatively small steps. If WotC gets into that mode with D&D, I could be reasonably content.
> Plus books do wear out eventually if you tote them around from game session to game session. My PH is doing fine, but my Monster Manual has a substantial section that has broken out of its binding. I'll have no difficulty justifying buying a new one in 2024 as long as its compatible with the rest of my 5e kit.



Tbisnis precisely what they are signaling is the path moving forwards.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> What data do you have to suggest that new art isn't a motivating factor for most customers...?



none, your right. I was being silly


----------



## bedir than

Yaarel said:


> Such as, dropping the jargon of "race", and using "species" instead.



This never happened.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes and no... WotC totally changed it... but basic 1e and 2e have as much in common as any 2 editions of Call of Cthulhu...



Well, and there's the ticket: WotC has said the 3.x and 4E huge sweeping change approach was a mistake, that they don't want to repeat. They've said that over and over since 2014.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I am sure many current players will buy...but the core audience for a 2024 is people born in the Teens.



okay. I will assume going forward wotc does not need or want our money.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Well, and there's the ticket: WotC has said the 3.x and 4E huge sweeping change approach was a mistake, that they don't want to repeat. They've said that over and over since 2014.



okay... I get it I was wrong.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Its undeniable, however, that a fair number of people here would like changes that are in advance (by a little or a lot) of what that model would ever be able to accomplish.



What is a "fair number"? If 90%+ of customers are happy playing 5E, and a stable ruleset continues to sell to younger customers with a tiny refresh...why should they ever pursue sweeping changes?


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay. I will assume going forward wotc does not need or want our money.



It's nice to have, not central to their busses.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> It's nice to have, not central to their busses.



Okay. I apologize. I have admitted I was wrong.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> It is obvious to me that they never intended for those changes to be optional.  They just wanted people to think they were at first.



Do you mean option for '24? Because they are 100% optional now.  We don't use them.  Of course, even if they are the default in the '24 edition they are still optional. We will not use them in our games and it will still work wonderfully.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Sure. But that just adds cruft to the game. It doesn't work as intended so they add more rules to make it work as intended.
> 
> Or, they could simply make it explicit in the first place. That seems like the cleaner, more clear design route to take.
> 
> Obfuscate the intend behind rules that the referee can possibly misinterpret, then patch things to remove that potential for misinterpretation...or simply be explicit in your design in the first place.



It's not possible.to be 100% clear at all times. That's why iteration is helpful. Some people misunderstood the rules, so they provided a patch to help tableproof the Rogue and other Classes.


----------



## darjr

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay you win



It is possible that a smaller fraction of those folks buy the new book. At a certain level it could be bad. How many previous PHB buyers are not paying attention to D&D marketing now and won’t know if a new PHB drops?

But if they can maintain current levels of PHB sales or close to it it’ll be a success.

Note I dint think the above is a certainty.


----------



## dave2008

bedir than said:


> This never happened.



@Yaarel  is predicting it will happen in the '24 edition. I think they are probably correct that "race" will be dropped, but I am not sure the replacement will be "species."


----------



## Retreater

I was talking to my friend (a PF1 player) at GenCon that a new edition or update is likely in the next couple years. His comment, "it seems a little soon for that."
I explained to him that time moves differently now that we're adults, and that 5e has already been out longer than many other editions. He has lamented not even really delved into this edition, that he was waiting to introduce his group to it until it had "settled in." 
I know this anecdote isn't really relevant to the current conversation, but I found it amusing. And it's also worth noting that gamers who don't buy stuff are obviously not the target audience.


----------



## dave2008

Retreater said:


> I was talking to my friend (a PF1 player) at GenCon that a new edition or update is likely in the next couple years. His comment, "it seems a little soon for that."
> I explained to him that time moves differently now that we're adults, and that 5e has already been out longer than many other editions. He has lamented not even really delved into this edition, that he was waiting to introduce his group to it until it had "settled in."
> I know this anecdote isn't really relevant to the current conversation, but I found it amusing. And it's also worth noting that gamers who don't buy stuff are obviously not the target audience.



I think it is at least relevant in that the '24 edition my be considered "settled in" to your friend and his ilk.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> LOL. No one in any of your games has every multiclassed? You're lucky.
> 
> That it's not a house rule is the point. Every player so completely assumes that multiclassing is standard that I had to exclude it as a house rule. That speaks to the other poster's point. If it's in the PHB it's standard. That's how players treat things in the PHB, even when they're called out as "optional."



Not in 5E, not since 3.x really. Amd no, multiclassing and Feats have never come into play in my experience for 5E.


----------



## Parmandur

Retreater said:


> I was talking to my friend (a PF1 player) at GenCon that a new edition or update is likely in the next couple years. His comment, "it seems a little soon for that."
> I explained to him that time moves differently now that we're adults, and that 5e has already been out longer than many other editions. He has lamented not even really delved into this edition, that he was waiting to introduce his group to it until it had "settled in."
> I know this anecdote isn't really relevant to the current conversation, but I found it amusing. And it's also worth noting that gamers who don't buy stuff are obviously not the target audience.



I mean, gosh, 8 years. That's more than 3E and 3.5 combined.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> It is possible that a smaller fraction of those folks buy the new book. At a certain level it could be bad. How many previous PHB buyers are not paying attention to D&D marketing now and won’t know if a new PHB drops?
> 
> But if they can maintain current levels of PHB sales or close to it it’ll be a success.
> 
> Note I dint think the above is a certainty.



okay. Please don't tag me again. I am giving up on this arguemnt. you win


----------



## payn

Parmandur said:


> I mean, gosh, 8 years. That's more than 3E and 3.5 combined.



I know this is a joke, but if you took the 3E to 3.5 to PF1 route, that is 15-20 years with basically the same edition. It's very easy to loose track of specifics in that haul.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> Uhhh….that’s not what I said.
> 
> I said it’s more fun. Meaning, I’d rather have to make decisions and use my abilities to get sneak attack than just attack any target from anywhere and get it automatically. Even if it’s not “hard”.
> 
> Funny how people complain that the fighter is just “I attack” but the rogue requires even the tiniest bit more interactivity and the reaction is “why can’t it be automatic?”



Not the same thing, at all.  If rogues are supposed to get their bonus damage all the time, there's no reason to gate it behind advantage while simultaneously making it easy for them to get advantage.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> It's not possible.to be 100% clear at all times. That's why iteration is helpful.



Absolutely.


Parmandur said:


> Some people misunderstood the rules, so they provided a patch to help tableproof the Rogue and other Classes.



The rules were unclear, hence the misunderstanding. The designers could have table-proofed the rogue if they'd designed their intent clearly into the class. The designers meant for the rogue to always get their sneak attack damage. The designers then obfuscated that fact behind conditions for getting sneak attack damage and stealth rules that were unclear and open to interpretation. So it's an own goal if ever there was one. They could have 1) simply made the rogues sneak attack damage a regular thing they can just do, like say the battlemaster's superiority dice, or; 2) they could have made the stealth rules more clear, or; 3) both. They chose 4) none of the above.


Parmandur said:


> Not in 5E, not since 3.x really. And no, multiclassing and Feats have never come into play in my experience for 5E.



Wow. I honestly think you're the only person I've ever talked to that hasn't used one or the other. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone who hasn't used feats.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> And?
> 
> Seems to me that a lot of current players won't care if the books have a small amount of changes, because any amount of new material is fine to spend their cash on and they'll buy them.  It's $200 and we have 2 years to save our cash to buy them.  For some of us, putting $8 a month in our sock drawer for when the times comes is not that much of an issue.



Yet more evidence that I don't understand a lot of current players.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> Some people eschew the book content altogether and just buy art! Wacky I know!



I would never buy a game book primarily for the art.  It is incomprehensible to me.


----------



## delericho

dave2008 said:


> @Yaarel  is predicting it will happen in the '24 edition. I think they are probably correct that "race" will be dropped, but I am not sure the replacement will be "species."



Until about a week ago, I would have agreed with this. However, given the size of the change required (one word), I would have expected the new Starter Set to make the change and be done, and yet the pregens for that one still use 'race'.

So I wouldn't be surprised either way - keep it, or change it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> And there are some of us who would like changes that will never happen (like me), but it is not big deal if can do them myself easily.



Again, if you can and often do do it yourself, why drop $200 on a set of barely changed books?


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> You give and you take as DM. If the rogue has to have conditions to do sneak attack then as a DM you can take that away and preserve verisimilitude. Like a mage needing to be able to talk and wiggle their fingers.



If you can take it away, then it shouldn't be intended that you should have it all the time.  Pick a side, WotC.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, if you can and often do do it yourself, why drop $200 on a set of barely changed books?



And that's the one that gets me. So, if there are a nearly infinite number of games out there and one or more are bound to do what you want...why not look for those games and play them instead of continuing to buy into a game you know you'll have to house rule to get to play how you want? I mean, if you're house ruling things anyway, buy the game that's closest to your end result and have less work to do.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> I would never buy a game book primarily for the art.  It is incomprehensible to me.



I was talking about art. Just art. The game materials are a bonus.

Edit: ok I added a clarification.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> I dint think that’s true. I think many people didn’t have any idea that they were.
> 
> I give you the Forgotten Realms Setting book as evidence. To this day I remind people that it is a 3.0 book.



The setting material in FRCS is much more important than the rules info.  It's why it's still a great supplement today.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> If you can take it away, then it shouldn't be intended that you should have it all the time.  Pick a side, WotC.



They did. You can take it away as a DM. The “all the time” is a straw man.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> The setting material in FRCS is much more important than the rules info.  It's why it's still a great supplement today.



True. Buts it’s also got tons of rules. I thought you’d never buy a book just for the art?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Paul Farquhar said:


> Everything is optional. House rules are actively encouraged.



That has nothing to do with WotC's intention that those rules be the new standard from the moment they were conceived and subsequently published.


----------



## TwoSix

My personal hope is that the new PHB is both backwards compatible, in that the overall math and skills are the same, and pre-2024 subclasses work fine in the 2024 class chassis.  I also hope it's very much _new_, with all the old races, plus a few new ones, the same classes + 1 or 2 new ones, brand new subclasses for the old classes, even if some the 2014 subclasses get dropped, and both new and updated spells and new and updated feats.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

tetrasodium said:


> Difference being that it took long enough & the game was dangerous enough to pcs back then that you needed more than a closet and could easily wind up worse than you were before digging in.  The 5e rules ensure that it's practically guaranteed to succeed and never result in backsliding.



I am not sure it is entirely a rules problem.
But I do agree that the healing rule need an overhaul.


----------



## Jer

Retreater said:


> I was talking to my friend (a PF1 player) at GenCon that a new edition or update is likely in the next couple years. His comment, "it seems a little soon for that."
> I explained to him that time moves differently now that we're adults, and that 5e has already been out longer than many other editions.



5e will have been out for 10 years if it's released in August of 2024.  And visually it's the same book as it was in 2014 right now - no change to the art or to the trade dress.  Not even a different logo.  It's kind of wild to me that that's the case - 3e and 4e both got revisions during their shorter runs.  1e got a facelift with new cover art about midway through it's over 10 year run and 2e not only got new covers it also got entirely new internal art midway through its 10 year run.  A 5e PHB book on the shelf today is indistinguishable on the outside from a 5e PHB book sold in 2014. It's kind of wild when you think about it.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> again... if this was 1996 that would mean we would still need thac0 today... no growth or change will not help mass markets going forward



Considering the continued sales of the PHB however many years it's been, clearly "growth" is still happening, despite no major functional changes.

We all have our Edition axes to grind, but let's at least accept what appears clear.

5e is comically successful, and doesn't even need change to continue to grow.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> There are lots of decisions and abilities that come into play in 5e. Or a least there can be, depending on what and/or how you play.



Sadly, not in character advancement past level 3.  After that, the choices are nearly all made for you.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Micah Sweet said:


> Yet more evidence that I don't understand a lot of current players.



Why is it important to you to understand current players?

You only play with your own players.  So they're the only ones you need to understand.  Understanding me gets you nothing.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> That has nothing to do with WotC's intention that those rules be the new standard from the moment they were conceived and subsequently published.



Agreed. It’s why I’m glad they are hinting at their approach.

Still I think he has a point. I think house ruling is an unseperable part of it. It’s also one reason I like 5e, it’s one of the editions that embraced that, imho.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> They did. You can take it away as a DM. The “all the time” is a straw man.



In the PHB the referee could take it away. With the revision of the class in Tasha's the referee can no longer take it away, couple that with the designers flat out saying it was their intent that the rogue could always use sneak attack, and presto..."all the time." As long as the rogue can take bonus actions they get sneak attack damage. Other than slow is there anything in the game that takes away a PCs' ability to take bonus actions?


----------



## darjr

Jer said:


> 5e will have been out for 10 years if it's released in August of 2024.  And visually it's the same book as it was in 2014 right now - no change to the art or to the trade dress.  Not even a different logo.  It's kind of wild to me that that's the case - 3e and 4e both got revisions during their shorter runs.  1e got a facelift with new cover art about midway through it's over 10 year run and 2e not only got new covers it also got entirely new internal art midway through its 10 year run.  A 5e PHB book on the shelf today is indistinguishable on the outside from a 5e PHB book sold in 2014. It's kind of wild when you think about it.



There have been subtle changes.
For instance the cover, it’s more embossed, at least it seems like it to me.
Also I think the binding has changed a couple times.
And the paper and printing too. I think. It feels different anyway.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jer said:


> Sure that's understandable.  But there's a difference between "what I want" and "what I think Wizards is going to do" or even "what I think makes the most financial sense for Wizards to do".
> 
> What I want is for them to put out a perfect game by my standards.  What I think makes the most financial sense for Wizards to do is to look at the sell through on their current 5e rulebooks and see if they can sustain that sell through for as long as possible.  If their sell through really is as good as everything suggests it is then they would be foolish to change the game in a major way at this point even if they do it in ways that I think make for a better game because they are far more likely to kill the golden goose that is pumping out golden eggs for them right now than they are to do anything else.  The time for a major shake-up edition is when the game has fallen into the doldrums and sales are bad - you don't make major changes to a game when sales are at an all time high.



Then why make changes at all?  Especially ones like the rewrites on races and monsters that are guaranteed to not make everyone happy.


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> In the PHB the referee could take it away. With the revision of the class in Tasha's the referee can no longer take it away, couple that with the designers flat out saying it was their intent that the rogue could always use sneak attack, and presto..."all the time." As long as the rogue can take bonus actions they get sneak attack damage. Other than slow is there anything in the game that takes away a PCs' ability to take bonus actions?



Tied up and bound? Honest question, I can’t look it up at the moment.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> Tied up and bound?



Cool. So the rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not tied and bound or effected by the slow spell. But otherwise all the time.


----------



## OB1

overgeeked said:


> In the PHB the referee could take it away. With the revision of the class in Tasha's the referee can no longer take it away, couple that with the designers flat out saying it was their intent that the rogue could always use sneak attack, and presto..."all the time." As long as the rogue can take bonus actions they get sneak attack damage. Other than slow is there anything in the game that takes away a PCs' ability to take bonus actions?



No, but having disadvantage on the roll (from invisibility or many other possibilities) does negate the sneak attack from Steady Aim.


----------



## Argyle King

CleverNickName said:


> A while ago on Reddit, there was a discussion about the "upcoming edition" of D&D, and people were quickly divided into two camps.
> 
> One group insists...
> 
> The other group insists that they are going to bundle all of the 5E books into a revised set of the core rules, and call it "the Deluxe Edition" or something.  They insist that this new book will just be a reprint of the core rulebooks plus the added material from _Xanathar's, Tasha's, Fizban's, _and so forth.  This camp insists that we've already seen everything that they are going to include, and it's intended as an item of convenience--a way to have everything neatly in one place.  Most of it was wishful thinking as well, in my opinion:  some people genuinely want 5E to be the elusive 'evergreen' edition of D&D.
> 
> Obviously, the new product will fall somewhere between the two camps.  But it sounds like it'll land a lot closer to Team Evergreen.




Funny enough, one of the last books for 3rd Edition was a Rules Compendium. The nice organized bundle of rules was put out right before the Edition was put out to pasture.


Edit: I looked up the dates to refresh my memory.

3E Rules Compendium - October 2007
4E PHB, DMG, and MM - June 2008


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> Cool. So the rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not tied and bound or effected by the slow spell. But otherwise all the time.



I think sometimes folks are to situational for my taste.

If the quoted post is true there is room for a DM to rule other cases. Some unforeseen.

Edit: naive was a autocorrect, not kidding. My phone is trying to kill me.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Paul Farquhar said:


> They will expect the new editions of the core rules to sell in the same way as the current editions, *which continue to have good sales*.
> 
> They are simply updated replacements to keep the game current. They are not intended as cash cows.



I don't think that's true.  They are putting significant creative and (especially) marketing effort into making new core books.  It seems odd that they wouldn't expect core book sales from them.


----------



## overgeeked

OB1 said:


> No, but having disadvantage on the roll (from invisibility or many other possibilities) does negate the sneak attack from Steady Aim.



Cool. So three. The rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not: tied and bound, effected by the slow spell, or at disadvantage. But otherwise all the time.


----------



## Reynard

DEFCON 1 said:


> Why is it important to you to understand current players?
> 
> You only play with your own players.  So they're the only ones you need to understand.  Understanding me gets you nothing.



That's a very narrow view of the hobby. There are many people playing at conventions, at game stores and, more and more, online. Understanding the community and the general desires of "other players" makes for a broader pool of players. The isolated group is increasingly the minority, I think.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> Yet people seem to get that Rogues are supposed to be able to Sneak Attack, by and large. It's already in the rules as written, making the rules as intended more clear is the role of revisions.



Do they?  People keep telling me that this forum is not representative.


----------



## Reynard

Argyle King said:


> Funny enough, one of the last books for 3rd Edition was a Rules Compendium. The nice organized bundle of rules was put out right before the Edition was put out to pasture.



Which was actually a really great thing to do. They knew some people would be sticking with 3.5 for a long time and they gave them a "going away present."


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> Cool. So three. The rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not: tied and bound, effected by the slow spell, or at disadvantage. But otherwise all the time.



That last one is a yawning gulf of DM arbitration though.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> That's kind if the game, though: the odds are always stacked for the house, and in 5E the players are the House.



Maybe in your game.  In mine, if I intend the players to see a situation as challenging, it is.


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> Which was actually a really great thing to do. They knew some people would be sticking with 3.5 for a long time and they gave them a "going away present."



I bought that book and kinda loved it. I never used it.

My sons however, 3.5 being their intro to D&D, took it with them. One of them anyway, not sure which one….


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> I think sometimes folks are to situational for my taste.
> 
> If the quoted post is true there is room for a DM to rule other cases. Some unforeseen.



The whole game is predicated on situational calls and rulings. That's a feature not a bug. The problem with the rogue is that some players felt nerfed because their referee's ruled things in such a way to reduce the amount of sneak attacks the rogue could use. So WotC needed to fix things by adding steady aim, thus removing (or seriously limiting) the referee's ability to make those specific calls. The rules cannot cover everything and the designers certainly shouldn't try to. That way lies madness. 

But, if the design intent is one thing the designers should not hide that behind layers of rules and rules interactions. The designers have said point blank that the rogue is designed around the assumption that it can always sneak attack. But, instead of designing the class that way, they chose to leave it up to the referee...only to come in later and add in steady aim to fix their initial mistake.


darjr said:


> Edit: naive was a autocorrect, not kidding. My phone is trying to kill me.



Seriously, turn off your autocorrect. It's more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## Argyle King

Reynard said:


> Which was actually a really great thing to do. They knew some people would be sticking with 3.5 for a long time and they gave them a "going away present."




For some people, it likely was. I bought the book.

I never really used it though. A year later, 4E came out and was different enough that there wasn't really a way to still use the material. 

For my friends who did stick with 3rd, they had switched over to Pathfinder. While PF wasn't officially released until 2009, playtest documents were available before that. 

I'm not upset that I bought the book. But, with hindsight, my choice likely would have been different.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Do you mean option for '24? Because they are 100% optional now.  We don't use them.  Of course, even if they are the default in the '24 edition they are still optional. We will not use them in our games and it will still work wonderfully.



And if the Tasha's changes are fully integrated into the 2024 core, as I expect?  Will they still be optional then, in any sense beyond your personal belief system?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

delericho said:


> Until about a week ago, I would have agreed with this. However, given the size of the change required (one word), I would have expected the new Starter Set to make the change and be done, and yet the pregens for that one still use 'race'.




I think one of the main reasons the new Starter Set didn't include character gen rules was future proofing. The most significant changes in the Anniversary Edition are likely to be character gen related, so all you need to update the Starter Set is to switch out the pregen sheets in the appropriate print run.


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> The whole game is predicated on situational calls and rulings. That's a feature not a bug. The problem with the rogue is that some players felt nerfed because their referee's ruled things in such a way to reduce the amount of sneak attacks the rogue could use. So WotC needed to fix things by adding steady aim, thus removing (or seriously limiting) the referee's ability to make those specific calls. The rules cannot cover everything and the designers certainly shouldn't try to. That way lies madness.
> 
> But, if the design intent is one thing the designers should not hide that behind layers of rules and rules interactions. The designers have said point blank that the rogue is designed around the assumption that it can always sneak attack. But, instead of designing the class that way, they chose to leave it up to the referee...only to come in later and add in steady aim to fix their initial mistake.
> 
> Seriously, turn off your autocorrect. It's more trouble than it's worth.



Eh, I kinda like it the way the rogue sneak attack works. But I kinda see your point.

As for autocorrect, no, oh no, you wouldn’t want to read my posts with it off.

That’s my secret cap, I’m always autocorrect.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> And that's the one that gets me. So, if there are a nearly infinite number of games out there and one or more are bound to do what you want...why not look for those games and play them instead of continuing to buy into a game you know you'll have to house rule to get to play how you want? I mean, if you're house ruling things anyway, buy the game that's closest to your end result and have less work to do.



This is virtually the entire reason I bought into Level Up.  It is closest to what I want.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> They did. You can take it away as a DM. The “all the time” is a straw man.



I thought Perkins said it was supposed to be all the time in one of those mysterious social media posts and interviews that the devs think communicate their game design intentions adequately.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> True. Buts it’s also got tons of rules. I thought you’d never buy a book just for the art?



I'm talking about visual art, not writing.  And I think you know that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

DEFCON 1 said:


> Why is it important to you to understand current players?
> 
> You only play with your own players.  So they're the only ones you need to understand.  Understanding me gets you nothing.



Well, I am a gamer in 2022, and I do encounter new players.  We just had two new players join our group a few weeks ago, and I don't understand their perspective.


----------



## Reynard

Argyle King said:


> For some people, it likely was. I bought the book.
> 
> I never really used it though. A year later, 4E came out and was different enough that there wasn't really a way to still use the material.
> 
> For my friends who did stick with 3rd, they had switched over to Pathfinder. While PF wasn't officially released until 2009, playtest documents were available before that.
> 
> I'm not upset that I bought the book. But, with hindsight, my choice likely would have been different.



The rules compendium was released after the 4E announcement so


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm talking about visual art, not writing.  And I think you know that.



I do. And sorry just trying to be a bit funny. 

Apologies.

I do think plenty of people played with 3.0 content using 3.5 rules. Even PCs. I think people remember the issues but forget all the times it just worked. 

The FR book was just an easy at hand example but still an apt one imho. Lots of rules that I personally saw get used in 3.5. In fact one if the folks that had to get told it was a 3.0 book was my very self.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Reynard said:


> That's a very narrow view of the hobby. There are many people playing at conventions, at game stores and, more and more, online. Understanding the community and the general desires of "other players" makes for a broader pool of players. The isolated group is increasingly the minority, I think.



If this was the case then I'd expect more people to be a lot more open here on the boards about playing all different styles of D&D and not getting bent out of shape that the game does things they don't like.  If they have no choice but to play with huge numbers of random people... then they should be much more open about how they play.

But that doesn't seem often to be the case.  Rather, people are just as fixated now as ever on how they think D&D should play... and how WotC keeps messing that up by introducing changes here and there... making it more and more likely that that person will never be able to find a game at a convention, game store or online.  If you have a set way of playing D&D and you need to play that way and only that way... then you're going to have to work extra-hard to find a group that can match.

That's the whole reason for actually playing in a home group (or established online group)-- you can get a group of players that WILL play in exactly the style you want your D&D to be and you can play that way consistently.  And at that point, it doesn't matter what WotC or any other player does to the game.


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> The rules compendium was released after the 4E announcement so



Really? I must have forgotten. That’s actually kinda cool.


----------



## Reynard

darjr said:


> Really? I must have forgotten. That’s actually kinda cool.



I just checked. 4E was announced at GenCon 2007 and the Rules Compedium was released October 2007.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> And if the Tasha's changes are fully integrated into the 2024 core, as I expect?  Will they still be optional then, in any sense beyond your personal belief system?



There's two things that affect what's optional. There's official and there's expectation. 

Feats and multiclassing and Tasha's floating racial bonuses are officially optional. But they're all expected to be the standard by most players. With each new book they become increasingly less officially optional and increasingly more expected as standard. Feats as part of backgrounds means they're no longer optional. All new races using the Tasha's floating bonuses means they're no longer optional. Etc. I don't expect the revision to maintain the illusion that those things are optional.


darjr said:


> Eh, I kinda like it the way the rogue sneak attack works. But I kinda see your point.



I don't really have a horse in the race as I mostly referee, but it would be nice if the design actually matched the intent of the designers.


darjr said:


> As for autocorrect, no, oh no, you wouldn’t want to read my posts with it off.
> 
> That’s my secret cap, I’m always autocorrect.



The way I see it is that since I have to re-read my texts and posts anyway to make sure autocorrect hasn't screwed up, I might as well turn it off and edit my stuff where necessary.


----------



## OB1

overgeeked said:


> Cool. So three. The rogue gets to sneak attack as long as they're not: tied and bound, effected by the slow spell, or at disadvantage. But otherwise all the time.



Yes, exactly.  Not getting sneak attack should be a rarish occurrence for a rogue.  Steady Aim helps accomplish that.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> And if the Tasha's changes are fully integrated into the 2024 core, as I expect?  Will they still be optional then, in any sense beyond your personal belief system?



It depends how the implement them whether or not the default state is optional (like multiclassing, feats, and magic items) or not. They could be, but I think they are making the change.

However, I as asking because it seemed like you were saying because of some future product, that you don't have to buy, might include these features that means those features are not optional now.  They are 100% optional now.

Personally, anything that doesn't change how the game is played is pretty optional IMO. Whether or not characters even has a +2 to one stat and +1 to another has little impact on the game IMO. So yes, it is very much optional to me.


----------



## overgeeked

OB1 said:


> Yes, exactly. Not getting sneak attack should be a rarish occurrence for a rogue. Steady Aim helps accomplish that.



Yes, exactly. All I was trying to say when this tangent started is that the designers meant for the game to work a particular way, so they should have designed the game to explicitly work that way from the start. Not hide their intent behind layers of rules and rules interactions. If they wanted the rogue to always get sneak attack (which they've said they did), then the game should have been explicitly designed that way from the start, not patched later to make it work that way. That's all.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Sadly, not in character advancement past level 3.  After that, the choices are nearly all made for you.



My players chose what to do every round of every combat or social encounter. Those are the choices we care about.  I realize that is not enough for some, but that is what I was talking about. Choices in game, not so much during character creation. Of course Tasha's did add some additional options beyond 4th for all classes IIRC, so maybe they will expand on that in the '24 edition for you.


----------



## Reynard

It just struck me at exactly how long lived 5E has been. 8 Published years so far, plus 2 more before 5.xE or whatever, plus another year of Next? That is a long edition cycle. Only 1E was longer, I think. Maybe 2E if you just do math but it was dead for 3 years of its "life" -- so, undead?


----------



## darjr

Reynard said:


> It just struck me at exactly how long lived 5E has been. 8 Published years so far, plus 2 more before 5.xE or whatever, plus another year of Next? That is a long edition cycle. Only 1E was longer, I think. Maybe 2E if you just do math but it was dead for 3 years of its "life" -- so, undead?



I’d just like to add that WotC has owned D&D longer than TSR.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Again, if you can and often do do it yourself, why drop $200 on a set of barely changed books?



Because though I am a decent artist - I am not that good (nor do I have the time). Organization and errata and small tweaks are nice two.  That is worth spending some money to me.  How much is TBD in 2 years. 

And even if it was completely changed, it still wouldn't have the changes I want (and they may change things I don't want).  So there is always an amount of doing it yourself. At this point we have modified 5e pretty much to make the game perfect for us, so I don't want much change.  

Also, where are you getting $200 from?


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> If you can take it away, then it shouldn't be intended that you should have it all the time.  Pick a side, WotC.



Curious, why do you think it is intended to be used all the time.  Sneak Attack, IIRC, has always been situational.

EDIT: I do like fence straddling in game design myself, but I get why it frustrates some


----------



## overgeeked

dave2008 said:


> My players chose what to do every round of every combat or social encounter. Those are the choices we care about.  I realize that is not enough for some, but that is what I was talking about. Choices in game, not so much during character creation. Of course Tasha's did add some additional options beyond 4th for all classes IIRC, so maybe they will expand on that in the '24 edition for you.



There was a great thread over on RPG.net about combat that talked about the differences between games, activities, puzzles, and how the fun of a thing diminishes once it's solved. Here's the link. The longer an edition lasts, the more "solved" it becomes. There are clear winners and losers in regards to: character design choices (at one end intentionally nerfing your stats for character, at the other end pure power gaming), combat (there are optimal strategies in just about every situation), etc. Importantly, some are restricted to edition, but others are not.

There's a certain joy to finding neat interactions in the rules, but that diminishes over time as there are fewer to discover. This is limited to edition. With each new edition the hunt begins again. But, as the edition wears on, these are found, talked about, spread around, so the excitement dies down eventually. Only to be renewed with each new edition.

There's a certain joy to finding strategies to combat, but that diminishes over time as there are fewer to discover. Over time combat becomes completely solved as there aren't really any new things going on. No matter how much flair you give a fight or what objective you put in or what terrain you use, etc...it all comes down to a few factors that are repeated endlessly. New editions only change one or two inputs slightly. PC abilities and monster stats. But combat is still a long-since solved equation.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> It depends how the implement them whether or not the default state is optional (like multiclassing, feats, and magic items) or not. They could be, but I think they are making the change.
> 
> However, I as asking because it seemed like you were saying because of some future product, that you don't have to buy, might include these features that means those features are not optional now.  They are 100% optional now.
> 
> Personally, anything that doesn't change how the game is played is pretty optional IMO. Whether or not characters even has a +2 to one stat and +1 to another has little impact on the game IMO. So yes, it is very much optional to me.



As was said above, they are officially optional, but expected as standard, like feats and multiclassing.  I am using both definitions, because both apply.


----------



## OB1

overgeeked said:


> Yes, exactly. All I was trying to say when this tangent started is that the designers meant for the game to work a particular way, so they should have designed the game to explicitly work that way from the start. Not hide their intent behind layers of rules and rules interactions. If they wanted the rogue to always get sneak attack (which they've said they did), then the game should have been explicitly designed that way from the start, not patched later to make it work that way. That's all.



I think the original intent was to have the rogue always attacking an enemy who's engaged with an ally to get sneak attack, with various options to sometimes get sneak attack when not doing that.  Those additional methods always come with some sort of cost (subclass choice, risk of hide not working, 0 movement for the turn, etc).  Stead Aim is just one more option of many.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> New art.
> 
> But anyone playing now isn't the target audience, new players are.



New art, new race write ups (biggest change we will see), cleaned up language in places that have frustrated a large enough percentage of players, and probably some minor quality of life upgrades to a few classes. 



Parmandur said:


> I honest to goodness have looked over that post several times, and do not see that there.



Part of it is in the post before that that you also quoted, but that recognition is then referenced in the post in question. At no point was it reasonable to try to explain editions in publishing to me. 


Parmandur said:


> At any rate, they will do what they do: whether they acknowledge it as a new Edition or not is immaterial.



It won’t be immaterial to the continued growth of the game.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> As was said above, they are officially optional, but expected as standard, like feats and multiclassing.  I am using both definitions, because both apply.



They are optional. Full stop.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> My players chose what to do every round of every combat or social encounter. Those are the choices we care about.  I realize that is not enough for some, but that is what I was talking about. Choices in game, not so much during character creation. Of course Tasha's did add some additional options beyond 4th for all classes IIRC, so maybe they will expand on that in the '24 edition for you.



I don't really care much what they do in the 2024 books personally,as I have migrated to Level Up as a DM, and as a player I'll adapt however the DM wants.

I understand you.  Having more choices in creation throughout the career of the PC matters to me though, and Level Up does that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Because though I am a decent artist - I am not that good (nor do I have the time). Organization and errata and small tweaks are nice two.  That is worth spending some money to me.  How much is TBD in 2 years.
> 
> And even if it was completely changed, it still wouldn't have the changes I want (and they may change things I don't want).  So there is always an amount of doing it yourself. At this point we have modified 5e pretty much to make the game perfect for us, so I don't want much change.
> 
> Also, where are you getting $200 from?



Assuming roughly $60-70 per book in 2024 for three core books.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Curious, why do you think it is intended to be used all the time.  Sneak Attack, IIRC, has always been situational.
> 
> EDIT: I do like fence straddling in game design myself, but I get why it frustrates some



Because everyone keeps telling me Perkins said so straight out in some social media post or whatever.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Wow. I honestly think you're the only person I've ever talked to that hasn't used one or the other. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone who hasn't used feats.



That's the problem with anecdotes, isn't? However, we know from WotC and Beyond separately that a strong majority of people do not use Feats...ever.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> They are optional. Full stop.



Hard disagree.  Their words say one thing, and their design in recent years another.


----------



## Parmandur

dave2008 said:


> Curious, why do you think it is intended to be used all the time.  Sneak Attack, IIRC, has always been situational.
> 
> EDIT: I do like fence straddling in game design myself, but I get why it frustrates some





Micah Sweet said:


> Because everyone keeps telling me Perkins said so straight out in some social media post or whatever.




Examples can be easily multiplied over the years, and it is frankly clear in the books:


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> Examples can be easily multiplied over the years, and it is frankly clear in the books:



Random post on social media, exactly what I was talking about.  And if it were clear in the books, we wouldn't be having this argument.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> Hard disagree.  Their words say one thing, and their design in recent years another.



No, they don’t.


----------



## Sabathius42

overgeeked said:


> In the PHB the referee could take it away. With the revision of the class in Tasha's the referee can no longer take it away, couple that with the designers flat out saying it was their intent that the rogue could always use sneak attack, and presto..."all the time." As long as the rogue can take bonus actions they get sneak attack damage. Other than slow is there anything in the game that takes away a PCs' ability to take bonus actions?



Can the referee take away a fighters extra attacks or combat style?

Sneak Attack is just the mechanic given to rogues to have them on par with other classes in damage per round expectations.  They don't get scaling cantrips like casters or extra attacks like many other martials.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Assuming roughly $60-70 per book in 2024 for three core books.



So before the Amazon discount


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, they don’t.



Edit: unhelpfulpost on my part. I apologize.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Random post on social media, exactly what I was talking about.  And if it were clear in the books, we wouldn't be having this argument.



People seemed to get the idea. And new options that maintain the game balance help with some tables.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> Are so!
> 
> See how unhelpful that is?



Eh, you provided nothing to back up your assertion, so I put the same effort into challenging it.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe in your game.  In mine, if I intend the players to see a situation as challenging, it is.



I'm talking aboutnthe game as written and intended. The party is the "House" if the game is looked at as a casino. The Encoubter guidelines are designed to have the party come out on top.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> People seemed to get the idea. And new options that maintain the game balance help with some tables.



What people?  Veterans on EN World?


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't really care much what they do in the 2024 books personally,as I have migrated to Level Up as a DM, and as a player I'll adapt however the DM wants.
> 
> I understand you.  Having more choices in creation throughout the career of the PC matters to me though, and Level Up does that.



It seems like you do care based on how much you post about it, LevelUp is a great version of 5e. If it does what you want, what is the issue?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> I'm talking aboutnthe game as written and intended. The party is the "House" if the game is looked at as a casino. The Encoubter guidelines are designed to have the party come out on top.



If that's true, and encounters are not intended to be actually challenging, they should be presented that way.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> If that's true, and encounters are not intended to be actually challenging, they should be presented that way.



They are presented that way. Have you read the descriptions?


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> It seems like you do care based on how much you post about it, LevelUp is a great version of 5e. If it does what you want, what is the issue?



Mostly emotional.  I loved D&D as presented since about 1984 when I first got into it.  In the last few years I have been increasingly feeling phased out by the changing game, and I'm having a hard time with that.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> If that's true, and encounters are not intended to be actually challenging, they should be presented that way.



It's all in the DMG.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> As was said above, they are officially optional, but expected as standard, like feats and multiclassing.  I am using both definitions, because both apply.



Feats and multiclassing are not expected as standard from what I can tell. I do expect Tasha's to become the standard moving forward, but it is very much optional for everything that predates the standard.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> They are presented that way. Have you read the descriptions?



Encounters are presented as non-challenging?  By the DM to the players?


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Mostly emotional.  I loved D&D as presented since about 1984 when I first got into it.  In the last few years I have been increasingly feeling phased out by the changing game, and I'm having a hard time with that.



I get that. I had the same reaction to 2e and 3e  (they really turned e off) but 4e brought me back. So who knows, maybe when 6e does eventually come out it will bring you back.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Encounters are presented as non-challenging?  By the DM to the players?



By the DMG.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Feats and multiclassing are not expected as standard from what I can tell. I do expect Tasha's to become the standard moving forward, but it is very much optional for everything that predates the standard.



The part about feats and multiclassing is anecdotal, on both sides.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Encounters are presented as non-challenging?  By the DM to the players?



The DMG spells out how Encounters work. Spoilers: the Party is generally going to win even a Deadly onem


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> By the DMG.



I know what the rules say.  My issue is presenting an encounter as challenging in-game, to the players, when by the rules it really isn't.  It feels disingenuous.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> I know what the rules say.  My issue is presenting an encounter as challenging in-game, to the players, when by the rules it really isn't.  It feels disingenuous.



It's all theater.

Matt Mercer on Critical Role is a master at getting his players to nearly soil themselves with terror...when they can easily wallop what is scaring them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> It's all theater.
> 
> Matt Mercer on Critical Role is a master at getting his players to nearly soil themselves with terror...when they can easily wallop what is scaring them.



Yeah, I know.  It bugs me.  I was specifically thinking about Critical Role.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> The part about feats and multiclassing is anecdotal, on both sides.



Actually, most people not using Feats and multiclassing is data based, not anecdotal. Beyond shared the numbers some time ago.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> I know what the rules say.  My issue is presenting an encounter as challenging in-game, to the players, when by the rules it really isn't.  It feels disingenuous.



Why would I (the DM) pretend an encounter is challenging when it is not. An encounter is just what it is. Some are challenging some are not. What is disingenuous about it?


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, I know.  It bugs me.  I was specifically thinking about Critical Role.



But that's the game, that's what's in the DMG. That's not likely to change.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> It's all theater.
> 
> Matt Mercer on Critical Role is a master at getting his players to nearly soil themselves with terror...when they can easily wallop what is scaring them.



Well, those players are actually playing players playing, so take their reactions with a grain of salt. I'm not saying their responses aren't genuine but they are still performing for an audience.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> But that's the game, that's what's in the DMG. That's not likely to change.



It's not like it works, or WotC follows it anyway in their adventures. it hardly seems like a thing worth getting too worked up about.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Well, those players are actually playing players playing, so take their reactions with a grain of salt. I'm not saying their responses aren't genuine but they are still performing for an audience.



...what? No, they genuinely are playing the game, and most of them haven't read the rules (very much like many really players). They aren't playing anything up, it's standard play.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> It's not like it works, or WotC follows it anyway in their adventures. it hardly seems like a thing worth getting too worked up about.



It works to create opportunities for the players to win. That is, what they designed for.


----------



## darjr

I do think there is a difference between “not challenged” and “set up to win”

Maybe not a big enough one.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> ...what? No, they genuinely are playing the game, and most of them haven't read the rules (very much like many really players). They aren't playing anything up, it's standard play.



So, they aren't paid to perform while playing the game?


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> It works to create opportunities for the players to win. That is, what they designed for.



If that were true, the system would work. It doesn't in many cases. Certain creature abilities break it and numbers of enemies break it and PC abilities break it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> But that's the game, that's what's in the DMG. That's not likely to change.



Pretending encounters are more challenging than they actually are is "the game"?  I don't think so.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> ...what? No, they genuinely are playing the game, and most of them haven't read the rules (very much like many really players). They aren't playing anything up, it's standard play.



They are on camera. Obviously anyone on camera is fabricating their actions.

At least that's what I told the judge.


----------



## CapnZapp

Paul Farquhar said:


> It would be 5.3. Tasha's was 5.1, MoM was 5.2.



Unless it's in the PHB it doesn't count for edition purposes...


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> Actually, most people not using Feats and multiclassing is data based, not anecdotal. Beyond shared the numbers some time ago.



Could you scare up a link?


----------



## CapnZapp

dave2008 said:


> Curious, why do you think it is intended to be used all the time. Sneak Attack, IIRC, has always been situational.



FWIW The Rogue class needs to get both its Sneak Attacks in nearly every round to be competitive DPR-wise.

But IMO the Rogue shouldn't need to compete on damage. This is only because SA is too weak to actually accomplish the class' signature ability: to backstab someone dead instantly.

I would much rather have a Rogue capable of reliably instakill more than one level-appropriate foe without triggering any alarm.

Sneak damage is too weak for this, and so, it gets used in "regular" combat.


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> I do think there is a difference between “not challenged” and “set up to win”
> 
> Maybe not a big enough one.



I'd say that's true. Not nearly a big enough difference.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

CapnZapp said:


> FWIW The Rogue class needs to get both its Sneak Attacks in nearly every round to be competitive DPR-wise.



This isn’t true. I’ve done the math, and the rogue’s SA with 1 attack per round is equal to the value obtained by extrapolating a wizard’s spell slots translated directly into single target damage over enough rounds to run the wizard out of slots. If they wizard uses slots for other things at all, the rogue does more damage over the same number of rounds. 

Reaction attacks are extra.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> So, they aren't paid to perform while playing the game?



Doesn't seem relevant, theybare playing a normal game in the way I've always experienced it...? The buse miniatures more often.


----------



## Jer

Parmandur said:


> Actually, most people not using Feats and multiclassing is data based, not anecdotal. Beyond shared the numbers some time ago.



Keep in mind that the free version of DDB doesn't allow you to pick feats - you have to own the PHB digitally to get access to feats.  So those numbers would be more interesting if they also include a breakdown by people who have actually purchased the content and also what proportion of games are using just the free rules vs. paid rules.

I actually do believe that it's probably true that most games don't use feats.  But the D&D Beyond numbers can only show us so much to "prove" that.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Could you scare up a link?



Sure, though the site is a little sketchy:









						D&D 5E - D&D Beyond Revisits Popular Feats
					

The folks over at D&D Beyond have revisited the stats in the most popular feats used by class on the DDB platform.  It looks like the percentage of characters using feats has increased slightly.      Here are the most popular feats in 2018 and now.      And here are the top feats for each class...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Parmandur

Jer said:


> Keep in mind that the free version of DDB doesn't allow you to pick feats - you have to own the PHB digitally to get access to feats.  So those numbers would be more interesting if they also include a breakdown by people who have actually purchased the content and also what proportion of games are using just the free rules vs. paid rules.
> 
> I actually do believe that it's probably true that most games don't use feats.  But the D&D Beyond numbers can only show us so much to "prove" that.



The Beyond statistics exclude people using the free version, and only included actively used characters, not tests. Still over two thirds of active PCs don't use Feats.

And before Beyond, Crawford reported that their Survey data showed that two thirds of people don't use Feats inn5E. Which matches my personal experience.


----------



## Jer

Micah Sweet said:


> Then why make changes at all?  Especially ones like the rewrites on races and monsters that are guaranteed to not make everyone happy.



Like I said earlier - 50th Anniversary is here and they're going to put out something for that.  So it's a good place to consolidate the changes that have accrued over the last decade, including new ways of explaining existing rules (which includes the monster stat block revisions) and updates that they feel need to be made to stay relevant with the current player base (like the changes to races).  Without the 50th anniversary providing an opportunity that they really can't pass up, I strongly suspect they wouldn't be talking about a new edition at all.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Jer said:


> Like I said earlier - 50th Anniversary is here and they're going to put out something for that.  So it's a good place to consolidate the changes that have accrued over the last decade, including new ways of explaining existing rules (which includes the monster stat block revisions) and updates that they feel need to be made to stay relevant with the current player base (like the changes to races).  Without the 50th anniversary providing an opportunity that they really can't pass up, I strongly suspect they wouldn't be talking about a new edition at all.



Ok, that reads as "cash grab" to me.  Thank you, I get it now.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> Actually, most people not using Feats and multiclassing is data based, not anecdotal. Beyond shared the numbers some time ago.





Parmandur said:


> Sure, though the site is a little sketchy:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D&D 5E - D&D Beyond Revisits Popular Feats
> 
> 
> The folks over at D&D Beyond have revisited the stats in the most popular feats used by class on the DDB platform.  It looks like the percentage of characters using feats has increased slightly.      Here are the most popular feats in 2018 and now.      And here are the top feats for each class...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.enworld.org



So...how exactly did you get "most people don't use feats" from that data? Because that data shows the opposite. All with the caveat that not all 5E players use D&D Beyond, of course.

Level 1-3. Only variant humans can even have feats in this level range.

Level 4-7. If feats are used, everyone gets one feat by now...and most players pick an ASI to get their ability bonuses up. But 34% of all characters have feats by this level range.

Level 8+. You have between 51-60% of all characters with feats. That's the opposite of "most players don't use feats." That's quite literally the data showing that most players actually do use feats.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> Ok, that reads as "cash grab" to me.  Thank you, I get it now.



Obligatory "Corporations exist to make money" and "Capitalism is why you have products to enjoy."


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Doesn't seem relevant, theybare playing a normal game in the way I've always experienced it...? The buse miniatures more often.



I don't see how any of that is relevant. The issue was simply that maybe, being paid actors, they amp up their reactions a little as part of their performance, which you seemed to think impossible.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I don't see how any of that is relevant. The issue was simply that maybe, being paid actors, they amp up their reactions a little as part of their performance, which you seemed to think impossible.



But, they aren't really? Their behavior is entirely consistent with what I have seen in 16 years of playing from a variety of people.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> So...how exactly did you get "most people don't use feats" from that data? Because that data shows the opposite. All with the caveat that not all 5E players use D&D Beyond, of course.
> 
> Level 1-3. Only variant humans can even have feats in this level range.
> 
> Level 4-7. If feats are used, everyone gets one feat by now...and most players pick an ASI to get their ability bonuses up. But 34% of all characters have feats by this level range.
> 
> Level 8+. You have between 51-60% of all characters with feats. That's the opposite of "most players don't use feats." That's quite literally the data showing that most players actually do use feats.



Moat people aren't playing to Level 8, is what is missing here. And yes, that 1 out-of 4 Humans at Level 1 have no Feats is telling.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> But, they aren't really? Their behavior is entirely consistent with what I have seen in 16 years of playing from a variety of people.



Ok.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Ok.
> View attachment 257910



I mean, yeah...? That's how we've been doing it since 3E. Booze and shennanigans.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Ok.
> View attachment 257910



Yeah, they’re so glaringly obviously overacting at times I can’t take them seriously.


----------



## Scribe

Reynard said:


> Ok.
> View attachment 257910



I mean, it checks out...


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I mean, yeah...? That's how we've been doing it since 3E. Booze and shennanigans.



Baffling.


----------



## overgeeked

Parmandur said:


> Moat people aren't playing to Level 8, is what is missing here. And yes, that 1 out-of 4 Humans at Level 1 have no Feats is telling.



What? Where do you get 1 out of 4 humans don’t have feats?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> Obligatory "Corporations exist to make money" and "Capitalism is why you have products to enjoy."



True, but doesn't make it not a cash grab.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> What? Where do you get 1 out of 4 humans don’t have feats?



Level 1-3, 4% of Pcs have Feats. 20% of characters are Humans, but thst might have been from a different breakdown. So, soory, one out of five Humans at lowevel are Variants.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> Ok.
> View attachment 257910



Maybe you should play at more fun tables.

We got pretty raucous at Shadowrun last night, what with our Troll Face vamping IRL and our two adepts (self included) miming matrix dodges. And we weren't even in person.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Baffling.



Do you...play sober....?


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> True, but doesn't make it not a cash grab.



No, you are right.

Some however defend that as a virtuous act.


----------



## Jer

Micah Sweet said:


> Ok, that reads as "cash grab" to me.  Thank you, I get it now.



I don't actually see consolidating the rules into one place, making changes to make the game easier to explain/learn/teach, and updating the rules in certain areas (such as races) to be more in line with what the majority of their player base seems to want to be a worthless endeavor.  Especially if they do actually keep it backwards compatible so you only have to buy it if you want to.  That feels like the opposite of a cash grab to me and more of a "we need to put out a new printing of our game anyway, so why not consolidate and clarify it before we do that".


----------



## Charlaquin

Li Shenron said:


> "Including Tasha's free classes boosts" and "being 5e backward compatible" are... not compatible. Unless those free boosts are in the DMG under a paragraph labelled as optional.



Tasha’s free class boosts are entirely compatible with 5e, as evidenced by them being in 5e. Including them as the default would make the revised rules _power crept_ but it wouldn’t make them incompatible with 5e.


----------



## darjr

A cash grab wouldn’t be a change to a cash cow, which the PHB appears to be. Not normally anyway.

If anything they are taking a risk.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> Do you...play sober....?



I am constantly bewildered that people play this game 'sober' (not in the 'not-drunk sense, but in the 'completely serious, we are dour men enjoying a stiff brandy and a cigar and laughter shall be confined to harrumphs' sense).

If you're going to get together with your friends to play make believe, I say own it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Sabathius42 said:


> I tend to view Steady Aim as a patch the designers used to ensure sneak attack is being granted as often as the designers meant for it to be used in combat.  If there was better guidance in the PHB about the expected frequency of sneak attack damage I don't think it would have ever come up.
> 
> In my games it's not an upgrade because rogues already are hiding and sniping in almost every encounter round they choose to without the patch.



Yeah, Steady Aim seems unnecessary to me with how I run stealth in combat, but the way I’ve heard a lot of folks say they run it, I can see why Steady Aim would be needed in those groups.


----------



## Micah Sweet

darjr said:


> A cash grab wouldn’t be a change to a cash cow, which the OHB appears to be. Not normally anyway.
> 
> If anything they are taking a risk.



What's the OHB?


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> What's the OHB?



PHB.


----------



## darjr

Vaalingrade said:


> I am constantly bewildered that people play this game 'sober' (not in the 'not-drunk sense, but in the 'completely serious, we are dour men enjoying a stiff brandy and a cigar and laughter shall be confined to harrumphs' sense).
> 
> If you're going to get together with your friends to play make believe, I say own it.



I have. Though it’s not my preferred style. It can be fun in a way.

I have also played in campaigns that were not “serious” but also decidedly not “goofy”, which I didn’t completely like either.


----------



## Charlaquin

GMforPowergamers said:


> I don't get why put the restrictions on it then?



Because it wouldn’t have “felt like D&D” without them. Remember, so much of 5e design was ultimately about finding the aesthetic that would bring the 4e haters back.


----------



## Argyle King

Reynard said:


> The rules compendium was released after the 4E announcement so




Sorta. Regardless, 4E was denied for a while, as books were still squeezed out. 

Even after 4E was a sure thing, "ze game will remain ze same" was a big part of early advertising.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> If you're supposed to have Sneak Attack all the time, what's the point of there being conditions on it at all?  Why not just add the damage straight to their attacks as a class feature?



Because then it wouldn’t feel like a rogue.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> Because it wouldn’t have “felt like D&D” without them.



Ah, the nail D&D keeps stepping on, but refuses to hammer down or even wear shoes around.


----------



## billd91

Re: Steady Aim and sneak attacking. Dragons tend to be *very* hard to hide from and are, frankly, terrifying to be around. Being able to gain advantage without hiding is very important for rogues fighting dragons if they want to do some damage.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Because it wouldn’t have “felt like D&D” without them. Remember, so much of 5e design was ultimately about finding the aesthetic that would bring the 4e haters back.



"How do we trick people into playing the game we want to make?"


----------



## overgeeked

darjr said:


> I have. Though it’s not my preferred style. It can be fun in a way.
> 
> I have also played in campaigns that were not “serious” but also decidedly not “goofy”, which I didn’t completely like either.



I couldn't stand to play an RPG drunk. But then I'm constitutionally incapable of playing an RPG straight or seriously. I simply cannot play these games with a serious, dramatic, or whatever vibe. It's make believe with homework and math rocks. It's inherently silly. I can't take something this silly at all seriously. But then I also can't take most serious things seriously.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Argyle King said:


> Sorta. Regardless, 4E was denied for a while, as books were still squeezed out.
> 
> Even after 4E was a sure thing, "ze game will remain ze same" was a big part of early advertising.



And we all know how well 4e's marketing worked out for them.


----------



## darjr

From the support post.



> The backgrounds presented in _Astral Adventurer's Guide_grants you a Feat upon taking the selected Background. While the automation of this feature isn't currently supported, you can manually add the relevant feat from your background via the Features & Traits section in the Character Sheet, then clicking on "Manage Feats". Please reference the .gif below


----------



## darjr

SPELLJAMMER: ADVENTURES in SPACE - Issues and Support Thread - Bugs & Support - D&D Beyond General - D&D Beyond Forums - D&D Beyond
					

Welcome to the Support Thread for SPELLJAMMER: ADVENTURES IN SPACE. If you find any issues with the content from the sourcebook, or using it on a D&D Be...




					www.dndbeyond.com


----------



## Charlaquin

Jer said:


> I think folks are trained to expect editions of D&D to be major changes because every previous one has been a major change.  But the publishing realities of 5e are different than the previous 4 editions.  When 2e came out TSR was seeing major dropoffs in their sales and needed a boost.  When 3e came out Wizards put 20+ years of game design advancements into the game all at once to get back the folks who had drifted away.  I don't have the numbers, but my impression is that 4e was similar to 2e in that Wizards was seeing major dropoffs in sales and needed a boost - and needed one so quick they rushed 4e out the door before it was done.



With 4e it wasn’t that 3.5 was seeing a drop in sales, it was that Hazbro introduced a decide between core brand products and ancillary ones; how much money a brand made determined which category it fell into, and which category a brand fell into determined how much funding it got. D&D was close to the line, so 4e was part of WotC’s pitch for how they were going to increase profits enough to count as a core brand.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, Steady Aim seems unnecessary to me with how I run stealth in combat, but the way I’ve heard a lot of folks say they run it, I can see why Steady Aim would be needed in those groups.



With how stealth in combat is written, but yup, it just a patch to help ensure the math works out as intended.


----------



## darjr

Ugh sorry wrong thread


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> I couldn't stand to play an RPG drunk. But then I'm constitutionally incapable of playing an RPG straight or seriously. I simply cannot play these games with a serious, dramatic, or whatever vibe. It's make believe with homework and math rocks. It's inherently silly. I can't take something this silly at all seriously. But then I also can't take most serious things seriously.



I learned how to play D&D in College, so we were also learning hoe to drink. Good times.


----------



## billd91

Charlaquin said:


> With 4e it wasn’t that 3.5 was seeing a drop in sales, it was that Hazbro introduced a decide between core brand products and ancillary ones; how much money a brand made determined which category it fell into, and which category a brand fell into determined how much funding it got. D&D was close to the line, so 4e was part of WotC’s pitch for how they were going to increase profits enough to count as a core brand.



I don't think D&D was very close to the line. Dancey cited D&D being something like a $25-30 million brand, well off the $50 million to be considered core. With that kind of discrepancy, pitching D&D as a core brand was a hell of a Hail Mary play to bet on. The trouble was - Hasbro already saw D&D as a core brand because of the situation when WotC was bought. Instead of being the WotC brand as a whole, it was the Pokemon, Magic, and D&D brands. So I think they were *stuck* having to make that Hail Mary pitch in an effort to stay un-shelved.


----------



## Reynard

Argyle King said:


> Sorta. Regardless, 4E was denied for a while, as books were still squeezed out.



4E Officially Announced: August 2007
Rules Compendium Released: October 2007.
What "sorta"?


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> I am constantly bewildered that people play this game 'sober' (not in the 'not-drunk sense, but in the 'completely serious, we are dour men enjoying a stiff brandy and a cigar and laughter shall be confined to harrumphs' sense).
> 
> If you're going to get together with your friends to play make believe, I say own it.



I will briefly try and explain, but then otherwise leave it be: I said that the players on Critical Role enhance their reactions as part of their performance for their viewers. I, for the life of me, can't figure out the controversial part of the statement.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> The Beyond statistics exclude people using the free version, and only included actively used characters, not tests. Still over two thirds of active PCs don't use Feats.
> 
> And before Beyond, Crawford reported that their Survey data showed that two thirds of people don't use Feats inn5E. Which matches my personal experience.



It makes sense to me. Whenever I play with people who aren’t super hardcore hobbiests, they don’t want to bother reading through all the feat options available to them. They’d much rather just boost a stat and move on.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I will briefly try and explain, but then otherwise leave it be: I said that the players on Critical Role enhance their reactions as part of their performance for their viewers. I, for the life of me, can't figure out the controversial part of the statement.



I don't know if it is "controversial," but I am not sure what they do that you think is unusual...? They play much as everyone else I have ever seen in real life does.


----------



## billd91

Reynard said:


> I will briefly try and explain, but then otherwise leave it be: I said that the players on Critical Role enhance their reactions as part of their performance for their viewers. I, for the life of me, can't figure out the controversial part of the statement.



Which is pretty much the same as them performing more like their characters would react, the metagame being invisible to them, rather than a calculating player who knows "Ok, I've got 62 hit points, but that NPC's probably just a CR3 so I'm pretty sure I can take him one-on-one."


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> It makes sense to me. Whenever I play with people who aren’t super hardcore hobbiests, they don’t want to bother reading through all the feat options available to them. They’d much rather just boost a stat and move on.



That is a communication problem though (one of MANY with the rule themselves). if a player could look at their options in a clean, easy to understand format -- more about feel and theme than mechanics -- they would be able to make a choice and I think be excited to get a new "toy" to play with. The same thing is true, IMO, with complex NPC interactions in adventures: if the GM could look at a relationship map and with a glance know who was aligned with and opposed to who, you would see more even new GMs delve into intrigue more. D&D has a graphic design problem and is getting schooled by the OSR and other indies.


----------



## Charlaquin

Scribe said:


> Obligatory "Corporations exist to make money" and "Capitalism is why you have products to enjoy."



The first statement is true, the second is absurd. There have been many societies with other economic systems, and they have all produced things.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Scribe said:


> Obligatory "Corporations exist to make money" and "Capitalism is why you have products to enjoy."



The first is a bad thing, the second a falsehood.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I don't know if it is "controversial," but I am not sure what they do that you think is unusual...? They play much as everyone else I have ever seen in real life does.



Ah. I think I just gained some insight into CRs popularity: they play like people think they themselves play. Huh. That's interesting.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> I am constantly bewildered that people play this game 'sober' (not in the 'not-drunk sense, but in the 'completely serious, we are dour men enjoying a stiff brandy and a cigar and laughter shall be confined to harrumphs' sense).
> 
> If you're going to get together with your friends to play make believe, I say own it.



Some people like their make-believe silly, others like it dramatic. Both are fun in my experience.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> "How do we trick people into playing the game we want to make?"



Sure, if that’s how you want to frame it. For better or worse it worked, and the game is more popular then ever because of it.


----------



## Medic

Charlaquin said:


> The first statement is true, the second is absurd. There have been many societies wit other economic systems, and they have all produced things.





doctorbadwolf said:


> The first is a bad thing, the second a falsehood.



It was a jab at people who use similar statements to defend questionable practices motivated by profit.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> I will briefly try and explain, but then otherwise leave it be: I said that the players on Critical Role enhance their reactions as part of their performance for their viewers. I, for the life of me, can't figure out the controversial part of the statement.



You then supported it with a gif of Travis expressing joy as if it were weird and performative.


----------



## billd91

Reynard said:


> Ah. I think I just gained some insight into CRs popularity: they play like people think they themselves play. Huh. That's interesting.



No need to be snide. 
The way I see it, with respect to role playing in D&D, Critical Role's players are like professional tennis players, while those of us at the home game are competent, local amateur players. We can play OK and follow the same basic rules (scoring, line judging, breaking service, etc) and can play complete games with modest skill and without looking like idiots. But we're not US Open material. The CR crew are US Open material, but probably not US Open champions like Olivier or Gielgud would be had they been avid D&D players. They have, over the years, definitely been moving up the draw though...


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> That is a communication problem though (one of MANY with the rule themselves). if a player could look at their options in a clean, easy to understand format -- more about feel and theme than mechanics -- they would be able to make a choice and I think be excited to get a new "toy" to play with. The same thing is true, IMO, with complex NPC interactions in adventures: if the GM could look at a relationship map and with a glance know who was aligned with and opposed to who, you would see more even new GMs delve into intrigue more. D&D has a graphic design problem and is getting schooled by the OSR and other indies.



Some probably would, but I think a lot of players aren’t super interested in digging through a menu of options to find the one they’re going to take that level. Never underestimate the casual player’s aversion to doing anything that feels like homework.


----------



## darjr

I played in a game of Werewolf, some 20 or so people. A professional actor joined us. Been in movies and tv and voice work etc. 

He took on a Russian persona with a perfect accent. So much so friends of mine noted they didn’t know he was Russian. He isn’t. 

At one point in the game he had to drop the act for a moment to assure another player that he wasn’t actually upset at being called out as a werewolf.

He was just plain amazing. 

He was also just playing Werewolf and trying to “win”.

Was it fake? No.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Ah. I think I just gained some insight into CRs popularity: they play like people think they themselves play. Huh. That's interesting.



Yes...? Certainly they are charismatic people, but their gameplaybis very normal, pwr my own experience.


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> Homework?



Prepping to begin posting on Reddit.


----------



## Maxperson

Paul Farquhar said:


> It didn't "Immediately" happen. It's happening over a period of four years. It's called making phased changes.



November 2020 Tasha's came out.
September 2021 WotC announced 5.5.
August 2022 WotC says it will be adopting Tasha's for the 5.5 PHB.

They knew when Tasha's came out which way things were going to go.  Calling those rules optional when they knew they would eventually become the default was pretty darned disingenuous.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> It's all theater.
> 
> Matt Mercer on Critical Role is a master at getting his players to nearly soil themselves with terror...when they can easily wallop what is scaring them.



A lot of that comes from the players themselves.  I'm no Matt Mercer, but my players will often be much more scared by encounters than the stat block warrants, because they don't know the stat block and can imagine it to be pretty bad. 

A single encounter, even a deadly one, isn't going to be a true challenge to the group.  That's because of the infernal 5-7 encounter day balance.  By the time they get to that 5th-7th encounter, they will be low on resources, perhaps even not at full hit points, and will be at risk of PC death.  The challenge is resource management.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Reynard said:


> Ok.
> View attachment 257910



Yes?


Parmandur said:


> Do you...play sober....?



I do. So do most of the people I know who play like CR do. 


Reynard said:


> Ah. I think I just gained some insight into CRs popularity: they play like people think they themselves play. Huh. That's interesting.



 Or, you are having trouble accepting that other people play differently from your experienced norm.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> November 2020 Tasha's came out.
> September 2021 WotC announced 5.5.
> August 2022 WotC says it will be adopting Tasha's for the 5.5 PHB.
> 
> They knew when Tasha's came out which way things were going to go.  Calling those rules optional when they knew they would eventually become the default was pretty darned disingenuous.



Not at all. They are optional. 4 years is a long time, and they hadn’t even announced anything about the updated 5e PHB.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Level 1-3, 4% of Pcs have Feats. 20% of characters are Humans, but thst might have been from a different breakdown. So, soory, one out of five Humans at lowevel are Variants.



I've never understood that.  To me that extra feat and skill proficiency are worth more than +1s in stats that are pretty much all secondary.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not at all. They are optional. 4 years is a long time, and they hadn’t even announced anything about the updated 5e PHB.



Do you think that they didn't know that 5.5 was going to be announced and those rules would be used?


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> I played in a game of Werewolf, some 20 or so people. A professional actor joined us. Been in movies and tv and voice work etc.
> 
> He took on a Russian persona with a perfect accent. So much so friends of mine noted they didn’t know he was Russian. He isn’t.
> 
> At one point in the game he had to drop the act for a moment to assure another player that he wasn’t actually upset at being called out as a werewolf.
> 
> He was just plain amazing.
> 
> He was also just playing Werewolf and trying to “win”.
> 
> Was it fake? No.



I played D&D for 15 years(1992-2007) with a bunch of voice actors, actors, stunt men, etc.  Not that everyone in the group was, but a lot of them were.  It was a lot of fun for everyone.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Do you think that they didn't know that 5.5 was going to be announced and those rules would be used?



3 things.

 First, I think the question is irrelevant to the underlying question, which is, “where they being disingenuous when they made these features optional?” 

Second, there won’t be a 5.5e. Just a cleaned up core set for 5e. 

Third, setting aside terminology, stuff like Deft Explorer will still likely be optional, and may not even move to the PHB, since they seem to still want the major expansion books to remain useful after 2024. That the race design will eventually fully replace the 2014 design does not mean that all or even most of the optional rules will do so.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, if that’s how you want to frame it. For better or worse it worked, and the game is more popular then ever because of it.



The only thing 5e's popularity has done for me is make it last long enough for someone else to make a better version of the game (Level Up).  No small thing, I admit. 

Thanks WotC!


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes?
> 
> I do. So do most of the people I know who play like CR do.
> 
> Or, you are having trouble accepting that other people play differently from your experienced norm.



Their experience and Paramandur's carry equal weight.  Just because one matches a popular movement doesn't make it more valid.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> Their experience and Paramandur's carry equal weight.  Just because one matches a popular movement doesn't make it more valid.



Please show me a specific quote wherein anyone said otherwise.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> 3 things.
> 
> First, I think the question is irrelevant to the underlying question, which is, “where they being disingenuous when they made these features optional?”
> 
> Second, there won’t be a 5.5e. Just a cleaned up core set for 5e.
> 
> Third, setting aside terminology, stuff like Deft Explorer will still likely be optional, and may not even move to the PHB, since they seem to still want the major expansion books to remain useful after 2024. That the race design will eventually fully replace the 2014 design does not mean that all or even most of the optional rules will do so.



Yeah.  I'm speaking only of the race changes which this thread revealed will be in the core.  I wasn't talking about the entire book.  

Whether you think of it as 5.5 or 5e revised(cleaned up), it's still going to be a significant change.  People call it 5.5, so I'm just going along with what appears to be the overwhelming majority.


----------



## Argyle King

Reynard said:


> 4E Officially Announced: August 2007
> Rules Compendium Released: October 2007.
> What "sorta"?




When would that mean the Rules Compendium was announced?

Also, thanks for highlighting "officially announced." That's part of my point.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I'm speaking only of the race changes which this thread revealed will be in the core.  I wasn't talking about the entire book.



Right, and it is just as optional as the rest, and when it eventually becomes the new core standard, that won’t change that it was optional from release until a book is put out wherein the core races are built in the new way. 


Maxperson said:


> Whether you think of it as 5.5 or 5e revised(cleaned up),* it's still going to be a significant change*.  People call it 5.5, so I'm just going along with what appears to be the overwhelming majority.



*Is it*?


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Right, and it is just as optional as the rest, and when it eventually becomes the new core standard, that won’t change that it was optional from release until a book is put out wherein the core races are built in the new way.
> 
> *Is it*?



It can't be anything else.  The change to racial ASIs and ability to invent races whole cloth are enough to make a significant change to the default game.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Please show me a specific quote wherein anyone said otherwise.



I am addressing a possible issue where a popular style is somehow believed to be more valid than a less popular one.  Don't tell me you've never seen that one.


----------



## TwoSix

Maxperson said:


> They knew when Tasha's came out which way things were going to go.  Calling those rules optional when they knew they would eventually become the default was pretty darned disingenuous.



Yea, but they're optional for the entire of range games played from 2020 to 2024.  That's like being mad at a 2022 car being a hybrid just because the 2030 version will be full electric.


----------



## Micah Sweet

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but they're optional for the entire of range games played from 2020 to 2024.  That's like being mad at a 2022 car being a hybrid just because the 2030 version will be full electric.



Except that everyone doesn't assume you're driving the 2030 version as soon as it comes out, and all support for the 2022 model doesnt stop forever.


----------



## Maxperson

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but they're optional for the entire of range games played from 2020 to 2024.  That's like being mad at a 2022 car being a hybrid just because the 2030 version will be full electric.



No.  It's like getting mad at your favorite car manufacturer for saying that a hybrid would be available if you want it, while promising you the gas model would remain their staple, then getting rid of the gas model 2 years later and only having hybrid models for sale.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> November 2020 Tasha's came out.
> September 2021 WotC announced 5.5.
> August 2022 WotC says it will be adopting Tasha's for the 5.5 PHB.
> 
> They knew when Tasha's came out which way things were going to go.  Calling those rules optional when they knew they would eventually become the default was pretty darned disingenuous.



They didn't say here that the changes are definitely being adopted wholsale: Tasha's is basically a playtest, it seems to me, and there is nothing disingenuous about putting out some options and seeing what sticks.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> A lot of that comes from the players themselves.  I'm no Matt Mercer, but my players will often be much more scared by encounters than the stat block warrants, because they don't know the stat block and can imagine it to be pretty bad.
> 
> A single encounter, even a deadly one, isn't going to be a true challenge to the group.  That's because of the infernal 5-7 encounter day balance.  By the time they get to that 5th-7th encounter, they will be low on resources, perhaps even not at full hit points, and will be at risk of PC death.  The challenge is resource management.



Oh, for sure, it's a feature of how 5E is designed to work for players.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I've never understood that.  To me that extra feat and skill proficiency are worth more than +1s in stats that are pretty much all secondary.



Strictly speaking, they are quite equivalent in game terms. Mostly what I've seen is people glaze over and ignore Feats because they discover that they are optional well before they begin to make sense if them. The Background Feat regime will change a lot about how most people approach Feats, I think.


----------



## CleverNickName

Argyle King said:


> Funny enough, one of the last books for 3rd Edition was a Rules Compendium. The nice organized bundle of rules was put out right before the Edition was put out to pasture.
> 
> 
> Edit: I looked up the dates to refresh my memory.
> 
> 3E Rules Compendium - October 2007
> 4E PHB, DMG, and MM - June 2008



Yep, that's the line of discussion that Team Sixth follows on Reddit.  They have a few other stats they like to throw out as well, such as the release date of 4E Essentials vs. the release date of 5E.

Like I said: it will land somewhere in between the two camps.  But it won't be in the middle; I think it'll land a lot closer to Team Evergreen.


----------



## Reynard

Charlaquin said:


> Some probably would, but I think a lot of players aren’t super interested in digging through a menu of options to find the one they’re going to take that level. Never underestimate the casual player’s aversion to doing anything that feels like homework.



My point is that with the right visual design,you don't have to "dig."

Source: 20-odd years of marriage to a graphic designer.


----------



## CleverNickName

dave2008 said:


> I disagree.  I would reverse that and say it is only option if it is in the PHB. As you noted, so few even realize optional rules are in the DMG.



Maybe it's an issue of perception.  Maybe the book itself implies who will be the one to decide the rules within are included.  If the players get to decide which rules are used and which ones aren't (by not choosing feats for their characters, or not choosing to play a variant human, etc.), then I'd expect all optional rules to be printed in the _Player's Handbook_.  But they're not.

And if the DM is the one who decides which rules are included and which ones aren't, then those rules should be printed in the _Dungeon Master's Guide,_ then I'd expect all optional rules to be printed in the _Dungeon Master's Guide.  _But they're not.

Instead, we currently have some optional rules in the PHB and others in the DMG, and it causes a lot of unnecessary conflict at my table.  The players aren't informed about which "options" are actually options, and the DM--that's me!--has to endure a lot of push-back and arguments from the players whenever he wants to add stuff from the DMG (or remove stuff from the PHB).

All I ask is that they make a clear distinction.  Whether they are in the _Dungeon Master's Guide _or the _Player's Handbook,_ I hope they put them in their own chapter named "Optional Rules: Check With Your DM First!"  I think it would make things a lot easier, especially for newcomers to the game.  Having them sprinkled around in several places, and in different books, isn't as helpful as it could be.


----------



## Reynard

So here's a thought: I think accessibility is going to be a goal. Separately, we have seen WotC hire based on the goal of inclusivity. Is it possible that WotC would hire some of the teams-- such as the Old School Essentials folks, but also others -- that have shown real talent in thinking outside the "walls of text" visual design box that has dominated most of the industry for 40 years? That would be pretty cool. They could not change a single rule and trim the books to half length of referencable,  readable text and I'd buy new copies.

Of course some folks would scream "money grab" if they dared reduce word count, no matter how necessary.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> So here's a thought: I think accessibility is going to be a goal. Separately, we have seen WotC hire based on the goal of inclusivity. Is it possible that WotC would hire some of the teams-- such as the Old School Essentials folks, but also others -- that have shown real talent in thinking outside the "walls of text" visual design box that has dominated most of the industry for 40 years? That would be pretty cool. They could not change a single rule and trim the books to half length of referencable,  readable text and I'd buy new copies.
> 
> Of course some folks would scream "money grab" if they dared reduce word count, no matter how necessary.



In what way is it necessary to reduce word count?

Changing the format of the books to the degree you describe would be extremely jarring not only to veteran players, but also all the newer players that have purchased the core books over the last few years.  About the only people it would potentially serve are 4e fans and people who might, in the future, buy D&D books, but don't own any now.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> In what way is it necessary to reduce word count?
> 
> Changing the format of the books to the degree you describe would be extremely jarring not only to veteran players, but also all the newer players that have purchased the core books over the last few years.  About the only people it would potentially serve are 4e fans and people who might, in the future, buy D&D books, but don't own any now.



Game books are manuals. They need to be referenced as such.

If it were up to me, each D&D rulebook or adventure would come in a slipcase. There would be a big robust hardcover with all that juicy, lovely prose, but the other book would be a reference manual that had far more in common with a complex board game rulebook. 

Just an aside so it's clear where I'm coming from: I am an RPG freelance writer that gets paid by the word. I get why RPG books look the way they do. But thay are by and large terrible for reference. Runing a Paizo AP or big WotC 5E adventure is a nightmare of preparation.  Important details are buried in walls of text and no one gives any thought to infographic design.


----------



## Haplo781

Reynard said:


> Man, there are going to be some disappointed folks here. Spoiler: no matter how much you want it to be the case, the 2024 "edition" isn't going to be a return to either of the previous two editions of the game.



I'd settle for previous editions being covered by the current OGL.


----------



## Reynard

Haplo781 said:


> I'd settle for previous editions being covered by the current OGL.



That's not a problem.  The oldest editions have all been retrocloned and I am pretty sure there is a 4E retroclone out there too.


----------



## Charlaquin

Reynard said:


> My point is that with the right visual design,you don't have to "dig."
> 
> Source: 20-odd years of marriage to a graphic designer.



Maybe. There are a lot of feats to go over though. Even if they’re easy to sort through, it’s still a lot of mental effort to compare and make the decision of which one you want.


----------



## CleverNickName

Haplo781 said:


> I'd settle for previous editions being covered by the current OGL.



I'm not a lawyer, so I really have no idea...but isn't the D20 Open Gaming License still valid?  Publishers can still use it to publish 3rd Edition-compatible materials, right?


----------



## Haplo781

Reynard said:


> That's not a problem.  The oldest editions have all been retrocloned and I am pretty sure there is a 4E retroclone out there too.



WotC doesn't make money off retroclones, and the player base is much smaller than something that you can get new DM's Guild content for.

Also, no, there is no functional 4e retroclones thanks to the godawful GSL.


----------



## Reynard

Haplo781 said:


> WotC doesn't make money off retroclones, and the player base is much smaller than something that you can get new DM's Guild content for.
> 
> Also, no, there is no functional 4e retroclones thanks to the godawful GSL.



What does wotc have to do with it? The whole point of the OGL is that they aren't involved.

Also, check out Lancer. It isn't quite a 4e retroclone,  but it's not not either.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> Game books are manuals. They need to be referenced as such.
> 
> If it were up to me, each D&D rulebook or adventure would come in a slipcase. There would be a big robust hardcover with all that juicy, lovely prose, but the other book would be a reference manual that had far more in common with a complex board game rulebook.
> 
> Just an aside so it's clear where I'm coming from: I am an RPG freelance writer that gets paid by the word. I get why RPG books look the way they do. But thay are by and large terrible for reference. Runing a Paizo AP or big WotC 5E adventure is a nightmare of preparation.  Important details are buried in walls of text and no one gives any thought to infographic design.



See, I think RPG books are meant to be read and enjoyed.  That's always been how I consumed them.  If they did what you propose, people would ignore the prose because they need the rules to play, and soon enough folks would be clamoring for them to be sold separately. When the rules sales outstrip the prose, WotC would conclude its not worth producing and discontinue it.


----------



## Reynard

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I think RPG books are meant to be read and enjoyed.  That's always been how I consumed them.  If they did what you propose, people would ignore the prose because they need the rules to play, and soon enough folks would be clamoring for them to be sold separately. When the rules sales outstrip the prose, WotC would conclude its not worth producing and discontinue it.



So, you don't want clear rules so you can have something to read?


----------



## Malmuria

Reynard said:


> So here's a thought: I think accessibility is going to be a goal. Separately, we have seen WotC hire based on the goal of inclusivity. Is it possible that WotC would hire some of the teams-- such as the Old School Essentials folks, but also others -- that have shown real talent in thinking outside the "walls of text" visual design box that has dominated most of the industry for 40 years? That would be pretty cool. They could not change a single rule and trim the books to half length of referencable,  readable text and I'd buy new copies.
> 
> Of course some folks would scream "money grab" if they dared reduce word count, no matter how necessary.



I don't know what Gavin Norman's background is, but afaik he is not a graphic designer or layout editor by trade.  He's just a guy who figured out how to do amazing layout by himself.  Same with _so_ many other indie creators.  So I don't see that there is any excuse for a big corporation to not be able to hire good layout editors and writers to make their products more usable



Micah Sweet said:


> In what way is it necessary to reduce word count?
> 
> Changing the format of the books to the degree you describe would be extremely jarring not only to veteran players, but also all the newer players that have purchased the core books over the last few years. About the only people it would potentially serve are 4e fans and people who might, in the future, buy D&D books, but don't own any now.




Take a look at this review of the new starter set at about 12:07.  The point of brevity is to convey the information in a succinct, easy to reference way.  The 5e PHB is not the worst in this regard outside of some spells that are way too long.  But the DMG is very verbose for the amount of information communicated.

They could also use visual design to help communicate information.  For example, warlock innovations are basically feat trees with specific prerequisites--a one page diagram showing players how that tree fits together so they can think about which innovations to take would be very helpful (here's the eldrich blast tree, here;s the pact of __ tree, etc).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> So, you don't want clear rules so you can have something to read?



I think a little more clarity in the text can be accomplished without cutting the book by half and turning it into an automotive manual.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I think RPG books are meant to be read and enjoyed.  That's always been how I consumed them.  If they did what you propose, people would ignore the prose because they need the rules to play, and soon enough folks would be clamoring for them to be sold separately. When the rules sales outstrip the prose, WotC would conclude its not worth producing and discontinue it.



That’s a huge slippery slope you just went down.


----------



## tetrasodium

CleverNickName said:


> Maybe it's an issue of perception.  Maybe the book itself implies who will be the one to decide the rules within are included.  If the players get to decide which rules are used and which ones aren't (by not choosing feats for their characters, or not choosing to play a variant human, etc.), then I'd expect all optional rules to be printed in the _Player's Handbook_.  But they're not.
> 
> And if the DM is the one who decides which rules are included and which ones aren't, then those rules should be printed in the _Dungeon Master's Guide,_ then I'd expect all optional rules to be printed in the _Dungeon Master's Guide.  _But they're not.
> 
> Instead, we currently have some optional rules in the PHB and others in the DMG, and it causes a lot of unnecessary conflict at my table.  The players aren't clear about which "options" are actually options, and the DM--that's me!--has to endure a lot of push-back and arguments from the players whenever he wants to add stuff from the DMG (or remove stuff from the PHB).
> 
> All I ask is that they make a clear distinction.  Whether they are in the _Dungeon Master's Guide _or the _Player's Handbook,_ I hope they put them in their own chapter named "Optional Rules: Check With Your DM First!"  I think it would make things a lot easier, especially for newcomers to the game.  Having them sprinkled around in several places, and in different books, isn't as helpful as it could be.



Worse there's a dramatic split between the ones in the PHB & dmg.

Almost all of the PHB ones are MOAR power while aside from flanking the DMG ones tend to be unfinished or nerfs


----------



## overgeeked

Malmuria said:


> I don't know what Gavin Norman's background is, but afaik he is not a graphic designer or layout editor by trade. He's just a guy who figured out how to do amazing layout by himself. Same with _so_ many other indie creators. So I don't see that there is any excuse for a big corporation to not be able to hire good layout editors and writers to make their products more usable.



That’s part of the problem. Some of the pros think of design as a way to show off while others think it needs to be flashy with lots of art, fill the page to bursting, etc. Very few seem to think of book layout in the sense of utility, as Norman seems to. Source: was a book layout & design pro.


Malmuria said:


> Take a look at this review of the new starter set at about 12:07.  The point of brevity is to convey the information in a succinct, easy to reference way. The 5e PHB is not the worst in this regard outside of some spells that are way too long. But the DMG is very verbose for the amount of information communicated.



When you need to fill a certain number of pages and/or get paid by the word, you tend to get long winded.


Malmuria said:


> They could also use visual design to help communicate information.  For example, warlock innovations are basically feat trees with specific prerequisites--a one page diagram showing players how that tree fits together so they can think about which innovations to take would be very helpful (here's the eldrich blast tree, here;s the pact of __ tree, etc).



Or at least list them together instead of alphabetically.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> When you need to fill a certain number of pages and/or get paid by the word, you tend to get long winded.



Yup. It's an easy trap.

But I'm not even advocating fewer words. In a way, I'm advocating more. Do your prose thing. Give your audience reading material.  But also provide accessible, concise, easily referenced material to use in play -- whether it is player facing or GM facing


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> Yup. It's an easy trap.
> 
> But I'm not even advocating fewer words. In a way, I'm advocating more. Do your prose thing. Give your audience reading material. But also provide accessible, concise, easily referenced material to use in play -- whether it is player facing or GM facing



Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.



There are 2 things I liked about 4E even though I went Pathfinder: the rulebook were actual manuals, and they abandoned the super frustrating "build NPCs like PCs" process. MFer if I wanted to do that I'd play HERO.


----------



## darjr

overgeeked said:


> Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.



Unless you were colorblind. The symbols were always printed way too small to completely replace the colors. imho

But we get left out a lot a lot. And my color blindness is a weird one anyway.


----------



## Micah Sweet

overgeeked said:


> Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.



Sure, but they also absolutely sucked the pleasure out of reading the book (for me).


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure, but they also absolutely sucked the pleasure out of reading the book (for me).



As books, to be enjoyed, I bounced off them so hard I never looked back. Still do to this day.


----------



## JEB

Scribe said:


> As books, to be enjoyed, I bounced off them so hard I never looked back. Still do to this day.



Paging through the 4E Monster Manual was what led me to skip 4E. (The 4E Monster Vault was much better, but too late.) I'd really rather they not return to that model for rulebooks.


----------



## billd91

overgeeked said:


> Oh, I agree. Whatever people think of 4E, it knocked a lot things out of the park re: layout & design, ease of reference, and concise rules.



Yep, I’m no fan of 4e. I am a fan of the clarity of its layout.


----------



## MockingBird

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure, but they also absolutely sucked the pleasure out of reading the book (for me).



Same, can't put my finger on it but I just didn't enjoy reading them.


----------



## Malmuria

It's really not an either/or between simple quality of life layout and editing and text that is a pleasure to read.  In fact, the whole point of good layout and editing is to make a book (any book) easier to read!  Good writing is not sheer volume: in some cases (like a rulebook) clarity and brevity make writing good, in other cases (an adventure) writing should be evocative, dramatic, and sensory.   Again, take a look at the Young Adventurer's Guides: every topic on a two page spread, visual design that aids in understanding, sidebars with short but evocative descriptions.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> Strictly speaking, they are quite equivalent in game terms. Mostly what I've seen is people glaze over and ignore Feats because they discover that they are optional well before they begin to make sense if them. The Background Feat regime will change a lot about how most people approach Feats, I think.



I don't see the equivalence.  Half the +1s won't even do anything because the secondary stat will be even. The rest will add a trivial amount of increase as you will get a +1 bonus to something you probably aren't using all that often. Compare that to a feat that does lots of stuff that will be used frequently and a skill proficiency that will be used frequently, and both generally to good effect.  The latter just seems much better to me.

I do get that some people don't want the added complexity of feats.  That doesn't make the two equivalent, though.


----------



## Maxperson

CleverNickName said:


> Instead, we currently have some optional rules in the PHB and others in the DMG, and it causes a lot of unnecessary conflict at my table.  The players aren't informed about which "options" are actually options, and the DM--that's me!--has to endure a lot of push-back and arguments from the players whenever he wants to add stuff from the DMG (or remove stuff from the PHB).



Refer them to the PHB, page 6.

"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, *you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game*. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> I am addressing a possible issue where a popular style is somehow believed to be more valid than a less popular one.  Don't tell me you've never seen that one.



Unless I say it, don’t shove it into my face like I have, please.



Charlaquin said:


> Some people like their make-believe silly, others like it dramatic. Both are fun in my experience.



Even my dramatic games aren’t super serious. 


Maxperson said:


> It can't be anything else.  The change to racial ASIs and ability to invent races whole cloth are enough to make a significant change to the default game.





Maxperson said:


> It can't be anything else.  The change to racial ASIs and ability to invent races whole cloth are enough to make a significant change to the default game.



Hardly. Those are quite small changes. Changing how dual wielding works with the action economy would be bigger.

They didn’t make races more or less powerful, or change how they interact with the rest of the game.


----------



## Maxperson

doctorbadwolf said:


> Hardly. Those are quite small changes. Changing how dual wielding works with the action economy would be bigger.



Completely changing how ASIs work and quite a bit more drastic, allowing players to just invent whole races are not small changes.


doctorbadwolf said:


> They didn’t make races more or less powerful, or change how they interact with the rest of the game.



Doesn't matter.  Power level isn't the requirement for how big a change is.  Before you had fixed ASIs and races were better at some things than others.  Now they will be floating and all races are the same with stats. That's huge and alters the world view of races.  No longer are elves and halflings nimble.  No longer are half orcs strong.  

And I know you or someone else is going to be like, "Racial abilities can show those things."  But then you've created a disconnect where races are strong, but not strong, nimble, but not nimble, because stats matter.  It's a large change to how things work, even if mechanically things are still equal.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Even my dramatic games aren’t super serious.



We could further distinguish between drama and melodrama. Point is, some people want to treat the fiction as more akin to LotR or GoT than Vox Machina or Slayers.


----------



## CleverNickName

Maxperson said:


> Refer them to the PHB, page 6.
> 
> "Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, *you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game*. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."



Oh I have, believe me.

"BuT iT's NoT a hOuSeRuLe iT's iN tHe _pLaYeR's HaNdBoOk_..."

I know it won't stop every argument,  but it would be a big relief for me if, in all future rulebooks,  Wizards of the Coast would just keep optional rules separate from the rest.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Unless I say it, don’t shove it into my face like I have, please.
> 
> 
> Even my dramatic games aren’t super serious.
> 
> 
> Hardly. Those are quite small changes. Changing how dual wielding works with the action economy would be bigger.
> 
> They didn’t make races more or less powerful, or change how they interact with the rest of the game.



You're right and I apologize. 

While the actual changes might be minor, all of the plans we know about should significantly change the look of the new books, and that can absolutely work against acceptance.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> We could further distinguish between drama and melodrama. Point is, some people want to treat the fiction as more akin to LotR or GoT than Vox Machina or Slayers.



It's been a while since I've read it, but isn't LotR jam-packed with songs and dumb puns and way more fun than people who purport to be fans give it credit for? Everyone acts like it's all Boromir when there's plenty of Tom, Merry and Pippin.

To say nothing of the Hobbit.

Which is a long way of saying 'please don't sully LotR by grouping it with GoT'.


----------



## darjr

Two words.
Tom Bombadil.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> It's been a while since I've read it, but isn't LotR jam-packed with songs and dumb puns and way more fun than people who purport to be fans give it credit for? Everyone acts like it's all Boromir when there's plenty of Tom, Merry and Pippin.



Who says a serious fantasy story can’t have levity?


Vaalingrade said:


> To say nothing of the Hobbit.



The Hobbit is plenty serious, especially in light of the fact that it was written for children.


Vaalingrade said:


> Which is a long way of saying 'please don't sully LotR by grouping it with GoT'.



 I’m not comparing them in terms of quality, I’m just saying they’re both examples of fantasy stories with serious tones.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I don't see the equivalence.  Half the +1s won't even do anything because the secondary stat will be even. The rest will add a trivial amount of increase as you will get a +1 bonus to something you probably aren't using all that often. Compare that to a feat that does lots of stuff that will be used frequently and a skill proficiency that will be used frequently, and both generally to good effect.  The latter just seems much better to me.
> 
> I do get that some people don't want the added complexity of feats.  That doesn't make the two equivalent, though.



A +1 to AC, Spell DC or attack is pretty consistently awesome.


----------



## tetrasodium

Scribe said:


> As books, to be enjoyed, I bounced off them so hard I never looked back. Still do to this day.



4e went too far.  Opposite of 5e's "natural language" is technical writing(like with actual courses & such) but 4e too often sped past it straight into what was basically just a data dump & took it a step further by too often ctrl-c/ctrl-v the data between classes.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> Who says a serious fantasy story can’t have levity?



The 90's and 00's.


----------



## Charlaquin

Vaalingrade said:


> The 90's and 00's.



Well that’s two to three decades past now.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> A +1 to AC, Spell DC or attack is pretty consistently awesome.



You aren't really getting that, though.  You've already picked two +1s to your main two stats, which are going to be the attack/DC stat and probably dex/con. The other +1s are going to add a bonus to maybe two other stats, maybe, and they will be secondaries like int for a fighter or strength for a wizard.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> You aren't really getting that, though.  You've already picked two +1s to your main two stats, which are going to be the attack/DC stat and probably dex/con. The other +1s are going to add a bonus to maybe two other stats, maybe, and they will be secondaries like int for a fighter or strength for a wizard.



But based on the stats out there...most games aren't getting that far along. Most characters are played to a point where their big primary stats are still able to be raised.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> But based on the stats out there...most games aren't getting that far along. Most characters are played to a point where their big primary stats are still able to be raised.



That's a matter of what to do with your ASI for levelling, not for beginning characters.  As a normal human, you get +1 to everything, so the big two get +1 and a few other minor stats get a boost from their +1s.  As a variant human you get the same +1 to the big two, and you get a great feat and an extra proficiency for adventuring.  Much better.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> Completely changing how ASIs work and quite a bit more drastic, allowing players to just invent whole races are not small changes.
> 
> Doesn't matter.  Power level isn't the requirement for how big a change is.  Before you had fixed ASIs and races were better at some things than others.  Now they will be floating and all races are the same with stats. That's huge and alters the world view of races.  No longer are elves and halflings nimble.  No longer are half orcs strong.
> 
> And I know you or someone else is going to be like, "Racial abilities can show those things."  But then you've created a disconnect where races are strong, but not strong, nimble, but not nimble, because stats matter.  It's a large change to how things work, even if mechanically things are still equal.



But, it doesn’t actually change the game significantly. You can still play precisely the same characters you could before. You just have more options. 


Charlaquin said:


> We could further distinguish between drama and melodrama. Point is, some people want to treat the fiction as more akin to LotR or GoT than Vox Machina or Slayers.



Absolutely, I’m just pointing out that while my group leans much more LoTR (I’ve little regard for GoT), we still tell jokes and have moments like the gif upthread.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> That's a matter of what to do with your ASI for levelling, not for beginning characters.  As a normal human, you get +1 to everything, so the big two get +1 and a few other minor stats get a boost from their +1s.  As a variant human you get the same +1 to the big two, and you get a great feat and an extra proficiency for adventuring.  Much better.



The one time it came up, my brother in law made a big deal of allowing Feats in a campaign. I was making a Human Wizard to take him up on it, while the other players ignored Feats entirely...and then I rolled 6 odd Ability scores, and I couldn't help myself. 6 +1's to Saves and Skills...


----------



## Parmandur

It does strike me: with Backgroujd Feats looking like the norm moving forwards...could the revised Humans essentget two Backgrounds...?


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> The one time it came up, my brother in law made a big deal of allowing Feats in a campaign. I was making a Human Wizard to take him up on it, while the other players ignored Feats entirely...and then I rolled 6 odd Ability scores, and I couldn't help myself. 6 +1's to Saves and Skills...



Corner cases will happen where the +1s across the board are great!  Most of the time you have a few odd and a few even and you put the odd ones into your main two stats and most of the rest are wasted.  You're as likely to roll all even stats as all odd.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> It does strike me: with Backgroujd Feats looking like the norm moving forwards...could the revised Humans essentget two Backgrounds...?



I doubt it.  Likely it will be one background and a bonus feat of choice for race.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Absolutely, I’m just pointing out that while my group leans much more LoTR (I’ve little regard for GoT), we still tell jokes and have moments like the gif upthread.



Oh, for sure! And it’s not as if LotR is without its own goofy moments.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, if that’s how you want to frame it. For better or worse it worked, and the game is more popular then ever because of it.




Only people who hate 5e see the truth clearly. The rest of us have been duped into falsely believing we are having fun.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Maxperson said:


> November 2020 Tasha's came out.
> September 2021 WotC announced 5.5.
> August 2022 WotC says it will be adopting Tasha's for the 5.5 PHB.
> 
> They knew when Tasha's came out which way things were going to go.  Calling those rules optional when they knew they would eventually become the default was pretty darned disingenuous.



Good grief. Can you not tell the difference between "now" and "several years in the future"?

And yes, it was obvious that when Tasha's came out they were piloting proposed rules changes. And no one at WotC said "these rules will be optional FOREVER". Of course, had they not been generally well received, they would have rolled them back.

Of course, all rules are optional, and WotC encourage house rules. If you don't like the rules you have official permission to change them to suit yourself.


----------



## Maxperson

Paul Farquhar said:


> Good grief. Can you not tell the difference between "now" and "several years in the future"?



2 = several now? When did that change happen?


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> 2 = several now? When did that change happen?



4 years in 2020, particularly at thst point they wouldn't have had data yet on reception of the options.


----------



## dave2008

Maxperson said:


> 2 = several now? When did that change happen?



never mind...just noticed @Parmandur ninja'd me


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> I doubt it.  Likely it will be one background and a bonus feat of choice for race.



For the 50e human, I suspect, the race feat will be default Prodigy. Possibly a variant rule allows a DM/player to swap it. Plus, there will be the background feat.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> 4 years in 2020, particularly at thst point they wouldn't have had data yet on reception of the options.



It's only 2 years.  2020 = Tasha. 2022 = announcement of Tasha no longer being optional for the next edition.  It took 2 years.  In any case, 4 =/= several, either.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> It's only 2 years.  2020 = Tasha. 2022 = announcement of Tasha no longer being optional for the next edition.  It took 2 years.  In any case, 4 =/= several, either.



Heh, for me 3 to maybe 9 can be "several".


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> For the 50e human, I suspect, the race feat will be default Prodigy. Possibly a variant rule allows a DM/player to swap it. Plus, there will be the background feat.



I think defaulting prodigy would kill it. They're already not used much due to people viewing +1s to mostly useless secondaries as better than a feat of their choice and proficiency of their choice.  Limiting that feat to one good, but not great feat would cause even fewer to pick it.

As for the background feats, everyone will get them, so they can't be used when assessing racial abilities. I don't think they will kill the race the way you propose.  The racial feat will probably remain open to any feat allowable to humans.


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> Heh, for me 3 to maybe 9 can be "several".



Yeah.  I forgot how vague "several" is.  It's still 2 years from Tasha's to announcement, though.  So not several.


----------



## darjr

Im sorry, if you gotta argue that two years isn’t several in order to support calling people liers you’ve lost me.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I forgot how vague "several" is.  It's still 2 years from Tasha's to announcement, though.  So not several.



They are already compiling the 50 anniversary now.

An anniversary isnt something that can be late or half asked.

Winninger knew enough about it looks like to make comparisons.


----------



## Yaarel

darjr said:


> Im sorry, if you gotta argue that two years isn’t several in order to support calling people liers you’ve lost me.



I didnt read it that way. @Maxperson cares about technical details.


----------



## Yaarel

Maxperson said:


> I think defaulting prodigy would kill it. They're already not used much due to people viewing +1s to mostly useless secondaries as better than a feat of their choice and proficiency of their choice.  Limiting that feat to one good, but not great feat would cause even fewer to pick it.
> 
> As for the background feats, everyone will get them, so they can't be used when assessing racial abilities. I don't think they will kill the race the way you propose.  The racial feat will probably remain open to any feat allowable to humans.



In my eyes, the feat choice is good flavor for humans.

But I suspect the human design will be as simple as possible for the sake of newbie players.


----------



## payn

darjr said:


> Two words.
> Tom Bombadil.



The only good thing in LotR.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Okay, I'll bite: what _exact number_ does the purposefully inexact word 'several' imply?


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> Im sorry, if you gotta argue that two years isn’t several in order to support calling people liers you’ve lost me.



I don't. They didn't say the rules would only be optional until 5.5, and I don't believe for a second that they didn't intend for the rules to be in 5.5 when Tasha's was released.  Had those rules been horribly received they may have backed away from the plan, but that doesn't make stating that the rules were optional not a lie.  The truth would have been "Temporarily optional."


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, I'll bite: what _exact number_ does the purposefully inexact word 'several' imply?



More than a few, less than a lot.


----------



## Yaarel

.







Reynard said:


> More than a few, less than a lot.



Few is like several. 

More than 2, but less than "many".

Probably, 10 starts the "many" range.


Perhaps several emphasizes meaningful "choices" to choose from. Whereas "few" might be a lump.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> More than a few, less than a lot.



Hmm... but where does that leave 'many'?


----------



## Maxperson

Yaarel said:


> .
> Few is like several.
> 
> More than 2, but less than "many".
> 
> Probably, 10 starts the "many" range.



Many is even more vague than several.  It's just "a large number of."


----------



## darjr

Maxperson said:


> I don't. They didn't say the rules would only be optional until 5.5, and I don't believe for a second that they didn't intend for the rules to be in 5.5 when Tasha's was released.  Had those rules been horribly received they may have backed away from the plan, but that doesn't make stating that the rules were optional not a lie.  The truth would have been "Temporarily optional."



Didn’t you say it was “deceptive”?


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> Didn’t you say it was “deceptive”?



Advertising the race rules as optional when they knew that in 5.5 they would be default is deceptive.  1, 2, or several don't matter.


----------



## darjr

Maxperson said:


> Advertising the race rules as optional when they knew that in 5.5 they would be default is deceptive.  1, 2, or several don't matter.



Proof when calling people liers is, I think, a good practice.
Edit to note: this isn’t it.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Maxperson said:


> 2 = several now? When did that change happen?



Tasha's came out in 2020. The new core rules are coming out in 2024. 2024-2020 = 4, not 2, last time I checked. That's a lifetime for fourth editions!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Oh, for sure! And it’s not as if LotR is without its own goofy moments.



Yeah I have been listening to the unabridged audiobook version from Recorded Books on audible, and the part where Sam recites his song about trolls is downright hilarious.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Maxperson said:


> Advertising the race rules as optional when they knew that in 5.5 they would be default is deceptive.  1, 2, or several don't matter.



They didn't_ know_. If Tasha's had not been well received, they would have taken a different direction. That's what a pilot is for.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Maxperson said:


> In any case, 4 =/= several, either.



Yes it does. 


Maxperson said:


> I don't. They didn't say the rules would only be optional until 5.5, and *I don't believe for a second that they didn't intend for the rules to be in 5.5 when Tasha's was released*.  Had those rules been horribly received they may have backed away from the plan, but *that doesn't make stating that the rules were optional not a lie*.  The truth would have been "Temporarily optional."



Yeah, it does. The Tasha’s race options also just expand what is possible. 

But your position also depends on the assumption that they’re lying (see first bolded sentence) in order to conclude that they’re lying, which is a very weak position.


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, I'll bite: what _exact number_ does the purposefully inexact word 'several' imply?



One more than "a few."


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> Yeah, it does. The Tasha’s race options also just expand what is possible.
> 
> But your position also depends on the assumption that they’re lying (see first bolded sentence) in order to conclude that they’re lying, which is a very weak position.



Doesn't mean he's wrong.  Where would you even get evidence of that anyway?  All we have for any of it is speculation, and whether or not you think well of WotC in general.


----------



## Maxperson

dave2008 said:


> One more than "a few."



More specifically, it's one more than a couple(2), since several is 3 to many.  A few is just a small number of, which would include 2, but also 3 or 4, which is several.  

These descriptive number groups make my head hurt.  I mean, 4 stars in a solar system is a large number of stars for a solar system, which is many.  So would that make 3 the only number that qualifies for several, since it's less than many?  Or since 4 is a small number, would that simply be a few stars?


----------



## Vaalingrade

The deep, important discussion invoked by D&D ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## CapnZapp

doctorbadwolf said:


> This isn’t true. I’ve done the math, and the rogue’s SA with 1 attack per round is equal to the value obtained by extrapolating a wizard’s spell slots translated directly into single target damage over enough rounds to run the wizard out of slots. If they wizard uses slots for other things at all, the rogue does more damage over the same number of rounds.
> 
> Reaction attacks are extra.



Why does equality with wizards make my statement untrue??


----------



## Reynard

Vaalingrade said:


> The deep, important discussion invoked by D&D ladies and gentlemen.



In the 2024 revision, they should just say that each class can use their abilities/spells "several times a day."


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> In the 2024 revision, they should just say that each class can use their abilities/spells "several times a day."



This one specifically:


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> It's only 2 years.  2020 = Tasha. 2022 = announcement of Tasha no longer being optional for the next edition.  It took 2 years.  In any case, 4 =/= several, either.



There has been no announcement. Ray Winninger told a guy that he thinks he'll like what he sees, based on a list where the Tasha's changes were included.

That doesn't mean they are being adopted wholesale, or that they knew in 2020 that would be the case.

But if in 2022 they know that most people have adopted Tasharules into their game...why wouldn't they include them as standard in the next Edition, similar to Proficiencies in 2E? That didn't mean that the Wilderness Survival Guide or Oriental Adventures were disingenuous when they introduced those as an option, even if Zeb Cook suspected that he would put them in 2E already.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  I forgot how vague "several" is.  It's still 2 years from Tasha's to announcement, though.  So not several.



There's been no announcement of specifics, just a nod and a wink that tpeople that are happy with the current game will stay happy.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I don't. They didn't say the rules would only be optional until 5.5, and I don't believe for a second that they didn't intend for the rules to be in 5.5 when Tasha's was released.  Had those rules been horribly received they may have backed away from the plan, but that doesn't make stating that the rules were optional not a lie.  The truth would have been "Temporarily optional."



Does the calculus change if the 2024 release is straight up 6E (albeit a 6E that is casually backwards compatible, also part of what Winninger winked at here)?


----------



## Parmandur

Paul Farquhar said:


> They didn't_ know_. If Tasha's had not been well received, they would have taken a different direction. That's what a pilot is for.



Indeed, and one thing to consider is that due to Beyond in addition to their surveying apparatus, WotC probably has a pretty good idea on how these changes have been received by now.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Anyone want to figure out how much space is saved if we move all the races to MotM style write ups... just removing the stat lines and adding the ones to the beginingI think could save 1/4 a page.  I do wonder how dwraf subclass and half elf will work though


----------



## Yaarel

Parmandur said:


> Does the calculus change if the 2024 release is straight up 6E (albeit a 6E that is casually backwards compatible, also part of what Winninger winked at here)?



In my eyes, "compatible" means using both 2014 books and 2024 books at the same table. 

6e would mean such is impracticable. 

5.5 is occasionally awkward but doable.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> Anyone want to figure out how much space is saved if we move all the races to MotM style write ups... just removing the stat lines and adding the ones to the beginingI think could save 1/4 a page.  I do wonder how dwraf subclass and half elf will work though



IIRC, the 2014 Race writeups average out to 4 pages each, whereas the MotM ones are about a page each, as are Spelljammer (fresh in my mind). 

So 3 pages per Race, times 9 Races, is about 27 pages. If we assume as a baseline that each existing Subrace gets upgraded to a full Race ala MotM, then we are looking at 14 options in 14 pages or so, for a saving of approximately 22 pages.  I'll check the actual books later to see if my coffee break math seems right.


----------



## Parmandur

Yaarel said:


> In my eyes, "compatible" means using both 2014 books and 2024 books at the same table.
> 
> 6e would mean such is impracticable.
> 
> 5.5 is occasionally awkward but doable.



I think it can be done and still be called 6E. They did it in the 80's, they can do it now.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> In my eyes, "compatible" means using both 2014 books and 2024 books at the same table.
> 
> 6e would mean such is impracticable.
> 
> 5.5 is occasionally awkward but doable.



Which books? Can you use Sword and Fist at the same table as the 3.5 PHB?


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> Anyone want to figure out how much space is saved if we move all the races to MotM style write ups... just removing the stat lines and adding the ones to the beginingI think could save 1/4 a page.  I do wonder how dwraf subclass and half elf will work though



For several reasons, I am ok with a separate Monster Manual for humanlike creatures.

Then the Monster Manual is for more nonhumanlike creatures.


----------



## Reynard

Yaarel said:


> For several reasons, I am ok with a separate Monster Manual for humanlike creatures.
> 
> Then the Monster Manual is for more nonhumanlike creatures.



I think adding to the number of books necessary to run the game is a bad idea.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> Which books? Can you use Sword and Fist at the same table as the 3.5 PHB?



Cant say. I never used it. If not usable, then it would defacto be a different edition.





Parmandur said:


> I think it can be done and still be called 6E. They did it in the 80's, they can do it now.



Perhaps it shouldnt be done?

If there are enough innovations to warrant a new edition, I would rather it be done well on its own terms, rather than constrained by backwards compatibility and compromised by less good ways of doing something.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> Which books? Can you use Sword and Fist at the same table as the 3.5 PHB?



at the beginning we tried a few times to tweek... but as the complete books started we abandoned it even when not all the prestige classes got upgrades


----------



## Parmandur

Parmandur said:


> IIRC, the 2014 Race writeups average out to 4 pages each, whereas the MotM ones are about a page each, as are Spelljammer (fresh in my mind).
> 
> So 3 pages per Race, times 9 Races, is about 27 pages. If we assume as a baseline that each existing Subrace gets upgraded to a full Race ala MotM, then we are looking at 14 options in 14 pages or so, for a saving of approximately 22 pages.  I'll check the actual books later to see if my coffee break math seems right.



@GMforPowergamers  checking really quickly the ToC, Monsters of the Multiverse covers 33 full Races in 30 Pages (the Genasi get 4 full Ra es in a 2 page spread), while the 2014 PHB gets 9 full Races and 14 options (full and sub) in 27 pages (3 pages per full Race average). I thinknthey can get that down under 15 pages, partly depends on whether some Subraces get upgraded or merged.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Reynard said:


> Which books? Can you use Sword and Fist at the same table as the 3.5 PHB?



They absolutely pretended you could at the time.


----------



## Haplo781

tetrasodium said:


> 4e went too far.  Opposite of 5e's "natural language" is technical writing(like with actual courses & such) but 4e too often sped past it straight into what was basically just a data dump & took it a step further by too often ctrl-c/ctrl-v the data between classes.



I am so goddamn tired of this objectively false talking point.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> Doesn't mean he's wrong.






Micah Sweet said:


> Where would you even get evidence of that anyway?  All we have for any of it is speculation, and whether or not you think well of WotC in general.



Evidence of what? That it’s ridiculous to argue that they’re lying because they’re lying? 


CapnZapp said:


> Why does equality with wizards make my statement untrue??



You joking? 

The game is balanced around math, and according to that math the rogue does plenty of damage without using reactions for offense.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> Does the calculus change if the 2024 release is straight up 6E (albeit a 6E that is casually backwards compatible, also part of what Winninger winked at here)?



If it were straight up 6e I would be much happier with it.  Then they can move on and leave 5e alone like the other past editions.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> @GMforPowergamers  checking really quickly the ToC, Monsters of the Multiverse covers 33 full Races in 30 Pages (the Genasi get 4 full Ra es in a 2 page spread), while the 2014 PHB gets 9 full Races and 14 options (full and sub) in 27 pages (3 pages per full Race average). I thinknthey can get that down under 15 pages, partly depends on whether some Subraces get upgraded or merged.



We're still looking for ways to cut down the page count...maybe for more art!  How...great...would that be?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Haplo781 said:


> I am so goddamn tired of this objectively false talking point.



it's better then some, but I agree. If you could find 10 'sets' of powers that were copy/paste I would be amazed... on the other hand if you think that there were 0 over lap and 0 similar ones I would fall out of my chair shocked...

4e had flaws. 4e needed work.  4e MAY have needed some extra fluff to mechanic ratio (although not what I need) but 4e was not the copy/paste edition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> We're still looking for ways to cut down the page count...maybe for more art!  How...great...would that be?



I am wondering if they will fit Artificer in.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Parmandur said:


> IIRC, the 2014 Race writeups average out to 4 pages each, whereas the MotM ones are about a page each, as are Spelljammer (fresh in my mind).
> 
> So 3 pages per Race, times 9 Races, is about 27 pages. If we assume as a baseline that each existing Subrace gets upgraded to a full Race ala MotM, then we are looking at 14 options in 14 pages or so, for a saving of approximately 22 pages.  I'll check the actual books later to see if my coffee break math seems right.




 By Grabthar's Hammer what a savings!

 The leaves them enough room to add a few more races to the core, like Goblins and Aasimar, ones that keep popping up in all kinds of setting.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am wondering if they will fit Artificer in.




 i hope so.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Micah Sweet said:


> We're still looking for ways to cut down the page count...maybe for more art!  How...great...would that be?




 You could also use some of that space to add a few amount of races that are common to alot of settings, like Aasimar, Genasi, Goblins, etc...


----------



## Yaarel

I hope 50e PH includes:
• Psion
• Artificer
• Warlord
• Swordmage


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> We're still looking for ways to cut down the page count...maybe for more art!  How...great...would that be?



Sure, absolutely. Art is great.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am wondering if they will fit Artificer in.



Almost certainly, I would say.


----------



## Parmandur

Henadic Theologian said:


> By Grabthar's Hammer what a savings!
> 
> The leaves them enough room to add a few more races to the core, like Goblins and Aasimar, ones that keep popping up in all kinds of setting.



Or more room for Backgrounds, Subclasses, art, etc.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Parmandur said:


> Or more room for Backgrounds, Subclasses, art, etc.




 i still think adding a few races that are very common between settings such as Goblins makes sense. I mean how many D&D and MtG settings are there that are likely to be published as D&D setting books don't have Goblins? FR, DL, PS, Mystara, Raveloft, Greyhawk, Eberron, SJ, Ravnica, Strixhaven (Arcvios), Dominaria, Alara, Mirrodin/New Phyrexia, Kamigawa, Mercane, all have Goblins vs Theros, Kaldheim, New Capenna, and Darksun that don't have Goblins. 

 And if you have Tieflings in, it feels unbalanced to not have Aasimar and Genasi in.


----------



## tetrasodium

Henadic Theologian said:


> i still think adding a few races that are very common between settings such as Goblins makes sense. I mean how many D&D and MtG settings are there that are likely to be published as D&D setting books don't have Goblins? FR, DL, PS, Mystara, Raveloft, Greyhawk, Eberron, SJ, Ravnica, Strixhaven (Arcvios), Dominaria, Alara, Mirrodin/New Phyrexia, Kamigawa, Mercane, all have Goblins vs Theros, Kaldheim, New Capenna, and *Darksun that don't have Goblins.*
> 
> And if you have Tieflings in, it feels unbalanced to not have Aasimar and Genasi in.



 Daskinor “Goblin Death” no doubt appreciates you acknowledging his contribution Athas.  IoW if there _are_ goblins in athas they better be even more adept at hiding their nature than a wizard


----------



## Micah Sweet

Henadic Theologian said:


> You could also use some of that space to add a few amount of races that are common to alot of settings, like Aasimar, Genasi, Goblins, etc...



You could, but I expect we'll just get art and less page count in general for the same or a higher price.  Spelljammer showed the future pretty clearly, even if what they did release was pretty cool.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Parmandur said:


> Sure, absolutely. Art is great.



Not greater than actual content, for the game we are paying for.


----------



## Parmandur

Micah Sweet said:


> Not greater than actual content, for the game we are paying for.



Both/and, not either/or.


----------



## tetrasodium

Micah Sweet said:


> You could, but I expect we'll just get art and less page count in general for the same or a higher price.  Spelljammer showed the future pretty clearly, even if what they did release was pretty cool.



There's also the option used in rising from the last war where relevant in setting  newspaper clipping type sidebars got used in ways that cover things like what x does and how y reacts to it simultaneously without needing a ton of writing about each individually.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Henadic Theologian said:


> i still think adding a few races that are very common between settings such as Goblins makes sense. I mean how many D&D and MtG settings are there that are likely to be published as D&D setting books don't have Goblins? FR, DL, PS, Mystara, Raveloft, Greyhawk, Eberron, SJ, Ravnica, Strixhaven (Arcvios), Dominaria, Alara, Mirrodin/New Phyrexia, Kamigawa, Mercane, all have Goblins vs Theros, Kaldheim, New Capenna, and Darksun that don't have Goblins.
> 
> And if you have Tieflings in, it feels unbalanced to not have Aasimar and Genasi in.



I just had the amazing mental image of a Phyrexian Tiefling.

Though I guess that's just Newts like Ratepe.

Edit: Xancha. Ratepe was their love interest/ Urza's replacement Mishra.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> I hope 50e PH includes:
> • Psion
> • Artificer
> • Warlord
> • Swordmage



I would buy it in an instant if that was the case


----------



## Bill Zebub

Reynard said:


> Which books? Can you use Sword and Fist at the same table as the 3.5 PHB?




My very first character (made for me by an older kid who knew how to play) was an "Elf" (class & race) with 18/33 strength.

So, yeah, you can mix editions.


----------



## Reynard

Bill Zebub said:


> My very first character (made for me by an older kid who knew how to play) was an "Elf" (class & race) with 18/33 strength.
> 
> So, yeah, you can mix editions.



The question wasn't whether editions of D&D have ever been backwards compatible, but what that backwards compatibility means. I would say that 3.5 was backwards compatible with 3.0 for most DM facing materials. For the most part, you could use 3.5 monsters, situational rules and adventures with 3.0 with minimal fuss because it did not alter the underlying assumptions or math. But it was not backwards compatible in regards to most player facing stuff, because that is where 3.5 made the most changes.


----------



## TwoSix

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would buy it in an instant if that was the case



If they add 3 new classes, then I'd definitely buy it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure, but they also absolutely sucked the pleasure out of reading the book (for me).



This is a completely alien mindset for me. I don't read D&D books to get pleasure from them. I play the game for pleasure and I read the books to be able to play the game. In a way, reading the books is basically homework required to get to the fun part of the hobby. 

If I want pleasure from reading a book, I'll read a novel. This is part of why I normally don't really enjoy the little notes from Mordenkainen, Tasha, and Volo in 5e books. In my opinion, the word count devoted to those is a waste of space that could have been devoted to giving me more content to inspire my campaigns.


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> This is a completely alien mindset for me. I don't read D&D books to get pleasure from them. I play the game for pleasure and I read the books to be able to play the game. In a way, reading the books is basically homework required to get to the fun part of the hobby.
> 
> If I want pleasure from reading a book, I'll read a novel. This is part of why I normally don't really enjoy the little notes from Mordenkainen, Tasha, and Volo in 5e books. In my opinion, the word count devoted to those is a waste of space that could have been devoted to giving me more content to inspire my campaigns.



It's another of those both/and things: fun to read books, like 5E books have been consistently, make for a fun prep experience. Without that...the homework is just work.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> It's another of those both/and things: fun to read books, like 5E books have been consistently, make for a fun prep experience. Without that...the homework is just work.



But it's homework either way. Adding them doesn't significantly change my experience reading the books except for taking away from the content I might have gotten if they weren't there. And my players and I get enough enjoyment from just seeing the new options and theory-crafting characters/campaigns. Taking away from that enjoyment by adding blurbs that are neither lore nor mechanics is a bad thing, in my opinion.


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> But it's homework either way. Adding them doesn't significantly change my experience reading the books except for taking away from the content I might have gotten if they weren't there. And my players and I get enough enjoyment from just seeing the new options and theory-crafting characters/campaigns. Taking away from that enjoyment by adding blurbs that are neither lore nor mechanics is a bad thing, in my opinion.



Less than ideal for you, perhaps, but fun is part of the experience for others.

D&D has lurched wildly between one extreme to the other over the years, and the 5E design philosophy I would say represents a good balance.


----------



## Charlaquin

AcererakTriple6 said:


> This is a completely alien mindset for me. I don't read D&D books to get pleasure from them. I play the game for pleasure and I read the books to be able to play the game. In a way, reading the books is basically homework required to get to the fun part of the hobby.
> 
> If I want pleasure from reading a book, I'll read a novel. This is part of why I normally don't really enjoy the little notes from Mordenkainen, Tasha, and Volo in 5e books. In my opinion, the word count devoted to those is a waste of space that could have been devoted to giving me more content to inspire my campaigns.



Also, I found 4e a much easier read than 3e. And don’t get me started on Gary’s writing.


----------



## Micah Sweet

AcererakTriple6 said:


> This is a completely alien mindset for me. I don't read D&D books to get pleasure from them. I play the game for pleasure and I read the books to be able to play the game. In a way, reading the books is basically homework required to get to the fun part of the hobby.
> 
> If I want pleasure from reading a book, I'll read a novel. This is part of why I normally don't really enjoy the little notes from Mordenkainen, Tasha, and Volo in 5e books. In my opinion, the word count devoted to those is a waste of space that could have been devoted to giving me more content to inspire my campaigns.



I think you and I have long agreed to disagree on a great many things.  I can't think of a version of the game both of us would enjoy equally.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Also, I found 4e a much easier read than 3e. And don’t get me started on Gary’s writing.



In terms of readability, my experience is 5E > > 2E/Basic > 1E/3E > 4E. 3E and 1E have very different strengths and weaknesses in writing style, but it's about a wash for me. All of the non-4E books I've tried have at least been fun to read, and through that of use outside of their Edition. 4E material is not useful for anything other than playing 4E, Gygax's polearm charts are evergreen.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> In terms of readability, my experience is 5E > > 2E/Basic > 1E/3E > 4E. 3E and 1E have very different strengths and weaknesses in writing style, but it's about a wash for me. All of the non-4E books I've tried have at least been fun to read, and through that of use outside of their Edition. 4E material is not useful for anything other than playing 4E, Gygax's polearm charts are evergreen.



Why would you need game rules to be useful for anything other than playing the game? We don’t rate Monopoly instructions this way.

My ranking would be 4e > 5e >> 3e >>>>>1e. Haven’t read 2e or Basic so I can’t rank them.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Why would you need game rules to be useful for anything other than playing the game? We don’t rate Monopoly instructions this way.
> 
> My ranking would be 4e > 5e >> 3e >>>>>1e. Haven’t read 2e or Basic so I can’t rank them.



Because I enjoy reading. And, game books that are enjoyable to read can remain useful. The 1E Manual of the Planes or the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, for example, are completely usable with 5E aside from some crunchy fiddly bits (actually, the MotP might be close to 100% compatible still). 4E books, laser focused on usability for the game mechanics, are ironically not useful for 5E games. Readability creates a specific sort of usability for TTRPGs, part of what makes the medium unique. Basically all 5E books will retain this sort of adaptable usability through their natural language format.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Because I enjoy reading.



That’s fine, but doesn’t speak to the books’ utility.


Parmandur said:


> And, game books that are enjoyable to read can remain useful. The 1E Manual of the Planes or the 3E Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, for example, are completely usable with 5E aside from some crunchy fiddly bits (actually, the MotP might be close to 100% compatible still). 4E books, laser focused on usability for the game mechanics, are ironically not useful for 5E games.



Again though, why would 4e books need to be useful for 5e games? 5e has its own books for use in 5e games. I don’t fault the Monopoly rules for not being useful in Yahtzee games, nor Dickens for not writing good Shakespeare.


Parmandur said:


> Readability creates a specific usability for TTRPGs, part of what makes the medium unique.



I think we’re using the term “readability” differently. In my experience, 4e books are eminently _readable_. Whether or not reading them is _enjoyable_ is a matter of taste, of course.


----------



## payn

Charlaquin said:


> Why would you need game rules to be useful for anything other than playing the game? We don’t rate Monopoly instructions this way.
> 
> My ranking would be 4e > 5e >> 3e >>>>>1e. Haven’t read 2e or Basic so I can’t rank them.



There is a lot of themes in the board game of Monopoly that come out during play. In 4E, those themes were excised from the manual, and you had to rely on your GM to provide the flavor. Many GMs are not so good at this. By reinforcing the themes in the manual, you give notion to the GM to keep it up as well.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> That’s fine, but doesn’t speak to the books’ utility.
> 
> Again though, why would 4e books need to be useful for 5e games? 5e has its own books for use in 5e games. I don’t fault the Monopoly rules for not being useful in Yahtzee games, nor Dickens for not writing good Shakespeare.
> 
> I think we’re using the term “readability” differently. In my experience, 4e books are eminently _readable_. Whether or not reading them is _enjoyable_ is a matter of taste, of course.



"Readability" means the enjoyability of reading something, not legibility. 4E material is legible, if technical and dry. Admittedly thisnis somewhat to taste, but there are common trends. 

4E books don't have to be usable outside of 4E, but given the broader context of literally every other Edition having some level of transparency and continued utiliry through such natural language readabiliry, dry technical jargon of 4E material stands out.

Honestly, I wouldn't mention it except that people keep saying "hey, remember how books in 4E were chores to read? Why doesn't WotC do that anynore???"


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Why would you need game rules to be useful for anything other than playing the game? We don’t rate Monopoly instructions this way.
> 
> My ranking would be 4e > 5e >> 3e >>>>>1e. Haven’t read 2e or Basic so I can’t rank them.



This is interesting. I am general in agreement with @Parmandur , but I actually enjoyed reading 4e books. The amount of lore contained in the write ups for nearly every option they put out was fantastical! 

But the system language was more dry than I’d like. 



AcererakTriple6 said:


> Adding them doesn't significantly change my experience reading the books except for taking away from the content I might have gotten if they weren't there.



And for many others, it does significantly change the experience of reading the books and learning the system.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is interesting. I am general in agreement with @Parmandur , but I actually enjoyed reading 4e books. The amount of lore contained in the write ups for nearly every option they put out was fantastical!
> 
> But the system language was more dry than I’d like.
> 
> 
> And for many others, it does significantly change the experience of reading the books and learning the system.



I'll cop to hamming up my point for effect somewhat. My perspective was that of going inton4E hopeful and excited...and the readability is what kept knocking me down and deflating my optimism, which is frankly a darkly impressive feat because I'm  all sunshine and rainbows over here wanting to think the best of people.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

payn said:


> There is a lot of themes in the board game of Monopoly that come out during play. In 4E, those themes were excised from the manual, and you had to rely on your GM to provide the flavor. Many GMs are not so good at this. By reinforcing the themes in the manual, you give notion to the GM to keep it up as well.



Wait what? 

The 4e books are overflowing with “theme”. 

I remember someone did a comparison of the 4e PHB and the 3.5 PHB years ago and 4e had significantly _more_ flavor text, by word count.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> I'll cop to hamming up my point for effect somewhat. My perspective was that of going inton4E hopeful and excited...and the readability is what kept knocking me down and deflating my optimism, which is frankly a darkly impressive feat because I'm  all sunshine and rainbows over here wanting to think the best of people.



Yeah the formatting and such really did a lot to make people see the books as dry and technical, sadly.


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> There is a lot of themes in the board game of Monopoly that come out during play. In 4E, those themes were excised from the manual, and you had to rely on your GM to provide the flavor. Many GMs are not so good at this. By reinforcing the themes in the manual, you give notion to the GM to keep it up as well.



What themes did 4e excise, exactly?


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Honestly, I wouldn't mention it except that people keep saying "hey, remember how books in 4E were chores to read? Why doesn't WotC do that anynore???"



Is that what they’re saying? I’m pretty sure they’re saying “remember how 4e was actually written clearly? Why doesn't WotC do that anynore???"


----------



## Azzy

Yeah, I'm in the text should be enjoyable camp, too. One of the things I like about the games from R. Talsorian Games is that they will sneak humor into the rules text and have in-universe quotes to make it not so dry.


----------



## payn

doctorbadwolf said:


> The 4e books are overflowing with “theme”.






Charlaquin said:


> What themes did 4e excise, exactly?



I chose poorly my wording on this. 4E definitely has theme, its a little too particular into the game aspect. Especially the tactical combat and powers. It is difficult (for me) to imagine the adventuring aspect of the game because of this focus. There isnt much there about the exploration or social pillar of the game. So, its not an excise of theme, but a hyper focus at the cost of general themes. They simply get lost in the background.


----------



## Medic

payn said:


> There is a lot of themes in the board game of Monopoly that come out during play. In 4E, those themes were excised from the manual, and you had to rely on your GM to provide the flavor. Many GMs are not so good at this. By reinforcing the themes in the manual, you give notion to the GM to keep it up as well.



I am obligated to post this again to remind everyone that Monopoly is supposed to make a statement about Gilded Age oligarchic plutonomy.


----------



## Charlaquin

payn said:


> I chose poorly my wording on this. 4E definitely has theme, its a little too particular into the game aspect. Especially the tactical combat and powers. It is difficult (for me) to imagine the adventuring aspect of the game because of this focus. There isnt much there about the exploration or social pillar of the game. So, its not an excise of theme, but a hyper focus at the cost of general themes. They simply get lost in the background.



4e is a game about encounters, which includes encounters of non-combat varieties. But if you’re looking to it for exploration-based play, where simply navigating an adventure location and managing resources is a core part of the challenge, you’re likely to be disappointed. This is why I do ultimately prefer 5e myself. But I don’t think a lack of focus on that type of gameplay is a good critique of 4e’s writing, because that sort of play isn’t something 4e ever really intended to focus on.


----------



## payn

Charlaquin said:


> 4e is a game about encounters, which includes encounters of non-combat varieties. But if you’re looking to it for exploration-based play, where simply navigating an adventure location and managing resources is a core part of the challenge, you’re likely to be disappointed. This is why I do ultimately prefer 5e myself. But I don’t think a lack of focus on that type of gameplay is a good critique of 4e’s writing, because that sort of play isn’t something 4e ever really intended to focus on.



Perhaps you are correct. I think the design rhetoric and layout are what I have issue with and not so much the actual writing.


----------



## Charlaquin

Medic said:


> I am obligated to post this again to remind everyone that Monopoly is supposed to make a statement about Gilded Age oligarchic plutonomy.View attachment 258115



Eh, The Landlord’s Game was political commentary. Monopoly was just an attempt (a highly successful attempt) to capitalize on the popularity of the game by slapping some branding on a very similar ruleset.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah the formatting and such really did a lot to make people see the books as dry and technical, sadly.



I mean, the big hint that it is about format and styling is...5E is written by 4E designers! It's the same people, at least at the start, but approaching the writing differently after lessons were learned 


Charlaquin said:


> Is that what they’re saying? I’m pretty sure they’re saying “remember how 4e was actually written clearly? Why doesn't WotC do that anynore???"



That's what they think they are saying, but I'm translating for clarity.


Charlaquin said:


> 4e is a game about encounters, which includes encounters of non-combat varieties. But if you’re looking to it for exploration-based play, where simply navigating an adventure location and managing resources is a core part of the challenge, you’re likely to be disappointed. This is why I do ultimately prefer 5e myself. But I don’t think a lack of focus on that type of gameplay is a good critique of 4e’s writing, because that sort of play isn’t something 4e ever really intended to focus on.



4E's writing issues come before any gameplay considerations, because first one has to get through the writing to even consider the game elements.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> That's what they think they are saying, but I'm translating for clarity.



It’s really, incredibly impolite to put words into people’s mouths under the pretense that you understand their meaning better than they do, especially when what you’re saying is exactly the opposite of what they said. You didn’t care for 4e’s writing, and that’s fine. But I would hope you could understand and respect that others did like it.


----------



## Haplo781

payn said:


> I chose poorly my wording on this. 4E definitely has theme, its a little too particular into the game aspect. Especially the tactical combat and powers. It is difficult (for me) to imagine the adventuring aspect of the game because of this focus. There isnt much there about the exploration or social pillar of the game. So, its not an excise of theme, but a hyper focus at the cost of general themes. They simply get lost in the background.



What does 5e have for social and exploration pillars that isn't in 4e, exactly?


----------



## SkidAce

Vaalingrade said:


> Okay, I'll bite: what _exact number_ does the purposefully inexact word 'several' imply?



2-5.


edit;  cause if you get to 6, its a "half dozen".


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> It’s really, incredibly impolite to put words into people’s mouths under the pretense that you understand their meaning better than they do, especially when what you’re saying is exactly the opposite of what they said. You didn’t care for 4e’s writing, and that’s fine. But I would hope you could understand and respect that others did like it.



Sure, from an aesthetic point of view. People like all sorts of things.

But from the lens of the products reception: the dry presentation was a miatake. Regardless of what one's tastes might be, that approach actively harmed the game and the hobby at large.


----------



## SkidAce

Maxperson said:


> More specifically, it's one more than a couple(2), since several is 3 to many.  A few is just a small number of, which would include 2, but also 3 or 4, which is several.
> 
> These descriptive number groups make my head hurt.  I mean, 4 stars in a solar system is a large number of stars for a solar system, which is many.  So would that make 3 the only number that qualifies for several, since it's less than many?  Or since 4 is a small number, would that simply be a few stars?



Yes.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Sure, from an aesthetic point of view. People like all sorts of things.
> 
> But from the lens of the products reception: the dry presentation was a miatake. Regardless of what one's tastes might be, that approach actively harmed the game and the hobby at large.



We don’t know that. 4e didn’t grow as quickly as WotC needed it to, but we have no evidence that the writing was at fault for that. Indeed, what we do know is that 4e was incredibly popular with new players, but the loss of old players created a bottleneck to entry. What this suggests is that the biggest problem was that their early marketing decisions made long-time players feel snubbed.

EDIT: I also don’t think “dry” is a fair characterization of 4e’s presentation. 4e was full of flavor, it was just more technical than previous editions had been.


----------



## payn

Charlaquin said:


> We don’t know that. 4e didn’t grow as quickly as WotC needed it to, but we have no evidence that the writing was at fault for that. Indeed, what we do know is that 4e was incredibly popular with new players, but the loss of old players created a bottleneck to entry. What this suggests is that the biggest problem was that their early marketing decisions made long-time players feel snubbed.



This can have an impact on new players too. They often look to what senior members choose and think for their own decisions. Players will roll with whatever the GM wants to use.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> We don’t know that. 4e didn’t grow as quickly as WotC needed it to, but we have no evidence that the writing was at fault for that. Indeed, what we do know is that 4e was incredibly popular with new players, but the loss of old players created a bottleneck to entry. What this suggests is that the biggest problem was that their early marketing decisions made long-time players feel snubbed.



I can only speak to my own experience, as someone who really, really wanted to like 4E and just kept getting disappointed.

This is a thread about hopes for the future, so I don'twant to spend any more time dwelling on the misfortunes of the past: I'll leave this sideline with the positive note thet I highly doubt thst WotC will regress on the readability front in future books, and that this lesson has been well internalized into the D&D team culture.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Sure, from an aesthetic point of view. People like all sorts of things.
> 
> But from the lens of the products reception: the dry presentation was a miatake. Regardless of what one's tastes might be, that approach actively harmed the game and the hobby at large.



That’s a huge stretch. 

You’re basically just assuming out of hand that the thing you didn’t like about it is the reason it was controversial, even though that was not even top 5 of the things people complained about.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> That’s a huge stretch.
> 
> You’re basically just assuming out of hand that the thing you didn’t like about it is the reason it was controversial, even though that was not even top 5 of the things people complained about.



The formatting and readability come up just about everybtike the topic rears it's head.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Charlaquin said:


> Why would you need game rules to be useful for anything other than playing the game? We don’t rate Monopoly instructions this way.




I do. Monopoly doesn’t do a good enough job explaining the player/piece divide. I know people who play the Hat in the exact same way they play the Car. It’s all about optimization for them. They turn it into a board game.


----------



## MockingBird

Charlaquin said:


> We don’t know that. 4e didn’t grow as quickly as WotC needed it to, but we have no evidence that the writing was at fault for that. Indeed, what we do know is that 4e was incredibly popular with new players, but the loss of old players created a bottleneck to entry. What this suggests is that the biggest problem was that their early marketing decisions made long-time players feel snubbed.
> 
> EDIT: I also don’t think “dry” is a fair characterization of 4e’s presentation. 4e was full of flavor, it was just more technical than previous editions had been.



I can only speak on my own experience. When 4e came out I had a group of mostly new players and they did not like it. They were overwhelmed with character creation and did not enjoy the combat. We gave it several tries, even finished Keep on the Shadowfell, but it just wasn't well received with them.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I think you and I have long agreed to disagree on a great many things.



Yep. But this one, in particular, baffles me. Is not the main purpose of a game book to help you play the game? Why would you not just read a novel that's written by experts of entertainment to get pleasure from them if you want to be entertained . . . or just play the game? Because, to me, that's where the real joy comes from, not reading some rulebook that's purpose is to tell you about how the game, a specific setting, or a specific adventure path works. 


Micah Sweet said:


> I can't think of a version of the game both of us would enjoy equally.



Also agreed.


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yep. But this one, in particular, baffles me. Is not the main purpose of a game book to help you play the game? Why would you not just read a novel that's written by experts of entertainment to get pleasure from them if you want to be entertained . . . or just play the game? Because, to me, that's where the real joy comes from, not reading some rulebook that's purpose is to tell you about how the game, a specific setting, or a specific adventure path works.
> 
> Also agreed.



The pleasure of reading an RPG book is similar to the pleasure of a cookbook when not actively cooking: it inspires ideas and plans, stirs the imagination. There is a world of difference between a bland factual cookbook and a humorous, well-written one with great photos. The Heroic Feast D&D tue-in cookbook is a pretty good example of a fun, readable cookbook that is also practical for making food.


----------



## billd91

Charlaquin said:


> Again though, why would 4e books need to be useful for 5e games? 5e has its own books for use in 5e games. I don’t fault the Monopoly rules for not being useful in Yahtzee games, nor Dickens for not writing good Shakespeare.



I'm not sure the analogy makes much sense. 4e and 5e may be different editions but "ze game remains ze same", or so someone once said. There are decades long traditions of people using materials that are sufficiently rules-agnostic in multiple editions. By comparison, Monopoly and Yahtzee - not even different editions of the same game. 
Shakespeare, on the other hand, does have some characters cross editions, er... plays, even if they appeared in different categories of plays (Falstaff).


----------



## Scribe

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Why would you not just read a novel that's written by experts of entertainment to get pleasure from them if you want to be entertained . . . or just play the game? Because, to me, that's where the real joy comes from, not reading some rulebook that's purpose is to tell you about how the game, a specific setting, or a specific adventure path works.



How many D&D novels are being written? Art books? Setting/Lore books?

The purpose of the books released, is far more than just communicating technically how to play the game.

How much budget goes to art, I wonder?


----------



## Hussar

Funny thing about cooking writing. What’s the number one complaint about cooking blogs? That you have to wade through paragraphs of crap just to get to the recipe at the bottom. 

But this little back and forth about 4e is precisely why 5e was laid out the way it was. There was zero chance WotC could use any layout ideas from 4e. Just not going to happen. 

So here we are eight years later and people complain about vague writing, poor organization and poor layout and wonder why it was done this way. 

It’s not exactly a secret. Anything with 4e cooties was an absolute nope in 2014. In 2024, it’s only okay if you can sneak it in under the radar.


----------



## tetrasodium

Scribe said:


> How many D&D novels are being written? Art books? Setting/Lore books?
> 
> The purpose of the books released, is far more than just communicating technically how to play the game.
> 
> How much budget goes to art, I wonder?



There have been regular drizzt novels for *decades*...


----------



## dave2008

Parmandur said:


> I'll leave this sideline with the positive note thet I highly doubt thst WotC will regress on the readability front in future books, and that this lesson has been well internalized into the D&D team culture.



Readability is subjective though.  I found 4e more readable than 2e or 3e.  That was one of the things that brought me back to D&D.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I can only speak to my own experience, as someone who really, really wanted to like 4E and just kept getting disappointed.



Right, so it’s your preference. Which, again, is fine, but is not universal and I think it’s absurd to blame 4e’s financial struggles on.


Parmandur said:


> This is a thread about hopes for the future, so I don'twant to spend any more time dwelling on the misfortunes of the past: I'll leave this sideline with the positive note thet I highly doubt thst WotC will regress on the readability front in future books, and that this lesson has been well internalized into the D&D team culture.



That’s only a positive note if you _didn’t_ like 4e’s writing.


----------



## Charlaquin

MockingBird said:


> I can only speak on my own experience. When 4e came out I had a group of mostly new players and they did not like it. They were overwhelmed with character creation and did not enjoy the combat. We gave it several tries, even finished Keep on the Shadowfell, but it just wasn't well received with them.



That’s a very different problem than readability.


----------



## Charlaquin

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure the analogy makes much sense. 4e and 5e may be different editions but "ze game remains ze same", or so someone once said.



Whoever said that was wrong. Every edition of D&D is its own complete game, and each is at its best when treated as such.


----------



## Scribe

tetrasodium said:


> There have been regular drizzt novels for *decades*...



Yeah, and after the reset button going into 5e, that's about it right?


----------



## Parmandur

Hussar said:


> Funny thing about cooking writing. What’s the number one complaint about cooking blogs? That you have to wade through paragraphs of crap just to get to the recipe at the bottom.
> 
> But this little back and forth about 4e is precisely why 5e was laid out the way it was. There was zero chance WotC could use any layout ideas from 4e. Just not going to happen.
> 
> So here we are eight years later and people complain about vague writing, poor organization and poor layout and wonder why it was done this way.
> 
> It’s not exactly a secret. Anything with 4e cooties was an absolute nope in 2014. In 2024, it’s only okay if you can sneak it in under the radar.



There is a balance to be found, and yeah, a lot of cooking blogs don't get it right. 5E, however, does get that balance right, pretty much across the board.


----------



## Malmuria

I continue to struggle to see how sheer verbosity = good writing.  You can write evocative and interesting lore without tedious exposition that overstays its welcome.  You can express setting details via random tables rather than paragraphs of text.  You can publish dungeon adventures that foreground interactive elements and unusual features without forcing a dm to wade through walls of text for each room description (“this room is a kitchen.  You see a stove, cabinets, pots, and assorted cutlery.  Players can make a dc 15 investigation check to search the cupboards.  They find nothing of value.” etc).

The point of brevity and clarity, e.g. in adventure writing, is not to make dry-but-useable texts but rather to foreground all the weird, unique bits that the dm wouldn’t make up by themselves.


----------



## Parmandur

dave2008 said:


> Readability is subjective though.  I found 4e more readable than 2e or 3e.  That was one of the things that brought me back to D&D.



These things are somewhat subjective, but the experience from what I see is common.


Charlaquin said:


> That’s only a positive note if you _didn’t_ like 4e’s writing.



Yes, that's why I'm ending on thst note.


Charlaquin said:


> Whoever said that was wrong. Every edition of D&D is its own complete game, and each is at its best when treated as such.



That's really not how the game has ever worked, though: as a DYI experience, mixing and matching versions has been natural since they first introduced a new version.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> The formatting and readability come up just about everybtike the topic rears it's head.



Not IME.

Edit: particularly, “readability”. I can’t recall that ever coming up. People not liking the formatting, sure. Nowhere near as common as the claims of “sameyness” or that it “dumb down the game” or that it’s “basically a computer game”, etc, but I’ve seen it. 

But readability? Not so much.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not IME.



Really, I always see people bring up the awkwardness of the way Powers were presented, and the use of jargon instead of natural language. The natural language aspect is a major component of WotC own analysis of what went sideways.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Charlaquin said:


> Whoever said that was wrong. Every edition of D&D is its own complete game, and each is at its best when treated as such.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Funny thing about cooking writing. What’s the number one complaint about cooking blogs? That you have to wade through paragraphs of crap just to get to the recipe at the bottom.



It’s true. That’s a common complaint. Read one of Alton Brown‘s explanations about how baking is different from deep frying in his cookbook, however, and it’s a lot more interesting than someone’s self-indulgent blogging about devising a recipe their picky kids will eat.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Whoever said that was wrong.



Absolutely. 


Charlaquin said:


> Every edition of D&D is its own complete game, and each is at its best when treated as such.



But not because of this, because this is not unambiguously correct, by any stretch. 

To many folks, D&D is at its best when you make it your own. 


Parmandur said:


> Really, I always see people bring up the awkwardness of the way Powers were presented, and the use of jargon instead of natural language. The natural language aspect is a major component of WotC own analysis of what went sideways.



“Awkward” is a new one, to me. I get that all the jargon annoyed people, but “poor readability” is just not something I’ve seen claimed, at least as I understand the terminology in question. 

Like, it isn’t hard to read, poorly organized, overly wordy to the point of obfuscation, or any other thing that I would normally associate with poor readability. 

Regardless, it’s a big stretch to claim based on no more than anecdote that the thing you disliked was the reason that 4e was controversial.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> These things are somewhat subjective, but the experience from what I see is common.



It’s entirely subjective, and I agree with @doctorbadwolf, readability is not a critique I have commonly seen of 4e. 


Parmandur said:


> Yes, that's why I'm ending on thst note.



End it on that note, fine, but calling it a positive note that WotC “learned their lesson” is extremely dismissive of people who liked 4e’s writing.


Parmandur said:


> That's really not how the game has ever worked, though: as a DYI experience, mixing and matching versions has been natural since they first introduced a new version.



Every edition is a standalone game. People can choose to mix and match elements from other editions if they wish, but the fact that a rulebook written for one game isn’t useful for another game that didn’t even exist yet at the time it was written is not a weakness of that rulebook.


Parmandur said:


> Really, I always see people bring up the awkwardness of the way Powers were presented, and the use of jargon instead of natural language. The natural language aspect is a major component of WotC own analysis of what went sideways.



Whereas I always see people lament that they can’t tell what their spells do at a glance, and that the use of natural language creates undesired ambiguity in the rules of 5e. As do you, apparently, since you said such complaints are why you brought up the readability issue in the first place.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But not because of this, because this is not unambiguously correct, by any stretch.
> 
> To many folks, D&D is at its best when you make it your own.



Sure. Let me rephrase: failure to recognize each edition as its own game often has undesired side-effects.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> End it on that note, fine, but calling it a positive note that WotC “learned their lesson” is extremely dismissive of people who liked 4e’s writing.



The centrality of natural language as part of the central design 5E is from WotC own breakdown of the matter.

But again, it's not really in doubt that will continue into the future as the game is revised, so no worries.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> Right, so it’s your preference. Which, again, is fine, but is not universal and I think it’s absurd to blame 4e’s financial struggles on.
> 
> That’s only a positive note if you _didn’t_ like 4e’s writing.



And its only a negative note if you did.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> “Awkward” is a new one, to me. I get that all the jargon annoyed people, but “poor readability” is just not something I’ve seen claimed, at least as I understand the terminology in question.
> 
> Like, it isn’t hard to read, poorly organized, overly wordy to the point of obfuscation, or any other thing that I would normally associate with poor readability.



"Dry," "jargon," "technical," "dull," "like a video game" (that last one I take to be a criticism of the readability when the critic lacks the vocabulary to ger across their frustration wirh the formatting) are all terms I've seen to describe the readability 4E products on numerous occasions. WotC have continued to tout their use of natural language when making 5E, which is tied to the readability of the game.

Note the difference between "legible" or "organized" and "readable." Readabikity is about enjoyment and the aesthetic sense of interacting with a text, not the understanding of information.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But not because of this, because this is not unambiguously correct, by any stretch.
> 
> To many folks, D&D is at its best when you make it your own.
> 
> “Awkward” is a new one, to me. I get that all the jargon annoyed people, but “poor readability” is just not something I’ve seen claimed, at least as I understand the terminology in question.
> 
> Like, it isn’t hard to read, poorly organized, overly wordy to the point of obfuscation, or any other thing that I would normally associate with poor readability.
> 
> Regardless, it’s a big stretch to claim based on no more than anecdote that the thing you disliked was the reason that 4e was controversial.



There were a lot of reasons why 4e was controversial. Having the books be dry and uninteresting to read was, IME, one of them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> It’s entirely subjective, and I agree with @doctorbadwolf, readability is not a critique I have commonly seen of 4e.
> 
> End it on that note, fine, but calling it a positive note that WotC “learned their lesson” is extremely dismissive of people who liked 4e’s writing.
> 
> Every edition is a standalone game. People can choose to mix and match elements from other editions if they wish, but the fact that a rulebook written for one game isn’t useful for another game that didn’t even exist yet at the time it was written is not a weakness of that rulebook.
> 
> Whereas I always see people lament that they can’t tell what their spells do at a glance, and that the use of natural language creates undesired ambiguity in the rules of 5e. As do you, apparently, since you said such complaints are why you brought up the readability issue in the first place.



I only see people on this board make those complaints.  That’s why I know they are complaints.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Parmandur said:


> "Dry," "jargon," "technical," "dull," "like a video game" (that last one I take to be a criticism of the readability when the critic lacks the vocabulary to ger across their frustration wirh the formatting) are all terms I've seen to describe the readability 4E products on numerous occasions. WotC have continued to tout their use of natural language when making 5E, which is tied to the readability of the game.
> 
> Note the difference between "legible" or "organized" and "readable." Readabikity is about enjoyment and the aesthetic sense of interacting with a text, not the understanding of information.



This. 4e had some great ideas, but it's only by reading people on these forums describe them in natural language that I have found out about them. Trying to read the 4e books was like reading an Astrophysics Paper in _Monthly Notices to the Royal Astronomical Society_, translated from Russian (and believe me, I have the experience to know what I'm talking about). 4e's biggest failure wasn't its rules, it was its presentation.

To be fair, it's not the only RPG rulebook of the period to have that problem. I've owned the Starfinder core rulebook for years, and I still haven't managed to read past page 16.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> The centrality of natural language as part of the central design 5E is from WotC own breakdown of the matter.
> 
> But again, it's not really in doubt that will continue into the future as the game is revised, so no worries.



No, definitely some worries, because I prefer clarity in rules text.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> And its only a negative note if you did.



Obviously. You’ll note that I haven’t said it’s a negative.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> "Dry," "jargon," "technical," "dull," "like a video game" (that last one I take to be a criticism of the readability when the critic lacks the vocabulary to ger across their frustration wirh the formatting) are all terms I've seen to describe the readability 4E products on numerous occasions. WotC have continued to tout their use of natural language when making 5E, which is tied to the readability of the game.
> 
> Note the difference between "legible" or "organized" and "readable." Readabikity is about enjoyment and the aesthetic sense of interacting with a text, not the understanding of information.



The primary definition of readability is “the quality of being legible or decipherable.”

Whether or not 4e was enjoyable to read is a matter of taste. It was most definitely more legible and decipherable than 5e is.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Charlaquin said:


> The primary definition of readability is “the quality of being legible or decipherable.”



Even given that extremely reductionist definition, 4e failed 50% of those criteria.


----------



## Charlaquin

Paul Farquhar said:


> Even given that extremely reductionist definition, 4e failed 50% of those criteria.



It did far better than 5e in both regards!


----------



## Hussar

dave2008 said:


> Readability is subjective though.  I found 4e more readable than 2e or 3e.  That was one of the things that brought me back to D&D.



Heh.  I opened up my old 3e books the other day looking for something or other.  HOLY CRAP are those books not easy to read.  Tiny, tiny writing, massive paragraphs and black text on colored backgrounds?  Gack!  That's pretty much an entire lesson on how not to write a rule book.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Hussar said:


> Heh.  I opened up my old 3e books the other day looking for something or other.  HOLY CRAP are those books not easy to read.  Tiny, tiny writing, massive paragraphs and black text on colored backgrounds?  Gack!  That's pretty much an entire lesson on how not to write a rule book.



I only have my 3e FR sourcebook available for comparison, but the font size seems to be about the same as 5e (which I would also rate as too small). However, they use a fancier, and therefore less legible font, and there is lower contrast between the background colour and the text. These days, I read the digital versions though. Makes my life a lot easier.


----------



## Hussar

Paul Farquhar said:


> Even given that extremely reductionist definition, 4e failed 50% of those criteria.



No, I gotta disagree with you on this one.  You might not like the rules, that's a separate issue, but, one could never claim that the rules in 4e are less clear than the rules in 5e.  Never minding that the 4e books are really, really easy to read - I mean physically easier to read - large texts, clearly marked break points, extremely logically organized, that sort of thing.  

For a perfect example, one only needs to compare the stealth rules between 4e and 5e.  The stealth rules in 4e are perfectly clear, easy to use and, above all, entirely contained on a single page.  The stealth rules in 5e are many things but they are not perfectly clear (as evidenced by years of complaints about them), and they are most definitely not contained on a single page.  

Now, again, clear to understand and easy to read does not make things better than other things as far as rules go.  Obviously 5e went with different design priorities, and the 4e Stealth rules would stand out like a sore thumb in 5e.  They wouldn't work very well and would very much not fit with the overall design of 5e.  But, from a narrow criteria of which one is easier to read, easier to use in the game and will cause less headaches, 4e wins hands down.  

Again, however, those criteria are not the baseline design criteria in 5e.  5e went with passing things over to the DM so that individual tables will evolve their own stealth rules idiosyncratic to that table which generally results in happier tables or at least, far less pissing and moaning from certain quarters that WotC is "forcing" things on them.  It's all down to interpretation.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

4e had the best lore about Cave Bears...

DC 15 Nature Check: Cave Bears live in Caves


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Hussar said:


> No, I gotta disagree with you on this one. You might not like the rules, that's a separate issue, but, one could never claim that the rules in 4e are less clear than the rules in 5e.



That's kind of the point: _precise_ language isn't the same as readable language. Scientific papers use very precise language, but they are a devil to read, and even harder to comprehend.


Hussar said:


> You might not like the rules



I didn't say that. Some of them, once someone has explained them to me in natural language, seem great. But when I tried to read the 4e book, I didn't _understand_ the rules.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> *"Readability" means the enjoyability of reading something, not legibility. *4E material is legible, if technical and dry. Admittedly thisnis somewhat to taste, but there are common trends.
> 
> 4E books don't have to be usable outside of 4E, but given the broader context of literally every other Edition having some level of transparency and continued utiliry through such natural language readabiliry, dry technical jargon of 4E material stands out.
> 
> Honestly, I wouldn't mention it except that people keep saying "hey, remember how books in 4E were chores to read? Why doesn't WotC do that anynore???"



This is false. "Readability" does NOT typically mean or refer to the enjoyment of reading something. In general parlance (or "natural language," if you will), "readability" refers to the ease of understanding written material, whether that is due to presentation, layout, diction and vocabulary, or phrasing and grammar, etc. The enjoyment that comes from the process of reading said material is different.

Readability = Ease of Understanding =! Enjoyment of Reading

If you personally didn't find 4e enjoyable to read, then that's fine, but that's not an issue of readability.



Parmandur said:


> Note the difference between "legible" or "organized" and "readable." *Readabikity is about enjoyment *and the aesthetic sense of interacting with a text, *not the understanding of information.*



Note that "readability" doesn't mean what you think it does, which is important since your argument hinges on this point.



Charlaquin said:


> We don’t know that. 4e didn’t grow as quickly as WotC needed it to, but we have no evidence that the writing was at fault for that. Indeed, what we do know is that 4e was incredibly popular with new players, but the loss of old players created a bottleneck to entry. What this suggests is that the biggest problem was that their early marketing decisions made long-time players feel snubbed.
> 
> EDIT: I also don’t think “dry” is a fair characterization of 4e’s presentation. 4e was full of flavor, it was just more technical than previous editions had been.





Hussar said:


> Funny thing about cooking writing. What’s the number one complaint about cooking blogs? That you have to wade through paragraphs of crap just to get to the recipe at the bottom.
> 
> But this little back and forth about 4e is precisely why 5e was laid out the way it was. There was zero chance WotC could use any layout ideas from 4e. Just not going to happen.
> 
> So here we are eight years later and people complain about vague writing, poor organization and poor layout and wonder why it was done this way.
> 
> It’s not exactly a secret. Anything with 4e cooties was an absolute nope in 2014. In 2024, it’s only okay if you can sneak it in under the radar.



Robert Schwalb is working on his more generic fantasy roleplaying game based on his _Shadow of the Demon Lord_ game. When working on the write-ups for spells and other entries, he asked playtesters for feedback on two different formats. One version looked more like 3e/5e with spell effects and such buried in flavor text. The other version was like 4e. Most playtesters reported preferring the latter more 4e-like version, though they didn't recognize it as such. Schwalb admitted that he feared presenting it the latter way due to people's visceral reactions to anything remotely 4e like. However, this 4e style formatting is what the playtesters wanted because it was hands down _far easier to parse_.


----------



## delericho

Reynard said:


> Which books? Can you use Sword and Fist at the same table as the 3.5 PHB?



Yes. The extent to which those two versions are incompatible is widely overstated, often for effect.

That said, using "Sword & Fist" with the 3.5e PHB won't work _well_. That's not because of incompatibility - using "Sword & Fist" with the _3.0e_ PHB won't work well either. "Sword & Fist" is just a pretty terrible book.


----------



## Hussar

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's kind of the point: _precise_ language isn't the same as readable language. Scientific papers use very precise language, but they are a devil to read, and even harder to comprehend.
> 
> I didn't say that. Some of them, once someone has explained them to me in natural language, seem great. But when I tried to read the 4e book, I didn't _understand_ the rules.



No, scientific papers use very technical language that is specific to the science that it happens to be discussing.  It's precise, true, but, also very much embedded in the specific area of study that it's talking about.  IOW, comprehension requires you to have a grounding in the field.

I'm frankly rather baffled how you couldn't understand the language, but, find 5e easy to follow.  To each his own.  But, it's pretty easily shown the 4e is far, far clearer and easier to understand than any other edition.  Again, compare stealth rules.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Hussar said:


> No, scientific papers use very technical language that is specific to the science that it happens to be discussing.  It's precise, true, but, also very much embedded in the specific area of study that it's talking about.  IOW, comprehension requires you to have a grounding in the field.



I know. I have a PhD in Astrophysics. But those papers are _still_ difficult.


Hussar said:


> I'm frankly rather baffled how you couldn't understand the language, but, find 5e easy to follow.



It's not the language, it's the comprehension. I understood what the words meant; I just couldn't see how it related to the D&D I had been playing since 1982.


Hussar said:


> But, it's pretty easily shown the 4e is far, far clearer and easier to understand than any other edition.  Again, compare stealth rules.



The rules where precise, rigid and required a specific playstyle. Which was the problem. A degree of vagurery in the rules enables a wide range of playstyles and helps with the narrative. In my games, if there is a conflict between narrative logic and rules, then narrative always wins. Vague rules help with that, because the DM is constantly interpreting.


----------



## Hussar

Paul Farquhar said:


> I know. I have a PhD in Astrophysics. But those papers are _still_ difficult.
> 
> It's not the language, it's the comprehension. I understood what the words meant; I just couldn't see how it related to the D&D I had been playing since 1982.
> 
> The rules where precise, rigid and required a specific playstyle. Which was the problem. A degree of vagurery in the rules enables a wide range of playstyles and helps with the narrative. In my games, if there is a conflict between narrative logic and rules, then narrative always wins. Vague rules help with that, because the DM is constantly interpreting.



But, again, that's a different issue from readability.  You might prefer one type of writing to another, but, again, that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about clarity.

I mean, one of the biggest complaints in the "things I wanna bitch about in 5e" thread is the lack of a decent index.  4e barely needed an index because it was ludicrously easy to find things (it did get more difficult down the line simply because there were SO MANY BOOKS - but, again, that's a separate issue).   

Personally, I find the whole "required a specific playstyle" to largely be an edition war talking point without any real substance or value.  It was really not true.  But, hey, it sounded good and it's the reason that here we are, ten years later, and we still can't even suggest that 4e did anything good because, hey, it's the "failed edition" and everything about it must be bad because admitting that 4e did anything good is tantamount to admitting that most of the edition war crap was simply petty naughty word from people who hated the fact that someone else was getting a game they liked.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Hussar said:


> We're talking about clarity.



Which is not the same as "readability", and not necessarily a good thing.

4e told you what the rules _were_, in no uncertain terms. But it didn't tell you how to use them to play D&D. I have the same issue with Starfinder. It has lots of rules, but it doesn't tell you how to use them to have fun.


Hussar said:


> Personally, I find the whole "required a specific playstyle" to largely be an edition war talking point without any real substance or value. It was really not true.



Not true for you, because you were already playing D&D the 4e way. For those of us who were playing differently, 4e said "YOU ARE HAVING BADWRONGFUN".

And once you have been told that, you tend not to notice any good ideas that might be lurking there.


----------



## dave2008

Paul Farquhar said:


> Which is not the same as "readability", and not necessarily a good thing.
> 
> 4e told you what the rules _were_, in no uncertain terms. But it didn't tell you how to use them to play D&D. I have the same issue with Starfinder. It has lots of rules, but it doesn't tell you have to use them to have fun.
> 
> Not true for you, because you were already playing D&D the 4e way. For those of us who were playing differently, 4e said "YOU ARE HAVING BADWRONGFUN".
> 
> And once you have been told that, you tend not to notice any good ideas that might be lurking there.



Honestly you and @Hussar are arguing opinions and seem to think they are facts.  For myself, I will side with Hussar on this one, I found 4e to be:

Easier to understand than 1e, 2e, & 3e. So easy in fact I taught to my 6 & 8 your sons and their friends to play it.
I came from a 1e playstyle (since that is the only edition I actually played previously) and I found I could play 4e the same way.  It reminded me so much of 1e in fact it felt very nostalgic actually.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

dave2008 said:


> Honestly you and @Hussar are arguing opinions and seem to think they are facts.  For myself, I will side with Hussar on this one, I found 4e to be:
> 
> Easier to understand than 1e, 2e, & 3e. So easy in fact I taught to my 6 & 8 your sons and their friends to play it.
> I came from a 1e playstyle (since that is the only edition I actually played previously) and I found I could play 4e the same way.  It reminded me so much of 1e in fact it felt very nostalgic actually.



I'm talking from personal experience. It is a FACT that* I *did not understand the 4e rules.

There were *lots of playstyles* for 1st edition. That was its strength. Most other editions retained that. 4e lost it.


----------



## Nikosandros

dave2008 said:


> Honestly you and @Hussar are arguing opinions and seem to think they are facts.  For myself, I will side with Hussar on this one, I found 4e to be:
> 
> Easier to understand than 1e, 2e, & 3e. So easy in fact I taught to my 6 & 8 your sons and their friends to play it.
> I came from a 1e playstyle (since that is the only edition I actually played previously) and I found I could play 4e the same way.  It reminded me so much of 1e in fact it felt very nostalgic actually.



Interesting. I agree fully that 4e is very easy to understand. I've witnesses several new players approach to it both in home games and at a store (back then a friend of mine owned a store and I ran several Game Days and Encounters).

I'm a bit perplexed about the second statement. I'm fan of AD&D, but I don't see a very similar playstyle with 4e. Could you expand on that point?


----------



## Aldarc

Paul Farquhar said:


> Which is not the same as "readability", and not necessarily a good thing.



"Readability" is about "ease of understanding" of texts, which is closely tied to the "clarity" of said texts.

Edit: This conversation would be a lot easier if people could admit that the word "readability" was misused rather than doubling down on the error so that we didn't have to keep returning to what "readability" means. It's not as if there is some great word deficit that requires misuing the word "readability" for the sake of trash-talking 4e.



Paul Farquhar said:


> 4e told you what the rules _were_, in no uncertain terms. But it didn't tell you how to use them to play D&D. I have the same issue with Starfinder. It has lots of rules, but it doesn't tell you have to use them to have fun.



I'm skeptical that any of your assertions here would hold up to even the bare minimum of scrutiny nor do I suspect that they are rooted in facts of the texts in any way. But in the interest of an open mind, perhaps you would be willing to compare 4e with 5e concretely on some particular point regarding how 5e tells you how to have fun but 4e does not.

Edit: FYI, here is a bit from the 4e DMG (p. 7) explicitly about fun.



> *Fun!*
> The last essential component of a D&D game is fun. It’s not the DM’s job to entertain the players and make sure they have fun. Every person playing the game is responsible for the fun of the game. Everyone speeds the game along, heightens the drama, helps set how much roleplaying the group is comfortable with, and brings the game world to life with their imaginations. Everyone should treat each other with respect and consideration, too—personal squabbles and fights among the characters get in the way of the fun. Different people have different ideas of what’s fun about D&D. Remember that the “right way” to play D&D is the way that you and your players agree on and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, everyone has fun.



Now to me that sounds like 4e is against OneTrueWay when it comes to "fun" and that it's resistant to tell people how to have fun because (a) it's table-dependent, and (b) they are resistant against prescribing a "right way" to have fun or play D&D.


----------



## rooneg

Scribe said:


> Yeah, and after the reset button going into 5e, that's about it right?



Umm, no. The latest Drizzt novel (Glacier’s Edge) was literally released last week.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Aldarc said:


> Robert Schwalb is working on his more generic fantasy roleplaying game based on his _Shadow of the Demon Lord_ game. When working on the write-ups for spells and other entries, he asked playtesters for feedback on two different formats. One version looked more like 3e/5e with spell effects and such buried in flavor text. The other version was like 4e. Most playtesters reported preferring the latter more 4e-like version, though they didn't recognize it as such. Schwalb admitted that he feared presenting it the latter way due to people's visceral reactions to anything remotely 4e like. However, this 4e style formatting is what the playtesters wanted because it was hands down _far easier to parse_.



I think a good compromise is the presentation of force powers and starship maneuvers in Star Wars Saga Edition. In fact, I think that if 4e had been presented in a very similar way to SWSE, it would have had much less resistance.


----------



## dave2008

Paul Farquhar said:


> I'm talking from personal experience. It is a FACT that* I *did not understand the 4e rules.



Of course, but that is not what I am talking about.  It is a fact the you did not understand the rules. It is also a fact that the two groups I ran it for understood them. However, it is not a fact the they are generally more or less understandable than other editions. Those are opinions.


Paul Farquhar said:


> There were *lots of playstyles* for 1st edition. That was its strength. Most other editions retained that. 4e lost it.



I disagree. My personal experience tells me otherwise. In fact, I tried and played more playstyles in 4e than I did in 1e (partially because I tried other RPGs between 1e and 4e).  From my experience we did (with 4e):

Traditional 1e style (at least how we did it) with minis on the table to show general locations, the rest TotM
Full TotM
Full battlemap and minis
Local heroes just finding their way (even did some 0 level stuff)
Regional Barons managing strongholds
Plane jumping epic warriors
Completely ad-hoc freeform (player describes what they want to do & DM adjudicates)
dungeon crawls
hex-crawls
horror
investigation / intrigue
murder-hobo
high magic (elementary school kid group)
low magic (gronard group)
Races: human, elf, halfling, yuan-ti, lizardfolk, & dragon


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> There is a balance to be found, and yeah, a lot of cooking blogs don't get it right. 5E, however, does get that balance right, pretty much across the board.



5e can't balance fluff to mechainc can't balance class to class and can't balance race to race... heck even spells (the most common thing in 5e) break there own rules on balance for themselves.


----------



## Aldarc

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think a good compromise is the presentation of force powers and starship maneuvers in Star Wars Saga Edition. In fact, I think that if 4e had been presented in a very similar way to SWSE, it would have had much less resistance.



I agree. I suspect that if 4e had been released more like either SWSE or even 4e Essentials from the get-go, then 4e would have been better received. But the 4e launch, development, and marketing had a lot of issues, to put it mildly. 

What I do find interesting is that I have seen A LOT of love from 5e players and GMs discovering 4e when it comes to the layout, advice, presentation, and readability of the 4e books. I have seen a number of 5e GMs on Twitter recommending that other 5e GMs pick up the 4e DMG for solid GM advice.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> The centrality of natural language as part of the central design 5E is from WotC own breakdown of the matter.



the words passive and surprise...

now I get A LOT of people telling me I game 'wrong' on this site, but the number of people that tell me X word doesn't mean X word it means something else.  In the last 30 days I have had pages of argument over if Passive means 'something you do without action' or 'something you do over and over again', and an argument that something can suprise you without counting as suprised.


----------



## dave2008

Nikosandros said:


> I'm a bit perplexed about the second statement. I'm fan of AD&D, but I don't see a very similar playstyle with 4e. Could you expand on that point?



I have had many discussions about this on the old WotC forums and here on EnWorld. What I have come to realize is that for me and my group of players, inertia is more important than rules/edition.  I play with the same group since high school and we learned to play a mix of 1e & BECMI. We developed our own playstyle and that trumps the edition, whether it is 1e, 4e, or 5e.  We play the game how we want to play the game.  Some of it is, to me, 1e required a homebrewer's mentality to get it to work (particularly if you didn't realize AD&D and BECMI were different games), so that philosophy carried forward to all editions: you get the game to work for you, not the other way around.


----------



## dave2008

Aldarc said:


> I agree. I suspect that if 4e had been released more like either SWSE or even 4e Essentials from the get-go, then 4e would have been better received. But the 4e launch, development, and marketing had a lot of issues, to put it mildly.
> 
> What I do find interesting is that I have seen A LOT of love from 5e players and GMs discovering 4e when it comes to the layout, advice, presentation, and readability of the 4e books. I have seen a number of 5e GMs on Twitter recommending that other 5e GMs pick up the 4e DMG for solid GM advice.



Yes, it is interesting that MCDM is very successful in 5e by modeling a lot of his stuff on 4e design & presentation.


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> 5e can't balance fluff to mechainc



Well to be fair that has been a problem in all editions IMO


GMforPowergamers said:


> can't balance class to class and can't balance race to race...



I feel these are all balanced enough. I know my players don't complain about balance. I personally don't want complete balance and would prefer if things we actually less "balanced" than they currently are. Also, this is WotC thing not a 5e thing. Just look at LevelUp for how to balance classes better.


GMforPowergamers said:


> heck even spells (the most common thing in 5e) break there own rules on balance for themselves.



It does bother me that some WotC spells don't follow the DMG guidelines, but that is WotC thing not a 5e thing.  Just look at LevelUp for how to balance spells better.


----------



## Scribe

rooneg said:


> Umm, no. The latest Drizzt novel (Glacier’s Edge) was literally released last week.



Right, Drizzt books, a few Elminster, and honestly that's all I remember since the Sundering event.


----------



## dave2008

Scribe said:


> Right, Drizzt books, a few Elminster, and honestly that's all I remember since the Sundering event.



Didn't a new Dragonlance book just come out?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

dave2008 said:


> Well to be fair that has been a problem in all editions IMO
> 
> I feel these are all balanced enough. I know my players don't complain about balance. I personally don't want complete balance and would prefer if things we actually less "balanced" than they currently are. Also, this is WotC thing not a 5e thing. Just look at LevelUp for how to balance classes better.
> 
> It does bother me that some WotC spells don't follow the DMG guidelines, but that is WotC thing not a 5e thing.  Just look at LevelUp for how to balance spells better.



weather being balanced is better or worse is a taste thing... but I don't believe 5e is... maybe that IS a good thing, even if I don't think so.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Didn't a new Dragonlance book just come out?



Yes, with the most reluctance I have ever seen from a publisher, with clear indicators that the author's creative work does not reflect the opinions of the publisher.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Paul Farquhar said:


> There were *lots of playstyles* for 1st edition. That was its strength. Most other editions retained that. 4e lost it.



May I ask (and please without starting an argument over 'better or worse' or using the 'it was an MMO argument) what style could you NOT play in any edition?


----------



## darjr

art and arcana
A cookbook
A book in D&D philosophy and life 
A book about all the interviews from Dragon Talk
Several choose your own adventure books
Several kids books


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> weather being balanced is better or worse is a taste thing... but I don't believe 5e is... maybe that IS a good thing, even if I don't think so.



But it is, IMO, balanced. Just not as balanced as 4e or PF2, but more than 1e (at least differently balanced) and 3e. It is a scale.  Even 4e, often called the most balanced version of D&D is not completely balanced.  If you want really balanced D&D, PF2 is probably your best bet.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, with the most reluctance I have ever seen from a publisher, with clear indicators that the author's creative work does not reflect the opinions of the publisher.



The publisher wasn’t WotC.
WotC fired the guy who caused the lawsuit.
The authors have always been outspoken and said their mind and I wouldn’t have it any other way.


----------



## Scribe

dave2008 said:


> Didn't a new Dragonlance book just come out?



Not at my bookstore yet.

Point being, the books Wizards have been releasing, like Fizbans, do more than provide the "rules for Monopoly".

Unless we are saying Dizzt has been enough of a vehicles for lore development across all of D&D.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, with the most reluctance I have ever seen from a publisher, with clear indicators that the author's creative work does not reflect the opinions of the publisher.



Technically WotC is not the publisher, IIRC.  They wrote with a license from WotC, but another company is publishing it.


----------



## dave2008

Scribe said:


> Point being, the books Wizards have been releasing, like Fizbans, do more than provide the "rules for Monopoly".



Yes, I agree completely.  But I never read any D&D novels outside a few draonglance books.


----------



## MGibster

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's not the language, it's the comprehension. I understood what the words meant; I just couldn't see how it related to the D&D I had been playing since 1982.



I feel the same way about any discussion about RPG theory.


----------



## Micah Sweet

dave2008 said:


> Technically WotC is not the publisher, IIRC.  They wrote with a license from WotC, but another company is publishing it.



Fair enough.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, with the most reluctance I have ever seen from a publisher, with clear indicators that the author's creative work does not reflect the opinions of the publisher.



I wonder if this has something to do with the religious and (in some opinions)racists thoughts in DL?


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> No, definitely some worries, because I prefer clarity in rules text.



Well, happ news, 5E is extremely clear in the rules department, it just manages so while providing an engaging read. Balanced.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

MGibster said:


> I feel the same way about any discussion about RPG theory.



Me too. Although in my case I don't know the jargon either.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

GMforPowergamers said:


> May I ask (and please without starting an argument over 'better or worse' or using the 'it was an MMO argument) what style could you NOT play in any edition?



I couldn't play one I didn't know how to play. The way I play D&D, ever since 1st edition, is pretty much the same as Critical Role (but with worse acting). I've never played in another style of game, largely because I'm usually the DM, so I run the game how I know. But I know other styles exist, since I hear people on this forum discussing a game which seems virtually unrecognisable to me.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Well, happ news,* 5E is extremely clear in the rules departmen*t, it just manages so while providing an engaging read. Balanced.



Ha ha ha h--- wait, you're serious.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> 5e can't balance fluff to mechainc can't balance class to class and can't balance race to race... heck even spells (the most common thing in 5e) break there own rules on balance for themselves.



Nonsense, the balance is all there on that mathematical side.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Paul Farquhar said:


> I couldn't play one I didn't know how to play. The way I play D&D, ever since 1st edition, is pretty much the same as Critical Role (but with worse acting). I've never played in another style of game, largely because I'm usually the DM, so I run the game how I know. But I know other styles exist, since I hear people on this forum discussing a game which seems virtually unrecognisable to me.



I agree that I hear about unrecognisable games more and more regularly, I have switched my style bits and pieces as we went on about the years... but I just wonder what 4e couldn't do.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Nonsense, the balance is all there on that mathematical side.



no it isn't.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Well, happ news, 5E is extremely clear in the rules department, it just manages so while providing an engaging read. Balanced.



Oh? I just imagine the interminable arguments about phrasing and RAI then?


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Ha ha ha h--- wait, you're serious.



Completely. Most of the misunderstandings I see come from not engaging the text, or importing a prior edion framework.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't.



Class to Clas is extensively balanced on the basis of spell Slotand HP. Whether you recognize it or not is irrelevant.


----------



## Aldarc

Parmandur said:


> Completely. Most of the misunderstandings I see come from not engaging the text, or importing a prior edion framework.



The irony of this assertion following the wake of the past few pages of 4e discussion will likely not be lost on most thread participants.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Completely. Most of the misunderstandings I see come from not engaging the text, or importing a prior edion framework.



While I think those things do happen, I also think that the "natural language" of 5E invites confusion, misunderstanding and opposed interpretations. What you gain in readability you potentially lose in clarity, and there is no better example that the 1400 post long argument about perception we just had.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Charlaquin said:


> Oh? I just imagine the interminable arguments about phrasing and RAI then?



again... the fact that something can surprise you but not count as surprised, and the fact that you can ask to actively do something and be told that is covered by your passive score are the most recent 2... BUT lets go with 'what is a hit' for the most common "Wait what" that doesn't fit


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> no it isn't.



There is A point on the graph which 5e is balanced similar to how process is designed with an 80-20 rule.

If we agree with the Designers on that point and measure...is a different story.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Oh? I just imagine the interminable arguments about phrasing and RAI then?



I have only seen that online, it never comes up in play, unlike 3E. I still don't know how grappling was supposed to work and we read the 3.x books nearly every session to figure that out. And in 5E arguably almost always easily resolved, usually by reading the DMG.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Class to Clas is extensively balanced on the basis of spell Slotand HP. Whether you recognize it or not is irrelevant.



you can make stuff up all you want but half or more of the game is hidden behind spells, and the most versatile characters fall ever so slightly behind the most dedicated focused ones in what the dedicated focused ones specialize in, with out giving up all of there versatility. I don't call that balanced at all. 

the fact that MULTI full casters can go level 1- level 10 with the same number of attacks same damage on melee attacks as the fighter AND still have there spells is something that speaks for itself... but when Adventures in Middle Earth made non casters, they took BARD, took it's spell casting and said "Gee without that it is 98% balanced with rogue and fighter" shows a bigger issue.


----------



## Parmandur

Aldarc said:


> The irony of this assertion following the wake of the past few pages of 4e discussion will likely not be lost on most thread participants.



I mean, I haven't said anything against the 4E rules, just the presentation. Both 4E and 5E are well designed on the rules side, I am talking about their presentation.


----------



## Dausuul

Parmandur said:


> Nonsense, the balance is all there on that mathematical side.



It's way better balanced than 3E and AD&D, but there are still plenty of areas where it falls down and doesn't have to. I mean, compare _fireball_ to _vampiric touch_. That's a pure, deadweight balance failure. Nothing else would be broken and nothing would be lost if _vampiric touch_ were brought up to snuff.



Parmandur said:


> Well, happ news, 5E is extremely clear in the rules department, it just manages so while providing an engaging read.



Much of it is clear, but there are a number of areas where--again--it falls down and doesn't have to. My go-to example of this is the distinction between "attack with a melee weapon" and "melee weapon attack." Those are two different things, and this has a real impact in a non-trivial number of situations, and it shouldn't be like that.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Reynard said:


> While I think those things do happen, I also think that the "natural language" of 5E invites confusion, misunderstanding and opposed interpretations. What you gain in readability you potentially lose in clarity, and there is no better example that the 1400 post long argument about perception we just had.



yup


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> While I think those things do happen, I also think that the "natural language" of 5E invites confusion, misunderstanding and opposed interpretations. What you gain in readability you potentially lose in clarity, and there is no better example that the 1400 post long argument about perception we just had.



Honestly it seems to me that people just want to argue about stuff like that. The rules are clear and easy in practice.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Scribe said:


> There is A point on the graph which 5e is balanced similar to how process is designed with an 80-20 rule.
> 
> If we agree with the Designers on that point and measure...is a different story.



what point on the graph is that? (and I don't mean this to be 'lets fight over this' I mean this to be 'if there is a level or way to balance this game I would love to know it')


----------



## Aldarc

Reynard said:


> While I think those things do happen, I also think that the "natural language" of 5E invites confusion, misunderstanding and opposed interpretations. What you gain in readability you potentially lose in clarity, and there is no better example that the 1400 post long argument about perception we just had.



When Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court, he was mocked by his fellow justices for his simplistic view of "natural language" when it came to its value in making rulings.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Honestly it seems to me that people just want to argue about stuff like that. The rules are clear and easy in practice.



Reasserting a premise doesn't make it any more true.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> you can make stuff up all you want but half or more of the game is hidden behind spells, and the most versatile characters fall ever so slightly behind the most dedicated focused ones in what the dedicated focused ones specialize in, with out giving up all of there versatility. I don't call that balanced at all.
> 
> the fact that MULTI full casters can go level 1- level 10 with the same number of attacks same damage on melee attacks as the fighter AND still have there spells is something that speaks for itself... but when Adventures in Middle Earth made non casters, they took BARD, took it's spell casting and said "Gee without that it is 98% balanced with rogue and fighter" shows a bigger issue.



I'm not making anything up, it's right there in the books and the designers have explained it many times. You might not like the balance, but it exists and it works.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I have only seen that online,



okay, so you, 1 person have not seen it... but I am sure you will not believe when others tell you they do... but you WILL expect us to take at face value you don't.  Do you see the problem here? 




Parmandur said:


> And in 5E arguably almost always easily resolved, usually by reading the DMG.



again, maybe you can go solve the 'what is suprise' and 'what is active vs passive perception' or the SUPER long running 'what is a hit' questions.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> Reasserting a premise doesn't make it any more true.



No, but it doesn't make it false, either. I remain unimpressed by 5E "rule arguments" by and large. They are usually resolved near instantly if approached reasonably.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I have only seen that online, it never comes up in play, unlike 3E. I still don't know how grappling was supposed to work and we read the 3.x books nearly every session to figure that out. And in 5E arguably almost always easily resolved, usually by reading the DMG.



And I’ve only seen people claiming 4e is hard to read online. These are still real things people encounter.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> okay, so you, 1 person have not seen it... but I am sure you will not believe when others tell you they do... but you WILL expect us to take at face value you don't.  Do you see the problem here?
> 
> 
> 
> again, maybe you can go solve the 'what is suprise' and 'what is active vs passive perception' or the SUPER long running 'what is a hit' questions.



Passive perception is what the DM rolls against as a DC when the player isn't actively looking.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Honestly it seems to me that people just want to argue about stuff like that. The rules are clear and easy in practice.



so you don't trust people you are talking to, at least not to present the problem they have in good faith... BUT you expect that those same people should take YOUR answer as good faith?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> Class to Clas is extensively balanced on the basis of spell Slotand HP. Whether you recognize it or not is irrelevant.



Who uses HP and Spell Slots as the core factors for balance?

And where are the Champion's Spell slots?


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> And I’ve only seen people claiming 4e is hard to read online. These are still real things people encounter.



OK, I'm not saying it's "hard" to read: I'm saying it is boring to read. Dull, uninteresting. I read books from every other Edition for fun, because I enjoy the process of seeking ideas. 4E books were a chore that I would have to do.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Reynard said:


> While I think those things do happen, I also think that the "natural language" of 5E invites confusion, misunderstanding and opposed interpretations. What you gain in readability you potentially lose in clarity, and there is no better example that the 1400 post long argument about perception we just had.



Maybe so, but it's a trade I would happily make.


----------



## Parmandur

Vaalingrade said:


> Who uses HP and Spell Slots as the core factors for balance?
> 
> And where are the Champion's Spell slots?



Every single Class. 

The Champions abilities have a HP to Spell Slot value. Each Slot has a HP damage or healing value, which can be replicated by Extra Attacks and hit chance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I'm not making anything up, it's right there in the books and the designers have explained it many times. You might not like the balance, but it exists and it works.



then explain why a warlock or wizard or cleric or bard can spend 1/2 the game (the half played by most, level 1-10) on par with a melee fighter or within a small variance WITHOUT giving up being full spell casters with access to the highest level spells for those levels, and still be balanced, when fighters ONLY get combat features?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Charlaquin said:


> And I’ve only seen people claiming 4e is hard to read online. These are still real things people encounter.



They might have been reading the Stealth rules.

From any edition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Passive perception is what the DM rolls against as a DC when the player isn't actively looking.



we have been told that the rules say that it is something else (where I agree with you and can't argue against you here so go check the perception thread for the argument)


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> then explain why a warlock or wizard or cleric or bard can spend 1/2 the game (the half played by most, level 1-10) on par with a melee fighter or within a small variance WITHOUT giving up being full spell casters with access to the highest level spells for those levels, and still be balanced, when fighters ONLY get combat features?



Only on par if they spend their resources on keeping up.


----------



## Charlaquin

Dausuul said:


> It's way better balanced than 3E and AD&D, but there are still plenty of areas where it falls down and doesn't have to. I mean, compare _fireball_ to _vampiric touch_. That's a pure, deadweight balance failure. Nothing else would be broken and nothing would be lost if _vampiric touch_ were brought up to snuff.



Actually it’s intentional imbalance. Fireball is one of a number of spells that was designed to be ahead of the curve, because it’s a fun and iconic spell. I remember a recording of a D&DNext Q&A at some con or other where Mike Mearls talked about this; he said that they wanted “fun spells” like fireball to be more efficient  than other options, so that when the character optimization guy with his abacus crunches the numbers, he’ll say “yes, fireball is the best spell!”


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> Every single Class.
> 
> The Champions abilities have a HP to Spell Slot value. Each Slot has a HP damage or healing value, which can be replicated by Extra Attacks and hit chance.



This is certainly the first time I've ever seen this claim. 

And it might hold water if all spells and abilities just dealt damage or healed.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> The Champions abilities have a HP to Spell Slot value. Each Slot has a HP damage or healing value, which can be replicated by Extra Attacks and hit chance.



except that math doesn't hold the moment you have spells that break HP damage expectations, or ones that shut down encounters (effectively doing infante damage)... if every SoS or SoD was based on sleep or the power words I could see this... but they aren't and you get your first SoS/SoD at level 1 spells


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> OK, I'm not saying it's "hard" to read: I'm saying it is boring to read. Dull, uninteresting. I read books from every other Edition for fun, because I enjoy the process of seeking ideas. 4E books were a chore that I would have to do.



Which is pure opinion. You’re trying to dress your personal preferences up as objective facts by misusing terms like “readable” instead of just admitting you didn’t like the writing style.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> we have been told that the rules say that it is something else (where I agree with you and can't argue against you here so go check the perception thread for the argument)



Ha, I'll pass.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> Which is pure opinion. You’re trying to dress your personal preferences up as objective facts by misusing terms like “readable” instead of just admitting you didn’t like the writing style.



Not just my opinion, the D&D team identified the style as one of the major problems.

But yeah, I didn't like the writing style.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Only on par if they spend their resources on keeping up.



but not ALL of there resources... just some... becuse again you can be a blade singer a sword bard or a hex blade get 2nd attack and NOT  give up a single spell slot

heck if you want range eldritch blast with 1 invocation (1/2 of what you get at level 2) can keep up with the fighter for all 19 levels left of the game... without useing a spell slot (you get those back on short rest) without taking a subclass, without useing your arcana's that give you a 6th 7th 8th and 9th level spell once per day at the 2nd half of the game...


----------



## darjr

The central issue to me is people play D&D in a lot of different ways. 4e and it’s precise and hyper focus threw that consideration away.

5e embraced it. So for every time someone says “this is ambiguous” I consider it might well be so to enable many play styles. This time, in this edition, largely on purpose. Same with all the natural language in 5e.

4e style of design shines in 5e because of that. IMHO that kind of design in 5e exists in this web of styles and people can approach those designed artifacts in a more flexible way.


----------



## Scribe

GMforPowergamers said:


> what point on the graph is that? (and I don't mean this to be 'lets fight over this' I mean this to be 'if there is a level or way to balance this game I would love to know it')



Note: I don't think it's balanced to my satisfaction.

I believe it's possible to get within spitting distance, of something the designers aimed for though.

They had something of a target. I've been busy though and haven't went and verified the spell slot theory on my own.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

GMforPowergamers said:


> but I just wonder what 4e couldn't do.



I don't know, maybe nothing, if I'd had someone to show me how.

Create a tiefling that didn't have stupid bull horns perhaps?


----------



## Dausuul

Charlaquin said:


> Actually it’s intentional imbalance. Fireball is one of a number of spells that was designed to be ahead of the curve, because it’s a fun and iconic spell. I remember a recording of a D&DNext Q&A at some con or other where Mike Mearls talked about this; he said that they wanted “fun spells” like fireball to be more efficient  than other options, so that when the character optimization guy with his abacus crunches the numbers, he’ll say “yes, fireball is the best spell!”



Yes, I know. (I don't agree with his reasoning, but I acknowledge that it was a deliberate choice.) However:

1) The imbalance being deliberate does not make it any less of an imbalance.
2) _Vampiric touch_ is not only weak compared to _fireball_, it's weak compared to virtually any other spell of its level. You do more damage with a cantrip, and the cantrips in question can be used at range.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't know, maybe nothing, if I'd had someone to show me how.



yeah we ran high and low magic... we even with ever so slight fluff tweeks ran a modern harry dresden game, but (and I have said this many times) I think the ideas in 4e are ideas I have been useing since 95... things that the system fights against and I have been doing inspite of the system not for it... so maybe there is some style I don't know of that can't be done


Paul Farquhar said:


> Create a tiefling that didn't have stupid bull horns perhaps?



oh yes... just like WotC keeps saying teiflings are all red (even if teh 1st pictured is more purple) but I see lots of people say they play blue green red or black ones all the time (I myself have seen at least half a dozen blue, 1 purple and 1 green... but only 3 red)


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Dausuul said:


> Yes, I know. (I don't agree with his reasoning, but I acknowledge that it was a deliberate choice.) However:
> 
> 1) The imbalance being deliberate does not make it any less of an imbalance.
> 2) _Vampiric touch_ is not only weak compared to _fireball_, it's weak compared to virtually any other spell of its level. You do more damage with a cantrip, and the cantrips in question can be used at range.



and that is before we account for 'no your caster can't take his action' counterspell, and a 2 level lower 'no your NPC/monster is on the ground laughing and we all get to dog pile it with advantage'


----------



## Vaalingrade

Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't know, maybe nothing, if I'd had someone to show me how.
> 
> Create a tiefling that didn't have stupid bull horns perhaps?



Ah, I remember that rule well: "A tiefling will not have no horns or different horns"


----------



## Paul Farquhar

GMforPowergamers said:


> oh yes... just like WotC keeps saying teiflings are all red (even if teh 1st pictured is more purple) but I see lots of people say they play blue green red or black ones all the time (I myself have seen at least half a dozen blue, 1 purple and 1 green... but only 3 red)



They don't _keep_ saying it. They just haven't updated the PHB description yet (rumours that may happen in 2024). But that actually says _"Their skin tones cover the full range of human coloration, but also include various shades of red. "_

But there is a clearly blue tiefling in _Rime of the Frostmaiden_, so WotC don't pay attention to that fluff.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Aldarc said:


> I agree. I suspect that if 4e had been released more like either SWSE or even 4e Essentials from the get-go, then 4e would have been better received. But the 4e launch, development, and marketing had a lot of issues, to put it mildly.



Absolutely. 


Aldarc said:


> What I do find interesting is that I have seen A LOT of love from 5e players and GMs discovering 4e when it comes to the layout, advice, presentation, and readability of the 4e books. I have seen a number of 5e GMs on Twitter recommending that other 5e GMs pick up the 4e DMG for solid GM advice.



Yeah the 4e DMG is excellent.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Dausuul said:


> Yes, I know. (I don't agree with his reasoning, but I acknowledge that it was a deliberate choice.) However:
> 
> 1) The imbalance being deliberate does not make it any less of an imbalance.
> 2) _Vampiric touch_ is not only weak compared to _fireball_, it's weak compared to virtually any other spell of its level. You do more damage with a cantrip, and the cantrips in question can be used at range.



It does 3d6 damage, which is comparable to a cantrip, and then you heal for half the damage dealt, and then you can keep it up for up to a minute, effectively gaining a temporary cantrip that heals you while harming an enemy. 

It’s solid.


----------



## tetrasodium

Dausuul said:


> Yes, I know. (I don't agree with his reasoning, but I acknowledge that it was a deliberate choice.) However:
> 
> 1) The imbalance being deliberate does not make it any less of an imbalance.
> 2) _Vampiric touch_ is not only weak compared to _fireball_, it's weak compared to virtually any other spell of its level. You do more damage with a cantrip, and the cantrips in question can be used at range.



Vampiric touch is uniquely terrible in 5e because of design choices sacrificing it at the altar of simplicity too.  In past Vampiric touch was pretty mediocre when 3rd level slots were a big deal because the effect scaled with caster level & slot progression continued to expand but 5e virtually stops slot progression after 3rd level slots with a continuous slowdown starting in tier one.  Worse still the spell only scales by using one of the more limited and far more precious spell slots rather than with caster level gains. To add insult atop all of that injury 5e doesn't even bother to alter the scaling despite the numerous ways it increases the cost of scaling it.


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> I agree that I hear about unrecognisable games more and more regularly, I have switched my style bits and pieces as we went on about the years... but I just wonder what 4e couldn't do.



I have not found one. I can only guess that @Paul Farquhar tries to stick to the rules more than I do.  I can play any style I have tried in 4e, you just have to be flexible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't know, maybe nothing, if I'd had someone to show me how.
> 
> Create a tiefling that didn't have stupid bull horns perhaps?



You could just do that. Nothing in the rules stopped you.


----------



## dave2008

Dausuul said:


> It's way better balanced than 3E and AD&D, but there are still plenty of areas where it falls down and doesn't have to. I mean, compare _fireball_ to _vampiric touch_. That's a pure, deadweight balance failure. Nothing else would be broken and nothing would be lost if _vampiric touch_ were brought up to snuff.



Well technically _fireball _needs to be nerfed.  Not sure about _vampiric touch_


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> what point on the graph is that? (and I don't mean this to be 'lets fight over this' I mean this to be 'if there is a level or way to balance this game I would love to know it')



The intersection is up to interpretation. Different people have different ideas about balance


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> Who uses HP and Spell Slots as the core factors for balance?
> 
> And where are the Champion's Spell slots?





Vaalingrade said:


> This is certainly the first time I've ever seen this claim.
> 
> And it might hold water if all spells and abilities just dealt damage or healed.



This point was explained by the designers a long time ago (and been brought up on these forums several times).  The designers balanced the classes around spell casters with regard to damage and hit points.

EDIT: it also included spell slots & encounters per day IIRC


----------



## dave2008

Paul Farquhar said:


> I don't know, maybe nothing, if I'd had someone to show me how.
> 
> Create a tiefling that didn't have stupid bull horns perhaps?



Didn't 4e tieflings have dragon-like horns?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Okay, I have to look up vampiric touch now...



> Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 necrotic damage, and you regain hit points equal to half the amount of necrotic damage dealt. Until the spell ends, you can make the attack again on each of your turns as an action.





> Up to 1 minute concentration...



compared to fireball 



> Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.




against 2 targets you deal average 28/14 fire damage per person so 56/42/28 depending on save... how many hits does it take with 3d6 to match that? avg 11... so 3 hits over 3 rounds would deal 33 average damage but also heal you 15hp (round down each time) so in a fight that lasts 3 rounds and you can hold concenration for 3 rounds fireball is much better becuse you can still use cantrips the other 2 actions.

lets compare to a melee warlock and a melee fighter... both have 2 attacks  with a long  sword and we will give the fighter +1 more to hit and damage... so warlock deals 1d8+3 per hit with 6 attacks and give he fighter an action surge for 1d8+4 8 attacks... so warlock makes 7 damage per attack and fighter 8 (remember fighter his also 1 higher to hit) how many attacks need to hit?  35 damage for the warlock is if 5 out of 6 attacks hit, and 32 damage is for the fighter if 4 out of 8 attacks hit... 

so over 3 rounds (useing the action surge) the fighter can if they hit with half or more of there attacks deal about as much damage as the wizard does with 1 fireball...


----------



## Vaalingrade

dave2008 said:


> This point was explained by the designers a long time ago (and been brought up on these forums several times).  The designers balanced the classes around spell casters with regard to damage and hit points.



I... I can't stop laughing.

That would explain so much.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> except that math doesn't hold the moment you have spells that break HP damage expectations, or ones that shut down encounters (effectively doing infante damage)... if every SoS or SoD was based on sleep or the power words I could see this... but they aren't and you get your first SoS/SoD at level 1 spells



Experience and running the numbers belies this interpretation.


----------



## dave2008

Vaalingrade said:


> I... I can't stop laughing.
> 
> That would explain so much.



People have reversed engineered it based on the design assumptions and at least the PHB class math has good balance. I think there are definitely arguments to be made about utility & pillar balance.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

dave2008 said:


> This point was explained by the designers a long time ago (and been brought up on these forums several times).  The designers balanced the classes around spell casters with regard to damage and hit points.





Vaalingrade said:


> I... I can't stop laughing.
> 
> That would explain so much.



yes this explains how badly it is balanced...

a 5th level fighter and a 5th level wizard each squar off with an oger... 


> Armor Class 11 (hide armor)
> Hit Points 59 (7d10 + 21)



ac 11 the fighter can hit all day... if he is average he deals 1d8+3 but if he is super damage oppsessed he is rolling 2d6 rerolling 1s and 2s and can power attack for +14 to that...   my math isn't the best but I would say that is average 23 damage... so 3 attacks over 2 rounds can kill him.

or with that -2 wis save the wizard can throw 1 tahsa's laugh and end the fight... with a single action... so that was worth 59pts of damage.

Now tbf the wizard WONT do that most times... why waste a spell slot when he can toll the dead for 2d12 (13) damage and let the fighter handle this light work....if both the wizard and fighter go before it just damage can be enough to drop it... so no need to spend a spell


----------



## Parmandur

Vaalingrade said:


> I... I can't stop laughing.
> 
> That would explain so much.



There is a chart in the DMG for designing Spells, that gives the hit point expectfor damage or healing by Slot level. The designers have confirmed that this is the basis for the balance of every Racial, Class, or Feat ability in the game in addition to Spells. DPR is the balance factor, along with narrative balance giving each character something to be the best at in the narrative.


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes this explains how badly it is balanced...
> 
> a 5th level fighter and a 5th level wizard each squar off with an oger...
> 
> ac 11 the fighter can hit all day... if he is average he deals 1d8+3 but if he is super damage oppsessed he is rolling 2d6 rerolling 1s and 2s and can power attack for +14 to that...   my math isn't the best but I would say that is average 23 damage... so 3 attacks over 2 rounds can kill him.
> 
> or with that -2 wis save the wizard can throw 1 tahsa's laugh and end the fight... with a single action... so that was worth 59pts of damage.
> 
> Now tbf the wizard WONT do that most times... why waste a spell slot when he can toll the dead for 2d12 (13) damage and let the fighter handle this light work....if both the wizard and fighter go before it just damage can be enough to drop it... so no need to spend a spell



have you run the numbers after 6-8 encounters? You can't just look at one round or one combat. They balanced across the adventure day.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> There is a chart in the DMG for designing Spells, that gives the hit point expectfor damage or healing by Slot level. The designers have confirmed that this is the basis for the balance of every Racial, Class, or Feat ability in the game in addition to Spells. DPR is the balance factor, along with narrative balance giving each character something to be the best at in the narrative.



Which makes me wonder how they designed the actual spells that are in the game without seeing that _the best ones neither deal nor heal damage. _And also shows that there is NO excuse for how bad combat healing is.


----------



## Aldarc

dave2008 said:


> have you run the numbers after 6-8 encounters? You can't just look at one round or one combat. *They balanced across the adventure day.*



Which is a big part of the problem.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> Experience and running the numbers belies this interpretation.



my experience at home games, cons, and store games shows it out... and again I have shown the numbers.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> There is a chart in the DMG for designing Spells, that gives the hit point expectfor damage or healing by Slot level. The designers have confirmed that this is the basis for the balance of every Racial, Class, or Feat ability in the game in addition to Spells. DPR is the balance factor, along with narrative balance giving each character something to be the best at in the narrative.



and that chart is a bad joke... 

it's like saying "Hey we have this number 7 here... we balanced everything off of that 7" then not understanding why 9, 11, and 23 don't balance... "But we told YOU to use 7"


----------



## Yaarel

GMforPowergamers said:


> then explain why a warlock or wizard or cleric or bard can spend 1/2 the game (the half played by most, level 1-10) on par with a melee fighter or within a small variance WITHOUT giving up being full spell casters with access to the highest level spells for those levels, and still be balanced, when fighters ONLY get combat features?



If the character has both spells and weapons, the action economy prevent one from doing both excessively at the same. Meanwhile, concentration prevents excessive layering of effects. I want to see 2024 calibrate spells, so each spell of a particular slot level is comparable to the other spells in the same slot. Also doublecheck martial features at levels corresponding to the slots. Even so, the 5e approach is surprisingly balancing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

dave2008 said:


> have you run the numbers after 6-8 encounters? You can't just look at one round or one combat. They balanced across the adventure day.



yes in another thread I did. without Sod/Sos just damage at 11th level (when the fighter first breaks away from melee spell casters who only get 2 attacks not 3) the wizard can deal about 85% of the damage a fighter can, without giving up more then 66% of there prepared spells... so they come pretty close (but not exact) for damage, but they still get to keep at least soem versitility... once you throw in "I end the encounter" or "I circumvent the obstacle" spells instead of direct damage the wizard pulls ahead... and that was NOT doing a melee weapon wizard like the bladesinger... so the at will damage was way behind the fighter, but they could just spend spell slots through all 7 encounters... now i used 7 as the midpoint between 6-8.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Yaarel said:


> If the character has both spells and weapons, the action economy prevent one from doing both excessively at the same.



correct, but they can take the 2 attacks any time the fighter can take the 2 attacks but ON TOP of that can use big nova spells... by just giving up 1 set of those 2 attacks... so they are going along the same until one says "wait I want to use a big boom now" that they other can not have.


Yaarel said:


> Meanwhile, concentration prevents excessive layering of effects.



so far I have used very few concentration things for this... in general those are even better though.


Yaarel said:


> I want to see 2024 calibrate spells, so each spell of a particular slot level is comparable to the other spells in the same slot.



that would be a nice start...


Yaarel said:


> Also doublecheck martial features at levels corresponding to the slots. Even so, the 5e approach is surprisingly balancing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

dave2008 said:


> have you run the numbers after 6-8 encounters? You can't just look at one round or one combat. They balanced across the adventure day.











						D&D 5E - Damage thread
					

so in another thread I tried to compare how much better a fighter was to a wizard... we did 11th level and that of course is not only 1/2 through the game but by most accounts a level most don't see.     give a fighter a 20 str a +1 long sword and 3 attacks per round + action surge 1/short rest...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah we ran high and low magic... we even with ever so slight fluff tweeks ran a modern harry dresden game, but (and I have said this many times) I think the ideas in 4e are ideas I have been useing since 95... things that the system fights against and I have been doing inspite of the system not for it... so maybe there is some style I don't know of that can't be done
> 
> oh yes... just like WotC keeps saying teiflings are all red (even if teh 1st pictured is more purple) but I see lots of people say they play blue green red or black ones all the time (I myself have seen at least half a dozen blue, 1 purple and 1 green... but only 3 red)



They all have those ram horns though...


----------



## Yaarel

So, 5.5 it is. It might even 5.0, albeit a "refresh" can incorporate many fluffs and crunches across the 10 years.

From the thread by @Abstruse (Mott):

"
And now Jeremy Crawford talking about the new initiative called "One D&D". Chris Perkins reiterating what was said back during "D&D Next" playtests that there won't be any new "editions" of D&D but refining 5th Edition by building on that framework. *So this is the 2024 refresh of the core rulebooks.* Chris Perkins will be restructuring the DMG to be more friendly to new players. The "three pillars" of One D&D will be

• the rules system (backward compatible, *no need to re-buy any books* or adventures),

• D&D Beyond (digital integration and digital/physical bundles),

• and D&D Digital, which will be a VTT.

"


----------



## Aldarc

Yaarel said:


> *The "three pillars" of One D&D will be*
> 
> • the rules system (backward compatible, *no need to re-buy any books* or adventures),
> 
> • D&D Beyond (digital integration and digital/physical bundles),
> 
> • and D&D Digital, which will be a VTT.



So much for the Combat, Exploration, and Social pillars!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Vaalingrade said:


> "Leave the rest to be"
> 
> Ah, so no improvements or things people were hoping to get.



Yeah if Mike Shea's vision is followed, I don't think that bodes very well for D&D longer-term, and it means no real improvements at all beyond Tasha's/MotM-type stuff.

But equally possibly Winninger is talking generalities and it won't be as well, sorry, but "crap" as the vision (or astonishing lack of vision) that Mike Shea presents.

The one upside is, frankly the worse WotC handle this, the better it's going to go for non-D&D RPGs. If it's really Shea's vision I expect to see a gradual upswing in non-D&D RPGs over the next few years.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Not just my opinion, the D&D team identified the style as one of the major problems.
> 
> But yeah, I didn't like the writing style.




Boring to read. Dull. Uninteresting. A chore. Literally all of these things are subjective value judgments. They are, in fact, your opinion. Just own your opinions - they’re perfectly valid. You don’t need to hide behind faux objectivity.


----------



## Charlaquin

dave2008 said:


> Didn't 4e tieflings have dragon-like horns?



They had devil horns. Which basically means whatever kind of horns you want.


----------



## dave2008

Aldarc said:


> Which is a big part of the problem.



For some.


----------



## Aldarc

dave2008 said:


> For some.



Not all classes and subclasses are equally affected by discrepancies in what the typical adventuring day looks like for different tables.


----------



## dave2008

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah if Mike Shea's vision is followed, I don't think that bodes very well for D&D longer-term, and it means no real improvements at all beyond Tasha's/MotM-type stuff.
> 
> But equally possibly Winninger is talking generalities and it won't be as well, sorry, but "crap" as the vision (or astonishing lack of vision) that Mike Shea presents.
> 
> The one upside is, frankly the worse WotC handle this, the better it's going to go for non-D&D RPGs. If it's really Shea's vision I expect to see a gradual upswing in non-D&D RPGs over the next few years.



Well I would be happy with basically what Mike wanted.  If I want any more 5e options I can look to 3PP


----------



## Yaarel

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah if Mike Shea's vision is followed, I don't think that bodes very well for D&D longer-term, and it means no real improvements at all beyond Tasha's/MotM-type stuff.
> 
> But equally possibly Winninger is talking generalities and it won't be as well, sorry, but "crap" as the vision (or astonishing lack of vision) that Mike Shea presents.
> 
> The one upside is, frankly the worse WotC handle this, the better it's going to go for non-D&D RPGs. If it's really Shea's vision I expect to see a gradual upswing in non-D&D RPGs over the next few years.



I assume the longterm D&D will be a full-on 6e − but at that point, D&D might well be a virtual reality experience.

But, remind me, what your main frustrations with 5e are?


----------



## tetrasodium

Yaarel said:


> So, 5.5 it is. It might even 5.0, albeit a "refresh" can incorporate many fluffs and crunches across the 10 years.
> 
> From the thread by @Abstruse (Mott):
> 
> "
> And now Jeremy Crawford talking about the new initiative called "One D&D". Chris Perkins reiterating what was said back during "D&D Next" playtests that there won't be any new "editions" of D&D but refining 5th Edition by building on that framework. *So this is the 2024 refresh of the core rulebooks.* Chris Perkins will be restructuring the DMG to be more friendly to new players. The "three pillars" of One D&D will be
> 
> • the rules system (backward compatible, *no need to re-buy any books* or adventures),
> 
> • D&D Beyond (digital integration and digital/physical bundles),
> 
> • and D&D Digital, which will be a VTT.
> 
> "



wow... I wasn't expecting much in the way of changes with 5.5, sounds like I dramatically overshot with my expectations


----------



## dave2008

Aldarc said:


> Not all classes and subclasses are equally affected by discrepancies in what the typical adventuring day looks like for different tables.



Yes, I said for some. However, I find those discrepancies are pretty small. My group is a wizard, a ranger (rogue scout), and 3 fighters. Everyone seems pretty balanced and happy if we have 1 or 6 encounters in a day (typical about 3). We haven't had balance be an issue for us.  I hear people talk about, but I haven't seen it in play in 5e (I did a bit in 4e).


----------



## Charlaquin

Aldarc said:


> Not all classes and subclasses are equally affected by discrepancies in what the typical adventuring day looks like for different tables.



That’s kind of an inevitable result of resource management based balance. Discrepancies from the expected pattern of play over whatever term the resource management is balanced around will result in power imbalance. The longer the term the resource management is balanced around, the greater the risk of such discrepancies. Nonetheless, a lot of people really enjoy resource management over the term of an adventuring day.


----------



## dave2008

GMforPowergamers said:


> yes in another thread I did.



Thanks for the link (in the other post - not trying to be snarky) - I trusts you.


GMforPowergamers said:


> without Sod/Sos just damage at 11th level (when the fighter first breaks away from melee spell casters who only get 2 attacks not 3) the wizard can deal about 85% of the damage a fighter can, without giving up more then 66% of there prepared spells... so they come pretty close (but not exact) for damage, but they still get to keep at least soem versitility... once you throw in "I end the encounter" or "I circumvent the obstacle" spells instead of direct damage the wizard pulls ahead... and that was NOT doing a melee weapon wizard like the bladesinger... so the at will damage was way behind the fighter, but they could just spend spell slots through all 7 encounters... now i used 7 as the midpoint between 6-8.



So they are, as I said, balanced mathematically, but not as much utility wise.  

Personally, I think fighters should out perform wizards on damage generally (and every other class really), but wizards should have more utility and encounter ending spells.


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> That’s kind of an inevitable result of resource management based balance. Discrepancies from the expected pattern of play over whatever term the resource management is balanced around will result in power imbalance. The longer the term the resource management is balanced around, the greater the risk of such discrepancies. Nonetheless, a lot of people really enjoy resource management over the term of an adventuring day.



Saying that there is a problem with balancing around the adventuring day is not meant to deny that people enjoy resource management over the term of the adventuring day. If resource management should be a key feature, then it should be a key feature across the board for all rather than for some. All IMHO.


----------



## Yaarel

tetrasodium said:


> wow... I wasn't expecting much in the way of changes with 5.5, sounds like I dramatically overshot with my expectations



I suspect 2024 will differ mechanically from 2014, but either we have already seen those changes or will soon.

[Edit]: Heh. Sooner than I though!


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Yaarel said:


> But, remind me, what your main frustrations with 5e are?



I don't think we have time for that unless you have a couch for me and a lot of coffee (or hard drink).

If it came down to two things it'd be the adventuring day and the poor rules around skill usage.

But I'm now watching the Origins video and... this sounds like this goes further than Mike Shea was asking for, and even is a little 4E-ish (in terms of the vibe)... so I'll be interested to see how this plays out. I'm already a little less concerned. I think Winninger was generalizing.


----------



## Charlaquin

tetrasodium said:


> wow... I wasn't expecting much in the way of changes with 5.5, sounds like I dramatically overshot with my expectations



Eh, I would take claims that there’s no need to re-buy any books with a grain of salt. Of course they would say that, because it would be a bad look to seem like they’re making people re-buy the same books. I take this to mean the same thing as “backwards compatibility.” If you have the old books, you’ll be able to make a character to play in a game with people using the new books, or run a game for people who made characters using the new books. I think MMotM gives us a pretty clear picture of the kinds of changes we should be expecting.


----------



## dave2008

Aldarc said:


> If resource management should be a key feature, then it should be a key feature across the board for all rather than for some. All IMHO.



Oh good no.  I hate resource management as a player, but I wouldn't want to take that away from those that do. Now, I could see each class have a subclass that is resource based and one that is not.  But I wouldn't want it all one way or the other.


----------



## Yaarel

Charlaquin said:


> Eh, I would take claims that there’s no need to re-buy any books with a grain of salt. Of course they would say that, because it would be a bad look to seem like they’re making people re-buy the same books. I take this to mean the same thing as “backwards compatibility.” If you have the old books, you’ll be able to make a character to play in a game with people using the old books, or run a game for people who made characters using the new books. I think MMotM gives us a pretty clear picture of the kinds of changes we should be expecting.



Of course they say that!

At the same time, it seems a genuine design goal, that one player at the table is using a 2014 Players Handbook and an other player is using a 2024 Players Handbook. They want this to be doable. Even if the options sometimes differ, they want characters to be viable.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> I suspect 2024 will differ mechanically from 2014, but either we have already seen those changes or will soon.



Indeed. I fully expect the PHB races and MM monsters to get updated to the MMotM standard. Features that let you cast spells X times between long rests will be updated to allow you to cast the spell with appropriate-level slots if you have them. Features that let you do a non-spell X times between short or long rests will be updated to be PB times between long rests (apart from Warlock spells; I think that would require more drastic of a change than it sounds like they’re looking to make). The wording of a lot of things will be revised for clarity - see, for example, Dwarven Resilience being re-worded to say you have advantage on saves “to avoid or end the Poisoned condition on yourself” instead of on saves “against poison.” Some things might get re-organized somewhat, such as putting all the stealth rules in one place. A lot of things will probably get sidebars reminding the reader of things like temp HP not stacking. They will probably specify in all cases where you divide something that you round down, instead of leaving it implied by the “always round down unless otherwise stated” rule. I’m betting Tasha’s optional class features will be included directly in the class features, though they might still be marked as optional, and of all my predictions I’m least confident about that one.


----------



## Umbran

Ruin Explorer said:


> Yeah if Mike Shea's vision is followed, I don't think that bodes very well for D&D longer-term...




"If they don't do the kinds of things I want, it is _DOOOOOM!_" isn't itself very visionary, you know.


----------



## darjr

Umbran said:


> "If they don't do the kinds of things I want, it is _DOOOOOM!_" isn't itself very visionary, you know.



Namesake. They are exploring ruin.


----------



## Charlaquin

Yaarel said:


> Of course they say that!
> 
> At the same time, it seems a genuine design goal, that one player at the table is using a 2014 Players Handbook and an other player is using a 2024 Players Handbook. They want this to be doable. Even if the options sometimes differ, they want characters to be viable.



Yeah, I agree.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Umbran said:


> "If they don't do the kinds of things I want, it is _DOOOOOM!_" isn't itself very visionary, you know.



/Shrug

I don't think it's doom, I mean, sure we can all pretend I said that, but I didn't. I don't think it bodes well though. And not because it's "not what I want", but because it doesn't make sense. Shea's vision didn't, rather. His vision is ultra-conservative re: 5E, basically change nothing that they haven't already changed in Tasha's/MotM. There are other visions that might bode better for success but I might hate even more lol, like pushing even harder on "lifestyle product".

But like I said, I'm now watching the Origins video and they're already doing stuff Shea didn't want them to do, so... I'm less concerned. I mean we got new PHB races (plural, including an entirely new race), everyone is getting Feats, it seems like there will be powered-up Feats that aren't available at first level (!!!), etc. etc.

So the whole "You don't need to re-buy anything" and "It's 100% compatible" are just from this video not true, but that's fine, that's good! The main thing is to make adventures compatible.


----------



## darjr

I just love that they are more open about the future! It makes it much easier and I can relax a bit.


----------



## darjr

Aldarc said:


> So much for the Combat, Exploration, and Social pillars!



Those are product pillars not the pillars of play


----------



## tetrasodium

"book of many things host of new options for DM's & players"... Failing new rules for crafting &_ (more importantly)_ carving out room in PC power budget in the math this sounds like a book of magic items I'll be expected to magic mart trivially available & "your the gm you fix it" compensate.  Sure it's great that wotc is finally doing a MiC type book but a MiC type book requires the GM to have room to award things in it


----------



## Aldarc

darjr said:


> Those are product pillars not the pillars of play



So much for the joke!


----------



## darjr

Aldarc said:


> So much for the joke!



I laughed! We need pillars of posts.


----------



## Dausuul

doctorbadwolf said:


> It does 3d6 damage, which is comparable to a cantrip, and then you heal for half the damage dealt, and then you can keep it up for up to a minute, effectively gaining a temporary cantrip that heals you while harming an enemy.
> 
> It’s solid.



It costs you a third-level spell slot _and _your concentration. Never mind _fireball_, consider all the other effects you can get for that price. You could be casting _fear, haste, hypnotic pattern, slow, stinking cloud, _or any of a variety of powerful summons.

Instead, you're going to go with "If you're in melee, and use (effectively) a cantrip to attack, you regain ~5 hit points... once per round. Only usable if already injured." And it's unlikely to last anywhere close to a minute, because you are trying to hold a concentration spell in melee.

It's terrible.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Dausuul said:


> It costs you a third-level spell slot _and _your concentration. Never mind _fireball_, consider all the other effects you can get for that price. You could be casting _fear, haste, hypnotic pattern, slow, stinking cloud, _or any of a variety of powerful summons.
> 
> Instead, you're going to go with "If you're in melee, and use (effectively) a cantrip to attack, you regain ~5 hit points... once per round. Only usable if already injured." And it's unlikely to last anywhere close to a minute, because you are trying to hold a concentration spell in melee.
> 
> It's terrible.



Edit: original reply came across very flippant and snide. 

I don’t think we have perspectives and experiences on/of the game that make discussion of the particulars of stuff like this fruitful. I’m going to just disengage rather than argue further.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Scribe said:


> How many D&D novels are being written? Art books? Setting/Lore books?



I never specified a D&D novel. I specified "a novel written by a master of entertainment". Read Discworld, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or some other novel if you want to be entertained by a book. Going to a D&D book to be entertained, in my opinion, is a bit like going to a cookbook to be entertained. D&D books are cookbooks for the games, not novels meant to entertain you.


Scribe said:


> The purpose of the books released, is far more than just communicating technically how to play the game.



That's the main purpose of them. I've never seen anyone argue before that the main purpose of the Player's Handbook isn't to tell player how to play the game. 


Scribe said:


> How much budget goes to art, I wonder?



I don't know, and this is entirely off topic.


----------



## Azzy

Hussar said:


> Funny thing about cooking writing. What’s the number one complaint about cooking blogs? That you have to wade through paragraphs of crap just to get to the recipe at the bottom.
> 
> But this little back and forth about 4e is precisely why 5e was laid out the way it was. There was zero chance WotC could use any layout ideas from 4e. Just not going to happen.
> 
> So here we are eight years later and people complain about vague writing, poor organization and poor layout and wonder why it was done this way.
> 
> It’s not exactly a secret. Anything with 4e cooties was an absolute nope in 2014. In 2024, it’s only okay if you can sneak it in under the radar.



It's almost like there could be a middle ground between the extremes of 5e's lack of clarity in some regards and 4e's one or two sentences of flavor per power. Maybe something that doesn't sacrifice either entertaining prose nor rules clarity.


----------



## darjr

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, with the most reluctance I have ever seen from a publisher, with clear indicators that the author's creative work does not reflect the opinions of the publisher.



Btw, just to show that I think a lot of the drama is more than what is there, at least now post lawsuit and firings, Margaret retweeted a story about the new 5e Dragonlance.


----------



## Scribe

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I never specified a D&D novel. I specified "a novel written by a master of entertainment". Read Discworld, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or some other novel if you want to be entertained by a book. Going to a D&D book to be entertained, in my opinion, is a bit like going to a cookbook to be entertained. D&D books are cookbooks for the games, not novels meant to entertain you.



We are talking D&D, and people want to engage with it and it's settings beyond rules and the game.

Fiction, lore, art, how the crunch is presented, all of that matters.

We don't play out of the SRD, we gain inspiration, motivation, joy, aka entertainment, from how these books are put together.


----------



## Aldarc

Scribe said:


> We are talking D&D, and people want to engage with it and it's settings beyond rules and the game.
> 
> *Fiction, lore, art, how the crunch is presented, all of that matters.*
> 
> We don't play out of the SRD, we gain inspiration, motivation, joy, aka entertainment, from how these books are put together.



Sure, which is why I have a better idea of how to run a 4e game based on these things than I do with 5e based solely on its own presentation of these things. 4e was thematically *TIGHT!* in establishing how the power sources, classes, races, etc. all operated in the implied setting. You could pick up a monster and knew where it fit in the grand cosmological scheme as well as how to run it (i.e., roles).


----------



## Medic

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Going to a D&D book to be entertained, in my opinion, is a bit like going to a cookbook to be entertained. D&D books are cookbooks for the games, not novels meant to entertain you.



Hold on now. Cookbooks have pleasant pictures to entice me to try the recipe, flavorful descriptions of what the dish tastes like, maybe even some context to help me better appreciate the cultural significance of a dish. Look at a regional cookbook, they even come with history lessons pertaining to the development of cuisine and the origins of staple ingredients.

The primary purpose may not be to entertain, but a recipe book worth its salt can capture and hold attention and even be a significantly better product for it.


----------



## Scribe

Aldarc said:


> Sure, which is why I have a better idea of how to run a 4e game based on these things than I do with 5e based solely on its own presentation of these things. 4e was thematically *TIGHT!* in establishing how the power sources, classes, races, etc. all operated in the implied setting. You could pick up a monster and knew where it fit in the grand cosmological scheme as well as how to run it (i.e., roles).



And that is totally fine. People are drawn to different things, different styles.

I often think of MTG in this regard. Multiple ways to engage with the product that can have zero relation to playing the game.

Want to think about growth as a company? Not everyone may want to play a game, how do you get their dollar?

Well, maybe it's art, or story, or something about simply how the book is presented, maybe it's a collectable alt cover...

I know for a fact, there are people who collect 5e books, and have no interest to play.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Medic said:


> Hold on now. Cookbooks have pleasant pictures to entice me to try the recipe,



So, art like in a D&D book.


Medic said:


> flavorful descriptions of what the dish tastes like,



Flavor text like in a D&D book. I have no issue with that.


Medic said:


> maybe even some context to help me better appreciate the cultural significance of a dish.



An explanation on how to use a specific option in D&D. 


Medic said:


> Look at a regional cookbook, they even come with history lessons pertaining to the development of cuisine and the origins of staple ingredients.
> 
> The primary purpose may not be to entertain, but a recipe book worth its salt can capture and hold attention and even be a significantly better product for it.



But, again, the main purpose of a cookbook is to give you recipes to make a meal, and the main purpose of a D&D book is to help you play the game.


----------



## Greg Benage

Seems like they plan to focus on the (quite large) audience that actually likes 5e. Very smart, very wise.

- Guy Who Likes 5e


----------



## CapnZapp

doctorbadwolf said:


> You joking?
> 
> The game is balanced around math, and according to that math the rogue does plenty of damage without using reactions for offense.



I made a claim "FWIW The Rogue class needs to get both its Sneak Attacks in nearly every round to be competitive DPR-wise."

You didn't just scroll past this. Instead you claimed I wasn't truthful. As evidence of this, you continued with "I’ve done the math" as if I'm know around here to just make claims without backup. 

Then you explained your math: "and the rogue’s SA with 1 attack per round is equal to the value obtained by extrapolating a wizard’s spell slots"

_But where did I even talk about Wizards?_

Stop assuming a Rogue's capabilities should somehow be judged against wizards, or the hyperspecific "translated directly into single target damage over enough rounds to run the wizard out of slots."

That's cherrypicking to make a Rogue player feel good about his or her mediocricity, and it doesn't fly by me.

So no. I am not joking. Neither am I making "untrue" statements. You might not need a high DPR to feel good about your Rogue, but that's something else.

What I am saying is that if you aren't even aware you have the capacity for two SAs per round, you have an awakening coming. I compare it to a Fighter character that somehow have missed the GWM or SS feats (and how to properly use them).


----------



## darjr

SlyFlourish has a sunday twitch show where he records his podcasts and talks to listeners a bit. He has taken questions and this Sunday’s should be interesting!









						Twitch
					

Twitch is the world's leading video platform and community for gamers.




					twitch.tv


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Ruin Explorer said:


> So the whole "You don't need to re-buy anything" and "It's 100% compatible" are just from this video not true, but that's fine, that's good! The main thing is to make adventures compatible.




I don't think you'll ever hear anyone say "you don't need to buy anything" (other than to point out that it's obviously _true_ that you don't _need_ to). And the claim has always been "compatible". Whether that's 100% or not (it's not, but it was never going to be) is really a matter of debate. A LOT of debate, apparently!

You might need to make a couple of adjustments for compatibility. How much that makes it compatible is anyone's guess.


----------



## darjr

darjr said:


> SlyFlourish has a sunday twitch show where he records his podcasts and talks to listeners a bit. He has taken questions and this Sunday’s should be interesting!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twitch
> 
> 
> Twitch is the world's leading video platform and community for gamers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> twitch.tv




Soon! I'm in the chat already for his prior show.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

CapnZapp said:


> I made a claim "FWIW The Rogue class needs to get both its Sneak Attacks in nearly every round to be competitive DPR-wise."
> 
> You didn't just scroll past this. Instead you claimed I wasn't truthful.



Incorrect. Not untruthful. Very important distinction. 


CapnZapp said:


> As evidence of this, you continued with "I’ve done the math" as if I'm know around here to just make claims without backup.
> 
> Then you explained your math: "and the rogue’s SA with 1 attack per round is equal to the value obtained by extrapolating a wizard’s spell slots"



Right, which is how 5e is designed and balanced, in comparison to spell slots worth of damage per relevant increment of time and actions. 


CapnZapp said:


> _But where did I even talk about Wizards?_



You don’t need to have done.


CapnZapp said:


> Stop assuming a Rogue's capabilities should somehow be judged against wizards, or the hyperspecific "translated directly into single target damage over enough rounds to run the wizard out of slots."



That is literally how the game is balanced. 


CapnZapp said:


> That's cherrypicking to make a Rogue player feel good about his or her mediocricity, and it doesn't fly by me.



I don’t care what flies by you, though generally it’s “fly *with*”. 


CapnZapp said:


> So no. I am not joking. Neither am I making "untrue" statements.



Well, not intentionally, anyway. 


CapnZapp said:


> You might not need a high DPR to feel good about your Rogue, but that's something else.



Irrelevant. At no previous point has the discussion involved anyone’s “feelings”. 


CapnZapp said:


> What I am saying is that if you aren't even aware you have the capacity for two SAs per round, you have an awakening coming. I compare it to a Fighter character that somehow have missed the GWM or SS feats (and how to properly use them).





Vanishingly few people here are unaware of the damage potential of rogue’s getting sneak attack on a reaction attack. 

What you seem to somehow unaware of, is the fact that spell slots (specifically the idea that a spell slot is worth a specific number of d10s of damage per spell level, as described in the DMG) are what the game is balanced around. 

You also ignore that damage mitigation and healing also have equivalent value to damage dealt, and the rogue often uses their reaction to mitigate often very large amounts of damage. 

But even ignoring that, the rogue’s damage is fine. The only sense in which it doesn’t “keep up”, is in the minds of folks who overthink DPR in the context of hyper optimization, and even then the rogue has options to keep up. Acting like one of those options is “required to keep up”, is obnoxious nonsense.


----------

