# One D&D Cleric & Revised Species Playtest Includes Goliath



## Parmandur

New video here:


----------



## Parmandur

Clerics now get their Subclass at Level 3, because First Level Subclass is a blocker for new players, expect this for al Classes. Also meant to discourage Level dipping for multiclassing.


----------



## Aldarc

I guess Goliath is the Critical Role influence? 

I was kinda hoping for Goblins.


----------



## Parmandur

Cleric doesn't get Subclass until 3, but at 2nd gets to choose to be a tank or a blaster type, seperate from Domain.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Parmandur said:


> Clerics now get their Subclass at Level 3, because First Level Subclass is a blocker for new players, expect this for al Classes. Also meant to discourage Level dipping for multiclassing.



I want game designers to all look into the mirror for an hour each morning and repeat after me:

"New Players Are Not Stupid."


----------



## Parmandur

Vaalingrade said:


> I want game designers to all look into the mirror for an hour each morning and repeat after me:
> 
> "New Players Are Not Stupid."



Stupid ≠ overwhelmed. His description matched my experience for people getting analysis paralysis in chargen.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg

Parmandur said:


> Stupid ≠ overwhelmed. His description matched my experience for people getting analysis paralysis in chargen.




Bingo. As much fun as chargen is for many people, I have found it more helpful to give new players a chance to run a one-shot with pregens.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

I find the change to the subclass and when the player gets access to abilities interesting especially if they keep that going forward. I do like the goliath abilities as presented.


----------



## Thaumaturge

Parmandur said:


> Cleric doesn't get Subclass until 3, but at 2nd gets to choose to be a tank or a blaster type, seperate from Domain.



I like their name choices for these. 

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Parmandur

Video about new Race options:

__


----------



## Xamnam

Spiritual Weapon now takes concentration to maintain.


----------



## Parmandur

- Ardling more clearly just a catchall Anthropomorphic Animal option, not Planar now.

- Dragonborn get a breath weapon update, they made it clear that the Fizban's options are meant to be variants of the new PHB core, "Universal Dragonvorn," bit made the core option look more like Fizban's. 

- Goliath is exploring a wider array of Giant type variants (Fire Giant, Storm Giant, etc.).


----------



## Sacrosanct

So far I don't have an issue with subclass going to 3rd level.  And I like the 2nd level holy order.  But I don't like the 9th level version of it.  Seems lazy, to add a 9th level feature that isn't really going to be used or is appropriate.  E.g., you're going with scholar at level 2.  So at level 9 you finally get to wear heavy armor and use marital weapons if you choose?  Seems off theme.  I'd much rather see an expansion to the choice you made at level 2 instead.





Goliaths seem to have a huge boost.  I don't see how they are going to be backwards compatible since now they get to use abilities prof times per long rest. Compare both versions of Stone's endurance for example.  Those are more powerful than feats (misty step 2-6 times per long rest?  Better than the fey feat).


----------



## Weiley31

I'mma....._SERIOUSLY LIKING_ how Smite Undead works/is and how Channel Divinity: Divine Spark works/is.


----------



## sevenbastard

Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Spiritual Weapon, at last, requires concentration! No more an auto-pick for every cleric!

Not a fan of Smite Undead instead of Turn Undead. I'd like if the damage was lower but could give the frightened condition to undeads.

Prayer of Healing now gives a short rest to the targets, nice.

Agreed that 9th level Order feature is pretty bland. Make it an improvement for the cleric's order.

Races are cool, nothing jarring here. 

Resistance is very good now.

Dazed condition, pretty cool, I see it being used for the Monk's stunning strike.


----------



## Sacrosanct

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



Or you pick it at level 1, but the diety(ies) don't give you the extra power until you prove yourself first.   They just give you your spells and channel divinity powers at low level (which is still quite a bit).  Maybe you change your mind and convert to a different deity based on gameplay, and this gives you that option before you're locked in?


----------



## rooneg

Sacrosanct said:


> So far I don't have an issue with subclass going to 3rd level.  And I like the 2nd level holy order.  But I don't like the 9th level version of it.  Seems lazy, to add a 9th level feature that isn't really going to be used or is appropriate.  E.g., you're going with scholar at level 2.  So at level 9 you finally get to wear heavy armor and use marital weapons if you choose?  Seems off theme.  I'd much rather see an expansion to the choice you made at level 2 instead.



Agreed, this is a repeat of the Battlemaster problem in 5e, where at higher levels you get to choose the maneuvers that weren't cool enough to pick the first time.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



Yes and no. You can still say you're a cleric of "x", but the benefits of that worship don't start until later. Also a lot of deities have multiple domain options so the choice of deity in 5E is less important than it was in previous editions.


----------



## Aldarc

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



Maybe better to frame it as your choice of deity (or whatever) not having a mechanical impact until 3rd level.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Sacrosanct said:


> Or you pick it at level 1, but the diety(ies) don't give you the extra power until you prove yourself first.   They just give you your spells and channel divinity powers at low level (which is still quite a bit).  Maybe you change your mind and convert to a different deity based on gameplay, and this gives you that option before you're locked in?



Yeah, since most D&D faiths are polytheistic, a cleric dont necessarily lock themselves in a very specific domain (especially since most gods also have more than one domain) until later.


----------



## Remathilis

Sacrosanct said:


> Goliaths seem to have a huge boost. I don't see how they are going to be backwards compatible since now they get to use abilities prof times per long rest. Compare both versions of Stone's endurance for example. Those are more powerful than feats (misty step 2-6 times per long rest? Better than the fey feat).




It's on par with the eladrin, shadar-kai and astral elf.


----------



## orangefruitbat

Weiley31 said:


> I'mma....._SERIOUSLY LIKING_ how Smite Undead works/is and how Channel Divinity: Divine Spark works/is.



I like the Smite Undead, but I really dislike giving Divine Spark to everyone - seems lazy to have a ranged heal provided by default to everyone. I prefer most characters having to chose between a touch-range Cure spell and a weaker Healing Words.


----------



## Undrave

Parmandur said:


> Cleric doesn't get Subclass until 3, but at 2nd gets to choose to be a tank or a blaster type, seperate from Domain.



THAT feels like something you should get at 1st level, because it impacts your stats spread way more. 


sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



Yeah it is... I guess it could be framed as picking which aspect (i.e. domain) of your deity you want to dedicate yourself to?


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> I guess Goliath is the Critical Role influence?
> 
> I was kinda hoping for Goblins.



More likely support and interest for the Giants book.


----------



## Marandahir

I like how the Cleric made it so that Martial vs Caster vs Divine Wizard are early choices, and late in your career you can mix and match (so Gandalf is a Scholar Holy Order Aasimar Cleric from 2nd Level who took the Protector Holy Order at 9th level, and promptly got his hands on Glamdring from the Troll-horde. 

I also like the Goliaths of many Ordnings. I'd love a Fomorian-tied Goliath, too (maybe has an Evil Eye?). 

Ardlings are still Planar and Divine - just very reflective of Guardinals now, not trying to be both Guardinals and Ardlings and a mirror to Tieflings and the Egyptian Gods. I'd still use them instead of Aarakocra or Dragonborn or Minotaurs if I was playing an Amonkhet campaign, for example.


----------



## Marandahir

Minigiant said:


> More likely support and interest for the Giants book.



Very possible that this is a secret slide in of an unrelated UA playtest for _Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants_, even, like how Rabbitfolk and Fairy were for the _Feywild_ book, but the other two lineages - Owlfolk and Hobgoblin of the Feywild - were for _Strixhaven_ and _Mordenkainen Presents_ respectively.


----------



## Minigiant

Dazed Condition. My wishes are coming true.

*We know what Warrior classes will be able to spam.*

Also "Succeed: Dazed. Fail: Stunned" incoming.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Xamnam said:


> Spiritual Weapon now takes concentration to maintain.



that is interesting. I see a lot of clerics use it so I wonder if that will stop if this gets made official.


----------



## Marandahir

Minigiant said:


> Dazed Condition. My wishes are coming true.
> 
> *We know what Warrior classes will be able to spam.*
> 
> Also "Succeed: Dazed. Fail: Stunned" incoming.



Starting to remind me of the Break/Topple/Daze, Stagger/Topple, Break/Topple/Launch/Smash, Break/Topple/Daze/Burst combos from _Xenoblade. _Making warriors have more optional combat systems that mirror the complexity of spells is a good thing, in my honest opinion.


----------



## Hurin88

Long rest restores all Hit Dice. Is that new?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Prayer of Healing now gives a short rest to the targets, nice.



I really wonder how this will interact with warlocks


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> Maybe better to frame it as your choice of deity (or whatever) not having a mechanical impact until 3rd level.



Yeah. It's the "Low level clerics are mostly the same." same how fighters are.

Your connection to your god or source is too weak to express itself until level 3. I like it this way.


----------



## Marandahir

Hurin88 said:


> Long rest restores all Hit Dice. Is that new?



That was in the Expert Classes UA too.


----------



## mellored

Resistance is now pretty good.

Also, the 1/day limit on guidance is gone.


----------



## Xamnam

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is interesting. I see a lot of clerics use it so I wonder if that will stop if this gets made official.



I think in the light of "we don't want mandatory feats," a similar philosophy is going to make sure that SW is at least moderately altered to not be such a powerful option.


----------



## mellored

GMforPowergamers said:


> I really wonder how this will interact with warlocks



Combined with catnap, very well.
Combined with crono wizard 10, a little broken.


----------



## Minigiant

Marandahir said:


> I like how the Cleric made it so that Martial vs Caster vs Divine Wizard are early choices, and late in your career you can mix and match (so Gandalf is a Scholar Holy Order Aasimar Cleric from 2nd Level who took the Protector Holy Order at 9th level, and promptly got his hands on Glamdring from the Troll-horde.



This is something I wished for and homebrewed for decades.

The Church of Light doesn't only train Lazer Clerics. It trains Heavy Masher Clerics to tank for them.

Domain shouldn'tbe tied to Cleric Role. The Storm Church has Storms, Zueses. Statics, and Thors.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Well this is the first time I've ever wanted to play a cleric.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Goliaths: I think those abilities convey the color and uniqueness of the ancestry WAY more than a +2 Str bonus would have.


----------



## wicked cool

Aldarc said:


> I guess Goliath is the Critical Role influence?
> 
> I was kinda hoping for Goblins.



I agree although Goliath wizard sounds different


----------



## Micah Sweet

Aldarc said:


> Maybe better to frame it as your choice of deity (or whatever) not having a mechanical impact until 3rd level.



Would have been a great thing for them to suggest in the class description.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is interesting. I see a lot of clerics use it so I wonder if that will stop if this gets made official.



Given that the big advantage it had over other spells was circumventing concentration, I expect you're right.


----------



## Scribe

Quick Thoughts


"Species" I sure hope doesnt go live, there has to be a better word.
Goliaths, love it.
Ardling falls so flat for me, just complete apathy.
Dragonborn, better, sad we dont see Gem in there, but I get it I guess, Fizbans still needs to be sold.
Cleric, gotta look at it and I was in meetings.


----------



## Atomoctba

It seems all classes are moving to the same levels to give subclass features. It is not something I agree (unnecessary symmetry), but it does not bother me either.


----------



## Zaukrie

Can't look at it now ... Are there options for channel divinity, or is it one or two things?


----------



## This Effin’ GM

I. Love. The. Cleric. 









						This Effin’ GM on TikTok
					

The new #onednd cleric playtest. My thoughts on the changes. #dnd #dnd5e #onedndplaytest #cleric




					www.tiktok.com


----------



## This Effin’ GM

Zaukrie said:


> Can't look at it now ... Are there options for channel divinity, or is it one or two things?




Two options at level 1, subclass grants a third.


----------



## Zaukrie

This Effin’ GM said:


> Two options at level 1, subclass grants a third.



Thanks. Still not a fan of that, but I understand the reasoning, I guess.


----------



## Neonchameleon

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



No it isn't. Many deities have multiple domains. It's picking which aspect of your god you try to embody.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

So if they're going to move all classes so that archetypes give abilities at the same levels does that also open the possibility to allow cross class archetype dipping?  Maybe a feat allows you to count your main class as a Cleric (as an example) for the purposes of archetype benefits? 

I feel that may add a lot of layers of complexity, but it would give some interesting options.


----------



## OB1

Wow, on first read thru, vastly better than what we saw in Packet 2.  Cleric is great, guidance is great, the new species are great (even if the name is terrible).

Still don't like inspiration on a nat1, but I'm getting used to it.

Much better implementation of the Search, Study and Influence actions.  Getting more on board with this approach.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Atomoctba said:


> It seems all classes are moving to the same levels to give subclass features. It is not something I agree (unnecessary symmetry), but it does not bother me either.



I hope that continues, that level of symmetry sings to me


----------



## mellored

WarDriveWorley said:


> So if they're going to move all classes so that archetypes give abilities at the same levels does that also open the possibility to allow cross class archetype dipping?  Maybe a feat allows you to count your main class as a Cleric (as an example) for the purposes of archetype benefits?
> 
> I feel that may add a lot of layers of complexity, but it would give some interesting options.



Not just that, but opens up prestige sub-classes.

Like if they just did grappler as a prestige sub-class.  Then you could have grappler wizard, grappler bard, grappler warlock...


----------



## Micah Sweet

mellored said:


> Not just that, but opens up prestige sub-classes.
> 
> Like if they just did grappler as a prestige sub-class.  Then you could have grappler wizard, grappler bard, grappler warlock...



Cleric looks mostly good.  Definitely stuff in there I can steal.


----------



## Minigiant

So we are seeing a push for

Celestial race
Draconic race
Fiendish race
2 Fey Races
Giantish race
in the PHB.

Any hope or desire for a plant race and a construct race?


----------



## Micah Sweet

mellored said:


> Not just that, but opens up prestige sub-classes.
> 
> Like if they just did grappler as a prestige sub-class.  Then you could have grappler wizard, grappler bard, grappler warlock...



I do like the idea of subclasses not associated with a specific class.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Minigiant said:


> So we are seeing a push for
> 
> Celestial race
> Draconic race
> Fiendish race
> 2 Fey Races
> Giantish race
> in the PHB.
> 
> Any hope or desire for a plant race and a construct race?



I'll take any robot I can get.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Micah Sweet said:


> I'll take any robot I can get.


----------



## Hurin88

Bill Zebub said:


> Goliaths: I think those abilities convey the color and uniqueness of the ancestry WAY more than a +2 Str bonus would have.



I'd still like to have the Str bonus though.


----------



## Neonchameleon

mellored said:


> Not just that, but opens up prestige sub-classes.
> 
> Like if they just did grappler as a prestige sub-class.  Then you could have grappler wizard, grappler bard, grappler warlock...



I've been talking about multiclass subclasses for a while.

My issues are with the warlock and the sorcerer right now; your power source and your pact are both pretty fundamental to how you work and there's a lot less generic-ness because your spells aren't interchangeable.


----------



## Minigiant

mellored said:


> Not just that, but opens up prestige sub-classes.
> 
> Like if they just did grappler as a prestige sub-class.  Then you could have grappler wizard, grappler bard, grappler warlock...



I only see it as an "Within Class Group" thing with heavy linked to the class group.

Like a second attempt a Strixhaven in 7 years. Or a Gladiator subclass for fighters, barbarians, and monks in Dark Sun.

It also makes sure every subclass hits Tier 1, 2, & 3 equally.


----------



## dave2008

Micah Sweet said:


> Would have been a great thing for them to suggest in the class description.



Give feedback as such, I know I am planning to. It is not like a domain is tied to a specific deity anyways.  Seems perfectly legit to pick your deity at lvl 1, then pick your order at lvl 2, and then your domain at lvl 3.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

mellored said:


> Not just that, but opens up prestige sub-classes.
> 
> Like if they just did grappler as a prestige sub-class.  Then you could have grappler wizard, grappler bard, grappler warlock...



when they were working on Strixhaven they had subclass with no class and it didn't work for a few reasons... this MAY open it back up

I would like an extra layer (Epic Destiny) myself


----------



## Sacrosanct

I guess my issue with the goliath can be summed up as this.  And don't get me wrong, one of my favorite PCs was a goliath rune knight.

I see power creep in 1DnD.  That is, let's change the PCs to have even _more _power at level 1.  Everyone gets level 1 feats!  Let's boost all the species with moar power! 

And power creep isn't really ever a good thing.  Also, those who prefer the zero to hero model are left out completely this time, not even a nod like they/we had when 5e first came out.


----------



## Zaukrie

Micah Sweet said:


> I do like the idea of subclasses not associated with a specific class.



As do I . I don't think it likely in 5e..... But not impossible it happens.


----------



## dave2008

After a quick review, I like what I am seeing. Definitely happy to have the Dazed and Slowed conditions back.


----------



## Marandahir

I'd like to note that while WotC claim that this Dragonborn doesn't replace the Fizban Dragonborns, it's still based on the 10 base Chromatic and Metallic Dragons as ancestors. So when they say that this is the generic Dragonborn while those are the Chromatic, Metallic, and Gem Dragonborns, all I hear is "we don't want Gem Dragons or Metallic Subbreaths or non-standard splatbook Dragons in our PHB Dragonborn). And that means to me that the Metallic and Chromatic Dragonborn subspecies are obsolete, while the Gem one is sorta compatible as an off-to-the-side extra option.


----------



## darjr

Did the rules glossary video get posted?


----------



## Marandahir

Zaukrie said:


> As do I . I don't think it likely in 5e..... But not impossible it happens.



I think it's quite possible with the One D&D structure of putting all Subclasses at 3rd level. The biggest issue with the Strixhaven UA subclasses were that the classes from PHB had non-standardized subclass power progression. Now we understand feats as generic class features, so I'd say that you could quite easily create a specialized set of feats that have level requirements of 3/6/10/14 and are taken in PLACE of a subclass.


----------



## Baumi

Isn't Guidance and Resistance now to strong and anying (gets used ALL the time)?

Anyway love the class especially the new Spellcasting (can change even Cantrips at long rest and no more math-checking how many Spells to prepare)!

Not to happy with the races.  The Ardling is not my thing, but seems ok. The Dragonborn Breath Weapon might be better now ... IF you have multiple attacks, so it still sucks for Spellcasters and Rogues and growing spectral wings is a bit over the top .. why not have wings from the start? The Goliath is cool, but way more magical that I envishioned him (can increase size, teleport,..).

But all in all I really like it. The things that I don't are small, nitpicky things


----------



## Zaukrie

Marandahir said:


> I think it's quite possible with the One D&D structure of putting all Subclasses at 3rd level. The biggest issue with the Strixhaven UA subclasses were that the classes from PHB had non-standardized subclass power progression. Now we understand feats as generic class features, so I'd say that you could quite easily create a specialized set of feats that have level requirements of 3/6/10/14 and are taken in PLACE of a subclass.



This is the kind of thing I'd put in advanced DnD if I ran the company.


----------



## Reynard

Baumi said:


> Isn't Guidance and Resistance now to strong and anying (gets used ALL the time)?



They require the caster uses a reaction, so in hairy situations it's potentially costly.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Sacrosanct said:


> I guess my issue with the goliath can be summed up as this.  And don't get me wrong, one of my favorite PCs was a goliath rune knight.
> 
> I see power creep in 1DnD.  That is, let's change the PCs to have even _more _power at level 1.  Everyone gets level 1 feats!  Let's boost all the species with moar power!
> 
> And power creep isn't really ever a good thing.  Also, those who prefer the zero to hero model are left out completely this time, not even a nod like they/we had when 5e first came out.



I don't see that much of a buff from either the EEPC or MMotM. Like for like the D&Done Large Form has replaced Cold Resistance, and Athletics Proficiency. And ... it's flashier (and only comes online at level 5) but that doesn't make it significantly better.


----------



## Amros

Weiley31 said:


> I'mma....._SERIOUSLY LIKING_ how Smite Undead works/is [...]



Except RAW, I think, it just doesn't work:
*Turn Undead:* [...] If the creature fails its Saving Throw, it is Dazed for 1 minute *or until it takes any damage* or you are Incapacitated or die.[...]
*Smite Undead:* [...] Each Undead that fails its Saving Throw against that use of Turn Undead *takes Radiant Damage* equal to the roll’s total.

At least, it needs clarification. As I read it, Smite Undead applies _after _the application of Turn Undead, which ends with any damage. Does anyone else read it like this?


----------



## Clint_L

So is a Tabaxi a cat Ardling? Is a Kenku a raven Ardling? The whole Ardling thing just seems so generic and kind of (I hate to say it) lazy. Barely a race, and more just an excuse so that no one has to feel like they can't play their human/animal hybrid of choice.

As you can tell, I have yet to be sold on the concept.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Neonchameleon said:


> I don't see that much of a buff from either the EEPC or MMotM. Like for like the D&Done Large Form has replaced Cold Resistance, and Athletics Proficiency. And ... it's flashier (and only comes online at level 5) but that doesn't make it significantly better.



The UA goliath get's stone endurance like the original, but gets to choose _several other_ options if they want that the original doesn't.  _Then _on top of that, they also have increased base movement and _also _get this (which is much more applicable and useful than cold resistance):





The UA goliath is significantly better than it was before.


----------



## This Effin’ GM

Clint_L said:


> So is a Tabaxi a cat Ardling? Is a Kenku a raven Ardling? The whole Ardling thing just seems so generic and kind of (I hate to say it) lazy. Barely a race, and more just an excuse so that no one has to feel like they can't play their human/animal hybrid of choice.
> 
> As you can tell, I have yet to be sold on the concept.



Man I hope this is the case. I’m getting a hair tired of buying books only to be presented with yet another entire anthropomorphic species. I’m all for this personally


----------



## Kurotowa

Neonchameleon said:


> No it isn't. Many deities have multiple domains. It's picking which aspect of your god you try to embody.



If you read the flavor text, it can be a bit more general than that.

The Cleric class starts off by saying, "Clerics draw power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes—where gods dwell—and channel that energy to bolster people and to battle foes."

The Life Domain says, "The Life Domain focuses on the vibrant positive energy—one of the fundamental forces of the universe—that sustains all life. The Clerics who tap into this domain are masters of healing, using that force of life to cure many hurts. Existence itself relies on the positive energy associated with this domain, so a Cleric of any religious tradition might choose it."

So it's pitching Clerics as being _blessed_ be a specific deity, but _drawing their power_ from the Outer Planes. And they can thus focus on the domain of either that deity or the Outer Planes in general.


----------



## Scribe

Sacrosanct said:


> The UA goliath get's stone endurance like the original, but gets to choose _several other_ options if they want that the original doesn't.  _Then _on top of that, they also have increased base movement and _also _get this:
> 
> View attachment 268428
> 
> The UA goliath is significantly better than it was before.




Yeah agreed.



Sacrosanct said:


> I see power creep in 1DnD. That is, let's change the PCs to have even _more _power at level 1. Everyone gets level 1 feats! Let's boost all the species with moar power!




The other Goliath will still exist. I'd just say if this is an issue, restrict to the the MotM version.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Scribe said:


> Yeah agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> The other Goliath will still exist. I'd just say if this is an issue, restrict to the the MotM version.



Oh sure, but I guess the point I was trying to make was that it appears as if the go forward design approach with 1Dnd is to increase powers and abilities at level 1 compared to previous.  Even factoring the cleric having subclasses moved out because channel divinity is moved forward and is pretty powerful on it's own--more powerful than many starting domain features.


----------



## Remathilis

Clint_L said:


> So is a Tabaxi a cat Ardling? Is a Kenku a raven Ardling? The whole Ardling thing just seems so generic and kind of (I hate to say it) lazy. Barely a race, and more just an excuse so that no one has to feel like they can't play their human/animal hybrid of choice.
> 
> As you can tell, I have yet to be sold on the concept.



My guess is those other races will still exist independent of ardling, but this acts as a catch-all for people who either want a different take on furry species or something that doesn't exist yet. (Where's my dog-head people WotC?!)


----------



## Scribe

Sacrosanct said:


> Oh sure, but I guess the point I was trying to make was that it appears as if the go forward design approach with 1Dnd is to increase powers and abilities at level 1 compared to previous.  Even factoring the cleric having subclasses moved out because channel divinity is moved forward and is pretty powerful on it's own--more powerful than many starting domain features.




For sure we are seeing things brought up in power. Its 'exciting' to see strong evocative features. The new Goliath makes me think 'thats awesome!' but I can totally see how its strong at a baseline.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



No it isn’t. Those are independent choices. A Cleric or Pelor could have several domains. Serving Pelor is a roleplaying choice, usually made when you make the character. Domain is a choice of how you serve Pelor.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Scribe said:


> For sure we are seeing things brought up in power. Its 'exciting' to see strong evocative features. The new Goliath makes me think 'thats awesome!' but I can totally see how its strong at a baseline.



Funny enough, as I mentioned, I recently played a goliath rune knight.  Reading the new species, it feels like they combined the two into one 

(going large, and getting giant powers)


----------



## Neonchameleon

Sacrosanct said:


> The UA goliath get's stone endurance like the original, but gets to choose _several other_ options if they want that the original doesn't.  _Then _on top of that, they also have increased base movement and _also _get this (which is much more applicable and useful than cold resistance):
> 
> View attachment 268428
> 
> The UA goliath is significantly better than it was before.



I did mention that in what I was replying to. And the key four words in that are "starting at 5th level" meaning that for the first four levels the new goliath is strictly worse by an athletics skill as well as cold resistance. If you really want large then enlarge/reduce is a second level spell, and the more you level up the less meaningful abilties like this are.

Hmm... now I'm wondering how it interacts with polymorph; if you're polymorphed into a frog do you get to become a large sized frog?


----------



## This Effin’ GM

New Goliath answers the question “What if Rune Knight Fighter, but a species?”


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> Oh sure, but I guess the point I was trying to make was that it appears as if the go forward design approach with 1Dnd is to increase powers and abilities at level 1 compared to previous.  Even factoring the cleric having subclasses moved out because channel divinity is moved forward and is pretty powerful on it's own--more powerful than many starting domain features.



I think what is really happening is _equalizing _level 1 a lot more, and leaving the variable power more to later levels. 

Most of what we have seen is solidly between the most and least powerful stuff you can choose at level one in the 2014 phb and existing supplements.


----------



## This Effin’ GM

I think an interesting thing is that while classes and feats get less powerful, species and backgrounds get more powerful. I’m wondering if this is a conscious design decision


----------



## mellored

Amros said:


> Except RAW, I think, it just doesn't work:
> *Turn Undead:* [...] If the creature fails its Saving Throw, it is Dazed for 1 minute *or until it takes any damage* or you are Incapacitated or die.[...]
> *Smite Undead:* [...] Each Undead that fails its Saving Throw against that use of Turn Undead *takes Radiant Damage* equal to the roll’s total.
> 
> At least, it needs clarification. As I read it, Smite Undead applies _after _the application of Turn Undead, which ends with any damage. Does anyone else read it like this?



No, it's part or the same thing action, not a seperate damage.
But wouldn't hurt to clarify.


----------



## Minigiant

Kurotowa said:


> If you read the flavor text, it can be a bit more general than that.
> 
> The Cleric class starts off by saying, "Clerics draw power from the realms of the gods and harness it to work miracles. Blessed by a deity, a pantheon, or another immortal entity, a Cleric can reach out to the divine magic of the Outer Planes—where gods dwell—and channel that energy to bolster people and to battle foes."
> 
> The Life Domain says, "The Life Domain focuses on the vibrant positive energy—one of the fundamental forces of the universe—that sustains all life. The Clerics who tap into this domain are masters of healing, using that force of life to cure many hurts. Existence itself relies on the positive energy associated with this domain, so a Cleric of any religious tradition might choose it."
> 
> So it's pitching Clerics as being _blessed_ be a specific deity, but _drawing their power_ from the Outer Planes. And they can thus focus on the domain of either that deity or the Outer Planes in general.



Well weren't the Domains (not the cleric subclass but the things gods fought over) always actual things. Sources of Power. Forces floating in the Outer planes.

In settings with gods, the gods would snatch them up and control access to them. This is why gods and nongods fought over them.
In settings without gods,  domain would be available to anyone can tap into them.


----------



## Minigiant

This Effin’ GM said:


> New Goliath answers the question “What if Rune Knight Fighter, but a species?”



So you are saying Rune Knight is artificial Goliathing yourself?


----------



## This Effin’ GM

Minigiant said:


> So you are saying Rune Knight is artificial Goliathing yourself?



I like to think it’s following in a rich tradition of Goliath battle methods


----------



## Dire Bare

*Aardling:* This newer version is improved, but I still really dislike the concept of the race, and I hate the name. I prefer the existing way the game treats "_animal-head people_", each being their own species: tabaxi, tortle, harengon, etc. They more clearly tied the race to the _guardinals_ of the planes, even if they didn't use that term. So, is that where the term "aardling" comes from? Guardinal to aardling? Eh.

*Goliath:* I'm not a fan of changing what goliaths are as a species. I like the current version of goliaths as related to giants, but without the same sort of subspecialization that dragonborn have. I really dislike goliath choosing between different giant types for their abilities. I also really dislike adding "Large Form", although the ability itself is okay.

Overall though, I do like what I'm seeing in this recent playtest document. I suspect that most of these options will score highly on the next survey.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Sacrosanct said:


> Funny enough, as I mentioned, I recently played a goliath rune knight.  Reading the new species, it feels like they combined the two into one
> 
> (going large, and getting giant powers)



My wife has a Goliath rune knight, and I could see here taking this, while her Goliath ranger would more likely stick with the MoTM Goliath.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Sacrosanct said:


> I see power creep in 1DnD.  That is, let's change the PCs to have even _more _power at level 1.  Everyone gets level 1 feats!  Let's boost all the species with moar power!



Which is excellent. I just wish they also had identities instead of waiting for 3 and making the game effectively an 18 level one.


----------



## Atomoctba

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hope that continues, that level of symmetry sings to me



I personally do not like symmetry where it is not needed. Such as 3e where each evil thing must have a good, anachic, and lawful equivalent. I prefer each class with different progressions. That said, it is not a thing that I hate and prevent me to game. Just a thing I can live with and does not bother me very much


----------



## ART!

The Goliath's giant ancestry options match some homebrew of mine pretty well, so I'm down with this.

The Ardling seems like too loose a structure, but I think that's the point? But why do they all have a 0-level spell? It feels out of left field to me.

I really think Dragonborn should have options for natural armor and natural weapons, or the ability to develop them, but WOTC keeps not going there - Fizban's gave us extra breath weapons instead, which is a real head-scratcher.


----------



## Dausuul

GMforPowergamers said:


> that is interesting. I see a lot of clerics use it so I wonder if that will stop if this gets made official.



It's still an effective spell -- a nice bit of extra damage each round, costing only bonus actions -- but it will no longer be the no-brainer pick that it is now.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Dausuul said:


> It's still an effective spell -- a nice bit of extra damage each round, costing only bonus actions -- but it will no longer be the no-brainer pick that it is now.



It is. However the cleric in my game uses it primarily because it's not concentration. A lot of cleric spells are concentration so in a lot of cases my player has to choose which is the best one for the combat/encounter. His build isn't melee oriented and doesn't do a lot of damage in combat. SW was his way of mitigating that while still having a decent buff/debuff spell going. He's not particularly happy with that direction.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Some thoughts...

Ardling: The way this is headed, I'm even more convinced now that when Shifters are revisited, they need an option to switch out their inner beast, so that they're more like Animal Man or Vixen.

Dragonborn: I know they've said Fizban's is still in play, but in practice, most people will consider the most recently publish version the "real" one.

Goliath: Not really feeling them being turned into medium sized Spriggans.

Cleric: It's probably a futile effort, but I'm ready to neg-rate the hell out of this. For what they represent, I think Holy Order and Domain are mechanically implemented ass backwards.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Vaalingrade said:


> Which is excellent. I just wish they also had identities instead of waiting for 3 and making the game effectively an 18 level one.



Admittedly I've never really understood this missing out on levels argument.  I'm not saying you're doing this, so I apologize if it's coming across this way, but it reminds me of when 5e first came out.

Folks argued that they liked the less powerful lower levels because it allowed those who wanted zero to hero to have it.  Others argued against it, saying they didn't want to wait until level 3 to get powers, so they felt cheated out of 2 levels.

And I don't get that.  Whether there are 5 levels or 500, it doesn't matter or impact the time you spend playing.  It's not like, "Well, I'd like to play, but Tuesdays are only for level 1-2 PCs, so I can't."  Just play at the levels you like.  That's pretty much how it was always done.  And really, hardly anyone plays past the early teens anyway, so no one is really missing out.


----------



## Marandahir

This Effin’ GM said:


> New Goliath answers the question “What if Rune Knight Fighter, but a species?”



I think it's more, "What if we move the Giant Sorcerer from UA into the Goliath creative space?" 

The Rune Knight Martial Archetype was an attempt at salvaging the Sorcerer - Giant Bloodline mechanics but narratively it was completely different since it's a class-ability acquisition pathway. Giant Bloodline has always been what Goliaths are about (they're either Half-giants or distant cousins of True Ordning Giants), and it was very much so in line with the Sorcerer class features (where your power comes innately). 

Not so incidentally, the Sorcerer is the class that MOST overlaps with the narratives of your Species choice, given that it reflects a power sparking inside of you (as an aside, Psionics are the other truly innate class concepts, and that's why there's significant overlaps between the Psion and the Sorcerer, beyond the core ability choice at least). That power might be from your ancestry, like Draconic Bloodline, or from being born under a certain Moon (Lunar Magic) or being touched by the Shadowfell (Shadow Magic), or hit by a lightningbolt and LIVED when you were an infant (Storm Sorcery), but it's unlike other classes in that your learning is entirely around you learning to hone something that is inside of you rather than learn some external power you're tapping into. 

That's the same narrative beyond progressive and powerful Specific Features - see the Tiefling's spells at 5th Level that are innate powers, for example. There's not much to separate the concepts of a Tiefling and an Infernal Bloodline Sorcerer, hence why we don't have an Infernal Bloodline Sorcerer yet (and it took practically the ENTIRETY of 4th Edition before we got the Demon Spawn Theme, and even that was Demon Spawn while the Infernal variation was Infernal Slave, a la you're a Fiend Pact Warlock but not necessarily a Warlock). 

This is GREAT design space to allow for Sorcererous concepts INSIDE of the Species byline, freeing you up to be a melee character or something. It's also incredibly similar to the way Dragonborn works with Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Cleric: It's probably a futile effort, but I'm ready to neg-rate the hell out of this. For what they represent, I think Holy Order and Domain are mechanically implemented ass backwards.



I am still rolling it around in my head, but I like the concept, can you give some detail on YOUR thoughts on this?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Marandahir said:


> Not so incidentally, the Sorcerer is the class that MOST overlaps with the narratives of your Species choice, given that it reflects a power sparking inside of you (as an aside,



Or, depending on how the power manifests, barbarian.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

GMforPowergamers said:


> I am still rolling it around in my head, but I like the concept, can you give some detail on YOUR thoughts on this?



I'd probably pare down Domains to some ready prepped spells and a unique channel divinity manifestation. The Holy Orders would be the core that the subclasses would be built around.


----------



## Faolyn

Clint_L said:


> So is a Tabaxi a cat Ardling? Is a Kenku a raven Ardling? The whole Ardling thing just seems so generic and kind of (I hate to say it) lazy. Barely a race, and more just an excuse so that no one has to feel like they can't play their human/animal hybrid of choice.
> 
> As you can tell, I have yet to be sold on the concept.



It sounds like ardlings are humans with animal heads and maybe a few other animal features. Egyptian god-style people. I did a similar heritage in the Level Up book I pout out. So that still leaves room for full-on anthro races.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Sacrosanct said:


> Admittedly I've never really understood this missing out on levels argument.  I'm not saying you're doing this, so I apologize if it's coming across this way, but it reminds me of when 5e first came out.
> 
> Folks argued that they liked the less powerful lower levels because it allowed those who wanted zero to hero to have it.  Others argued against it, saying they didn't want to wait until level 3 to get powers, so they felt cheated out of 2 levels.
> 
> And I don't get that.  Whether there are 5 levels or 500, it doesn't matter or impact the time you spend playing.  It's not like, "Well, I'd like to play, but Tuesdays are only for level 1-2 PCs, so I can't."  Just play at the levels you like.  That's pretty much how it was always done.  And really, hardly anyone plays past the early teens anyway, so no one is really missing out.



The deal is right there in the video: you are now meant to blow through levels 1-2 pretty much immediately.

Levels 1 and 2, regardless of if you want zero to hero or not, aren't actually levels anymore, they're just the tutorial level. Which is (supposed to be) fine if this was the starter set adventure, but those two wasted levels just hang around forever. Yes, you can start at 3, but now you only have 18 levels of play in the game and let's be honest, a ton of people don't like the fun levels, so we actually only have like 8 levels from 3-8.

We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Vaalingrade said:


> The deal is right there in the video: you are now meant to blow through levels 1-2 pretty much immediately.
> 
> Levels 1 and 2, regardless of if you want zero to hero or not, aren't actually levels anymore, they're just the tutorial level. Which is (supposed to be) fine if this was the starter set adventure, but those two wasted levels just hang around forever. Yes, you can start at 3, but now you only have 18 levels of play in the game and let's be honest, a ton of people don't like the fun levels, so we actually only have like 8 levels from 3-8.
> 
> We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.



we almost never start at 1st anymore... 3rd or 5th are our go to 'start low' and 'start high'


----------



## Marandahir

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> I'd probably pare down Domains to some ready prepped spells and a unique channel divinity manifestation. The Holy Orders would be the core that the subclasses would be built around.



You see, I'd rather them take the opposite tack and stay the course here.

Holy Order is akin to Pact Boon or Fighting Style. It defines your character's combat role, but it is the least flavourful decision point. It's integrated quite fluidly here with Divine Strike / Empowered Cantrips by merging those features into Blessed Strikes and pulling it out of the subclass options (something already extant in _Tasha's_). 

There's a limit of character concepts to expand into with Holy Order, much as there are for Pact Boon or Fighting Style. Subclass needs to be a broad enough concept that they can endlessly expand the choices with splatbooks. Domain works for that - Cleric is the gold standard of subclass expansion room, given that there are more Cleric Domains than ANY other Subclass, and often twice as many as some of the other classes. You take that away and build subclasses around Holy Order, and you're going to run out of party role archetypes quite quickly.

Scholar is the Expert Cleric, Thaumaturge is the Mage Cleric, and Protector is the Warrior Cleric. That's literally the 3 other class groups, and if you dip any deeper into them than this, then your Protector Cleric starts looking a lot more like a full-caster Paladin, and your Scholar Cleric looks a lot more like a Divine Bard, and your Thaumaturge Cleric looks a lot more like a Celestial-Pact Warlock. You start stepping on toes. 

Maybe for a stripped-down version of D&D without dozens of subclasses, this would be fine. But if you want to sell books that give players options to express their characters' narratives in a more flavourful mechanic'd way, I think you'd do better keeping Holy Order as is and focus on the Domains.

4e tried the Holy Order as subclass in 2008. They scrapped it by 2010 and switched to Domains as subclass. The class was just too janky. See the 5e Mystic UA - it's trying to be a Psychic Warrior, a Psion, an Ardent, a Soulknife, and a Wu Jen all at once. And it unifies them by calling it the same class, but literally the only shared things are the d8 Hit Die, a couple proficiencies, and that they all use Power Points. Otherwise, they might as well be 4 classes rather than 4 subclasses of the same class. This was roundly criticised, since the warrior wasn't bulky enough to be a warrior, and the casters were TOO bulky to be balanced as castery as people wanted Psions to be, and the folks in the middle were kinda okay but they all just felt a bit tacked on. 

Cleric has always operated in a middle ground between Fighter and Mage. But expressing that is tough, and been very swingy, where the Martial Clerics feel like either lesser Paladins or they're so good that they push Paladins into being Fighters with a few spells. Meanwhile, Pacifist or Laser Clerics emerged in 3e with the idea of Clerics being the Divine mirror to the Wizard, but that meant they lost their martial roots entirely and ceded it to the Paladin. Cleric can do all of these things by just dabbling in the other class groups. 

I'd argue that's what the Leader role in 4e did. They dabbled in the other class groups while also providing healing and support. Cleric is right where it needs to be here. 

I also think this is a great guide towards how they should resolve issues like the Death/Grave Cleric divide, the Undying/Undead Warlock divide, and the existence of the Hexblade entirely as an Otherworldly Patron despite Pact of the Blade being a viable Pact Boon. These concepts step on each others toes because they were iterations on the same concept with superior design coming later, or with slightly different roles in the party. Death Clerics want to be Warriors, but Grave Clerics want to be Casters. These "feel" like they should be the same domain, even if the types of characters who choose them are entirely different, because Death and Grave are closely related concepts. Maybe Death could be Destruction or something, but a better solution is just making it one more fleshed out domain that reflects all the roles of the Death Gods, and allow you to be either a Protector with a Greatscythe reaping the souls of your enemies or a Scholar/Thaumaturge putting the souls of the dead back to rest… or else summoning them to create an undead army. 

Conversely, they can beef up Pact Boon and integrate it just a bit more so that you don't need to waste your Otherworldly Patron option on propping up your Pact Boon option, and can viably serve an Archfey but be given a blade by them, etc. We don't need to split off into Hexblade/Binder/2008Warlock sort of subclasses with Pact Boons, but they just need to be viable enough alternatives that every Patron can create good Warrior AND Caster Warlock servants via Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Pact of the Chains (and Pact of the Talisman). Just not so much that Pact of the Tome feels like it should be a Wizard, and Pact of the Blade feels like it should be its own Arcane Gish Class.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Vaalingrade said:


> The deal is right there in the video: you are now meant to blow through levels 1-2 pretty much immediately.
> 
> Levels 1 and 2, regardless of if you want zero to hero or not, aren't actually levels anymore, they're just the tutorial level. Which is (supposed to be) fine if this was the starter set adventure, but those two wasted levels just hang around forever. Yes, you can start at 3, but now you only have 18 levels of play in the game and let's be honest, a ton of people don't like the fun levels, so we actually only have like 8 levels from 3-8.
> 
> We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.



Video games are way bigger than D&D and almost always have a tutorial. And in oD&D low level had different adventure styles; you were meant to go in with a posse of hirelings which is why the minimal hit points worked.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Dire Bare said:


> *Aardling:* This newer version is improved, but I still really dislike the concept of the race, and I hate the name. I prefer the existing way the game treats "_animal-head people_", each being their own species: tabaxi, tortle, harengon, etc. They more clearly tied the race to the _guardinals_ of the planes, even if they didn't use that term. So, is that where the term "aardling" comes from? Guardinal to aardling? Eh.
> 
> *Goliath:* I'm not a fan of changing what goliaths are as a species. I like the current version of goliaths as related to giants, but without the same sort of subspecialization that dragonborn have. I really dislike goliath choosing between different giant types for their abilities. I also really dislike adding "Large Form", although the ability itself is okay.
> 
> Overall though, I do like what I'm seeing in this recent playtest document. I suspect that most of these options will score highly on the next survey.



Most things do.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Vaalingrade said:


> We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.



It's nothing to do with assumptions of intelligence. On the contrary, if the game thought people weren't smart enough to "get" their classes, it would linger in the 1st-3rd level area much longer, instead of rushing into the more complex stuff.

And if a group enjoys playing the "zero" levels, there's nothing that prevents the DM from slowing progression for a couple of sessions. And there are literally supplements out there for starting at level zero, for groups that want to really do low powered adventures for a while.


----------



## Micah Sweet

WarDriveWorley said:


> It is. However the cleric in my game uses it primarily because it's not concentration. A lot of cleric spells are concentration so in a lot of cases my player has to choose which is the best one for the combat/encounter. His build isn't melee oriented and doesn't do a lot of damage in combat. SW was his way of mitigating that while still having a decent buff/debuff spell going. He's not particularly happy with that direction.



No cleric player is going to _ like_ this, I'm happy to see the spell taken down a few pegs.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

One thing I noticed in the goliath entry: you don't double the carrying capacity anymore. You now count as one size larger.
So it seems, size might matter more when determining carrying capacity.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> It sounds like ardlings are humans with animal heads and maybe a few other animal features. Egyptian god-style people. I did a similar heritage in the Level Up book I pout out. So that still leaves room for full-on anthro races.



But yours didn't have the divine stuff, and I feel it was far better for it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

GMforPowergamers said:


> we almost never start at 1st anymore... 3rd or 5th are our go to 'start low' and 'start high'



We always start at first.


----------



## Stalker0

I was so onboard with teh forums for the first two packets, so I'm surprised people are liking this so much.

Its....pretty bad to me to be honest. I think the old cleric was generic and boring, this one does nothing to fix it. Holy Order is a good change, prayer of healing is a good change, those I'm fully on board with. But...

Smite Undead means you can no longer mow down hoardes of undead, an actual cool thing clerics could do. Now its some generic damage.
Spiritual weapon was destroyed....concentration kills it. Your a cleric, you have bless, you have spiritual guardians, why would you cast this spell? Yes I know the scaler was improved, but you just removed a huge thing from the cleric.
Their spell preparation is even more rigid and in general they have less spell preparations than they did before ESPECIALLY at 1st and 2nd level.
Guidance is back to super spam, except now your party is going to huddle around you like some weird cronies, because 10 feet is just stupidly close when we aren't talking combat. This feels like all of the old abuse, but now its even more arguing with the DM on how close am I.
Divine intervention is even more random than it used to be.

This feels like a one step forward, two steps back kind of thing.


----------



## mellored

Vaalingrade said:


> We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.



Plenty of games do this.

It's almost standard practice at this point to have the tutorial and initial plot before you unlock advanced moves.

Even the old school Zelda didn't give you a sword until you proved you could walk around the screen and down some stairs.

Also, levels 1 and 2 are short, and there is now epic boons to go past 20.  So it's not 10%.  Not even 5% of actual play time.


----------



## TwoSix

rooneg said:


> Agreed, this is a repeat of the Battlemaster problem in 5e, where at higher levels you get to choose the maneuvers that weren't cool enough to pick the first time.



It’s possible to make such a subsystem work, if the choices have built-in synergies; neither BM maneuvers or the new cleric Orders work that way though.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Micah Sweet said:


> No cleric player is going to _ like_ this, I'm happy to see the spell taken down a few pegs.



I have 2 players with clerics (1 straight 1 multi classed) and both are already complaining


----------



## Xamnam

Micah Sweet said:


> No cleric player is going to _ like_ this, I'm happy to see the spell taken down a few pegs.



I took a cleric to level 12, and while I can't say that I'd be _excited _by this change, I absolutely understand why they made it, and think it makes the class healthier.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.




Have you considered the possibility that the real reason they are doing it is to troll you, specifically?


----------



## eayres33

Bill Zebub said:


> Have you considered the possibility that the real reason they are doing it is to troll you, specifically?



They could be, but they would have messed up and trolled me as well. 

It's not that big of a deal though I homebrew most of my adventures (and can add on to modules if I want) so I can extend those levels if I choose.

However overall (of course this could change once we see monsters) but the game just keeps getting easier when I personally would like it to get harder. However I acknowledge I'm likely in the minority on that.


----------



## Leatherhead

So we have a buff cleric, a brainy  cleric, and a extra magic cleric. 

Where are the sneaky cleric and silver-tongue cleric options at?


----------



## mellored

eayres33 said:


> However overall (of course this could change once we see monsters) but the game just keeps getting easier when I personally would like it to get harder. However I acknowledge I'm likely in the minority on that.



Your players are probably just getting  better at it.

Also, there are plenty of nerfs here as well.


----------



## Garmel

Spiritual Hammer gets nerfed at the beginning but does better damage later on.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Vaalingrade said:


> We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.




This argumentation is totally flawed.


----------



## Cadence

RE: Cleric (historically my favorite class across the editions I've played).

I really like the three "Holy Order" choices.  I hate that it's at 2nd level.  

I guess I don't mind that cleric subclasses kick in at 3rd level.  I hate that the choice of deity/power-source/whatnot that limits which they will be isn't highlighted as a choice early on.


----------



## Reynard

This playtest reinforces for me that this is a tweak, and therefore I am not interested. I was hoping for a more radical change after 10 years. But, I understand that have found a working formula and it is silly to change it.

We'll see a real "6e" once the influx of new players finally levels off.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Reynard said:


> This playtest reinforces for me that this is a tweak, and therefore I am not interested. I was hoping for a more radical change after 10 years. But, I understand that have found a working formula and it is silly to change it.
> 
> We'll see a real "6e" once the influx of new players finally levels off.




Like, because you call it out as it is.
I love it for that reason.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Cadence said:


> RE: Cleric (historically my favorite class across the editions I've played).
> 
> I really like the three "Holy Order" choices.  I hate that it's at 2nd level.
> 
> I guess I don't mind that cleric subclasses kick in at 3rd level.  I hate that the choice of deity/power-source/whatnot that limits which they will be isn't highlighted as a choice early on.




I personally would swap channel divinity and clerical order. But maybe it would run counter the reason why they are pushing subclasses back to level 3.
Maybe fighting style should be at level 2 in the fighter class for the same reason.


----------



## overgeeked

Micah Sweet said:


> No cleric player is going to _ like_ this, I'm happy to see the spell taken down a few pegs.



Exactly. I'm shocked they're even considering taking anything away from PCs. The responses to that are going to be..._interesting_.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> Have you considered the possibility that the real reason they are doing it is to troll you, specifically?



If so, they've been doing it for nigh on 13 years.


----------



## Mecheon

Reynard said:


> We'll see a real "6e" once the influx of new players finally levels off.



Folks been calling it 5.5e, though I'd argue of a 5.3 or the like. (y' get it, its like. 3.5e because its closer to 5e)

Anywho, onto the playtest itself, I actually have an old homebrew that did the "Give Goliaths giant ancestry" thing a while back, so am quite happy to see it going ahead


----------



## Stalker0

UngeheuerLich said:


> I personally would swap channel divinity and clerical order.



From a flavor standpoint I completely agree. One...choosing your holy order feels like an important background element. Second, if your going to have heavy armor you would want your early gear to reflect that, you don't want to have to "upgrade" to get use out of your ability. Third, if your taking the religion skill to get your wisdom bonus, feels like something you should have at 1st level.

Probably the reason they don't is it would be too abusive with multi-classing. A cleric 1/rogue could get some stupidly high expertise going on certain skills.


----------



## Azzy

Minigiant said:


> Well weren't the Domains (not the cleric subclass but the things gods fought over) always actual things. Sources of Power. Forces floating in the Outer planes.
> 
> In settings with gods, the gods would snatch them up and control access to them. This is why gods and nongods fought over them.
> In settings without gods,  domain would be available to anyone can tap into them.



I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with this concept.


----------



## Greg Benage

I like the 5e cleric and this mostly seems fine, but they're ignoring my single biggest complaint about the class: It starts to feel generic at higher levels. They need domain spells after 9th level in the class. Once you hit double digits and no longer get domain spells, you start to feel less like "your thing" than you did at lower levels. Feels bad, man.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's worse in this respect overall. It has a really weird "cool factor curve." First and second level, you're generic. Then from 3-9 you get lots of domain flavor, then your levels turn generic again. You get your second-best Holy Order ability at 9 to remind you how generic you're about to become. I think I really hate it.

Edit: To broaden the critique, domain spells should include some non-cleric spells. I didn't mention this because I played a tempest cleric to high level, and it's one of the ones that get cool domain spells. Other domains may not feel the same loss of flavor at higher levels since they didn't have much to begin with.


----------



## bedir than

UngeheuerLich said:


> One thing I noticed in the goliath entry: you don't double the carrying capacity anymore. You now count as one size larger.
> So it seems, size might matter more when determining carrying capacity.



And yet at the same time they are making equipment less interesting and possibly even unnecessary


----------



## Marandahir

Vaalingrade said:


> The deal is right there in the video: you are now meant to blow through levels 1-2 pretty much immediately.
> 
> Levels 1 and 2, regardless of if you want zero to hero or not, aren't actually levels anymore, they're just the tutorial level. Which is (supposed to be) fine if this was the starter set adventure, but those two wasted levels just hang around forever. Yes, you can start at 3, but now you only have 18 levels of play in the game and let's be honest, a ton of people don't like the fun levels, so we actually only have like 8 levels from 3-8.
> 
> We're making 10% of the game a non-entity because D&D culture specifically (other games don't do this) has no respect for the intelligence of people who haven't taken up the hobby until recently.



Good thing Level 21+ is back and actively encouraged in the PHB, then.

6.67% (levels 1-2, where levels run from 1-30) is not that much different from 4.76% (0th level play tutorial, where levels run from 0-21).


----------



## Xamnam

I really wish they had gone with Firbolg instead of Goliath as a new PHB race.


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> I like the 5e cleric and this mostly seems fine, but they're ignoring my single biggest complaint about the class: It starts to feel generic at higher levels. They need domain spells after 9th level in the class.



It's pretty clear WotC believes (with reason, I'm sure) no one plays past 11th so I doubt design after that point is much of a focus.


----------



## Zaukrie

I'd like less words in spells. Take Aid:
Choose up to  six creatures within range.     Each target gains 5 Temporary Hit Points.

Up to six creatures gain 5 temporary hit points.

Just as clear, less words. It has a range, no one outside the range can be effected. That's the whole point of range....isn't it? They have the same issue with save ends stuff. IMO, of course.


----------



## Zaukrie

When dazed, can you take a legendary or lair action?


----------



## MockingBird

Still not a fan of the Ardling. 

Need to do some comparisons of the PHB cleric and this cleric. Surface level it looks fine. 

I'm still going through the playtest though. It's packed, I thought it was going to be small.


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> It's pretty clear WotC believes (with reason, I'm sure) no one plays past 11th so I doubt design after that point is much of a focus.



Maybe, but how much "focus" does it take to continue the "domain spells" table? I don't get why it would benefit anyone to do something so obviously half-assed.


----------



## MockingBird

Xamnam said:


> I really wish they had gone with Firbolg instead of Goliath as a new PHB race.



I think I agree, but maybe the Goliath is for the upcoming giant book?


----------



## mellored

UngeheuerLich said:


> I personally would swap channel divinity and clerical order. But maybe it would run counter the reason why they are pushing subclasses back to level 3.
> Maybe fighting style should be at level 2 in the fighter class for the same reason.



Kind of hard to give an _extra_ channel divinity if you don't have any channel divinity.

Though I do think armor at 1 is generally best.


----------



## Azzy

Having different versions of Dragonborn and Goliaths is something. It's going to confuse some ("Which is the _'right_' one?"). I can see many DMs banning one version in favor of the other (probably the older version gets banned because "the new one supersedes it"). It's just not a solid choice—if you want the species in the PHB, just reprint the old ones.

That said, the new "Rune Knight, the Species" Goliath is certainly more flavorful than the old "Vin Diesel, the Species". I'm still not sold on it, though.

Ardlings... Can die in a fire. As a posted elsewhere, either put the existing celestial species (the Aasimar) in the PHB or make the new species a non-celestial anthropomorphic animal species and do something with it that's doesn't make it step on the toes of existing anthropomorphic animal species (like the tabaxi, kenku, loxodon, etc.). Personally, I'd just take the hengeyokai (from 1e-4e), call it something that's not culturally coded, and be done with it. It scratches the anthropomorphic animal itch, has a solid theme that doesn't step on the toes of existing species, and is miles more interesting than this Ardling compost.

The Cleric is good. I have few issues with the Cleric. My biggest issues is that the 7th-level Blessed Strike feature steps on the toes of the Paladin. Between that and the Smite spells being on the Divine spell list, the Paladin is being eroded. Thirdly, while I love the Holy Order feature, I do not like Clerics getting a second one. It diminishes the specialization aspect and, with only three available, it's going to cause different Cleric characters to overlap and feel samey. It this stays (and I hope it doesn't), I hope that they make a total of at least five different Holy Orders so that there's more variability in Cleric characters.


----------



## mellored

Reynard said:


> It's pretty clear WotC believes (with reason, I'm sure) no one plays past 11th so I doubt design after that point is much of a focus.



Except all the new epic feats they just added...


----------



## Reynard

mellored said:


> Except all the new epic feats they just added...



All 3 of them?


----------



## mellored

Reynard said:


> All 3 of them?



13 in the last playtest
So 16 total.


----------



## Marandahir

Sacrosanct said:


> So far I don't have an issue with subclass going to 3rd level.  And I like the 2nd level holy order.  But I don't like the 9th level version of it.  Seems lazy, to add a 9th level feature that isn't really going to be used or is appropriate.  E.g., you're going with scholar at level 2.  So at level 9 you finally get to wear heavy armor and use marital weapons if you choose?  Seems off theme.  I'd much rather see an expansion to the choice you made at level 2 instead.
> 
> View attachment 268411



I like the 9th level feature. Let's say I want my Aasimar Cleric PC, lets call him The Stranger, to go on an adventure with a Halfling companion. I don't quite know what Holy Order or Divine Domain he's going to be, he doesn't even know who he is, though he might be kinda like an elf and kinda into wands. 

By the end of our tutorial adventure by the dry, wasted seas of the East where I've found the stars that the other four Aasimar messengers of the Gods were hanging about, I've decided I'm going to focus on the study of runes and use holy fire magic. You might think I'm a Wizard, but my powers are divine and related to me chanting, even if a wand helps with them. So I decide my Holy Order is going to be Scholar. 

3,000 years of D&D game play (and multiple different campaigns) later, my now-8th-level Cleric has just rescued my 13 dwarf Fighter PC allies and our halfling Expert companion from three MONSTROUS TROLLS. And they were all arguing amongst themselves about how they were going to cook them -- whether it be turned on a spit or whether they should sit on the party members one by one and squash them into jelly. They spent so much time arguing the witherto's and whyfor's that the sun's first light cracked open through a boulder my Cleric broke in half with my recently acquired spell _Stone Shape_ and Poof! And the sunlight turned them all into stone! 

Now, this would be a great stopping point for the adventure that session, but the DM wants to give us one more reward, and between the XP for beating the Trolls and the XP for finding the Troll's treasure, I'll definitely reach 9th level. So we raid the Troll horde, and I find an ancient elf-blade forged in the hidden elf city of stone now sunken beneath the sea. I don't know all that, but I do know it's a pretty sweet longsword, only I'm not set up for using melee weapons, being a scholar cleric. But now my 9th level Holy Order feature kicks in, and I choose to also be a Protector. And after the Half-elven sage in the last homely house between the mountains and the sea appraises my sword as Glamdring, sword of the King, my Cleric Gandalf prompty beings cracking in goblin skulls with it and fighting off Orcs and Trolls through the rest of the campaign that lasts for another 67 years and ends with me going over the sea back into the utter west with my halfling and elf buddies. And eventually one dwarf PC comes and hangs with us, too.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Having different versions of Dragonborn and Goliaths is something. It's going to confuse some ("Which is the _'right_' one?"). I can see many DMs banning one version in favor of the other (probably the older version gets banned because "the new one supersedes it"). It's just not a solid choice—if you want the species in the PHB, just reprint the old ones.
> 
> That said, the new "Rune Knight, the Species" Goliath is certainly more flavorful than the old "Vin Diesel, the Species". I'm still not sold on it, though.
> 
> Ardlings... Can die in a fire. As a posted elsewhere, either put the existing celestial species (the Aasimar) in the PHB or make the new species a non-celestial anthropomorphic animal species and do something with it that's doesn't make it step on the toes of existing anthropomorphic animal species (like the tabaxi, kenku, loxodon, etc.). Personally, I'd just take the hengeyokai (from 1e-4e), call it something that's not culturally coded, and be done with it. It scratches the anthropomorphic animal itch, has a solid theme that doesn't step on the toes of existing species, and is miles more interesting than this Ardling compost.
> 
> The Cleric is good. I have few issues with the Cleric. My biggest issues is that the 7th-level Blessed Strike feature steps on the toes of the Paladin. Between that and the Smite spells being on the Divine spell list, the Paladin is being eroded. Thirdly, while I love the Holy Order feature, I do not like Clerics getting a second one. It diminishes the specialization aspect and, with only three available, it's going to cause different Cleric characters to overlap and feel samey. It this stays (and I hope it doesn't), I hope that they make a total of at least five different Holy Orders so that there's more variability in Cleric characters.



Maybe it doesn't step on the toes of the paladin.  It could be quite different in the new edition.  Perhaps more martially focused.


----------



## Marandahir

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe it doesn't step on the toes of the paladin.  It could be quite different in the new edition.  Perhaps more martially focused.



Is a Priest Class Group Paladin going to be more martially focused when it's not even in the Warrior class group anymore?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Marandahir said:


> I like the 9th level feature. Let's say I want my Aasimar Cleric PC, lets call him The Stranger, to go on an adventure with a Halfling companion. I don't quite know what Holy Order or Divine Domain he's going to be, he doesn't even know who he is, though he might be kinda like an elf and kinda into wands.
> 
> By the end of our tutorial adventure by the dry, wasted seas of the East where I've found the stars that the other four Aasimar messengers of the Gods were hanging about, I've decided I'm going to focus on the study of runes and use holy fire magic. You might think I'm a Wizard, but my powers are divine and related to me chanting, even if a wand helps with them. So I decide my Holy Order is going to be Scholar.
> 
> 3,000 years of D&D game play (and multiple different campaigns) later, my now-8th-level Cleric has just rescued my 13 dwarf Fighter PC allies and our halfling Expert companion from three MONSTROUS TROLLS. And they were all arguing amongst themselves about how they were going to cook them -- whether it be turned on a spit or whether they should sit on the party members one by one and squash them into jelly. They spent so much time arguing the witherto's and whyfor's that the sun's first light cracked open through a boulder my Cleric broke in half with my recently acquired spell _Stone Shape_ and Poof! And the sunlight turned them all into stone!
> 
> Now, this would be a great stopping point for the adventure that session, but the DM wants to give us one more reward, and between the XP for beating the Trolls and the XP for finding the Troll's treasure, I'll definitely reach 9th level. So we raid the Troll horde, and I find an ancient elf-blade forged in the hidden elf city of stone now sunken beneath the sea. I don't know all that, but I do know it's a pretty sweet longsword, only I'm not set up for using melee weapons, being a scholar cleric. But now my 9th level Holy Order feature kicks in, and I choose to also be a Protector. And after the Half-elven sage in the last homely house between the mountains and the sea appraises my sword as Glamdring, sword of the King, my Cleric Gandalf prompty beings cracking in goblin skulls with it and fighting off Orcs and Trolls through the rest of the campaign that lasts for another 67 years and ends with me going over the sea back into the utter west with my halfling and elf buddies. And eventually one dwarf PC comes and hangs with us, too.



Well done.  I'd play in that campaign.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Marandahir said:


> Is a Priest Class Group Paladin going to be more martially focused when it's not even in the Warrior class group anymore?



If the grouping is mostly about what spell list they cast from (if any), it's entirely possible.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Xamnam said:


> I really wish they had gone with Firbolg instead of Goliath as a new PHB race.



Never going to happen. As of mid 2021 D&D Beyond statistics Goliaths and Genasi were the two races to kick the gnomes out of the ten most popular D&D races (halflings were eighth, behind the rest of the PHB but ahead of both Goliaths and Genasi). This Goliath version has taken the elemental abilities and hence at least some of the appeal of the Genasi


----------



## cbwjm

Only had a quick read so far, but first impressions, I like the Cleric’s holy order, I just wish that holy order and domain were switched around with the subclass being the holy order and the domain being a smaller part of the cleric. 

Ardlings are better, they were too much like just another aasimar, better now though I still won't be having them in my games. It's more of a me thing rather than the mechanics being bad though.

Goliaths are cool, I've wanted them based on different giants for a while but never got around to homebrewing it. These changes I will be using, giants are one of three main races in my current setting so this fits in real well with it.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



Domain's in 5e were never supposed to be intrinsic to any particular god. Your objection really just reinforces that getting your domain at level 1 confused the god-domain relationship for players. In 5.5 you serve them from level one, and decide what particular powers you get from them at level 3. 

To me the problematic ones for later subclasses are Warlocks, whose subclass much more explictly is the patron, and Paladins, who aren't real Paladins until they swear their oaths. Presumably the solution with Warlocks will be to break or weaken the patron-subclass relationship, and the solution with Paladins will be to keep ignoring the problem.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Benjamin Olson said:


> To me the problematic ones for later subclasses are Warlocks, whose subclass much more explictly is the patron, and Paladins, who aren't real Paladins until they swear their oaths. Presumably the solution with Warlocks will be to break or weaken the patron-subclass relationship, and the solution with Paladins will be to keep ignoring the problem.



I'll be very disappointed if they weaken the warlock relationship given that it's a big part of the thematic appeal. The other class the subclass is foundational to, of course, is the sorcerer (how do you get the power without deciding what you get the power from?)


----------



## Xamnam

Neonchameleon said:


> Never going to happen. As of mid 2021 D&D Beyond statistics Goliaths and Genasi were the two races to kick the gnomes out of the ten most popular D&D races (halflings were eighth, behind the rest of the PHB but ahead of both Goliaths and Genasi). This Goliath version has taken the elemental abilities and hence at least some of the appeal of the Genasi



In the video they released, they explained part of the reason they chose the goliaths was to offer an alternative to the orc for players who are scanning the book for someone who fits a vision of a big strong beefy archetype, so it's in that light that I suggest them. I would much prefer the Genasi or warforged if there were no considerations on that side.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Xamnam said:


> In the video they released, they explained part of the reason they chose the goliaths was to offer an alternative to the orc for players who are scanning the book for someone who fits a vision of a big strong beefy archetype, so it's in that light that I suggest them. I would much prefer the Genasi or warforged if there were no considerations on that side.



The thing is that there are two _really_ good "Just beefy" subtypes. The first is the stone/classic goliath,  and the second is the hill genasi who, as a benefit for being big gets to send people tumbling. Meanwhile frost/fire/storm/cloud are more genasi-like (and frost, fire, and storm all scale badly)


----------



## Remathilis

Zaukrie said:


> I'd like less words in spells. Take Aid:
> Choose up to six creatures within range. Each target gains 5 Temporary Hit Points.
> 
> Up to six creatures gain 5 temporary hit points.
> 
> Just as clear, less words. It has a range, no one outside the range can be effected. That's the whole point of range....isn't it? They have the same issue with save ends stuff. IMO, of course.



So if I cast in an area where four allies and three enemies are, my four allies and two of the foes get 5 temp HP? It doesn't say I choose who gets it, just the first six creatures are affected.


----------



## Remathilis

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that there are two _really_ good "Just beefy" subtypes. The first is the stone/classic goliath, and the second is the hill genasi who, as a benefit for being big gets to send people tumbling. Meanwhile frost/fire/storm/cloud are more genasi-like (and frost, fire, and storm all scale badly)



Presumably, the beefy part also applies to the other racial traits the goliaths get.


----------



## Xamnam

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that there are two _really_ good "Just beefy" subtypes. The first is the stone/classic goliath,  and the second is the hill genasi who, as a benefit for being big gets to send people tumbling. Meanwhile frost/fire/storm/cloud are more genasi-like (and frost, fire, and storm all scale badly)



Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand your point. I'm just saying that I personally like Firbolg a lot more.  Plus, they'd create an even stronger contrast for that archetype, and I hate for the Genasi aspects to get folded in here rather than standing as their own thing.


----------



## Weiley31

Amros said:


> Except RAW, I think, it just doesn't work:
> *Turn Undead:* [...] If the creature fails its Saving Throw, it is Dazed for 1 minute *or until it takes any damage* or you are Incapacitated or die.[...]
> *Smite Undead:* [...] Each Undead that fails its Saving Throw against that use of Turn Undead *takes Radiant Damage* equal to the roll’s total.
> 
> At least, it needs clarification. As I read it, Smite Undead applies _after _the application of Turn Undead, which ends with any damage. Does anyone else read it like this?



I think Turn Undead is more "Get back foul undead!"
Smite Undead is more "Okay, your back far enough: BOOM!"


----------



## Neonchameleon

Remathilis said:


> Presumably, the beefy part also applies to the other racial traits the goliaths get.



Goliaths have powerful build - and the current version of them can, at fifth level, turn actually large for a while. Yes they are all pretty beefy.


----------



## Weiley31

Wait, wait I goofed up: I got Turn Undead and Smite Undead mixed up in there with Channel Divinity.


----------



## Benjamin Olson

Neonchameleon said:


> I'll be very disappointed if they weaken the warlock relationship given that it's a big part of the thematic appeal. The other class the subclass is foundational to, of course, is the sorcerer (how do you get the power without deciding what you get the power from?)



I probably should have included Sorcerer as well, as level 3 subclasses will certainly alter the nature of that class's narrative relationship with subclass. But I think I personally might actually like discovering the nature of your sorcerous power at level 3 better. Personally I tend to start off vague and fill in backstories around that point anyway. The current set up sort of pushes the player into knowing an elaborate lineage for their sorcerer at level 1, but fantasy fiction tends to focus more on the people who have some mysterious powers but don't know their great grandmother was a dragon when the call to adventure first comes. You can still choose to play someone who knows their lineage but hasn't yet had it fully express itself.


----------



## Lojaan

Minigiant said:


> Yeah. It's the "Low level clerics are mostly the same." same how fighters are.
> 
> Your connection to your god or source is too weak to express itself until level 3. I like it this way.



Yep or you gotta "prove yourself" before you get granted the good stuff


----------



## mellored

Neonchameleon said:


> I'll be very disappointed if they weaken the warlock relationship given that it's a big part of the thematic appeal. The other class the subclass is foundational to, of course, is the sorcerer (how do you get the power without deciding what you get the power from?)



Not sure how that would be different from the cleric.

Chose your patron at 1,
Chose a deeper connection at 2
Chose the deepest connection at 3.


----------



## Neonchameleon

mellored said:


> Not sure how that would be different from the cleric.
> 
> Chose your patron at 1,
> Chose a deeper connection at 2
> Chose the deepest connection at 3.



Because "deeper connection" and "deepest connection" are a poor representation of what's going on.

For example let's say I chose to be a cleric of Athena at level 1. At level 2 it's not about "how is my connection deeper" but "which aspect of her do I reflect". I might reflect her aspect as a war goddess by taking the armour and shield proficiency. I might also reflect her aspect as a goddess of strategy by going for the extra magic (and with it healing) or even as goddess of wisdom with the knowledge. And there are three or four domains I can probably take for a goddess who among other things is a warrior and a weaver, and a patron of a nautical civilisation.

Likewise the Sorcerer 2 is going to be "which metamagics do you pick?" It doesn't deepen your connection so much as it reflects a possible connection and how you interact with it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Marandahir said:


> I like the 9th level feature. Let's say I want my Aasimar Cleric PC, lets call him The Stranger, to go on an adventure with a Halfling companion. I don't quite know what Holy Order or Divine Domain he's going to be, he doesn't even know who he is, though he might be kinda like an elf and kinda into wands.
> 
> By the end of our tutorial adventure by the dry, wasted seas of the East where I've found the stars that the other four Aasimar messengers of the Gods were hanging about, I've decided I'm going to focus on the study of runes and use holy fire magic. You might think I'm a Wizard, but my powers are divine and related to me chanting, even if a wand helps with them. So I decide my Holy Order is going to be Scholar.
> 
> 3,000 years of D&D game play (and multiple different campaigns) later, my now-8th-level Cleric has just rescued my 13 dwarf Fighter PC allies and our halfling Expert companion from three MONSTROUS TROLLS. And they were all arguing amongst themselves about how they were going to cook them -- whether it be turned on a spit or whether they should sit on the party members one by one and squash them into jelly. They spent so much time arguing the witherto's and whyfor's that the sun's first light cracked open through a boulder my Cleric broke in half with my recently acquired spell _Stone Shape_ and Poof! And the sunlight turned them all into stone!
> 
> Now, this would be a great stopping point for the adventure that session, but the DM wants to give us one more reward, and between the XP for beating the Trolls and the XP for finding the Troll's treasure, I'll definitely reach 9th level. So we raid the Troll horde, and I find an ancient elf-blade forged in the hidden elf city of stone now sunken beneath the sea. I don't know all that, but I do know it's a pretty sweet longsword, only I'm not set up for using melee weapons, being a scholar cleric. But now my 9th level Holy Order feature kicks in, and I choose to also be a Protector. And after the Half-elven sage in the last homely house between the mountains and the sea appraises my sword as Glamdring, sword of the King, my Cleric Gandalf prompty beings cracking in goblin skulls with it and fighting off Orcs and Trolls through the rest of the campaign that lasts for another 67 years and ends with me going over the sea back into the utter west with my halfling and elf buddies. And eventually one dwarf PC comes and hangs with us, too.




You must be playing 1e if it takes that many campaign years to reach 9th level.


----------



## mellored

Neonchameleon said:


> Because "deeper connection" and "deepest connection" are a poor representation of what's going on.
> 
> For example let's say I chose to be a cleric of Athena at level 1. At level 2 it's not about "how is my connection deeper" but "which aspect of her do I reflect".



ok..

then patron at 1
Grants aspects at 2
more aspects at 3

Still don't see much difference.


----------



## Neonchameleon

mellored said:


> ok..
> 
> then patron at 1
> Grants aspects at 2
> more aspects at 3
> 
> Still don't see much difference.



Part of the point of the new system is to avoid overwhelming new players at level 1. It'll be pact boon at 2 for warlocks and metamagic for sorcerers.

But you don't actually need to pick your patron at 1 for clerics (or can pick a pantheon or general connection). I think for sorcerers they're going to have "you awaken and only find out why later" which works. I think with warlocks they'll say something like "many warlocks know who their patrons are, but in other cases they might have carried out a ritual they didn't quite understand or be granted things by a patron in the shadows. And the earliest gifts don't diverge much by patron."


----------



## Marandahir

Bill Zebub said:


> You must be playing 1e if it takes that many campaign years to reach 9th level.



No, if I was playing 1e, I'd be either dead or an immortal myself. 

Remember that in 1e, time between adventures passed in real time (i.e., real time between gaming sessions). So for 3,067 years to pass in game time either the bulk of that had to pass while I was at the table actually adventuring, in which case I'd be FAR beyond 9th level, or else I'd be dead. 

Instead, my suggestion is that Gandalf does only a few things interesting between the end of _The Rings of Power_ and the start of _An Unexpected Journey_. Sure, he did a lot of wandering and a lot of researching and a lot of adventuring, but they weren't high XP adventures. Tolkien's world is pretty low-magic for PC-power, so while Gandalf defintely should be an experienced adventurer alongside 1st-3rd level Dwarf Fighters and a 1st level Halfling Expert or Rogue (depending on whether Bilbo is a PC or a hireling/companion), I don't think he'd be much higher tiers yet. Meanwhile by the time he fights the Ringwraiths and the Balrog in LotR, he's clearly much higher level. He gained a lot of levels from his solo-adventurer in Dol Guldur and from all the orcs he killed in the Battle of the Five Armies…


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Quite a few of the proposed changes in recent OneD&D UA articles are pretty similar to things that I've tried out in my homebrew before (making variant types of Goliaths connected to other giant types, moving ASIs to backgrounds, level one feats connected to backgrounds, some other stuff).


----------



## Weiley31

I find it interesting that Goliaths are basically the Half-Giant expy in OneD&D.

I also find it interesting that the Goliath has the ability to make itself Large. Which you get the Advantage on STR Checks (makes sense) and the longer legs as a giant gives credence to the 5 feet added onto speed. (Not the killer app in 5E, but still neat.)

Which brings me to something else: What if you're playing as a Goliath Paladin, reach that point where your aura's range increases via leveling up occurs, and then you go Large Form? The Rune Knight can become huge eventually but has no Aura to take advantage of. Duregars can Enlarge, yet I don't hear much about Duregar Paladins in that regard strangely enough.
Do we still run into the area where Crawford's "Hahaha, silly pc, No large races due to Aura whammie jammies for you."

Or is that part "conveniently" thrown out the window for that brief moment when it occurs?


----------



## mellored

Weiley31 said:


> Which brings me to something else: What if you're playing as a Goliath Paladin, reach that point where your aura's range increases via leveling up occurs, and then you go Large Form?



The same thing enlarge always has done.  It's been in the game since day 1.


----------



## Zaukrie

Remathilis said:


> So if I cast in an area where four allies and three enemies are, my four allies and two of the foes get 5 temp HP? It doesn't say I choose who gets it, just the first six creatures are affected.



Of your choice... But then we only save a couple words. Overall, I think they use too many words.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Marandahir said:


> No, if I was playing 1e, I'd be either dead or an immortal myself.
> 
> Remember that in 1e, time between adventures passed in real time (i.e., real time between gaming sessions). So for 3,067 years to pass in game time either the bulk of that had to pass while I was at the table actually adventuring, in which case I'd be FAR beyond 9th level, or else I'd be dead.
> 
> Instead, my suggestion is that Gandalf does only a few things interesting between the end of _The Rings of Power_ and the start of _An Unexpected Journey_. Sure, he did a lot of wandering and a lot of researching and a lot of adventuring, but they weren't high XP adventures. Tolkien's world is pretty low-magic for PC-power, so while Gandalf defintely should be an experienced adventurer alongside 1st-3rd level Dwarf Fighters and a 1st level Halfling Expert or Rogue (depending on whether Bilbo is a PC or a hireling/companion), I don't think he'd be much higher tiers yet. Meanwhile by the time he fights the Ringwraiths and the Balrog in LotR, he's clearly much higher level. He gained a lot of levels from his solo-adventurer in Dol Guldur and from all the orcs he killed in the Battle of the Five Armies…




Either that or Gandalf spent all those years playing World of Warcraft.


----------



## Rabulias

mellored said:


> Also, the 1/day limit on guidance is gone.



Ah, that was one of the things I liked in the last packet. I think it should have _some _limit to minimize spamming. If they want to offer more opportunities to use it per day, maybe a creature can only benefit from a _guidance _spell once per hour (instead of once per Long Rest). A caster could still cast it once per party member. 


UngeheuerLich said:


> One thing I noticed in the goliath entry: you don't double the carrying capacity anymore. You now count as one size larger.
> So it seems, size might matter more when determining carrying capacity.



It's the same thing, just stated a different way. AFAIK, we have not seen any new rules for Carrying Capacity in the OneD&D playtest packets, so the standard 2014 5e rules apply:


			
				5e PHB p.176 said:
			
		

> For each size category above Medium, double the creature's carrying capacity and the amount it can push, drag, or lift.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Rabulias said:


> It's the same thing, just stated a different way. AFAIK, we have not seen any new rules for Carrying Capacity in the OneD&D playtest packets, so the standard 2014 5e rules apply:




... right now.


----------



## cbwjm

Weiley31 said:


> Or is that part "conveniently" thrown out the window for that brief moment when it occurs?



It's thrown out the window, at least as far as I'd run it. 10 ft radius would extend 10 feet from your new size.


----------



## Reynard

cbwjm said:


> It's thrown out the window, at least as far as I'd run it. 10 ft radius would extend 10 feet from your new size.



Just center from the center of the creature and the problem is solved. Why does D&D over complicate everything?


----------



## mellored

Rabulias said:


> Ah, that was one of the things I liked in the last packet. I think it should have _some _limit to minimize spamming.



It was also something extra to keep track of.

And honestly, your going to have to make a lot of rolls in a day to barely fail them that often.


----------



## Incenjucar

Weiley31 said:


> I find it interesting that Goliaths are basically the Half-Giant expy in OneD&D.
> 
> I also find it interesting that the Goliath has the ability to make itself Large. Which you get the Advantage on STR Checks (makes sense) and the longer legs as a giant gives credence to the 5 feet added onto speed. (Not the killer app in 5E, but still neat.)
> 
> Which brings me to something else: What if you're playing as a Goliath Paladin, reach that point where your aura's range increases via leveling up occurs, and then you go Large Form? The Rune Knight can become huge eventually but has no Aura to take advantage of. Duregars can Enlarge, yet I don't hear much about Duregar Paladins in that regard strangely enough.
> Do we still run into the area where Crawford's "Hahaha, silly pc, No large races due to Aura whammie jammies for you."
> 
> Or is that part "conveniently" thrown out the window for that brief moment when it occurs?



Temporary largeness is very different from permanent largeness.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> Just center from the center of the creature and the problem is solved. Why does D&D over complicate everything?



That would make it so some auras don't even extend past the bodies of large enough creatures.


----------



## cbwjm

Reynard said:


> Just center from the center of the creature and the problem is solved. Why does D&D over complicate everything?



It doesn't really overcomplicate things though. If you have an aura that extends 10 feet from you, saying it still extends 10 feet from you when your new size is a 10-foot instead of 5-foot square isn't complicated. I think it would be more complicated, and also a little weird, to have your aura's radius to shrink as you grow.


----------



## Reynard

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That would make it so some auras don't even extend past the bodies of large enough creatures.



So fix those creatures. Think results. It's so weird to me that RPGs and D&D in particular can't just design around intent. "Everything within 10 feet takes 1d6 lightning damage." OK. Just do that. It's not hard. Are you with 10 feet of the lightning monster? Then you take 1d6 lightning damage. Stop overcomplicating it.


----------



## Rabulias

A minor point of interest in this packet, a few spells changed schools. Looks like they are trying to rebalance the spell distribution by taking some toys away from evocation? I don't know. Healing magic continues its confusing journey over the course of the game. Four more editions of D&D and curing magic can be assigned to every school of magic at least once.  I think 3.x had the best idea to make a specific subschool for healing, but even that was weird placing it under conjuration. And some spells (_earthquake, flaming sphere, reincarnate, shatter, stoneskin_) are going back to their AD&D roots.

Here is a quick table of the changed spells with their schools through D&D history.


*SPELL**AD&D 1**AD&D 2**D&D 3.0**D&D 3.5**D&D 5e**OneD&D*Aura of VitalityN/AN/AN/ATransmutationEvocationAbjurationBlindnessAbjurationIllusionTransmutationNecromancyNecromancyTransmutationDeafnessIllusionIllusionTransmutationNecromancyNecromancyTransmutationContingencyEvocationEvocationEvocationEvocationEvocationAbjurationCure WoundsNecromancyNecromancyConjuration (Healing)Conjuration (Healing)EvocationAbjurationDancing LightsTransmutationTransmutationEvocationEvocationEvocationIllusionEarthquakeTransmutationTransmutationEvocationEvocationEvocationTransmutationFlaming SphereTransmutation/EvocationEvocationEvocationEvocationConjurationEvocationGlibnessN/AN/AN/ATransmutationTransmutationEnchantmentHallowN/AN/AEvocationEvocationEvocationAbjurationHealNecromancyNecromancyConjuration (Healing)Conjuration (Healing)EvocationAbjurationHealing WordN/AN/AN/AN/AEvocationAbjurationMass Cure WoundsN/AN/AConjuration (Healing)Conjuration (Healing)EvocationAbjurationMass HealN/AN/AConjuration (Healing)Conjuration (Healing)EvocationAbjurationMass Healing WordN/AN/AN/AN/AEvocationAbjurationPower Word HealN/AN/AN/AN/AEvocationAbjurationPrayer of HealingN/AN/AN/AN/AEvocationAbjurationProduce FlameTransmutationTransmutationEvocationEvocationConjurationEvocationReincarnateNecromancyNecromancyTransmutationTransmutationTransmutationNecromancySendingEvocationEvocationEvocationEvocationEvocationDivinationShatterTransmutationTransmutationEvocationEvocationEvocationTransmutationStoneskinTransmutationTransmutationAbjurationAbjurationAbjurationTransmutationTelepathyN/AN/AN/AN/AEvocationDivinationThunderwaveN/AN/AN/AN/AEvocationTransmutation

*NOTES:*

I did not play 4th edition, so it is not listed here, but I gather from Googling that spell schools went away in 4th edition? Can someone familiar with 4e confirm?
Except for the Conjuration (Healing) subschool, I have listed schools in the table above as their 5e equivalents. AD&D 1st edition had necromantic (now necromancy), alteration (now transmutation), and illusion/phantasm (now illusion).
_Blindness_ and _deafness _were separate spells in AD&D 1st edition (with different schools)_, _so I have separated them here. They were combined into a single spell from AD&D 2nd edition onward.
AD&D 1st edition allowed multi-school spells; _flaming sphere _was an alteration/evocation spell.
_Heal_ changed schools in this packet, but was not called out with an asterisk.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> So fix those creatures. Think results. It's so weird to me that RPGs and D&D in particular can't just design around intent. "Everything within 10 feet takes 1d6 lightning damage." OK. Just do that. It's not hard. Are you with 10 feet of the lightning monster? Then you take 1d6 lightning damage. Stop overcomplicating it.



. . . That's exactly what D&D 5e does. Your change would mess that up. 

What people have been mentioning, the more squares you occupy on a battlefield (i.e. if you're of a larger size than medium), then your auras consequently get to effect more squares on the battlefield. And you get to reach more squares on the battlefield with your attacks. 

It's not "complicated", it's just a consequence of how sizes work in D&D 5e. And it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make balancing Large races a problem.


----------



## mellored

Rabulias said:


> I did not play 4th edition, so it is not listed here, but I gather from Googling that spell schools went away in 4th edition? Can someone familiar with 4e confirm?



Effectively, yes.
Wizard attacks still labels of evocation, illusions, etc..  but I can't remember a single time it mattered.


----------



## cbwjm

mellored said:


> Effectively, yes.
> Wizard attacks still labels of evocation, illusions, etc..  but I can't remember a single time it mattered.



That was only when they brought in essentials, right? The Mage class had subclasses that interacted with it.


----------



## eayres33

mellored said:


> Your players are probably just getting  better at it.
> 
> Also, there are plenty of nerfs here as well.



They may be but the player options have become more powerful. Also there are nerfs but since there is a 4 to 1 player to DM ratio and they automatically pass 4 to 1 ratings player preference will win out. If they want DMs to run games they'll need to address that ratio.


----------



## mellored

eayres33 said:


> They may be but the player options have become more powerful. Also there are nerfs but since there is a 4 to 1 player to DM ratio and they automatically pass 4 to 1 ratings player preference will win out. If they want DMs to run games they'll need to address that ratio.



We'll have to see how the spiritual weapon goes, but so far the nerfs to great weapon master and sharpshooter where well received.

And buffing option that where not used before (two weapon fighting) is not really making them more powerful.  It's just making that a choice.

Players don't actually like having one option being well above the others, they feel too forced to take it.


----------



## Hussar

Did I miss it the last time around, but, now hidden and invisible are actual conditions!  Yay!  Stealth rules that actually work.


----------



## Minigiant

According to the Aardling/Dragonborn/Goliath video, Goliath is being added to offer two Big Guy races. Crawford said they wanted to have several choices for a burly character.

Small: Human, Gnome, or Halfling
Big: Goliath or Orc

I wish the same for Stout but the only stout popular fantasy races I know of are dwarves, pigmen, and beaverfolk.


----------



## Lojaan

Minigiant said:


> According to the Aardling/Dragonborn/Goliath video, Goliath is being added to offer two Big Guy races. Crawford said they wanted to have several choices for a burly character.
> 
> Small: Human, Gnome, or Halfling
> Big: Goliath or Orc
> 
> I wish the same for Stout but the only stout popular fantasy races I know of are dwarves, pigmen, and beaverfolk.



Aren't Dragonborn burly?


----------



## Minigiant

Rabulias said:


> I did not play 4th edition, so it is not listed here, but I gather from Googling that spell schools went away in 4th edition? Can someone familiar with 4e confirm?






mellored said:


> Effectively, yes.
> Wizard attacks still labels of evocation, illusions, etc..  but I can't remember a single time it mattered.






cbwjm said:


> That was only when they brought in essentials, right? The Mage class had subclasses that interacted with it.



4e spells had schools but they were cut down.

Enchantment
Evocation
Illusion
Necromancy
Nethermany (new)
Pyromancy (new sorta)

Spells either were tied to a school or had no school (No Abjuration for Shield).  They never got to Transmutation and Conjuration. Abjuration and Divination were never happening as Wizards were controllers.

Schools were also the subclasses of the Essentials Mage class. Pyromancy wasn't a real school. It was tag for fire spells for a fire based Pyromancy subclass mage.

Bring back Nethermancy?


----------



## Minigiant

Lojaan said:


> Aren't Dragonborn burly?



Not according to Crawford. 
They don't get Powerful Build and +Str is not forced anymore.
Plus you can have frail skinny dragonborn. 

But Orcs.... The old runt warlock Guldan from WOW is still jacked.


----------



## NaturalZero

Holy Order is one of the worst kind of game designs IMO: take the option you want right away and at higher level when you're supposed to be more powerful, take the thing that you didn't really want the first time.

I know if flies in the face of traditions and sacred cows, but I'd rather the base cleric chassis have zero baked-in undead affecting abilities. As a DM, I don't want to have to include undead in my campaign or one-off just to make the cleric's features valid and as a player I don't want to play for months without engaging with a chunk of my class features because the arc doesn't have undead. If the features must be universal to all clerics, when you gain them you should at least be able to choose what kind of creature type you specialize in: aberration, fey, et al.


----------



## Lojaan

Minigiant said:


> Bring back Nethermancy?




BEHOLD the power of my NETHERS!


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> Bring back Nethermancy?



I would probably just combine Nethermancy and Necromancy by saying that it all involves manipulating the power of the Shadowfell and then calling it a day.


----------



## Oncewasbenji

As of this document, there are three different versions of the goliath race in play. I hope nobody who bought the Mordenkanien book actually believed they would be the final compatible with oned&d versions - as promised.

I for one can't wait for that moment where I have to explain to a new player that this species has three versions and there's no consistency in the lore or other players choices about which one is the relevant one. Unless the game is less backward compatible than they first claimed?


----------



## Horwath

Vaalingrade said:


> I want game designers to all look into the mirror for an hour each morning and repeat after me:
> 
> "New Players Are Not Stupid."



if they fell from their high horse, they would surely break their necks.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Oncewasbenji said:


> As of this document, there are three different versions of the goliath race in play. I hope nobody who bought the Mordenkanien book actually believed they would be the final compatible with oned&d versions - as promised.



. . . It is compatible. You just choose which version you prefer, and use it. There's no compatibility problems here. 


Oncewasbenji said:


> I for one can't wait for that moment where I have to explain to a new player that this species has three versions and there's no consistency in the lore or other players choices about which one is the relevant one. Unless the game is less backward compatible than they first claimed?



Why would you tell a new player that there are different versions of it? Just use the most recent version or the one you prefer.


----------



## Horwath

Parmandur said:


> Clerics now get their Subclass at Level 3, because First Level Subclass is a blocker for new players, expect this for al Classes. Also meant to discourage Level dipping for multiclassing.



loosely translated; begin all campaigns at level 3.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> loosely translated; begin all campaigns at level 3.



No. They said that a major reason why they made this change was to make the newer players not feel overwhelmed with options when making a Cleric character for the first time. The "loose translation" is "levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels for what the class can do, so moving the most important decision your character will make after character creation to a later level makes it easier for newer players". Also, they were trying to shut down some of the more egregious multiclass exploits that came along with Clerics.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No. They said that a major reason why they made this change was to make the newer players not feel overwhelmed with options when making a Cleric character for the first time. The "loose translation" is "levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels for what the class can do, so moving the most important decision your character will make after character creation to a later level makes it easier for newer players". Also, they were trying to shut down some of the more egregious multiclass exploits that came along with Clerics.



there is easy fix for multiclassing:

1. there is no multiclass
2. you cannot multiclass before 5th level and you must take 4 levels in new class at least before raising levels in your other class.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> there is easy fix for multiclassing:
> 
> 1. there is no multiclass
> 2. you cannot multiclass before 5th level and you must take 4 levels in new class at least before raising levels in your other class.



So you're completely ignoring the rest of the post? Okay. 

And WotC are not going to do that, for obvious reasons. That sounds like a terrible and unfun housreule at the majority of tables.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So you're completely ignoring the rest of the post? Okay.
> 
> And WotC are not going to do that, for obvious reasons. That sounds like a terrible and unfun housreule at the majority of tables.



1st part of the post, I have already answered a few post back when I said that devs would break their necks if they would fell from their high horse.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> 1st part of the post, I have already answered a few post back when I said that devs would break their necks if they would fell from their high horse.



That's not an answer. That's an ad hominem.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's not an answer. That's an ad hominem.



OFC it is. It's also an answer.

We had some new players lately and one comes to mind.

3rd level tiefling  aberrant mind sorcerer with houseruled bonus 1st level feat for all.
She took shadow touched feat.

that is 6 cantrips and 11 spells known. 3 of those spells are extra 1/day usable.

it was fine.

Now when I think again:

1st level aberrant mind sorcerer with Telekinetic/Fey/shadow touched as a bonus feat is perfect complexity for 1st level character.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> OFC it is. It's also an answer.



No, it isn't. It's taking a shot at people that aren't here to defend themselves. It's bad form.


Horwath said:


> We had some new players lately and one comes to mind.
> 
> 3rd level tiefling aberrant mind sorcerer with houseruled bonus 1st level feat for all.
> She took shadow touched feat.
> 
> that is 6 cantrips and 11 spells known. 3 of those spells are extra 1/day usable.
> 
> it was fine.
> 
> Now when I think again:
> 
> 1st level aberrant mind sorcerer with Telekinetic/Fey/shadow touched as a bonus feat is perfect complexity for 1st level character.



And I've had newer players that got overwhelmed by the complexity of a level 1 fighter. Clearly, there are a variety of experiences among newer players, and WotC thinks that it's a problem often enough to warrant a change based on feedback they've gotten through the years. That isn't saying that newer players are stupid or engaging in elitism, it's recognizing a common problem and making changes to fix it.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, it isn't. It's taking a shot at people that aren't here to defend themselves. It's bad form.
> 
> And I've had newer players that got overwhelmed by the complexity of a level 1 fighter. Clearly, there are a variety of experiences among newer players, and WotC thinks that it's a problem often enough to warrant a change based on feedback they've gotten through the years. That isn't saying that newer players or engaging in elitism, it's recognizing a common problem and making changes to fix it.



There can be "simpler" options.

I.E. champion fighter can be 1st level subclass.
having crit on 19-20 is not really complicated.
maybe add +1 HP per level to champions HP and second wind.

Draconic sorcerer(if buffed) can be made without bonus spells and still be simpler but strong option vs aberrant mind or clockwork.

same with feats:
you can get as I mentioned; Fey/shadow touched or telekinetic for "complicated" characters and +2 HP per level for "simpler" characters.

Every class should get one sub-class that is "simpler". that is, it get more "passive" abilities than active.
extra HP, extra damage, extra AC, extra usage of already base class present abilities.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> There can be "simpler" options.
> 
> I.E. champion fighter can be 1st level subclass.
> having crit on 19-20 is not really complicated.
> maybe add +1 HP per level to champions HP and second wind.
> 
> Draconic sorcerer(if buffed) can be made without bonus spells and still be simpler but strong option vs aberrant mind or clockwork.
> 
> same with feats:
> you can get as I mentioned; Fey/shadow touched or telekinetic for "complicated" characters and +2 HP per level for "simpler" characters.
> 
> Every class should get one sub-class that is "simpler". that is, it get more "passive" abilities than active.
> extra HP, extra damage, extra AC, extra usage of already base class present abilities.



Did you not read what I said, or did you just not understand it?  

I have had newer players (two separate ones, in fact) get overwhelmed by the "complexity" of playing a Level 1 Fighter for the first time. Level 1. The simplest characters that you can play. Fighters don't get their subclasses until level 3. The three things a level 1 fighter has to worry about are Hit Points, Second Wind, and the Attack Action. Less than every other class in the game. 

Some newer players are either so unfamiliar with how D&D and similar games work that playing even the simplest option in 5e is too complex for them at the start.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Did you not read what I said, or did you just not understand it?
> 
> I have had newer players (two separate ones, in fact) get overwhelmed by the "complexity" of playing a Level 1 Fighter for the first time. Level 1. The simplest characters that you can play. Fighters don't get their subclasses until level 3. The three things a level 1 fighter has to worry about are Hit Points, Second Wind, and the Attack Action. Less than every other class in the game.
> 
> Some newer players are either so unfamiliar with how D&D and similar games work that playing even the simplest option in 5e is too complex for them at the start.



if you get overwhelmed with complexity of 1st level fighter, then you need to read the class description again, and again if needed. And then some more.

personally, tuning the game towards people that cannot be bothered to read 1st level fighter abilities is bad design.
or just accept that those players will be bad in combat for first several sessions. or forever. Perhaps they are great roleplayers so combat will not be a big issue for them if they are not performing at 100%.


----------



## Minigiant

My suggestion since the 2013 DNDN playtest was to have more than 1 "easy class" and add more classses to the game. But I was called a madman.

There are 4 Class Groups. There should be a easy class with a simple subclass for each type.


----------



## Horwath

Minigiant said:


> My suggestion since the 2013 DNDN playtest was to have more than 1 "easy class" and add more classses to the game. But I was called a madman.
> 
> There are 4 Class Groups. There should be a easy class with a simple subclass for each type.



1. champion fighter, maybe bear totem barbarian
2. draconic sorcerer
3. scout rogue
4. maybe life cleric can be even more simplified with more powerful healing


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> if you get overwhelmed with complexity of 1st level fighter, then you need to read the class description again, and again if needed. And then some more.
> 
> personally, tuning the game towards people that cannot be bothered to read 1st level fighter abilities is bad design.
> or just accept that those players will be bad in combat for first several sessions. or forever. Perhaps they are great roleplayers so combat will not be a big issue for them if they are not performing at 100%.



They read the class abilities. I tried to explain them to the best of my ability. They just weren't versed enough in the system to understand how everything worked together.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> My suggestion since the 2013 DNDN playtest was to have more than 1 "easy class" and add more classses to the game. But I was called a madman.
> 
> There are 4 Class Groups. There should be a easy class with a simple subclass for each type.



And I think that all PC classes should be of relatively similar complexity, and that if people want even simpler options, they can play a Sidekick.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They read the class abilities. I tried to explain them to the best of my ability. They just weren't versed enough in the system to understand how everything worked together.



then they will have to learn the hard way.
trial and error.

we had players that were "slow" to grasp mechanics. Either not playing similar games ever or lets be honest not investing time like others in D&D, but eventually it all got sorted out. you can also passively learn the game while playing. it will just take longer.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And I think that all PC classes should be of relatively similar complexity, and that if people want even simpler options, they can play a Sidekick.



I actually have reworked all 3 sidekick classes to be on power level with "normal" classes, just with loads of "passive" abilities.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> then they will have to learn the hard way.
> trial and error.
> 
> we had players that were "slow" to grasp mechanics. Either not playing similar games ever or lets be honest not investing time like others in D&D, but eventually it all got sorted out. you can also passively learn the game while playing. it will just take longer.



And WotC is trying to make the learning process easier for Clerics by delaying when they get their subclasses. Accusing them of elitism for trying to help some newer players learn the game easier is uncalled for and stupid.


----------



## Minigiant

Horwath said:


> 1. champion fighter, maybe bear totem barbarian
> 2. draconic sorcerer
> 3. scout rogue
> 4. maybe life cleric can be even more simplified with more powerful healing



Even better:

Berserker Barbarian
Dashing Swashbuckler
Emnity Avenger
Pyromantic Arcanist
I don;t think the classic 4 classes should be augmented to make simpler version within their complex schemes.

Dont wreck the Cleric trying to make n Easy Priest option. *Just design an Easy Priest Class.*



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And I think that all PC classes should be of relatively similar complexity, and that if people want even simpler options, they can play a Sidekick.




Or... just make the simple option a new class.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And WotC is trying to make the learning process easier for Clerics by delaying when they get their subclasses. Accusing them of elitism for trying to help some newer players learn the game easier is uncalled for and stupid.



And in exchange we get bland 1st and 2nd level characters. 

Great.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> there is easy fix for multiclassing:
> 
> 1. there is no multiclass
> 2. you cannot multiclass before 5th level and you must take 4 levels in new class at least before raising levels in your other class.




Nope. Bad fix. The other one is better.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Minigiant said:


> Or... just make the simple option a new class.



Like the Sidekick classes.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> if you get overwhelmed with complexity of 1st level fighter, then you need to read the class description again, and again if needed. And then some more.
> 
> personally, tuning the game towards people that cannot be bothered to read 1st level fighter abilities is bad design.
> or just accept that those players will be bad in combat for first several sessions. or forever. Perhaps they are great roleplayers so combat will not be a big issue for them if they are not performing at 100%.




This is a lot more dismissive attitude than what is ascribed to wotc for treating new players as "not intelligent enough". One is inclusive and one is gate keeping.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> And in exchange we get bland 1st and 2nd level characters.
> 
> Great.



Better to accommodate newer players with simple early levels than to drive them away with complexity.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Like the Sidekick classes.




This is a thing for really young players or people who just want to try it out before investing to much time in it. I have used that approach a few times and it worked well enough.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> And in exchange we get bland 1st and 2nd level characters.
> 
> Great.




My characters are not bland...


----------



## Bagpuss

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.



No pick who you worship at the start (if at all, it's not mentioned).

Then at 3rd level you pick your subclass *"of your choice"* seems who you worship has no bearing on it. Worship a God of Death and pick the Life Domain (_"so a Cleric of any religious tradition might choose it"_), worship a Fire deity and pick Water... I hope this gets changed so the choice is limited, it use to read *"Choose one domain related to your deity".*

Not sure I like *Divine Spark,* working on everything to do damage.

It's like they have sucked anything thematic out of the class to make it easier to play (less words to write), mind you it kind of reflects what they did to the races species.

Also they mentioned removing the thief cunning action not interacting with use an object being because they wanted to remove "Mother may I?" in the pervious UA feedback video and then they do nothing with "Divine Intervention" for the Cleric. Except make the refresh random for some reason and lower the level it becomes automatic. If "The DM chooses the nature of the intervention" why have a percentage chance at all. Also the guidance is "the effect of any Divine Spell is appropriate." So you use to have an 10-19% chance of a extra cleric spell, now you have an 11 to 17% chance of an extra spell. It's like playing with some minor dials when the whole thing should go. Asking for divine help should be something any player can do and guidance be in the DMG. This weak sauce ability for the Cleric isn't worth having as it is.


----------



## Umbran

Horwath said:


> if they fell from their high horse, they would surely break their necks.




*Mod Note:*
Hey, folks, it would be better to not attack the developers personally.  Please resist the urge to cast personal aspersions on them.


----------



## Minigiant

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Like the Sidekick classes.



Sure. That works too.. Just rename and buff them them. 
The Swashbuckler would be a renamed Expert with subclasses.
The Avenger would either be the Warrior with Oath of Enmity, CD, and Censure

Leaving the Cleric alone to add Rune Priest, Oracle, and Inquisitor Holy Order options.


----------



## Horwath

UngeheuerLich said:


> My characters are not bland...



bland in mechanics sense to be precise.
background/roleplaying of characters have (almost)nothing to do with it.


----------



## Minigiant

Bagpuss said:


> No pick who you worship at the start (if at all, it's not mentioned).
> 
> Then at 3rd level you pick your subclass *"of your choice"* seems who you worship has no bearing on it. Worship a God of Death and pick the Life Domain (_"so a Cleric of any religious tradition might choose it"_), worship a Fire deity and pick Water... I hope this gets changed so the choice is limited.
> 
> Not sure I like *Divine Spark,* working on everything to do damage.
> 
> It's like they have sucked anything thematic out of the class to make it easier to play.



I believe the assumption is that if your cleric worships a god, you can only choose a domain that god control or has access to.

I mean FR, GH, Mystara and most of the settings with active gods have them killing each other over domains. Some 3rd level cleric wont be able to tap a domain without the corresponding god's permission.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> bland in mechanics sense to be precise.
> background/roleplaying of characters have (almost)nothing to do with it.




Not even that. I never restricted myself to perfect race/class choices.
I had fun with my dwarven abjurer, my halfling monk and my ritual caster variant human rogue... The goliath bard I tested for myself was also not bland.
Stat choice + racial abilities/feat + background + lvl1 class abilites were enough. At level 2 multiclassing with just the base classes allows for 144 different kinds of characters. 
So with 10 species you have 1440 different character options. 
If this seems bland, I am sorry. 

Without multiclassing and background feat and stat distribution you are easily looking at more viable choices with plebty of level 1 options. 
And as seen with the cleric, having subclass at level 3 allows for some nice defining class abilities right off the gate.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Better to accommodate newer players with simple early levels than to drive them away with complexity.



that is why I said that every class needs a subclass that has simple mechanics for starting players or those not invested in D&D as much as others.

then you can have better crit for simple fighter or 3/4 maneuvers with 4/5 superiority dice as an option.


human champion fighter with 2Hander(javelin as secondary), +1 AC style and +2HP/level feat is great option to give someone character sheet and throw them into game.


----------



## Cadence

Minigiant said:


> I believe the assumption is that if your cleric worships a god, you can only choose a domain that god control or has access to.
> 
> I mean FR, GH, Mystara and most of the settings with active gods have them killing each other over domains. Some 3rd level cleric wont be able to tap a domain without the corresponding god's permission.




To me it feels like they really need to say that.  Something like "choose a deity or power source based on what you and your DM have worked out (some examples for some game worlds are in Appendix X)."


----------



## Remathilis

Horwath said:


> And in exchange we get bland 1st and 2nd level characters.
> 
> Great.



What exactly are you losing at those two levels? At first level, you might have to rely on medium armor and a mace (you probably couldn't afford much better gear anyway) but by second, you have your bonus proficiencies you'd get from your domain, and swapping channel divinity from second to first surly didn't change much. At best, you lost the first level spells from your domain. Oh noes, the cleric has been nerfed. Negative five stars!

I'll give you the loss of the first level domain slots, but everything else is still there by third level. With the bonus options of being more militant light clerics or more mystical tempest clerics.


----------



## Umbran

Horwath said:


> that is why I said that every class needs a subclass that has simple mechanics for starting players or those not invested in D&D as much as others.




Mistaking rules mastery for investment or engagement is an error.


----------



## Horwath

Remathilis said:


> What exactly are you losing at those two levels? At first level, you might have to rely on medium armor and a mace (you probably couldn't afford much better gear anyway) but by second, you have your bonus proficiencies you'd get from your domain, and swapping channel divinity from second to first surly didn't change much. At best, you lost the first level spells from your domain. Oh noes, the cleric has been nerfed. Negative five stars!
> 
> I'll give you the loss of the first level domain slots, but everything else is still there by third level. With the bonus options of being more militant light clerics or more mystical tempest clerics.



honestly, all 3 levels of cleric features should have been at 1st level.


----------



## Minigiant

Cadence said:


> To me it feels like they really need to say that.  Something like "choose a deity or power source based on what you and your DM have worked out (some examples for some game worlds are in Appendix X)."



I'm sure they will and display the god/domain pairings in the actual PHB. That's not info needed for playtesting.


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Better to accommodate newer players with simple early levels than to drive them away with complexity.




I wonder about a pack of pre-gen character sheets that only have the things for the first two levels laid out with boxes and arrows saying where to find things.  Or maybe a printable cheat sheet for each race class combination.

I also kind of wonder why they need to comfortably understanding everything about their character without a cheat sheet going into their first game.  That doesn't seem to be how a ton of board games, bridge, chess, MtG, etc... are usually learned.


----------



## Minigiant

Horwath said:


> honestly, all 3 levels of cleric features should have been at 1st level.



It's too much power for 1st level.


----------



## Remathilis

Horwath said:


> honestly, all 3 levels of cleric features should have been at 1st level.



That would be great for multi-class dipping! Free weapons/armor prof, healing, divine magic and channel divinity for a 1 level dip? Sign me up!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> that is why I said that every class needs a subclass that has simple mechanics for starting players or those not invested in D&D as much as others.
> 
> then you can have better crit for simple fighter or 3/4 maneuvers with 4/5 superiority dice as an option.
> 
> 
> human champion fighter with 2Hander(javelin as secondary), +1 AC style and +2HP/level feat is great option to give someone character sheet and throw them into game.



You clearly did not read what I posted earlier. Or watch the video on the subject. The goal of delaying subclass choice for Clerics and the other classes until level 3 is to make it so newer players aren't flooded with another major crossroads as part of character creation for Clerics. Choosing race, class, and background is already a hard enough decision for people not familiar with the game. Adding the choice of subclass on top of that at level 1 is overwhelming. WotC wants newer players to be able to play Clerics without being bombarded with a ton of important decisions upon character creation.


----------



## Horwath

Umbran said:


> Mistaking rules mastery for investment or engagement is an error.



I'm not, 
I know players that are engaged in roleplay, but simply do not have time to learn all the rules of D&D, but they did learn what their character needs.

no one needs to know all spells or even all spells of their class, but everyone needs to know spells that are on their prepared list.
Same with feats or other things.

Ofc, here comes more experienced friends that will help new players with mechanics to flesh out the character that someone imagined.


----------



## Horwath

Remathilis said:


> That would be great for multi-class dipping! Free weapons/armor prof, healing, divine magic and channel divinity for a 1 level dip? Sign me up!



I would rather see some more limits on multiclassing than stretching what should be starting abilities over 3 levels.


----------



## mellored

Horwath said:


> I would rather see some more limits on multiclassing than stretching what should be starting abilities over 3 levels.



The limit is that you need to take 3 levels in a class.
And if you want to start with that many choices, start at 3.


----------



## Horwath

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You clearly did not read what I posted earlier. Or watch the video on the subject. The goal of delaying subclass choice for Clerics and the other classes until level 3 is to make it so newer players aren't flooded with another major crossroads as part of character creation for Clerics. Choosing race, class, and background is already a hard enough decision for people not familiar with the game. Adding the choice of subclass on top of that at level 1 is overwhelming. WotC wants newer players to be able to play Clerics without being bombarded with a ton of important decisions upon character creation.



race, background+feat, class, skills, gear, spells,

is subclass that more of a problem on top of that?


----------



## Horwath

mellored said:


> The limit is that you need to take 3 levels in a class.
> And if you want to start with that many choices, start at 3.



that is like a default from 2014 with every campaign that I played.

I was hoping that they might introduce little more features at levels 1/2 so those levels are option to start.

Feat at level 1 that is not a house rule was a good start...


----------



## Bagpuss

Minigiant said:


> I believe the assumption is that if your cleric worships a god, you can only choose a domain that god control or has access to.
> 
> I mean FR, GH, Mystara and most of the settings with active gods have them killing each other over domains. Some 3rd level cleric wont be able to tap a domain without the corresponding god's permission.




Well they why change the wording from the original way to select domains which was *"Choose one domain related to your deity"* to *"of your choice"* that seems a deliberate change. Also delaying the choice to 3rd level for newer players doesn't work if they are really making that choice at 1st level when they select the god they worship.


----------



## Remathilis

Horwath said:


> I would rather see some more limits on multiclassing than stretching what should be starting abilities over 3 levels.



How about: Your multiclass character suffers a –20% penalty to XP for each class that is not within one level of his or her highest-level class. These penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises a class's level too high.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Horwath said:


> race, background+feat, class, skills, gear, spells,
> 
> is subclass that more of a problem on top of that?



Adding a single additional choice with several different options increases the complexity of character creation by a lot. And subclass is more important than equipment, skills, gear, feats, and spells.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Remathilis said:


> How about: Your multiclass character suffers a –20% penalty to XP for each class that is not within one level of his or her highest-level class. These penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises a class's level too high.



Doesn't work for milestone. And I'm not a fan of different members of the same adventuring party being of different levels.


----------



## Minigiant

Bagpuss said:


> Well they why change the wording from the original way to select domains which was *"Choose one domain related to your deity"* to *"of your choice"* that seems a deliberate change.



Because in some settings, the deities either don't exist or don't have control of the domains.

In a Norse campaign, you have to worship Thor or his children to get Tempest domain.
In Dark Sun, a cleric can snag any domain they can want as there are no gods holding them hostage.


----------



## mellored

Horwath said:


> race, background+feat, class, skills, gear, spells,
> 
> is subclass that more of a problem on top of that?



Yes.  9 * 9 * 12 * 18 = 17,496 combinations.  No need to make it in the hundred thousands at level 1.


I'd be happy if they trimmed gear too.  It's too much extra steps and trap options (like padded armor and blowguns).  Just pick from the final answer.

Choose one of the following.

19 AC a deal 1d8 damage
17 AC and deal 2d6 damage.
17 AC and 1d8 ranged damage


----------



## mellored

Horwath said:


> that is like a default from 2014 with every campaign that I played.
> 
> I was hoping that they might introduce little more features at levels 1/2 so those levels are option to start.



Then what levels would new players get to play to get used to the game?


----------



## Remathilis

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Doesn't work for milestone. And I'm not a fan of different members of the same adventuring party being of different levels.



It's the third edition multi-classing rule, which was pretty reviled in it's day and encouraged multi-class dips until you could get a prestige class. 

It was terrible how many rog2/ftr2/bbn1/prestige class X builds existed in charops.


----------



## shadowoflameth

My initial impression of the new playtest. I like the cleric. The change in levels of abilities was inevitable given that the 20th to 18th level change seems to be popular and the designers are invested in it. In 5E turn undead rarely works effectively and doesn't get used as a result because the level limits mean you could only turn undead that you'd easily dispatch anyway.

I think the Ardling is a good idea. There are so many animal people races, excuse me Ancestries now that it makes sense to embrace something like this. The climber option is good, I don't think swimmer needs cold resistance but the Flier is a bad mechanic. If the worry is that a character that can fly will break your encounters get over it. Spellcasters can get fly at 5th level anyway. Either give them a fly speed or don't. Limiting flight to 10 minutes will not stop players from using it in combat or to overcome an obstacle. Besides, simpler is better.

Copy and paste that reaction to the Dragonborn. The breath weapon is better but flight is a strong ability. Either give it to them or don't drop the spectral wings for 10 minutes nonsense. I recommend making it an option in lieu of the breath weapon. 

Similarly, the Goliath playtest abilities are very strong and not at all backward compatible with the 5E goliath. The Stone giant one and the Hill Giant one are OK, but these could be feats that a goliath could take. And again, drop the change for 10 minutes mechanics because they are useless. They don't prevent the player from breaking an encounter and they turn the goliath into a shape changer. Just make them medium or Large size as a race. I know, Ancestry. If I ever meet a real goliath, I'll tell him I'm sorry. If being large is too much, make it an option to grow to large at 5th level, or just treat them as large for purposes of lifting carrying and treat them that way for weapon size and reach beginning at 5th.

I'm not in love with the changes to spells. They are not terrible but I would like to see a fix playtest for the spells that truly need fixing. My two cents.


----------



## Minigiant

They also moved subclasses to 3rd in order to make 1st and 2nd level have more options.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

NaturalZero said:


> Holy Order is one of the worst kind of game designs IMO: take the option you want right away and at higher level when you're supposed to be more powerful, take the thing that you didn't really want the first time.



I agree in theory, and it is a big issue I have with the battle master as they level... BUT
the same way I can see taking both two handed or 1 handed fighting technique at 1st AND archery as a good boost to your back up at 10th, I can see why taking a 2nd choice is good to round out later... I just think that you need 5 or more choices to make that meaningful, so the 3 will get 2/3 of them by level 11 is an issue.


----------



## Horwath

mellored said:


> Yes.  9 * 9 * 12 * 18 = 17,496 combinations.  No need to make it in the hundred thousands at level 1.
> 
> 
> I'd be happy if they trimmed gear too.  It's too much extra steps and trap options (like padded armor and blowguns).  Just pick from the final answer.
> 
> Choose one of the following.
> 
> 19 AC a deal 1d8 damage
> 17 AC and deal 2d6 damage.
> 17 AC and 1d8 ranged damage



I will agree 100% that armors are mostly trap option.

but I would like to keep more options with weapons: light, finesse, reach, thrown, some special ones  than single choice of damage vs AC


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No. They said that a major reason why they made this change was to make the newer players not feel overwhelmed with options when making a Cleric character for the first time. The "loose translation" is "levels 1 and 2 are tutorial levels for what the class can do, so moving the most important decision your character will make after character creation to a later level makes it easier for newer players". Also, they were trying to shut down some of the more egregious multiclass exploits that came along with Clerics.



again so I will say "start games at level 3 unless you have new players, then start at 1st and sludge through 2-3 sessions to get them through the tutorial."


----------



## Cadence

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Adding a single additional choice with several different options increases the complexity of character creation by a lot. And subclass is more important than equipment, skills, gear, feats, and spells.




Which is why the book gives suggested default choices for all of those options?

"If you're a new player take the default if you're overwhelmed, and DM, let new players witch those options when they level to 2 or 3."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Bagpuss said:


> No pick who you worship at the start (if at all, it's not mentioned).
> 
> Then at 3rd level you pick your subclass *"of your choice"* seems who you worship has no bearing on it. Worship a God of Death and pick the Life Domain (_"so a Cleric of any religious tradition might choose it"_), worship a Fire deity and pick Water... I hope this gets changed so the choice is limited, it use to read *"Choose one domain related to your deity".*



I mean worshiping a god of death you get all the healing spells anyway, so if you are going to speclize in a domain I don't see why that is worse then others


Bagpuss said:


> Also they mentioned removing the thief cunning action not interacting with use an object being because they wanted to remove "Mother may I?" in the pervious UA feedback video and then they do nothing with "Divine Intervention" for the Cleric. Except make the refresh random for some reason and lower the level it becomes automatic. If "The DM chooses the nature of the intervention" why have a percentage chance at all. Also the guidance is "the effect of any Divine Spell is appropriate." So you use to have an 10-19% chance of a extra cleric spell, now you have an 11 to 17% chance of an extra spell. It's like playing with some minor dials when the whole thing should go. Asking for divine help should be something any player can do and guidance be in the DMG. This weak sauce ability for the Cleric isn't worth having as it is.



yeah I think it should just be "use the wish spell as a guideline"


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> Not even that. I never restricted myself to perfect race/class choices.
> I had fun with my dwarven abjurer, my halfling monk and my ritual caster variant human rogue...



I have pl;ayed every one of those concepts (the first 2 in 3e though).... I think those ARE perfect race/class choices.
My dwarf staff wizard in 4e was the best wizard we saw in that edition.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> How about: Your multiclass character suffers a –20% penalty to XP for each class that is not within one level of his or her highest-level class. These penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises a class's level too high.



that sounds cool (I think I have heard it before) but what if we let you advance in both classes at once, BUT you have to split your xp and track it separately and your HPs are half from each... not sure how we would handle HD...


----------



## Cadence

Minigiant said:


> Because in some settings, the deities either don't exist or don't have control of the domains.




So have them pick a power source or set of related domains?



> In a Norse campaign, you have to worship Thor or his children to get Tempest domain.
> In Dark Sun, a cleric can snag any domain they can want as there are no gods holding them hostage.




How is anyone holding anyone hostage?  Is that how  Warlocks and Patrons, etc... would be described?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Minigiant said:


> In a Norse campaign, you have to worship Thor or his children to get Tempest domain.



Norse gods all most likely give access to war... so do most if not all greek/roman


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Remathilis said:


> It was terrible how many rog2/ftr2/bbn1/prestige class X builds existed in charops.



I will take that over Wiz (spec)2/FOcus Specilist 5/Loremaster 8/archmage 5 that I swear I saw 100 of between tables... and most had that planed from level 1 or 2 so they could tell you about it the whole campaign even if the campaign ended at 8th level... then they could complain about not getting to finish there 'build'


----------



## Neonchameleon

Horwath said:


> race, background+feat, class, skills, gear, spells,
> 
> is subclass that more of a problem on top of that?



At low level in my experience:

Race is large and central. It's not a problem
Background + feat ends up as passive. It's entirely possible to mechanically forget you have a background in play if you've picked something like Skilled. This isn't a problem
Class is normally not a problem because it's an even bigger central defining characteristic than race
Skills. People will forget the skill list - but you can point them at the right place on the character sheet and there are no traps. Every character works the same way. It's just static numbers
Gear isn't often a problem. People have default sets of gear and the impact gets calculated. Or if they want to do something clever with it they either remember it or look it up.
Spells are _sometimes_ a problem. Your basic attack spells aren't. Your utility and reaction spells can be
And subclass? Subclass combines the worst aspect of class (no two subclasses should work the same way) and spells (not so central to your character concept if you are a beginner so easy to forget when there's already so much). So yes, it can be a significant problem.

The other reason to have the subclass at third level is roleplaying (and the new feats also help). In classic 5e once you've got your class and your subclass you're _almost_ locked in to your progression. Your feats are likely to be ASIs in your primary stat (D&Done improves on this a lot with the new 4th level  feats because it means characters grow differently). It's more or less your spells and what you find. Meanwhile your subclass choice is a major choice and represents how you specialise and how you grow during play. Not having one is losing a _huge_ decision point, making the roleplaying experience worse.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Horwath said:


> race, background+feat, class, skills, gear, spells,
> 
> is subclass that more of a problem on top of that?




In short: yes. It is way more unintuitive.
Also muddies thecore concept of a class based system...
Want to be a rogue? Yes, but you could also be a bard with college of sword. Do you want to be a bard? Yes, but you can also be a rogue/arcane trickster.
Paladin or war cleric?
Ranger or fighter scout?


----------



## Juomari Veren

Aldarc said:


> I guess Goliath is the Critical Role influence?
> 
> I was kinda hoping for Goblins.



I think because Pathfinder took Goblins into its core assumption, they probably weren't going to pursue that so as to keep things as distinct from Pathfinder as possible.


----------



## Minigiant

Cadence said:


> So have them pick a power source or set of related domains?



Maybe.
Every setting doesn't do domains the same.


Cadence said:


> How is anyone holding anyone hostage? Is that how Warlocks and Patrons, etc... would be described?



I mean the domains. Deities held the domains hostage.
In most official and official historic setting, the deities controlled the domains. So in order to access the Life Domain, you needed to worship a deity who had the Life domain. Because those deities literally had the life domain. 

That's why evil deities and patrons were so murderous. It's why most patrons made warlocks: to steal domains and become actual gods.




GMforPowergamers said:


> Norse gods all most likely give access to war... so do most if not all greek/roman



D&Dwise, the Aesir all had War. The Vanir all had Life. The Jotun had War.


----------



## Vaalingrade

shadowoflameth said:


> If the worry is that a character that can fly will break your encounters get over it.



Absolutely.

Fear of flying is the ultimate in white room thinking.

The flier apparently doesn't care about the rest of the party, never goes indoors or _near trees_, and enemies never master rock throwing technology. If a flier is ruining your encounters, you ruined your encounter long before they showed up.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> I want game designers to all look into the mirror for an hour each morning and repeat after me:
> 
> "New Players Are Not Stupid."




How many times this morning did you repeat into the mirror: “My preferences are not popular.” ?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Juomari Veren said:


> I think because Pathfinder took Goblins into its core assumption, they probably weren't going to pursue that so as to keep things as distinct from Pathfinder as possible.



They're taking orcs as a core assumption.

The hybrid Goliath/Genasi they presented are because Goliaths and Genasi are both inside the top 10 D&D races by D&D Beyond statistics (behind 8 of the 9 PHB races, but ahead of Gnomes).


----------



## Bill Zebub

Vaalingrade said:


> Fear of flying is the ultimate in white room thinking.




And yet more assumption-making about what other people think. There is an awful lot of that going on.

Why the compulsion to psychoanalyze (with unflattering conclusions) the preferences of others?  How about just sharing your own thoughts and opinions, without trying to generalize others’?

Some of us just don’t like the high-fantasy aesthetic of flying being unexceptional.

EDIT: And even then, I am able to shrug and concede that my opinion is not popular, without hypothesizing about the inferior mental abilities of those who like flying.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Bill Zebub said:


> How many times this morning did you repeat into the mirror: “My preferences are not popular.” ?



Less than some of us apparently repeat 'I'm gonna harass some dude on the internet'.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

UngeheuerLich said:


> In short: yes. It is way more unintuitive.
> Also muddies thecore concept of a class based system...
> Want to be a rogue? Yes, but you could also be a bard with college of sword. Do you want to be a bard? Yes, but you can also be a rogue/arcane trickster.
> Paladin or war cleric?
> Ranger or fighter scout?



so the fighter (battlemaster) 4/ Wizard (warmage)/4 compared to the fighter (eldritch knight) 8 or the Wizard (Bladesinger) 8 is confusing enough... but what about the Fighter (eldrtich knight) 5/Bard (swords) 3 or the Fighter (eldritch Knight) 3/ rouge (arcane trick) 3/ Ranger 2 or the Artificer (battle smith) 3/Wizard (blasdesinger) 5 or some other combo there of...

I mean there are like 100 combos for gish, each with pro and cons.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Incenjucar said:


> Temporary largeness is very different from permanent largeness.



Temporary large has all the positives and negatives in combat, but nothing outside.  It doesn't solve anything.  They should have just let golisths be large.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> . . . That's exactly what D&D 5e does. Your change would mess that up.
> 
> What people have been mentioning, the more squares you occupy on a battlefield (i.e. if you're of a larger size than medium), then your auras consequently get to effect more squares on the battlefield. And you get to reach more squares on the battlefield with your attacks.
> 
> It's not "complicated", it's just a consequence of how sizes work in D&D 5e. And it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make balancing Large races a problem.



Not enough to matter, imo.


----------



## mellored

Horwath said:


> I will agree 100% that armors are mostly trap option.
> 
> but I would like to keep more options with weapons: light, finesse, reach, thrown, some special ones  than single choice of damage vs AC



Sounds like you'll get your wish, except they will be class features.

Which, I guess if fighters chose weapons like casters get spells, wouldn't be the worst.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> - Ardling more clearly just a catchall Anthropomorphic Animal option, not Planar now.



It is still planar. It's just a planar animal relative rather than being like Aasimar.

"Celestial animals roam the Beastlands,* a plane of untamed beauty and wild nature*. Many of those* otherworldly animals* serve the Beast Lords, and in the early days of the multiverse, *some of the animals evolved into bipedal forms. Among their number are Ardlings*, people with beastlike  heads, keen senses, and an innate connection to divine magic."

"Animal Ancestry. You are descended from a Celestial animal."


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> It is still planar. It's just a planar animal relative rather than being like Aasimar.
> 
> "Celestial animals roam the Beastlands,* a plane of untamed beauty and wild nature*. Many of those* otherworldly animals* serve the Beast Lords, and in the early days of the multiverse, *some of the animals evolved into bipedal forms. Among their number are Ardlings*, people with beastlike  heads, keen senses, and an innate connection to divine magic."
> 
> "Animal Ancestry. You are descended from a Celestial animal."



Yeah, my bad, I was just dashing off what I was getting from listening to Crawford's description in the video rather than the text. So I overstated that they were shifting the focus more towards the animal side.


----------



## Umbran

Bill Zebub said:


> How many times this morning did you repeat into the mirror: “My preferences are not popular.” ?






Vaalingrade said:


> Less than some of us apparently repeat 'I'm gonna harass some dude on the internet'.




*Mod Note:*

Folks, it is time to become constructive, or take a break.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

GMforPowergamers said:


> so the fighter (battlemaster) 4/ Wizard (warmage)/4 compared to the fighter (eldritch knight) 8 or the Wizard (Bladesinger) 8 is confusing enough... but what about the Fighter (eldrtich knight) 5/Bard (swords) 3 or the Fighter (eldritch Knight) 3/ rouge (arcane trick) 3/ Ranger 2 or the Artificer (battle smith) 3/Wizard (blasdesinger) 5 or some other combo there of...
> 
> I mean there are like 100 combos for gish, each with pro and cons.




Totally ok, but I'd relegate that to 3rd level and not have it at level 1. This should present a relative clear picture.
Subclasses and multiclass can expand and blend the concepts. This is what I like about the multiclass and subclass system.


----------



## Flamestrike

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship. Seems odd you would wait till third to do that.




Nothing stopping you from picking a God at 1st level, committing to a pantheon as a whole (then focusing at 3rd) or even roleplaying being selected by a God at 3rd level as a Prophet or whatever.


----------



## TwoSix

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, my bad, I was just dashing off what I was getting from listening to Crawford's description in the video rather than the text. So I overstated that they were shifting the focus more towards the animal side.



Yea, but I'd definitely argue that the "animal" part is more important than the "celestial" part.  Sort of like how being Fey is a kind of hazy backstory for Goblins/Hobgoblins/Bugbears now, but it doesn't really change the overall racial tropes you'd use during character creation.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Lojaan said:


> Aren't Dragonborn burly?



Not mechanically.


----------



## Zaukrie

NaturalZero said:


> Holy Order is one of the worst kind of game designs IMO: take the option you want right away and at higher level when you're supposed to be more powerful, take the thing that you didn't really want the first time.
> 
> I know if flies in the face of traditions and sacred cows, but I'd rather the base cleric chassis have zero baked-in undead affecting abilities. As a DM, I don't want to have to include undead in my campaign or one-off just to make the cleric's features valid and as a player I don't want to play for months without engaging with a chunk of my class features because the arc doesn't have undead. If the features must be universal to all clerics, when you gain them you should at least be able to choose what kind of creature type you specialize in: aberration, fey, et al.



Agreed on the undead thing. You have to include them at low levels to give the cleric their chance to use the ability. It's why I want like ten or twenty channel abilities. Organized by domain or deity type I get that is counter to the direction of easier level one character building. Not sure the right answer, other than a suggested base class, and then freedom to not do that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> That would be great for multi-class dipping! Free weapons/armor prof, healing, divine magic and channel divinity for a 1 level dip? Sign me up!



Maybe limit or ban multiclassing?  Its your game, and multiclassing is optional anyway.


----------



## Horwath

Vaalingrade said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Fear of flying is the ultimate in white room thinking.
> 
> The flier apparently doesn't care about the rest of the party, never goes indoors or _near trees_, and enemies never master rock throwing technology. If a flier is ruining your encounters, you ruined your encounter long before they showed up.



I agree with encounters, every enemy that is somewhat intelligent should have a good ranged option in it's arsenal.

but flying can and does invalidate lot's of environmental challenges.

difficult terrain? negated
obstacle to climb? negated
trigger traps? negated
travel at max speed in most direct way? Yes.

permanent flight might be good as 10/11th level class/sub-class feature or 5th level spell that lasts 24hrs and uses concentration.
at that level,characters should stop worrying about mundane obstacles.


----------



## Horwath

Remathilis said:


> That would be great for multi-class dipping! Free weapons/armor prof, healing, divine magic and channel divinity for a 1 level dip? Sign me up!



Maybe I would move channel divinity to 2nd level if 1st level is too powerful.

But, I would always place proficiencies(weapons, armor, skills) at 1st level, being from class or sub-class and bonus spells prepared.

so,
1st level cleric:
Spellcasting, Holy order, subclass(spells prepared plus disciple of life)

2nd level:
channel divinity(options from class and subclass)

3rd level:
you get 2nd level spells 


similar can be done to all subclasses:

Rogue; Scout

1st level: Nature and Survival proficiency
2nd level: Nature and Survival expertise
3rd level: reaction movement


----------



## Micah Sweet

mellored said:


> Yes.  9 * 9 * 12 * 18 = 17,496 combinations.  No need to make it in the hundred thousands at level 1.
> 
> 
> I'd be happy if they trimmed gear too.  It's too much extra steps and trap options (like padded armor and blowguns).  Just pick from the final answer.
> 
> Choose one of the following.
> 
> 19 AC a deal 1d8 damage
> 17 AC and deal 2d6 damage.
> 17 AC and 1d8 ranged damage



That seems distinctly less fun to me.


----------



## Micah Sweet

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but I'd definitely argue that the "animal" part is more important than the "celestial" part.  Sort of like how being Fey is a kind of hazy backstory for Goblins/Hobgoblins/Bugbears now, but it doesn't really change the overall racial tropes you'd use during character creation.



And the hazy Fey backstory is also unnecessary, imo.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Horwath said:


> I agree with encounters, every enemy that is somewhat intelligent should have a good ranged option in it's arsenal.
> 
> but flying can and does invalidate lot's of environmental challenges.
> 
> difficult terrain? negated
> obstacle to climb? negated
> trigger traps? negated
> travel at max speed in most direct way? Yes.
> 
> permanent flight might be good as 10/11th level class/sub-class feature or 5th level spell that lasts 24hrs and uses concentration.
> at that level,characters should stop worrying about mundane obstacles.



The way I see it, if you don't want flying PCs in your game, ban flying heritages.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Horwath said:


> I agree with encounters, every enemy that is somewhat intelligent should have a good ranged option in it's arsenal.
> 
> but flying can and does invalidate lot's of environmental challenges.
> 
> difficult terrain? negated
> obstacle to climb? negated
> trigger traps? negated
> travel at max speed in most direct way? Yes.
> 
> permanent flight might be good as 10/11th level class/sub-class feature or 5th level spell that lasts 24hrs and uses concentration.
> at that level,characters should stop worrying about mundane obstacles.



The thing is, they're still with a party. The rest of the party still has to deal with these.

Plus traps can have non-groundbased triggers like trip wires, light/shadow puzzles, etc. And like I said, trees and vines and pillars can function as aerial terrain

The game just... doesn't consider it in terms of giving advice or rules.


----------



## ehren37

Horwath said:


> that is why I said that every class needs a subclass that has simple mechanics for starting players or those not invested in D&D as much as others.



That just robs the base class of any semblance of complexity. Silo them off in their own class, with NO subclass options. The fighter is currently shackled to be potato simple because people demand it be the noob class (and for some reason, the ONLY noob class). If you create the warrior, you free the fighter AND all it's subclasses to have mechanical depth. Or we give the fighter over to the noobs, and create a mechanically engaging class based on maneuvers. I frankly don't care, but the need for a bare bones noob class has robbed me of a mechanically engaging martial warrior like I had in 4E.

They could make a base Warrior, Expert, Mage and Priest as the simple class for each archtype. Model them after sidekicks, no choices in build other than maybe spell selection. Because, in my experience, new players want magic or to do something cooler than poke things with a stick, and only having the option of the fighter is essentially this:






This nonsense started with Gygax, who asserted that the "real players" will move on to magic users once they understood the game. Why are we still only offering one flavor of introductory class 40+ years later?


----------



## ehren37

Anyone else feel cloud's jaunt is clearly the best of the options for Goliaths? The piddly damage options don't even scale. A bonus action teleport is useful at all levels. Dealing d8 damage as a reaction is barely worth it at level 1. Scaling them like cantrips wouldnt even be worth it IMO, but at least you could make a case for them.


----------



## Horwath

ehren37 said:


> Anyone else feel cloud's jaunt is clearly the best of the options for Goliaths? The piddly damage options don't even scale. A bonus action teleport is useful at all levels. Dealing d8 damage as a reaction is barely worth it at level 1. Scaling them like cantrips wouldnt even be worth it IMO, but at least you could make a case for them.



yup scaling them at 5th, 11th and 17th level would bring then close to bonus action teleport.


----------



## Zaukrie

Can someone explain why it says what spell an Ardling gets, if you can replace it with any 0 level divine spell? Is it to make things easy (and, who would use that spell over another?)?

I kind of like the idea of the ardling, which I get others don't.


----------



## Greg Benage

ehren37 said:


> Anyone else feel cloud's jaunt is clearly the best of the options for Goliaths?



Yeah, not even close.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I understand subclasses starting in 3rd level could be necessary to abuses by munchkins about multiclassing but I would like the subclasses should give some special trait in the first level to show they are different and with an unique style, for example to unlock some exclusive option. Why not special background for each subclasses?

My theory about ardlings is Hasbro would rather PC lineages with animal heads for no-Caucasian players. I don't say it was wrong. No everybody wants to be a blonde+blueyed elf.

The goliaths look like the nerfed version of giants, cousins of the increible Hulk. I like the idea of subraces/bloodlines for each type of giant. 

No outsiders as monster creature?


----------



## shadowoflameth

Micah Sweet said:


> Temporary large has all the positives and negatives in combat, but nothing outside.  It doesn't solve anything.  They should have just let golisths be large.



Agree. In terms of both backward compatibility and who they are Goliath's are not shape changers and don't change sizes. If permanent size large is a problem, make it an option with the lineage medium or large or just make racial feats to gain the reach, the weapon size etc. You could also just say they grow to large at 5th level. If characters can cast Fly at 5th level, than being big shouldn't be a balance problem.


----------



## Maxperson

Minigiant said:


> Any hope or desire for a plant race



No. 


Minigiant said:


> and a construct race?



I wouldn't mind it seeing warforged in the PHB.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Micah Sweet said:


> The way I see it, if you don't want flying PCs in your game, ban flying heritages.



The solution of temporary flight doesn't solve the obstacle negation issue. You don't see many hazards that a character can't fly over in 10 minutes. Either allow flight or don't In my game we had a winged tiefling and it was strong in play to be able to fly but it didn't break anything. He could fly over walls and buildings but not through walls or ceilings and he could not carry everyone, so there were still plenty of challenges.


----------



## Zaukrie

10 minutes seems like a LONG time for flight. I wonder why it is that long.


----------



## Parmandur

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but I'd definitely argue that the "animal" part is more important than the "celestial" part.  Sort of like how being Fey is a kind of hazy backstory for Goblins/Hobgoblins/Bugbears now, but it doesn't really change the overall racial tropes you'd use during character creation.



It really gills in that Narnia space for me that D&D so often is missing.

Also, a fun implication of the hubridnrule is that a player can choose whatever Humanoid Species that they want for mwchanics and make it any kind of Animal person that they want. A Cat person wood elf? Sure. A Badger Gnome? No problem. An Elephant headed Tortle? We got you fam.


----------



## Faolyn

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Did you not read what I said, or did you just not understand it?
> 
> I have had newer players (two separate ones, in fact) get overwhelmed by the "complexity" of playing a Level 1 Fighter for the first time. Level 1. The simplest characters that you can play. Fighters don't get their subclasses until level 3. The three things a level 1 fighter has to worry about are Hit Points, Second Wind, and the Attack Action. Less than every other class in the game.
> 
> Some newer players are either so unfamiliar with how D&D and similar games work that playing even the simplest option in 5e is too complex for them at the start.



My friend ran a game with another group, and according to him there was a player in there--an accomplished LARPer--who could _never _remember how to run her Champion Fighter.


----------



## Zaukrie

Does a creature need to be conscious to be willing? Does the Prayer of Healing work on dying or unconscious creatures?

I doubt I've ever read the actual rules as closely as I'm reading these......like, I somehow didn't remember that moving thru an ally was difficult terrain, sigh.


----------



## WarDriveWorley

Zaukrie said:


> Does a creature need to be conscious to be willing? Does the Prayer of Healing work on dying or unconscious creatures?



D&D doesn't make the distinction that a target has to be awake/aware in order to be a willing target of a spell. The only time it was an issue was the old days of Magic Resistance where a character with MR had to consciously drop it to allow an allied caster to not have to roll to bypass it. But for spells that target only willing creatures it's assumed that if the creature/target would be willing while awake/conscious then they would be willing while unconscious.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> No.
> 
> I wouldn't mind it seeing warforged in the PHB.



I want a construct heritage that doesn't have all the Eberron backstory built in.


----------



## Micah Sweet

shadowoflameth said:


> The solution of temporary flight doesn't solve the obstacle negation issue. You don't see many hazards that a character can't fly over in 10 minutes. Either allow flight or don't In my game we had a winged tiefling and it was strong in play to be able to fly but it didn't break anything. He could fly over walls and buildings but not through walls or ceilings and he could not carry everyone, so there were still plenty of challenges.



Flying isn't an issue with me personally or my table.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

I'm not all that excited about Goliaths having various ancestries for all the common Giant types. To me it makes Goliaths feel more like  diminutive Giants than extra big Humanoids. 

It also smells of "tick the box" design. Everything doesn't have to fit into the same categories.


----------



## BrokenTwin

Not really fond of goliaths stepping on genasi toes, though I do like the mental image of a fire-giant goliath.


----------



## Incenjucar

I am obviously biased, but I like having multiple elemental options. Frankly I'd like to see a more distinctly elemental option that's as close to an actual elemental as possible without screwing up their role as a player species.


----------



## mellored

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I would like the subclasses should give some special trait in the first level to show they are different and with an unique style, for example to unlock some exclusive option. Why not special background for each subclasses?



Sure.
Thieves can get alert at level 1, while arcane trickster get magic initiat.


----------



## cbwjm

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I'm not all that excited about Goliaths having various ancestries for all the common Giant types. To me it makes Goliaths feel more like  diminutive Giants than extra big Humanoids.
> 
> It also smells of "tick the box" design. Everything doesn't have to fit into the same categories.



Smaller giant-kin was pretty much how I always treated them anyway, so I love the change.


----------



## Mecheon

Micah Sweet said:


> And the hazy Fey backstory is also unnecessary, imo.



Goblins as a fey thing is the more common approach (plus, y'know, famous movie Labyrinth) and its not like D&D really had all that many unseelie critters runnning around previous. Gives 'em flavour


----------



## Azzy

Zaukrie said:


> I doubt I've ever read the actual rules as closely as I'm reading these......like, I somehow didn't remember that moving thru an ally was difficult terrain, sigh.



Interesting. It's something that's come up quite a bit in the campaigns I've been a part of.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Mecheon said:


> Goblins as a fey thing is the more common approach (plus, y'know, famous movie Labyrinth) and its not like D&D really had all that many unseelie critters runnning around previous. Gives 'em flavour



I know some people like it, but it's not for me.  Not a big fan of the Fey.


----------



## Wyckedemus

Stalker0 said:


> From a flavor standpoint I completely agree. One...choosing your holy order feels like an important background element. Second, if your going to have heavy armor you would want your early gear to reflect that, you don't want to have to "upgrade" to get use out of your ability. Third, if your taking the religion skill to get your wisdom bonus, feels like something you should have at 1st level.
> 
> Probably the reason they don't is it would be too abusive with multi-classing. A cleric 1/rogue could get some stupidly high expertise going on certain skills.



But the Thaumaturge Holy Order cares about Channel Divinity, which is meaningless at level 1 if you swap the levels.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> I want a construct heritage that doesn't have all the Eberron backstory built in.



There are Athas elves, Greyhawk elves, space elves...

No reason that there can't be a generic Warforged. I have one in my Realms game right now.


----------



## Incenjucar

Maxperson said:


> There are Athas elves, Greyhawk elves, space elves...
> 
> No reason that there can't be a generic Warforged. I have one in my Realms game right now.



Agreed. Construct species have some basic components in common, and then you just give them a few specific features to choose from to help differentiate them so homebrewers have an idea of where they can swap things out.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Incenjucar said:


> Agreed. Construct species have some basic components in common, and then you just give them a few specific features to choose from to help differentiate them so homebrewers have an idea of where they can swap things out.



And yet warforged were one of the _very _few heritages not represented in MMoM.  Why was that?


----------



## Incenjucar

Micah Sweet said:


> And yet warforged were one of the _very _few heritages not represented in MMoM.  Why was that?



The missing heritages were too cool to hang out with their MMoM and had a party in their tree house.
I'm not a WotC employee, I have no idea why they make specific decisions.


----------



## Xamnam

I would love love love it if we got official support for a sylvan or mineral type warforged. The name probably needs to change if it's meant to be a core schmorp outside of Eberron, but that's fine by me, both from a history and what the name suggests standpoint.


----------



## mellored

Xamnam said:


> I would love love love it if we got official support for a sylvan or mineral type warforged. The name probably needs to change if it's meant to be a core schmorp outside of Eberron, but that's fine by me, both from a history and what the name suggests standpoint.



4e had shardmind.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> And yet warforged were one of the _very _few heritages not represented in MMoM.  Why was that?



Could be something as simple as, "We don't have room for all of them, let's spin the spinner to see which races aren't going to be in the book."  No sense speculating about this one.  No way to know or even give a good guess at it.


----------



## Maxperson

mellored said:


> 4e had shardmind.



Those are really cool.  I would definitely play one.


----------



## Staffan

Zaukrie said:


> When dazed, can you take a legendary or lair action?



The way I read it, yes. Dazed affects what you can do on your turn, and legendary/lair actions happen outside your turn.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Micah Sweet said:


> Flying isn't an issue with me personally or my table.



Mine either. I've had a winged tiefling and an Aarakocra fighter at my table and they were both strong but not game breaking. Giving a dragonborn wings though is a change that isn't really backward compatible. I would say though either give them flight meaning a flight speed or make winged dragonborn a variant. You could have feats that allow the dragonborn to gain wings too as a suggestion. I have similar thoughts on the Goliath suddenly having supernatural powers and changing sizes. It just isn't compatible with who the goliaths have been. Just make them large or able to grow permanently to large size.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> And yet warforged were one of the _very _few heritages not represented in MMoM.  Why was that?



They might be _too _closely tied to Eberron. Most worlds have lycanthropes, so a "half-were" species would work almost everywhere. Warforged are very specifically tied to the Last War in Eberron. They also didn't include kalashtar in MMoM, probably for the same reasons--they don't work without quori.


----------



## Micah Sweet

mellored said:


> 4e had shardmind.



Shardmind was cool, even of it was the ultimate expression of the "band of weirdos" concept of an adventuring party.


----------



## Micah Sweet

shadowoflameth said:


> Mine either. I've had a winged tiefling and an Aarakocra fighter at my table and they were both strong but not game breaking. Giving a dragonborn wings though is a change that isn't really backward compatible. I would say though either give them flight meaning a flight speed or make winged dragonborn a variant. You could have feats that allow the dragonborn to gain wings too as a suggestion. I have similar thoughts on the Goliath suddenly having supernatural powers and changing sizes. It just isn't compatible with who the goliaths have been. Just make them large or able to grow permanently to large size.



I actually can't give WotC a hard time about that.  They never said the 2024 corebooks were going to be compatible with the 2014 corebooks, just other stuff.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> They might be _too _closely tied to Eberron. Most worlds have lycanthropes, so a "half-were" species would work almost everywhere. Warforged are very specifically tied to the Last War in Eberron. They also didn't include kalashtar in MMoM, probably for the same reasons--they don't work without quori.



That was what made me sad about warforged.  I love robots, but these were just so Eberron-linked, and they were the only constructed heritage.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Aldarc said:


> I guess Goliath is the Critical Role influence?
> 
> I was kinda hoping for Goblins.




 That was my first guess too, but then I remembered WotC referred to the race as "guest".

 Then I looked at the class and realized it's for the Bigsby's Giant Book.

 Anyways why is WotC so intent on making Ardlings happen? when Aasimar just fit better for the PHB with a long legacy in D&D and multiple settings, and are one of the most popular races.

 Unless Ardlings are really for the Planescape slipcase, but just say that if it's the case, misinforming playtests leads to misleading results. Because Ardlings are fine for the Planescape, but there are more deserving races for the honor of PHB status.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

I liked the cleric class, but I'd like Holy Orders to have an Unarmed Order.

 If all subclasses are same level no matter the class, make it first level.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> I wouldn't mind it seeing warforged in the PHB.



Hah. That'll piss off the Eberron-haters. I'm all for their inclusion (it's a bit difficult to translate them to other worlds, IME), but I could see a certain section of the fanbase throwing a fit over that. 


Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> I'm not all that excited about Goliaths having various ancestries for all the common Giant types. *To me it makes Goliaths feel more like  diminutive Giants than extra big Humanoids.*



Is . . . is that a bad thing? I mean, I'm not a huge fan of D&D's giants (they're mostly pretty boring, hopefully Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants changes that), but they definitely have more flavor than "Extra Big Humanoid". "Tall person" just feels even more boring than "tall person with some magical traits".


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Then I looked at the class and realized it's for the Bigsby's Giant Book.



Nope. In the video, they said that they've been thinking of adding Goliaths to the PHB for a while now. Unless you think Jeremy Crawford is lying for no reason, they're intended for the PHB. 


Henadic Theologian said:


> Anyways why is WotC so intent on making Ardlings happen? when Aasimar just fit better for the PHB with a long legacy in D&D and multiple settings, and are one of the most popular races.



They want the PHB to include a generic "animal person" race so if someone wants to play a Lizard-person, but doesn't own the book that Lizardfolk are included in (or if that animal hasn't gotten full racial statistics in 5e yet), they still get a "better than nothing" playable race option.


----------



## JEB

Micah Sweet said:


> I want a construct heritage that doesn't have all the Eberron backstory built in.



4E's Monster Manual had super-generic warforged where the extent of their backstory was essentially "built for war in creation forges" - they'd fit quite well into the One D&D paradigm, methinks.


----------



## Incenjucar

Generic warforged should be pretty easy to add. Maybe not all the extra gear stuff they get. But you can also just making another living construct species that ticks similar boxes. There are already glitchlings in 5E per that Wonders of the Multiverse PDF.


----------



## Stalker0

Henadic Theologian said:


> Anyways why is WotC so intent on making Ardlings happen? when Aasimar just fit better for the PHB with a long legacy in D&D and multiple settings, and are one of the most popular races.



They explained in the video. Ardlings scored in the 60s for their polling, which tells them its not "good" but might be "salvagable" with some tweaks. Hence....some tweaks. If it doesn't hit that 70+ margin or even drops lower in this playtest they may drop the concept.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Hah. That'll piss off the Eberron-haters. I'm all for their inclusion (it's a bit difficult to translate them to other worlds, IME), but I could see a certain section of the fanbase throwing a fit over that.



I'm one of those who don't like Eberron as a setting.  

The magic is everywhere flavor, even if it is low level, is the opposite of what I like with magic.  I'm also not a fan of not knowing if the gods are real.  That said, there are elements of Eberron(mostly the races) that I really like.  Among my 4 players in my Forgotten Realms campaign are a warforged and a changeling.


----------



## Dungeonosophy

I propose this core species list:

*Ardling* (i.e. animaloids, including 'furries.' With Dog Ardling and Cat Ardling (a.k.a. Lupin and Rakasta) as two of the core varieties. I mean, cats and dogs are universal. But also include Kenku (Sparrow Ardling), Tortle (Turtle Ardling) - which were presented as 'common' species in one of the 5E childrens books. Plus the other animals mentioned in the playtest.)
*Dhampir *(vampires are a thing. It'd be 'nice' to have one undead-ish core species.)
*Dragonborn*
*Dungeon Avatar* (from Battlezoo Ancestries. So that you literally have 'dungeons' & 'dragons'!!!)
*Dwarf*
*Elf*
*Gnome*
*Goliath* (Cloud, Fire, Hill, Mountain, Stone, and Jogishk Goliaths (Half-Ogre or Ogre-Blooded). Half-Ogres were a core species in 2.5E (Skills & Powers.) It's good to have 'giants' to go with the 'dragons.' And a big species to go with the little species: gnomes and halflings)
*Halfling*
*Orc* (just because Half-Orcs have always been a part of AD&D.)
*Planetouched *(with Tiefling and Aasimar as the core varieties. So that darkness is balanced by light. Maybe also include Fire, Air, Water, and Earth Genasi, since elemental 'benders' are a thing, and so that the elemental types provide a neutral 'spectrum' between the Tiefling and the Aasimar.)
For an even dozen, maybe: Goblin (as a competitor with Pathfinder), or a shapechanger or construct (Warforged) or plant...or ooze!
'Ardling' and 'Planetouched' would be a 'species type' or 'species group', not a species in themselves.

All combos of these species ought to be supported in the core rules as bi-species or multi-species blends. With a basic assumption that magically-spawned births (rather than natural conjugal births) are pretty common in the D&D Multiverse.

The original concept of Ardlings could be slightly supported by a bit of lore that says that Aasimar / Ardling unions are relatively common.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> I'm one of those who don't like Eberron as a setting.
> 
> The magic is everywhere flavor, even if it is low level, is the opposite of what I like with magic.



As many of us Eberron-fans have told @Scribe in the active Eberon thread, there are major parts of Eberron that don't have the "wide, low magic" that Sharn and some other places in Khorvaire do. But I can understand why its presence would put someone off. 


Maxperson said:


> I'm also not a fan of not knowing if the gods are real.



Understandable. I, on the other hand, think that it makes for way more interesting and compelling religions, like the Blood of Vol, Church of the Silver Flame (and its variants; the Ghaash'kala and Shulassakar)


Maxperson said:


> That said, there are elements of Eberron(mostly the races) that I really like.  Among my 4 players in my Forgotten Realms campaign are a warforged and a changeling.



The races of Eberron are definitely great.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Maxperson said:


> I'm one of those who don't like Eberron as a setting.
> 
> The magic is everywhere flavor, even if it is low level, is the opposite of what I like with magic.  I'm also not a fan of not knowing if the gods are real.  That said, there are elements of Eberron(mostly the races) that I really like.  Among my 4 players in my Forgotten Realms campaign are a warforged and a changeling.



The only thing about the Eberron gods I don't like is how much everybody crows about it, like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and thank (maybe)God WotC was brave enough to publish such a thing.  Why can't something just be interesting and different without also having to be a statement?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> The only thing about the Eberron gods I don't like is how much everybody crows about it, like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and thank (maybe)God WotC was brave enough to publish such a thing.  Why can't something just be interesting and different without also having to be a statement?



Eberron's pantheons themselves are, IMO, quite boring. They're just standard pantheon gods. The main thing special about them is that they may or may not exist. Oh, and the fact that they're actually worshipped similarly how polytheistic religions in the real world were/are, unlike the strange mishmash of polytheism and monotheism that D&D religions typically follow. 

The thing that makes this great is the consequences of not knowing if the gods exist. It allows for a lot more nuanced and interesting religions. Most D&D religions tend to be a bit boring and homogenous, because the gods normally objectively exist and can answer your questions, while Eberron not confirming their existence allows for The Blood of Vol, the Path of Light, the Church of the Silver Flame, the Becoming God, and its other great religions to exist without being the "weirdos" of the setting. In fact, they're kind of the opposite of the "weirdos" in Eberron, because there's no evidence for the gods existing, but the Silver Flame does exist and worshipping it does influence the world and your afterlife. The Blood of Vol has some genuinely great points about how if the gods do exist, they're probably jerks, and you should try to perfect yourself instead of caring about some irrelevant ultimate beings. The Becoming God is a Warforged religion that worships an unborn god that they believe will be born (and you can get cleric powers from worshipping a god that objectively doesn't exist), there's even a faction of the religion that worships the Lord of Blades and is trying to turn him into a god. 

Most other D&D settings don't do anything even close to as interesting and nuanced as that. The closest thing to this from a setting that does objectively have gods is the Dawn War Pantheon (which I do like about as much as I like Eberron's take on religion). 

The "statement" that Eberron makes is that D&D's standard take on religion is often bad and boring, and the game is actually better without it. It proves this by subverting the standard D&D assumptions about deities and making its most interesting religions be the ones completely unconnected to its main pantheons.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Eberron's pantheons themselves are, IMO, quite boring. They're just standard pantheon gods. The main thing special about them is that they may or may not exist. Oh, and the fact that they're actually worshipped similarly how polytheistic religions in the real world were/are, unlike the strange mishmash of polytheism and monotheism that D&D religions typically follow.
> 
> The thing that makes this great is the consequences of not knowing if the gods exist. It allows for a lot more nuanced and interesting religions. Most D&D religions tend to be a bit boring and homogenous, because the gods normally objectively exist and can answer your questions, while Eberron not confirming their existence allows for The Blood of Vol, the Path of Light, the Church of the Silver Flame, the Becoming God, and its other great religions to exist without being the "weirdos" of the setting. In fact, they're kind of the opposite of the "weirdos" in Eberron, because there's no evidence for the gods existing, but the Silver Flame does exist and worshipping it does influence the world and your afterlife. The Blood of Vol has some genuinely great points about how if the gods do exist, they're probably jerks, and you should try to perfect yourself instead of caring about some irrelevant ultimate beings. The Becoming God is a Warforged religion that worships an unborn god that they believe will be born (and you can get cleric powers from worshipping a god that objectively doesn't exist), there's even a faction of the religion that worships the Lord of Blades and is trying to turn him into a god.
> 
> Most other D&D settings don't do anything even close to as interesting and nuanced as that. The closest thing to this from a setting that does objectively have gods is the Dawn War Pantheon (which I do like about as much as I like Eberron's take on religion).
> 
> The "statement" that Eberron makes is that D&D's standard take on religion is often bad and boring, and the game is actually better without it. It proves this by subverting the standard D&D assumptions about deities and making its most interesting religions be the ones completely unconnected to its main pantheons.



That's what I'm talking about.  I don't need the game to make a statement, and I especially don't need it to make the statement that things I like about the game are actually bad. I just want it to have cool stuff.

Also, I like clerics actually having to worship gods, and I like the Planescape-popularized idea of a God gaining power from it's followers.

But I'm an old 1e/2e fan, and stuff like 3e's Eberron is still "newish" from my point of view.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> That's what I'm talking about. I don't need the game to make a statement, and I especially don't need it to make the statement that things I like about the game are actually bad. I just want it to have cool stuff.





I'm sorry, but I really don't see anything wrong with a setting proving that another setting hasn't been utilizing religion to its fullest potential by subverting their religions and making something more interesting.

And all pieces of art "make statements" or have messages. That's one of the main ways art has been used throughout the millennia.


Micah Sweet said:


> Also, I like clerics actually having to worship gods, and I like the Planescape-popularized idea of a God gaining power from it's followers.



Both of those are a part of Eberron. You can worship the gods, their existence just isn't objectively proven. And the "you can become a god through being worshipped" still might be true in Eberron, as I said when summarizing the Becoming God. 

Also, I do like "Gods as Tulpas"-style divinity like in Planescape and Discworld, but I also like Eberron's version. Liking one doesn't mean that you can't like the other.


Micah Sweet said:


> But I'm an old 1e/2e fan, and stuff like 3e's Eberron is still "newish" from my point of view.



And Eberron just slightly younger than I am. It's two months older than my younger sister. To me, Eberron is an old setting.


----------



## JEB

I never took Eberron's interesting take on religion as a criticism of the standard D&D take on religion - just a different, interesting take, like the way it approaches a number of other D&D tropes. There's nothing wrong with liking the standard. There's nothing wrong with liking the alternative.


----------



## Micah Sweet

JEB said:


> I never took Eberron's interesting take on religion as a criticism of the standard D&D take on religion - just a different, interesting take, like the way it approaches a number of other D&D tropes. There's nothing wrong with liking the standard. There's nothing wrong with liking the alternative.



The issue is, people who like the alternative seem to proselytize it.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> That's what I'm talking about.  I don't need the game to make a statement, and I especially don't need it to make the statement that things I like about the game are actually bad. I just want it to have cool stuff.
> 
> Also, I like clerics actually having to worship gods, and I like the Planescape-popularized idea of a God gaining power from it's followers.
> 
> But I'm an old 1e/2e fan, and stuff like 3e's Eberron is still "newish" from my point of view.



_You _don't, but there are lots of people who like it.

The Planescape model and the Eberron model can very easily both be true. They could both be true even within a single setting.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> _You _don't, but there are lots of people who like it.
> 
> The Planescape model and the Eberron model can very easily both be true. They could both be true even within a single setting.



I have zero problem with both existing.  I just get tired of hearing how much better the Eberron model is from its fans.


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> I have zero problem with both existing.  I just get tired of hearing how much better the Eberron model is from its fans.



Yeah.  Both models have their merits and flaws.  Neither is superior to the other.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Is . . . is that a bad thing? I mean, I'm not a huge fan of D&D's giants (they're mostly pretty boring, hopefully Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants changes that), but they definitely have more flavor than "Extra Big Humanoid". "Tall person" just feels even more boring than "tall person with some magical traits".



Usually the Goliath PC will stand out as the largest person in the party, and even the species name itself 'Goliath' strongly implies that these are big folk. It kinda breaks with that if the species self-image is that they're undersized giants. I guess you could play it as a dwarf in a halfling party; temporarliy the biggest one around, but still a dwarf.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> Usually the Goliath PC will stand out as the largest person in the party, and even the species name itself 'Goliath' strongly implies that these are big folk. It kinda breaks with that if the species self-image is that they're undersized giants. I guess you could play it as a dwarf in a halfling party; temporarliy the biggest one around, but still a dwarf.



. . . They're still really tall. And don't look identical to their "True Giant" relatives. Original 5e Goliaths are related to Stone Giants, and they look very different from their distant ancestors. I'd imagine that Fire Goliaths look mostly the same as Stone Goliaths, but with red hair and orange eyes. 

This adds more variety.


----------



## Azzy

Micah Sweet said:


> The only thing about the Eberron gods I don't like is how much everybody crows about it, like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and thank (maybe)God WotC was brave enough to publish such a thing.  Why can't something just be interesting and different without also having to be a statement?



Heh. I feel that way about Level Up...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> The issue is, people who like the alternative seem to proselytize it.



There's nothing wrong with that, though. People who like a think talk about how the thing is good, and why.

Eberron's religion design is a lot more compatible with D&D, ironically, than 1E/2E's design. That's the key issue with Eberron. Eberron is a setting custom-designed to fit around D&D, specifically 3.XE. 1E and 2E had deeply confused and conflicting ideas about every single to do with deities/divinities. Nothing was consistent, nothing made sense, it was all clearly layers of whimsy from specific designers, many of whom, frankly, hadn't thought anything through, and were just spouting off half-formed thoughts as canon.

This becomes ultra-clear in 2E, with the various FR-centric god list books and Planescape, both of which work incredibly hard to try and square the circle of "How do gods work, actually?". Neither really succeeds, and a huge, huge problem is the repeated insistences from lazily-written power-trip-oriented* material for 1E where the gods definitely physically exist and definitely care about you, personally, mostly in a negative way. They also struggle with the fact that a lot of the gods from 1E have alignments which are wildly at odds with their actions/ethos. Even into 2E though you had designers randomly coming up with absolutely idiotic bollocks like the Wall of the Faithless (something Ed Greenwood has expressed his distaste for repeatedly, I note), which compounded these issues rather than helping with them.

And the amateur-hour approach is a huge problem, because it creates a situation that is both:

A) Incoherent, confusing, and obviously conflicted. 

That doesn't work well when "gods are real and you can go bother them" is also true. If gods were just bad-tempered superheroes like in Greek Myth, it might work, but the confused and conflicting designer approaches mean most of them are trying to both be that, and to be some kind of Abrahamic god, and simultaneously trying to be some kind of "spirit of an idea", and it just doesn't work.

and

B) Not compelling or engaging.

Eberron chucked that all away and created a carefully-crafted set of religious/faiths that make sense, don't get in the way of adventuring, and allow for compelling intrigue, religious conflict and so on.

As others have noted, the faiths themselves aren't that amazing (they're not bad, but not amazing), but they're much better designed for D&D than the incoherent and contradictory mess that 1E/2E had. I say this as someone who owns pretty much every 1E/2E book that has anything to do with the gods, note, and who really has themselves tried to square the circle. The best you can do is ignore a lot of it and go with "Gods are just Tulpas".

* = Power-trip because either the DMs brought them in to "teach the PCs a lesson" with a being with completely OP stats, or the PCs killed them (like bedecked in Monty Haul'd magic items and level 30 or whatever) to prove how muy macho they were.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Henadic Theologian said:


> Anyways why is WotC so intent on making Ardlings happen? when Aasimar just fit better for the PHB with a long legacy in D&D and multiple settings, and are one of the most popular races.



Ardlings are not Aasimar and despite a whole lot of trying aasimar are not going to happen. They've been around a long time but never even come close to gnomes in popularity.

Meanwhile animal races like the tabaxi, owlin, harengon, etc. have a niche and this is trying to combine them


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Henadic Theologian said:


> Anyways why is WotC so intent on making Ardlings happen? when Aasimar just fit better for the PHB with a long legacy in D&D and multiple settings, and are one of the most popular races.



Because Furries are way more popular a race-concept than "angel-people". Angel people are pretty far down the list when it comes to "fantasy archetypes people want to play". I mean, they're_ on_ the list, sure, but they're far down below stuff like "Animal-person", "Dragon-person", "Devil-person" (who is VERY high up the list) and so on. This is why as noted they've underperformed Gnomes and the like in popularity.

There's a reason very few MMORPGs have an angel-person race, particularly at launch. WoW, for example, has both a devil-person race - Draenei, who are good guys but have horns and hooves and are the same essential race as the Eredar, the main humanoid demons of WoW - and also a devil-person class, the Demon Hunters, elves who have used demonic power to become part-demons themselves so they can fight demons (as you do). They also have both an undead-person race and an undead-person class, I note. And they just added a race/class (very oldskool!) which is dragon-people.


----------



## Aldarc

Neonchameleon said:


> Ardlings are not Aasimar and despite a whole lot of trying aasimar are not going to happen. They've been around a long time but never even come close to gnomes in popularity.
> 
> Meanwhile animal races like the tabaxi, owlin, harengon, etc. have a niche and this is trying to combine them



It probably doesn't help that "aasimar" have the name "aasimar." I've had way too many new players ask "WTF is an aasimar?" Devas were IME the easiest iteration of the concept for new players.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Aldarc said:


> It probably doesn't help that "aasimar" have the name "aasimar." I've had way too many new players ask "WTF is an aasimar?" Devas were IME the easiest iteration of the concept for new players.



Yeah Tiefling is at least cool to say and it makes sense for the name of a devil-race. It also somehow conjures the idea of Nightcrawler from the X-Men, who is obviously Tiefling-esque.

Aasimar is just a bunch of junk letters jammed together.

Also Tieflings have tended to "give people what they want" re: part-devil people. You want horns and hooves and tails and curses and fire and brimstone? They've pretty much always been at least an option (again 3E being the nadir here). They also had charisma and smarts in the 2E iteration (again 3E messed this up) which made instinctive sense to people's ideas about how a devil-person would be.

Aasimar did NOT give people what they want. People think angels, they think wings. Everything else is distantly behind that. Hell back on the X-Men, the X-Man Angel is defined by what? His wings. AFAIK, there's never been an iteration of Aasimar which had wings, even as an option, and what they have had has mostly been a vague mess of "glowy" powers. Even in 2E they were mess of random stuff and a small, inexplicable amount of Magic Resistance. Also all the stuff they did have was ground already claimed by Paladins and Clerics, very much unlike Tieflings (you might make a case for Warlock kind of claiming similar terrain, but not until 5E and not in a very thorough way).


----------



## Neonchameleon

Aldarc said:


> It probably doesn't help that "aasimar" have the name "aasimar." I've had way too many new players ask "WTF is an aasimar?" Devas were IME the easiest iteration of the concept for new players.



And IME Devas were picked normally not for the angelic connection but for the reincarnation and for the fraying memories of a thousand lifetimes


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Neonchameleon said:


> And IME Devas were picked normally not for the angelic connection but for the reincarnation and for the fraying memories of a thousand lifetimes



I think that's right and that's "I've been reincarnated countless times" is another fantasy archetype that I would suggest is at least slightly more popular than "My grandad was an angel!".


----------



## Xamnam

Aldarc said:


> It probably doesn't help that "aasimar" have the name "aasimar." I've had way too many new players ask "WTF is an aasimar?" Devas were IME the easiest iteration of the concept for new players.



Even more minor, but I only just learned how to actually pronounce Aasimar from the recent playtest videos.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Azzy said:


> Heh. I feel that way about Level Up...



Touche.


----------



## MockingBird

It would be nice to know if the Ardling is meant to be a core race or for a future product. If it's for a future product I'd rate it differently. I'm not a fan of it being a core race. Not a fan of giving dragonborn wings.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> There's nothing wrong with that, though. People who like a think talk about how the thing is good, and why.
> 
> Eberron's religion design is a lot more compatible with D&D, ironically, than 1E/2E's design. That's the key issue with Eberron. Eberron is a setting custom-designed to fit around D&D, specifically 3.XE. 1E and 2E had deeply confused and conflicting ideas about every single to do with deities/divinities. Nothing was consistent, nothing made sense, it was all clearly layers of whimsy from specific designers, many of whom, frankly, hadn't thought anything through, and were just spouting off half-formed thoughts as canon.
> 
> This becomes ultra-clear in 2E, with the various FR-centric god list books and Planescape, both of which work incredibly hard to try and square the circle of "How do gods work, actually?". Neither really succeeds, and a huge, huge problem is the repeated insistences from lazily-written power-trip-oriented* material for 1E where the gods definitely physically exist and definitely care about you, personally, mostly in a negative way. They also struggle with the fact that a lot of the gods from 1E have alignments which are wildly at odds with their actions/ethos. Even into 2E though you had designers randomly coming up with absolutely idiotic bollocks like the Wall of the Faithless (something Ed Greenwood has expressed his distaste for repeatedly, I note), which compounded these issues rather than helping with them.
> 
> And the amateur-hour approach is a huge problem, because it creates a situation that is both:
> 
> A) Incoherent, confusing, and obviously conflicted.
> 
> That doesn't work well when "gods are real and you can go bother them" is also true. If gods were just bad-tempered superheroes like in Greek Myth, it might work, but the confused and conflicting designer approaches mean most of them are trying to both be that, and to be some kind of Abrahamic god, and simultaneously trying to be some kind of "spirit of an idea", and it just doesn't work.
> 
> and
> 
> B) Not compelling or engaging.
> 
> Eberron chucked that all away and created a carefully-crafted set of religious/faiths that make sense, don't get in the way of adventuring, and allow for compelling intrigue, religious conflict and so on.
> 
> As others have noted, the faiths themselves aren't that amazing (they're not bad, but not amazing), but they're much better designed for D&D than the incoherent and contradictory mess that 1E/2E had. I say this as someone who owns pretty much every 1E/2E book that has anything to do with the gods, note, and who really has themselves tried to square the circle. The best you can do is ignore a lot of it and go with "Gods are just Tulpas".
> 
> * = Power-trip because either the DMs brought them in to "teach the PCs a lesson" with a being with completely OP stats, or the PCs killed them (like bedecked in Monty Haul'd magic items and level 30 or whatever) to prove how muy macho they were.



I've never tried to tear down Eberron though, just explained why its not my favorite campaign setting.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> And yet warforged were one of the _very _few heritages not represented in MMoM. Why was that?



Because they want to sell an updated Eberron book and they will need something to get people to buy it.

The warforged is due for an upgrade in the vein of autognome and glitching. Additionally, they are going to have to redo dragonmarks to work with the 24 PHB species. And kalshatar will be along for the ride. I wager it will all be added to the appendix of a new Eberron adventure coming out after 1D is out. Get Baker to write the AP and it will sell like hotcakes.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> The only thing about the Eberron gods I don't like is how much everybody crows about it, like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread and thank (maybe)God WotC was brave enough to publish such a thing. Why can't something just be interesting and different without also having to be a statement?



What I like about it is it's the opposite of Dragonlance's pantheon. Krynn's gods are the True Gods and every other religion is false and incapable of divine magic. So demon cults, nature/the Green, ancestor worship, mystical energy/The Force, spirits, Old Ones, none of those things grant power in Krynn because they aren't the True Gods. In Eberron, they can and none of them are exactly right. 

In a way, the Sovereign Host takes a hoot on the concept; they believe all divine power is a manifestation of the Host or their foes, the Dark Six. So whenever they encounter a religion different from theirs, they immediately rationalize it to one of their Gods: the Silver Flame is a part of Dol Arrah, Vulkoor the Scorpion God is the Mockery, etc. Of course, the other religions take offense to being told they are just worshipping another God, just in the wrong way, and the Gods themselves have never come down to set the record straight. 

As a Planescape fan, I also believe that belief is power, and that's why some factions can get divine power from their beliefs. Athar famously gets power from the Great Unknown, Believers get it from the Source. Some Doomguard straight up worship Entropy, and many Dustmen worship Death itself. I also love how Ezra, goddess of the Mists in Ravenloft isn't necessarily real (and may in fact be a manifesting of the Mists or the Dark Powers) but neither stops clerics and anchorites from casting spells in Ravenloft (beyond Ravenloft, well, that's where things get dicy, even in 2e). 

So to me, there is nothing wrong with either approach, though I like the options afforded by ambiguity.


----------



## mellored

Dungeonosophy said:


> For an even dozen, maybe: Goblin (as a competitor with Pathfinder), or a shapechanger or construct (Warforged) or plant...or ooze!



Living Construct (warforged, shardmind, awaken golem, crystar, wooden)


----------



## Bill Zebub

Ruin Explorer said:


> WoW, for example, has both a devil-person race - Draenei, who are good guys but have horns and hooves and are the same essential race as the Eredar, the main humanoid demons of WoW




That's the first time I've ever heard Draenei associated with devils, as opposed to just aliens.

And how are they "good guys"?  $%&@ing Alliance pond scum.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't need the game to make a statement, and I especially don't need it to make the statement that things I like about the game are actually bad. I just want it to have cool stuff.



I don't know, I wish the books took more risks and actually did say something. 

I'm not sure on the take of the Gods, but at least it gets to be different.

I disagree that it's a proof, but it is a fine take on a different model.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> I don't know, I wish the books took more risks and actually did say something.
> 
> I'm not sure on the take of the Gods, but at least it gets to be different.
> 
> I disagree that it's a proof, but it is a fine take on a different model.



It is a fine take, I just don't care to see it pushed so hard by its fans to the detriment of other takes. Why does there have to be a value judgement attached to lore?  Is there a reason we can't just like different stories on their own merit?


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> It is a fine take, I just don't care to see it pushed so hard by its fans to the detriment of other takes. Why does there have to be a value judgement attached to lore?  Is there a reason we can't just like different stories on their own merit?



People look for their own 'best' solutions I guess.


----------



## Zaukrie

Staffan said:


> The way I read it, yes. Dazed affects what you can do on your turn, and legendary/lair actions happen outside your turn.



That's how I read it also.


----------



## Zaukrie

Kobold Press has generic constructs


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> People look for their own 'best' solutions I guess.



Best for them. There's no need to tear down the stories other people like in favor of what you like.  The entire issue with all the Dragonlance lore discussion, to my mind, is that some people don't like the story of Dragonlance and, rather than find or create a story they do like, are insisting on forcing change to the existing one.  In what way is that ok?  I really don't get it.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> Best for them. There's no need to tear down the stories other people like in favor of what you like.  The entire issue with all the Dragonlance lore discussion, to my mind, is that some people don't like the story of Dragonlance and, rather than find or create a story they do like, are insisting on forcing change to the existing one.  In what way is that ok?  I really don't get it.



I know, I just didn't want to say that part.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Maybe somebody will start a new thread where we can actually discuss the new packet.


----------



## Zaukrie

Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe somebody will start a new thread where we can actually discuss the new packet.



I thought this was the eberron thread at one point...... Good luck getting this group, especially one person, on topic.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> It is a fine take, I just don't care to see it pushed so hard by its fans to the detriment of other takes. Why does there have to be a value judgement attached to lore?  Is there a reason we can't just like different stories on their own merit?



So, uh, that means you gonna take 5e Ravenloft on its own merit?


----------



## Faolyn

Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe somebody will start a new thread where we can actually discuss the new packet.



I like the new goliaths! I actually did something similar for my _Handbook of Heritages_ book for Level Up, so I'm glad to see that WotC is obviously taking my lead on the subject. (Next stop: royalties.) 

I actually liked most of the things in this packet, and I can see using some of them in my 5e games--since I have no desire to "upgrade" to One when it comes out.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Bill Zebub said:


> Maybe somebody will start a new thread where we can actually discuss the new packet.



I've started two. One for the cleric class and one for the races


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> So, uh, that means you gonna take 5e Ravenloft on its own merit?



Funny.  5e Ravenloft was designed to _ replace_ the existing story, so no, I'm not going to accept it.  The same world, not called Ravenloft and full of Ravenloft proper nouns, would have been perfectly fine.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Funny.  5e Ravenloft was designed to _ replace_ the existing story, so no, I'm not going to accept it.  The same world, not called Ravenloft and full of Ravenloft proper nouns, would have been perfectly fine.



So, you realize this is hypocrisy here. It's not magically OK because it's "replaces" anything.

(And unless WotC came and stole all your books, it doesn't _replace _anything.)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> So, you realize this is hypocrisy here. It's not magically OK because it's "replaces" anything.
> 
> (And unless WotC came and stole all your books, it doesn't _replace _anything.)



It was designed to replace the old lore.  That undeniable.

I don't understand your first point.  I'm saying its not "magically ok" _ because_ its a replacement (not an adaptation like a book to a film) and not a new story.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> It was designed to replace the old lore.  That undeniable.
> 
> I don't understand your first point.  I'm saying its not "magically ok" _ because_ its a replacement (not an adaptation like a book to a film) and not a new story.



I wasn't clear and wrote badly. If it's not OK for people to constantly talk about a thing they prefer, then it's also not OK for you to do the same.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> I wasn't clear and wrote badly. If it's not OK for people to constantly talk about a thing they prefer, then it's also not OK for you to do the same.



I'm fine with people expressing their preference, I would just rather they express it in a way that doesn't put down other preferences.  If you like 5e Ravenloft, fine.  You don't have to denigrate previous Ravenlofts to exalt your own, or settings with proven gods to exalt your setting without them.

I admit I'm far from perfect about this.  Just try to avoid insulting other people's preferences.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Micah Sweet said:


> I've never tried to tear down Eberron though, just explained why its not my favorite campaign setting.



Sure, but you critiqued people repeatedly giving a "big up" to Eberron's approach to religion, and my point is Eberron's approach is genuinely good and smart and more D&D settings could benefit from a similar approach.

I'm going to say it - the Forgotten Realms would be a significantly better, more convincing and more interesting setting with an Eberronian approach to religion (especially the bloody afterlife).

Also sorry but a lot of D&D settings, certainly include the FR, have a very badly-handled and confused approach to religion which causes a wide variety of problems for them and makes them less immersive and compelling than they could be (weirdly I think Greyhawk maybe isn't one of them, but maybe I don't know enough about Greyhawk).


----------



## Faolyn

Ruin Explorer said:


> Also sorry but a lot of D&D settings, certainly include the FR, have a very badly-handled and confused approach to religion which causes a wide variety of problems for them and makes them less immersive and compelling than they could be (weirdly I think Greyhawk maybe isn't one of them, but maybe I don't know enough about Greyhawk).



To be fair, that would also completely rewrite the Time of Troubles, which would rewrite a lot of FR history. Whether that rewrite would be better or worse, I can't say.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I like homogenising subclass structure, and I hope this in future will lead to some crossclass subclasses.

I'm not familiar enough with clerics to much comment the changes, though it seems to me that going for strength cleric still isn't a great option. Like is there any particular benefit for hitting enemies with weapons (that requires investing to both strength and wis) over just hitting them with cantrips (requiring only wis and usually allowing to keep your distance if you so desire)?

Can't say I really like the genasi-goliaths. I just want them to be big strong folk, not magical, elemental, size-changing folk. It is pretty different tone. Also, can my size-changing goliath carry around a large greatsword (with 4d6 damage) and use it when enbiggened?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure, but you critiqued people repeatedly giving a "big up" to Eberron's approach to religion, and my point is Eberron's approach is genuinely good and smart and more D&D settings could benefit from a similar approach.
> 
> I'm going to say it - the Forgotten Realms would be a significantly better, more convincing and more interesting setting with an Eberronian approach to religion (especially the bloody afterlife).
> 
> Also sorry but a lot of D&D settings, certainly include the FR, have a very badly-handled and confused approach to religion which causes a wide variety of problems for them and makes them less immersive and compelling than they could be (weirdly I think Greyhawk maybe isn't one of them, but maybe I don't know enough about Greyhawk).



So talk about what you like about Eberron's lore, not about what you don't like about FR or any other setting.  I try to avoid objectively telling others that things they like are bad.  I know I'm not perfect, but I don't know why I'm getting pushback on the idea of not yucking someone else's yum.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> To be fair, that would also completely rewrite the Time of Troubles, which would rewrite a lot of FR history. Whether that rewrite would be better or worse, I can't say.



As per usual, very much against re-writing history.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Crimson Longinus said:


> I like homogenising subclass structure, and I hope this in future will lead to some crossclass subclasses.
> 
> I'm not familiar enough with clerics to much comment the changes, though it seems to me that going for strength cleric still isn't a great option. Like is there any particular benefit for hitting enemies with weapons (that requires investing to both strength and wis) over just hitting them with cantrips (requiring only wis and usually allowing to keep your distance if you so desire)?



Are we talking pre-level 5 or post-level 10. Pre-level 5 cantrips do a lot less damage than weapon attacks. Post-level 10 AC barely scales, attack rolls scale, and spell saves scale far faster than the DCs. And there should be ways to yoink spells like Greenflame Blade to get scaling weapon damage. (Strength clerics still aren't great, but the gap isn't as huge as you'd think).

Also buffers and healers don't need to boost wis; Revivify doesn't care and Healing Word barely does.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Can't say I really like the genasi-goliaths. I just want them to be big strong folk, not magical, elemental, size-changing folk. It is pretty different tone. Also, can my size-changing goliath carry around a large greatsword (with 4d6 damage) and use it when enbiggened?



You always get the embiggening - but the Hill and Mountain genasi don't have elemental stuff so much as big person stuff.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> It was designed to replace the old lore.  That undeniable.
> 
> I don't understand your first point.  I'm saying its not "magically ok" _ because_ its a replacement (not an adaptation like a book to a film) and not a new story.



But you are yucking other peoples' yum.

It's not the old Ravenloft. It's a remake.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Neonchameleon said:


> But you are yucking other peoples' yum.
> 
> It's not the old Ravenloft. It's a remake.



Its a remake of the same story.  Just use different proper nouns for your entirely different story, and leave the original alone.  I really don't understand why that's too much to ask.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> Its a remake of the same story.  Just use different proper nouns for your entirely different story, and leave the original alone.  I really don't understand why that's too much to ask.




So, there's this place called Hollywood that will probably really get your goat...  :-/


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Its a remake of the same story.  Just use different proper nouns for your entirely different story, and leave the original alone.  I really don't understand why that's too much to ask.



WotC didn't send their ninjas into your house to take away your old copies. New takes on old stories is a tradition almost as old as storytelling, and definitely includes Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare. I really don't understand the point of complaining about it.


----------



## Cadence

Neonchameleon said:


> WotC didn't send their ninjas into your house to take away your old copies. New takes on old stories is a tradition almost as old as storytelling, and definitely includes Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare. I really don't understand the point of complaining about it.




As an aside, one of my favorite courses in undergrad was going through the Greek tragedies and seeing how later stories lined up.  For example, Oedipus at Colonus and King Lear iirc.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> So, there's this place called Hollywood that will probably really get your goat...  :-/



Adaptations are different mediums.  Ravenloft 2e and Ravenloft 3e and Ravenloft 5e are all pen and paper role-playing games, using mechanics which are more similar than they are different, very little of which would actually affect the lore of the setting.  It is _ not_ equivalent.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Adaptations are different mediums.  Ravenloft 2e and Ravenloft 3e and Ravenloft 5e are all pen and paper role-playing games, using mechanics which are more similar than they are different, very little of which would actually affect the lore of the setting.  It is _ not_ equivalent.



And how many times has Hollywood released A Star Is Born as a film? And I can talk about why Ghostbusters 2016 is a bad film - but it has nothing to do with the fact it's a remake (or the all female cast, and my best example compares a character who was male in both films).


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Its a remake of the same story.  Just use different proper nouns for your entirely different story, and leave the original alone.  I really don't understand why that's too much to ask.



I already explained it. They write a different setting, then people who like the original setting will be angry that a copycat came out, or that their setting isn't being updated.

Also, _why _leave the original alone? That'll just make it die and be forgotten, and that would be a terrible waste just because you don't like the new version.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> Adaptations are different mediums.  Ravenloft 2e and Ravenloft 3e and Ravenloft 5e are all pen and paper role-playing games, using mechanics which are more similar than they are different, very little of which would actually affect the lore of the setting.  It is _ not_ equivalent.




I was picturing the "remakes" Hollywood makes all the time of other movies - sometimes similar, sometimes not.  (e.g. Seven Samurai -> Magnificent Seven -> Battle Beyond the Stars  and then a Magnificent Seven remake;  see also: 10 Remakes that Changed EVERYTHING About the Original - Nightmare on Film Street although some of the originals were adaptations themselves).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> I already explained it. They write a different setting, then people who like the original setting will be angry that a copycat came out, or that their setting isn't being updated.
> 
> Also, _why _leave the original alone? That'll just make it die and be forgotten, and that would be a terrible waste just because you don't like the new version.



I would have been fine with a different setting, and so I suspect, would most of the new gamers WotC wants.  Had I known what 5e Ravenloft would be like, I wouldn't have spent money on it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Micah Sweet said:


> I would have been fine with a different setting, and so I suspect, would most of the new gamers WotC wants.  Had I known what 5e Ravenloft would be like, I wouldn't have spent money on it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Crimson Longinus said:


>



I'm sorry.  I'm having a bad day.  I promised myself I wouldn't keep getting into this.  I'm just tired of people talking about how much better the new version of something is than the old one, when I liked the old one.  It feels bad.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> Its a remake of the same story. Just use different proper nouns for your entirely different story, and leave the original alone.




Not looking to derail, but do you have a thread or link that outlines what it is that makes them so different?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> Not looking to derail, but do you have a thread or link that outlines what it is that makes them so different?



I'm sorry, but I'm coming to realize that talking about Ravenloft 5e is bad for my mental health.


----------



## Mecheon

Bill Zebub said:


> That's the first time I've ever heard Draenei associated with devils, as opposed to just aliens.
> 
> And how are they "good guys"? $%&@ing Alliance pond scum.



Draenei's whole thing was "Yeah, they're being chased across the universe by a bunch of jerks". Then noted villain Kael stole their spaceship, so fellow good guys the BElves who weren't with Kael went and deal with him


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> So talk about what you like about Eberron's lore, not about what you don't like about FR or any other setting.  I try to avoid objectively telling others that things they like are bad.  I know I'm not perfect, but I don't know why I'm getting pushback on the idea of not yucking someone else's yum.



In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad. Eberron's take on religion is good because that of the Forgotten Realms and similar settings is overly simplistic and bad. It's not enough for Eberron to just exist as its own thing when it shows that the typical approach is bad and could use improvement. I wouldn't be surprised in the Dawn War Pantheon being more nuanced and interesting than the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance's takes on religion was a consequence of the designers looking at how Eberron used religion and trying to apply that to a setting where the gods definitely exist. 

In order to say "this is what I like about a setting", and to show why it is good, you have to show something else that is worse and why an improvement is necessary/good for the setting. I know that it feels like "yucking your yum", but what it feels like to me as someone that started out with the Forgotten Realms, quickly grew frustrated because there was just too much of it (and most of it was bad/unnecessary), and then discovered the genius of Eberron, it's not "this thing that people like is bad", it's "this new thing shows why the previous thing was messing up, and how to make improvements". 

Progress is important. It can sometimes feel condescending, but analyzing what parts of the game and its settings are good and bad is important to making the game better. And I do think that making the game better is important. Every setting in D&D, even Eberron, has problems and could be improved in some way. Eberron is definitely not perfect, and there are valid reasons to prefer other settings. However, I do think that a lot of what it does is objectively an improvement on the things that some other settings have tried to do.

Which, to bring this around to the OneD&D playtest "analyzing what parts of the game are bad and could use improvement" is the point of making changes. The documents have changed parts of the edition that a lot of people have been complaining about for years. "Keep what's good, replace the bad stuff" is the key to progress, and is the central goal of most these changes. Accepting that the game isn't perfect, could use improvements, and then making steps to change the bad things is a good thing.


----------



## JEB

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad.



No, it doesn't. Plenty of things are good in different ways for different people, depending on their preferences. There's not just one good option that renders every other option bad by contrast. That's as true for RPGs as it for ice cream flavors, or clothing styles, or anything else people can have an opinion on.


----------



## Micah Sweet

That assumes everyone agrees on what the bad things are, and Implies that there's some objective "perfection" that we get closer and closer to with every new iteration.  It also implies that the newer something is, the better, as if "progress" was a straight line and the past should be abandoned in favor of the present.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> That assumes everyone agrees on what the bad things are, and Implies that there's some objective "perfection" that we get closer and closer to with every new iteration.



No, it doesn't. There are people that disagree on objective things. 

And I don't think that there will ever be a single "perfect" setting, but I do think that all of the settings can improve and perfect what they're trying to do. 


Micah Sweet said:


> It also implies that the newer something is, the better, as if "progress" was a straight line and the past should be abandoned in favor of the present.



Nope. It just admits that the pass of time is necessary for improvement. Not that newer things are inherently better. There are plenty of newer settings that I think are a step backwards for D&D.


----------



## Xamnam

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad.
> 
> In order to say "this is what I like about a setting", and to show why it is good, you have to show something else that is worse and why an improvement is necessary/good for the setting.




I really could not disagree more with this sentiment. Even if what you like is largely that because it's in contrast to a widespread normal you don't care for, I think it can actively weaken the point to make that aspect the focus. "I love that the religion of Eberron is handled this way, unlike how the FR handles it like this." That stands just as effectively even if you delete everything after the comma. And if you actively call the point of comparison bad, that just invites defense of it. There are times for it, where the topic of discussion invites comparing things directly, but saying why you like something in no way requires putting something else down.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Xamnam said:


> I really could not disagree more with this sentiment. Even if what you like is largely that because it's in contrast to a widespread normal you don't care for, I think it can actively weaken the point to make that aspect the focus. "I love that the religion of Eberron is handled this way, unlike how the FR handles it like this." That stands just as effectively even if you delete everything after the comma. And if you actively call the point of comparison bad, that just invites defense of it. There are times for it, where the topic of discussion invites comparing things directly, but saying why you like something in no way requires putting something else down.



Eberron only exists in the form that it does because it analyzes the tropes D&D typically doesn't think too deeply about and then changes them to make them better. A core part of Eberron is "get rid of the bad stuff from other settings, replace it with better things". The setting wouldn't exist if it didn't do that. 

And people will always leap to defend any aspect of a thing they like. That doesn't mean that you can't critique it or that there aren't valid complaints about it.


----------



## Xamnam

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And people will always leap to defend any aspect of a thing they like. That doesn't mean that you can't critique it or that there aren't valid complaints about it.



I agree. But that doesn't mean that critiques or complaints are always necessarily warranted or helpful.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Xamnam said:


> I agree. But that didn't mean that critiques or complaints are always necessarily warranted or helpful.



I think critiques of flawed things in hope of making them better is always warranted and helpful in discussions of how settings are designed.


----------



## Xamnam

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I think critiques of flawed things in hope of making them better is always warranted and helpful in discussions of how settings are designed.



Some discussions. But far more fruitful when it is desired on all sides.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Eberron only exists in the form that it does because it analyzes the tropes D&D typically doesn't think too deeply about and then changes them to make them better. A core part of Eberron is "get rid of the bad stuff from other settings, replace it with better things". The setting wouldn't exist if it didn't do that.
> 
> And people will always leap to defend any aspect of a thing they like. That doesn't mean that you can't critique it or that there aren't valid complaints about it.



I really don't think that a cornerstone of Eberron was, "previous settings were bad, so let's make one that's good".  That is extremely dismissive of all setting work in D&D previous to Eberron.  I doubt that was what Keith Baker had in mind.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I really don't think that a cornerstone of Eberron was, "previous settings were bad, so let's make one that's good".  That is extremely dismissive of all setting work in D&D previous to Eberron.  I doubt that was what Keith Baker had in mind.



No, it's "there are parts of previous settings that aren't well thought out and it makes the settings worse, here's the result if you do the exact opposite of that and put thought into the parts of other settings that were traditionally not done well."


----------



## Scribe

I'm pretty sure what you are looking for is the process of deconstruction. Its not "this was bad" its "lets take this apart and see what happens when each component is reviewed on its own."

There is a difference in perspective on this, that would lead to...dramatically better engagement with what I believe you are trying to convey.


----------



## niklinna

JEB said:


> No, it doesn't. Plenty of things are good in different ways for different people, depending on their preferences. There's not just one good option that renders every other option bad by contrast. That's as true for RPGs as it for ice cream flavors, or clothing styles, or anything else people can have an opinion on.



Well, yes, it does.The entire point of opposing qualities is the opposition. But neither is universal—good and evil are always in a context of good/evil _to whom_ and _for what reason_?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, it's "there are parts of previous settings that aren't well thought out and it makes the settings worse, here's the result if you do the exact opposite of that and put thought into the parts of other settings that were traditionally not done well."



Do you know that's what was intended for Eberron, or do you just feel that's what the result was?  This all feels very much like your opinion presented as objective fact.


----------



## JEB

niklinna said:


> Well, yes, it does.The entire point of opposing qualities is the opposition. But neither is universal—good and evil are always in a context of good/evil _to whom_ and _for what reason_?



So if vanilla ice cream is good, chocolate and strawberry and every other flavor must be evil?


----------



## Scribe

JEB said:


> So if vanilla ice cream is good, chocolate and strawberry and every other flavor must be evil?



Or is it Ice cream is good, and Steak is evil?


----------



## Incenjucar

Eberron is an attempt to follow some elements to a possible logical conclusion and to take other elements and try them from a different angle, while trying to make a home for as many standard elements as possible.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> I really don't think that a cornerstone of Eberron was, "previous settings were bad, so let's make one that's good".  That is extremely dismissive of all setting work in D&D previous to Eberron.  I doubt that was what Keith Baker had in mind.



Levistus didn't say that Eberron's design said the other settings were bad; they said that Eberron looked at the stuff that was bad in other settings and tried to fix it.

No D&D setting is perfect, and they all have a lot of flaws. For instance, in the Realms, there are so many super-high level NPCs around that the PCs often feel insignificant next to them. As someone, somewhere online once joked, in Greyhawk, when you reach level 10, you become the ruler of your own keep and lands. In the Realms, when you reach level 10, you do fetch-quests for Elminster. And this is a problem in other settings as well.

So Eberron has made it so that NPCs are not very high level and don't dominate the world, and NPC actions aren't going affect the world in game-changing ways--that's what the _PCs _are there for.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Do you know that's what was intended for Eberron, or do you just feel that's what the result was?  This all feels very much like your opinion presented as objective fact.



I would be very surprised if Keith Baker said that no aspect of Eberron was designed because he thought that he could improve upon parts of other settings (the Superman stays out of Gotham problem that's rampant on Toril, the religion problems that many other settings have, etc). There are many parts of Eberron that are obviously designed as "let's take a part of the assumed lore of D&D and aspects of other settings, and deconstruct and subvert them in better ways". Not that that's a bad thing. I think Keith Baker has proven that he's very good at doing that.


Incenjucar said:


> Eberron is an attempt to follow some elements to a possible logical conclusion and to take other elements and try them from a different angle, while trying to make a home for as many standard elements as possible.



As @Faolyn said, there are parts of the setting that changed aspects of other worlds for reasons that aren't just "the logical conclusion of how D&D is designed". That is a major part of the setting's design, but there is also a reason why the setting has no metaplot or high-level benevolent spellcasters that could do the adventures instead the PCs. There are parts of Eberron that were definitely designed as a "let's take that bad thing from a different setting, and either change it to make it better or ignore it completely".


----------



## niklinna

JEB said:


> So if vanilla ice cream is good, chocolate and strawberry and every other flavor must be evil?



It seems to me you are committing a serious category error.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I would be very surprised if Keith Baker said that no aspect of Eberron was designed because he thought that he could improve upon parts of other settings (the Superman stays out of Gotham problem that's rampant on Toril, the religion problems that many other settings have, etc). There are many parts of Eberron that are obviously designed as "let's take a part of the assumed lore of D&D and aspects of other settings, and deconstruct and subvert them in better ways". Not that that's a bad thing. I think Keith Baker has proven that he's very good at doing that.
> 
> As @Faolyn said, there are parts of the setting that changed aspects of other worlds for reasons that aren't just "the logical conclusion of how D&D is designed". That is a major part of the setting's design, but there is also a reason why the setting has no metaplot or high-level benevolent spellcasters that could do the adventures instead the PCs. There are parts of Eberron that were definitely designed as a "let's take that bad thing from a different setting, and either change it to make it better or ignore it completely".



I see Eberron as far more "different" than "objectively better", but as I've said before, the story of a setting is more important to me than how easily it facilitates a special group of player-controlled heroes running around.

Just more proof of how out of step I am, I guess.


----------



## JEB

niklinna said:


> It seems to me you are committing a serious category error.



Not really. There are multiple flavors of campaign settings, just as there are multiple flavors of ice cream. Whether or not someone considers a particular one "good" doesn't require the others to be "bad" by contrast. It's just different tastes and preferences. You can even consider more than one "good" in different ways, and none of them "bad".


----------



## Maxperson

Scribe said:


> Or is it Ice cream is good, and Steak is evil?



Steak is good and fake meat is evil.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I see Eberron as far more "different" than "objectively better", but as I've said before, the story of a setting is more important to me than how easily it facilitates a special group of player-controlled heroes running around.
> 
> Just more proof of how out of step I am, I guess.



I know that if I told my players and all future possible players that the story of the world and novels is more important than their characters are, I'd probably have a much harder time finding people to play with.


----------



## Maxperson

Faolyn said:


> Levistus didn't say that Eberron's design said the other settings were bad; they said that Eberron looked at the stuff that was bad in other settings and tried to fix it.



That stuff being bad, though, is also subjective and not fact. Therefore Eberron fixes nothing.  It's just different.


Faolyn said:


> No D&D setting is perfect, and they all have a lot of flaws. For instance, in the Realms, there are so many super-high level NPCs around that the PCs often feel insignificant next to them.



See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.  No PC has ever felt that way in my game despite those NPCs being around. The NPCs aren't a flaw. DM's running them incorrectly is the flaw.


Faolyn said:


> As someone, somewhere online once joked, in Greyhawk, when you reach level 10, you become the ruler of your own keep and lands. In the Realms, when you reach level 10, you do fetch-quests for Elminster.



Yes.  It's a joke and not at all true unless the DM is a bad one.


Faolyn said:


> So Eberron has made it so that NPCs are not very high level and don't dominate the world, and NPC actions aren't going affect the world in game-changing ways--that's what the _PCs _are there for.



So it "fixes" a problem that doesn't exist unless the DM creates it.  Or maybe it's that Eberron is just different.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> That stuff being bad, though, is also subjective and not fact. Therefore Eberron fixes nothing. It's just different.



It fixes the problem that metaplots often create by ruining settings. Eberron doesn't have that problem because it (wisely) has no "canon" beyond what's printed in the RPG books and the timeline never officially advances. 


Maxperson said:


> DM's running them incorrectly is the flaw.



And that possible problem is even less likely in Eberron because it doesn't have high-level characters capable of solving the problems the PCs should be dealing with. That's an improvement on the Forgotten Realms and other settings.


----------



## Incenjucar

Some people like playing in a world where they're trying to catch up to veritable rock stars. The whole point of having diverse settings is to meet diverse preferences. I have my own beef with FR and and things like the intro adventure where Elminster plays with a puppy to disguise how he's helping you solve your adventure, but some folks eat that stuff up and that's fine.


----------



## Li Shenron

sevenbastard said:


> Picking your subclass for a cleric is picking who you worship.



That's just not true.

This was only briefly the idea followed during 5e playtest, when a Cleric would choose a sort of deity archetype as a subclass. 

In 5e the domain has been a representation of your duties within a religion. Clerics of Apollo might split duties between healers (Life), oracles (Knowledge) and theologians who attune themselves to what their deity represents (Light).

That's not to say this is the only way to make Cleric subclasses, but it's the 5e design choice.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> It fixes the problem that metaplots often create by ruining settings. Eberron doesn't have that problem because it (wisely) has no "canon" beyond what's printed in the RPG books and the timeline never officially advances.



While I don't like the Spellplague or Sundering, there are those that did.  "Ruining" a setting 1) is subjective and not objective, and 2) didn't require a new setting to "fix."  They could have just reprinted the old Realms, and Greyhawk and some others have never been updated.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And that possible problem is even less likely in Eberron because it doesn't have high-level characters capable of solving the problems the PCs should be dealing with. That's an improvement on the Forgotten Realms and other settings.



Solutions should fix problems.  Solutions in search of problems that don't exist should be avoided.  If the "problem" requires a DM to go out of his way to create it, it doesn't need to be "fixed."  Especially by a new setting. That's just overkill when a paragraph explaining to DMs how to run those NPCs would be sufficient.

Eberron does not fix anything from any other settings.  It was not(unless you can supply citations) created to do so. Eberron was just a nifty new setting that does things differently.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> In order for something to be good, it has to be in contrast with something bad. Eberron's take on religion is good because that of the Forgotten Realms and similar settings is overly simplistic and bad. It's not enough for Eberron to just exist as its own thing when it shows that the typical approach is bad and could use improvement. I wouldn't be surprised in the Dawn War Pantheon being more nuanced and interesting than the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance's takes on religion was a consequence of the designers looking at how Eberron used religion and trying to apply that to a setting where the gods definitely exist.



The thing here is that the Dawn War Pantheon's approach to religion is almost diametrically opposed to that of Eberron. Eberron starts out by assuming that the gods never manifest and might not even exist, but there are a collection of them that are worshipped and that the faith provides the power. What sort of gods would be worshipped? (And you've got the classic Greek/Roman "these two gods are really the same", fitting the gods of other cultures to theirs). Eberron theology is basically polytheistic of the sort we saw in ancient societies in the real world where we're pretty sure that the gods do not in fact exist.

Meanwhile in the Dawn War pantheon the gods are a fact. They exist. Atheism is basically non-viable. The pantheon was made up about half of pre-existing deities (although The Raven Queen, Erathis, Zehir, Melora, Ioun, and Torog were all new). It then starts with them as powerful people who are forced to work together by outside threats - and then gives most of them relationships with each other. Whereas Eberron is based on the Polytheistic pantheons we've seen in the real world the Dawn War takes pretty huge and obvious inspiration from the Greek Gods inside the stories. They start from fundamentally incompatible points but both work because they commit.

Meanwhile the FR Gods either just sort of turn up or are functionaries put there by Ao to do their jobs and who get kicked out of heaven if they forget. (The Avatar Trilogy might be the worst divine worldbuilding I've seen anywhere). 

The Dragonlance deities and setup isn't egregiously bad in the way I find the FR ones to be. And there's no Wall of the Faithless. The problem there is that Paladine is monumentally wrong on the nature of good and is supposedly the leader of the gods of Good. (No, the Kingpriest of Ishtar was not good, no the "balance between good and evil" is not something that needs to be maintained).

Hmm... I think a good fix for Dragonlance while keeping everything cannon is to declare Paladine to be Lawful Neutral - but who has decided to join the gods of Good because he knows that otherwise Takhsis would take over and leads them either  because he's the strongest or because if he wasn't allowed to he'd take his ball and go home and Takhsis would win.


----------



## Remathilis

Do we have to argue Dragonlance deity morality in EVERY thread on this board?!


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> I see Eberron as far more "different" than "objectively better", but as I've said before, the story of a setting is more important to me than how easily it facilitates a special group of player-controlled heroes running around.
> 
> Just more proof of how out of step I am, I guess.



I'm reading an old review for a Deadlands book over on Fatal and Friends, and it has a few choice paragraphs on metaplots:



> Let's talk about metaplot for a moment.
> 
> Metaplot, in RPG terms, is the overarching narrative of a game line. That there's going to be a connecting story through all the adventures and supplements of a game, usually regardless of the actions of the players in individual campaigns. You don't see them much nowadays, because they're a bit of a codependent concept to another very 90's idea (the supplement treadmill), but the main reason they've fallen out of favor is because a metaplot ends up meaning that you have to play your campaign the way the designers want you to, instead of how you want to do it.
> 
> It wasn't uncommon at the time to be presented with major villain NPCs that the players would be expected to constantly butt up against, but were unable to defeat due to that NPC being needed to trigger a major plot point down the road. Or for one book to have a major plot point hinge on a factoid from a different book you might not own or be able to get. Or having certain character types invalidated because of changes to said group that happened in one adventure, with every book released after that working off that idea.
> 
> (The most infamous version of that last one would probably be when White Wolf killed off the entire Ravnos clan in one book the oWoD, meaning that if you were playing a Ravnos you were either one of the last ones left on the planet and were pretty much on your own from then on out, or dead due to metaplot.)
> 
> When you're dealing with metaplot that goes through a game line, you (the GM) have a problem. See, a metaplot means that a publisher has a story _they're_ going to tell, and your group is going to be going along for the ride.
> 
> Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for story in RPGs. Hell, stories are the _point_ of RPGs. But what I'm talking about isn't emergent storytelling, it's about railroading. To wit, it's about having to bend your campaign around the tidbits revealed piecemeal through supplements instead of being able to pick and choose, and the story you're telling with a game not the one you, the GM, wants to tell, but the one the game writers want you to tell.
> 
> For example, let's say that you're playing a modern-day campaign set in Boston. You're setting your campaign there not because it's the default city for the game in question, but because it's where your group happens to live. But then in one published adventure, Boston gets nuked, and from that point on every supplement works off the assumption that Boston is gone, period. So now you have two general options:
> 
> 1) You can play that as it lays. Now you have to rework your campaign around the fact that everything you'd established in the campaign is gone, forcing you to pretty much start over.
> 
> 2) Ignore it, and keep playing the campaign as you were before this happened, meaning that any official supplements that came out after that were either useless or would require work on your part to shoehorn them into your campaign, which now deviated from the core game line assumptions.
> 
> Now, clearly I'm oversimplifying here, but you get my point: games with heavy metaplot are a real pain to deal with as a GM and as players.



This is pretty much how I always felt, even back in the days before I truly understood what meta-plots were--I couldn't afford to buy every Ravenloft product and had no internet access the vast majority of the time, then I read the Book of S____ netzine series and where the &$@! did Necropolis come from? Where did these new classes come from and where did the old classes go? Everything had been changed and I had no idea how or why.

See, meta-plots are plenty fun if all you're doing is reading the setting like it's a novel or a fanfic and can afford to keep up with it. But if you're actually trying to _play _in the setting, they're terrible. Someone in corporate you've never even met, let alone gamed with, makes a decision and you have to change your entire game to either go along with it or rewrite everything new that comes out for the setting, or simply not buy the upcoming books, which is bad for the game.

It literally _is _objectively better to not have metaplots because it doesn't disrupt the games of potentially thousands of players. You might not think it's as much fun to _read_, but it literally is better for _playing_--and these are games for playing, not novels for reading.


----------



## Faolyn

Neonchameleon said:


> Meanwhile in the Dawn War pantheon the gods are a fact. They exist. Atheism is basically non-viable. The pantheon was made up about half of pre-existing deities (although The Raven Queen, Erathis, Zehir, Melora, Ioun, and Torog were all new). It then starts with them as powerful people who are forced to work together by outside threats - and then gives most of them relationships with each other. Whereas Eberron is based on the Polytheistic pantheons we've seen in the real world the Dawn War takes pretty huge and obvious inspiration from the Greek Gods inside the stories. They start from fundamentally incompatible points but both work because they commit.



_My _problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.

The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)


----------



## Minigiant

Faolyn said:


> _My _problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)



The POL and Dwan War Pantheon is based around the Dawn War. The god of fire was killed. Same with the goddess of healing, god of goodness, and gods of mercy, hunting, and guardians.

Pelor is the god of agriculture in Dawn War.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Neonchameleon said:


> Ardlings are not Aasimar and despite a whole lot of trying aasimar are not going to happen. They've been around a long time but never even come close to gnomes in popularity.
> 
> Meanwhile animal races like the tabaxi, owlin, harengon, etc. have a niche and this is trying to combine them




 Your comparing a free srd/phb race with a race you had to pay for, that's like tying the Aasimar's feet behind it and blind folding it and then bragging the Aasimar lost a race with Gnomes. You can't compare free to play to pay to play races like that and get honest results.

 Aasimar are the most popular race that you have to actually have to pay for (so that excludes PHB races like Gnomes, but also none PHB free races like Genasi, Goliaths, and Aacrokra). 

 It's literally one of the only for pay races that even remotely competes with free races at all.

 Context of comparesions matter.

 And Ardlings in the first one WERE literally animal faced Aasimar which is why they made the changes.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Henadic Theologian said:


> Your comparing a free srd/phb race with a race you had to pay for, that's like tying the Aasimar's feet behind it and blind folding it and then bragging the Aasimar lost a race with Gnomes. You can't compare free to play to pay to play races like that and get honest results.



I'm comparing a race _in the DMG_ to one outside core. Other arguably than the Eladrin subrace it's hard to find anything with the profile of Aasimar that's not one of the core races.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm comparing a race _in the DMG_ to one outside core. Other arguably than the Eladrin subrace it's hard to find anything with the profile of Aasimar that's not one of the core races.




 Gnomes are in the Core, they are right in the PHB.

 If you mean comparing Ardlings to Aasimar, the DMG is NOT a Player resource, it's a DM resource, it's never been Player legal in AL for example, barring special dispensation, unlike later versions of Aasimar. And it still isn't free or part of the 5e SRD.

 And they had to radically change the Ardling in this second playtest because folks didn't want it stepping on the Aasimar's toes.

 Aasimar are very well loved and have been for years with a deep well of lore in settings like Forgotten Realms and Planescape, and to a lesser extent settings like Eberron and Wildemount.

 When they did the surveys to figure out what races to include in VGtMs, Aasimar was at the top.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Faolyn said:


> _My _problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)



They exist, they're just not in the PH because PH options are for player characters; is: things PCs would take.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing here is that the Dawn War Pantheon's approach to religion is almost diametrically opposed to that of Eberron. Eberron starts out by assuming that the gods never manifest and might not even exist, but there are a collection of them that are worshipped and that the faith provides the power. What sort of gods would be worshipped? (And you've got the classic Greek/Roman "these two gods are really the same", fitting the gods of other cultures to theirs). Eberron theology is basically polytheistic of the sort we saw in ancient societies in the real world where we're pretty sure that the gods do not in fact exist.
> 
> Meanwhile in the Dawn War pantheon the gods are a fact. They exist. Atheism is basically non-viable. The pantheon was made up about half of pre-existing deities (although The Raven Queen, Erathis, Zehir, Melora, Ioun, and Torog were all new). It then starts with them as powerful people who are forced to work together by outside threats - and then gives most of them relationships with each other. Whereas Eberron is based on the Polytheistic pantheons we've seen in the real world the Dawn War takes pretty huge and obvious inspiration from the Greek Gods inside the stories. They start from fundamentally incompatible points but both work because they commit.
> 
> Meanwhile the FR Gods either just sort of turn up or are functionaries put there by Ao to do their jobs and who get kicked out of heaven if they forget. (The Avatar Trilogy might be the worst divine worldbuilding I've seen anywhere).
> 
> The Dragonlance deities and setup isn't egregiously bad in the way I find the FR ones to be. And there's no Wall of the Faithless. The problem there is that Paladine is monumentally wrong on the nature of good and is supposedly the leader of the gods of Good. (No, the Kingpriest of Ishtar was not good, no the "balance between good and evil" is not something that needs to be maintained).
> 
> Hmm... I think a good fix for Dragonlance while keeping everything cannon is to declare Paladine to be Lawful Neutral - but who has decided to join the gods of Good because he knows that otherwise Takhsis would take over and leads them either  because he's the strongest or because if he wasn't allowed to he'd take his ball and go home and Takhsis would win.




 "Eberron theology is basically polytheistic of the sort we saw in ancient societies in the real world where we're pretty sure that the gods do not in fact exist." 

 I'm absolutely positive they do exist in fact in the real world (immaterial yes, but still very real). 

 I mean you do realize that across the world people still worship these ancient Gods right? Yeah maybe in different ways for various reasons, but the Gods still have their devotees, myself included.

 We are still here despite the best efforts of certain parties.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Faolyn said:


> _My _problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)



Gods had exarch that fulfilled the more precise or niche concept, much like Nusemnee who was the exarch of forgiveness and redemption. The great gods, as presented, are more the gods of high concepts. 

And, like mentioned, many gods were slain during the war and the portfolio are not that easily assimilated when compared to FR gods who gain and lose portfolios each week.

And since the gods are barred from acting directly in the setting, its pretty hard for any new deity to gain traction enough to gain enough power to take more domains. I think some Exarchs and the Raven Queen were the more recent examples. 

As for agriculture, like in most polytheistic setting, it makes more sense to split the concept over to many gods:
Avandra during spring for a quick thawing of the earth, Pelor in summer for good crops, Sehanine during the harvest. Mellora would need some offering to keep her beasts and tempest away from the field for the season. A small donation to the priest of Tiamat to keep in check the merchant's greed when you buy your seeds or sell your production could be required, or to the themple of Zehir to avoid spoiled harvests etc


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Tales and Chronicles said:


> Gods had exarch that fulfilled the more precise or niche concept, much like Nusemnee who was the exarch of forgiveness and redemption. The great gods, as presented, are more the gods of high concepts.
> 
> And, like mentioned, many gods were slain during the war and the portfolio are not that easily assimilated when compared to FR gods who gain and lose portfolios each week.
> 
> And since the gods are barred from acting directly in the setting, its pretty hard for any new deity to gain traction enough to gain enough power to take more domains. I think some Exarchs and the Raven Queen were the more recent examples.
> 
> As for agriculture, like in most polytheistic setting, it makes more sense to split the concept over to many gods:
> Avandra during spring for a quick thawing of the earth, Pelor in summer for good crops, Sehanine during the harvest. Mellora would need some offering to keep her beasts and tempest away from the field for the season. A small donation to the priest of Tiamat to keep in check the merchant's greed when you buy your seeds or sell your production could be required, or to the themple of Zehir to avoid spoiled harvests etc




 The problem was it wasn't clear what Exarch's were, are the Demigods, some kind of Angel like beings, Saints, lesser independent aspects of a God, etc...?

 Cool idea, too poorly defined, and the FR application of the term, were they could grant divine magic themselves, but rarely did, just made it confusing.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Henadic Theologian said:


> The problem was it was clear what Exarch's were, are the Demigods, some kind of Angel like beings, Saints, lesser independent aspects of a God, etc...?



Yeah, the PoL was left pretty much undefined. It was part of its charm, but also created some weirdness. 

I treated them like exalted saints, tasked to deal with the more practical or niche application of a major deity's portfolio. Demi-gods is probably too much, while angels or aspects remove a little too much agency. Lesser divine agents of some kind, I guess?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Faolyn said:


> _My _problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)



The Dawn War pantheon didn't start out as a pantheon - it started out as the weaker side of the Dawn War and they became a pantheon when they succeeded. The reason that the gods look like a group of PCs writ large is because that is exactly what they were - essentially a gaggle of PCs writ large who teamed up and dungeon crawled to kick out the more powerful but scattered Primordials. A potential god of the hearth and home ... will have stayed home rather than fought the Primordials and everything else so they never became a God.

I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike the Dawn War pantheon because of this but I am saying you're asking the pantheon to be something other than it is. Which is basically a collection of deities based on the idea that a level 20 wizard or cleric is almost indistinguishable from a lesser deity and building from there with a collection of the sort of entities that reach high level.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> I'm reading an old review for a Deadlands book over on Fatal and Friends, and it has a few choice paragraphs on metaplots:
> 
> 
> This is pretty much how I always felt, even back in the days before I truly understood what meta-plots were--I couldn't afford to buy every Ravenloft product and had no internet access the vast majority of the time, then I read the Book of S____ netzine series and where the &$@! did Necropolis come from? Where did these new classes come from and where did the old classes go? Everything had been changed and I had no idea how or why.
> 
> See, meta-plots are plenty fun if all you're doing is reading the setting like it's a novel or a fanfic and can afford to keep up with it. But if you're actually trying to _play _in the setting, they're terrible. Someone in corporate you've never even met, let alone gamed with, makes a decision and you have to change your entire game to either go along with it or rewrite everything new that comes out for the setting, or simply not buy the upcoming books, which is bad for the game.
> 
> It literally _is _objectively better to not have metaplots because it doesn't disrupt the games of potentially thousands of players. You might not think it's as much fun to _read_, but it literally is better for _playing_--and these are games for playing, not novels for reading.



See, I read the books and more or less bought them all.  From my perspective metaplot was great, because I loved following the story. It was my primary engagement point with D&D, and I didn't have the issues you're talking about because when I actually played, it was homebrew and we took what we wanted from everything to make our own game.

So to me, losing the metaplot is a straight negative.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> I'm reading an old review for a Deadlands book over on Fatal and Friends, and it has a few choice paragraphs on metaplots:
> 
> 
> This is pretty much how I always felt, even back in the days before I truly understood what meta-plots were--I couldn't afford to buy every Ravenloft product and had no internet access the vast majority of the time, then I read the Book of S____ netzine series and where the &$@! did Necropolis come from? Where did these new classes come from and where did the old classes go? Everything had been changed and I had no idea how or why.
> 
> See, meta-plots are plenty fun if all you're doing is reading the setting like it's a novel or a fanfic and can afford to keep up with it. But if you're actually trying to _play _in the setting, they're terrible. Someone in corporate you've never even met, let alone gamed with, makes a decision and you have to change your entire game to either go along with it or rewrite everything new that comes out for the setting, or simply not buy the upcoming books, which is bad for the game.
> 
> It literally _is _objectively better to not have metaplots because it doesn't disrupt the games of potentially thousands of players. You might not think it's as much fun to _read_, but it literally is better for _playing_--and these are games for playing, not novels for reading.



Also, I would argue that 2e's metaplot was more for reading than playing, and I liked it that way.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> _My _problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)



This.  I am really tired of the idea that everything in a setting has to be PC-friendly.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Also, I would argue that 2e's metaplot was more for reading than playing, and I liked it that way.



If I want to read a story I buy a novel. If the metaplot was more for reading than for playing it should have been in novels not gamebooks.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> See, I read the books and more or less bought them all.  From my perspective metaplot was great, because I loved following the story. It was my primary engagement point with D&D, and I didn't have the issues you're talking about because when I actually played, it was homebrew and we took what we wanted from everything to make our own game.
> 
> So to me, losing the metaplot is a straight negative.



But you have to realize that for anyone who didn't _purely _use homebrew, the metaplot was the negative. _I _only used homebrewed adventures, and having the metaplot was still a negative.

You're basically asking everyone to be OK with having their games disrupted so that you can enjoy the story, _which isn't even the point of the game._ The point of the game is to be played, not (just) read. 



Micah Sweet said:


> Also, I would argue that 2e's metaplot was more for reading than playing, and I liked it that way.



And that came at a loss to most people who played the game. It was, I admit, fun to read (at times), but what it really was was TSR forcing your table to play a very specific way, which isn't really cool--especially if the resolution of that metaplot was bad. For example, the result of the Faction Wars. While I think a lot of people wouldn't mind the factions getting re-done, I don't think I've ever heard _any _positive comments on the factions that were the result of that adventure. And that means that, if Planescape had continued past that adventure's release, it would have made it seriously, _seriously _difficult for any setting/lore books to be used by the players or DMs.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> I see Eberron as far more "different" than "objectively better", but as I've said before, the story of a setting is more important to me than how easily it facilitates a special group of player-controlled heroes running around.
> 
> Just more proof of how out of step I am, I guess.




I have to give you credit for recognizing that you are an outlier.

So many others might have written, "Kids these days have to be the center of attention. Because video games."


----------



## Bill Zebub

Getting back on-topic, somebody up-thread pointed out that the Cloud Giant option for Goliaths is far better than all the other options. I'll also add that it's just more _fun_ than bonus damage, in the way that a cool feat is more fun than a +2 ASI.

Anybody have ideas for other thematic abilities that could be used for some of the other Goliath variants?


----------



## Vincent55

I think Dragon born should use d6 for breath, and give them more dice as they level. And the wings just do away with and move it to a racial feat that can be obtained at a level that its less of an issue to have, or break it up so they could increase their jump using weaker wings, and then maybe glide and then finally fly and even improving that to a point as they level. This is in line with earlier editions that made much more sense. Also as to resistance at some point give them a racial feat option to improve it to immunity after the 15th level or so, as at that point they could have obtained many magical protections as such.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> But you have to realize that for anyone who didn't _purely _use homebrew, the metaplot was the negative. _I _only used homebrewed adventures, and having the metaplot was still a negative.
> 
> You're basically asking everyone to be OK with having their games disrupted so that you can enjoy the story, _which isn't even the point of the game._ The point of the game is to be played, not (just) read.
> 
> 
> And that came at a loss to most people who played the game. It was, I admit, fun to read (at times), but what it really was was TSR forcing your table to play a very specific way, which isn't really cool--especially if the resolution of that metaplot was bad. For example, the result of the Faction Wars. While I think a lot of people wouldn't mind the factions getting re-done, I don't think I've ever heard _any _positive comments on the factions that were the result of that adventure. And that means that, if Planescape had continued past that adventure's release, it would have made it seriously, _seriously _difficult for any setting/lore books to be used by the players



I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like,  and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise.  It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.

I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly  special and unique, and that's fine.  I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like,  and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise.  It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.
> 
> I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly  special and unique, and that's fine.  I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.



People telling you why they didn't like the old stories and prefer the new ones is not an attack.  It's only an attack when people insist, over and over, for YEARS (not directed at you, but, at MANY voices in general) that everything old MUST be better and MUST NOT be changed.  Years of Edition warring that is grounded in exactly that.  Which means that anyone who likes something new has to then constantly justify that preference in the face of constant, never ending negativity towards every single thing they like.  Since about the first day of 3e.


----------



## Scribe

Bill Zebub said:


> Getting back on-topic, somebody up-thread pointed out that the Cloud Giant option for Goliaths is far better than all the other options. I'll also add that it's just more _fun_ than bonus damage, in the way that a cool feat is more fun than a +2 ASI.
> 
> Anybody have ideas for other thematic abilities that could be used for some of the other Goliath variants?




I dont know, but to me the damage could still be 'cool' assuming its balanced (scaled) well enough, OR they need to give an ability as well as have the damage bonus.

Fire/Frost able to add a damage rider to their attack is still awesome to me thematically, it just needs to be potent.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> People telling you why they didn't like the old stories and prefer the new ones is not an attack.  It's only an attack when people insist, over and over, for YEARS (not directed at you, but, at MANY voices in general) that everything old MUST be better and MUST NOT be changed.  Years of Edition warring that is grounded in exactly that.  Which means that anyone who likes something new has to then constantly justify that preference in the face of constant, never ending negativity towards every single thing they like.  Since about the first day of 3e.



And you don't think people who like the new stuff aren't regularly bashing the old?  That's not what I've seen.  And I like quite a bit of new stuff.  I'd just prefer that it _ actually_ be new, not yet another re-imagining of older material.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Scribe said:


> Fire/Frost able to add a damage rider to their attack is still awesome to me thematically, it just needs to be potent.



I'd change their species' power to:
Frigid Breath: small cold damage in a cone, with a Slow effect for a turn.
Breath of Smoke and Ashes: Blind effect in a cone for a turn.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> I liked the concept of the metaplot, even the parts I didn't like,  and I refuse to apologize for that or pretend otherwise.  It was a story I enjoyed engaging in, and it didn't affect my separate enjoyment of playing, so the idea that other people didn't like it quite frankly wasn't an issue for me.
> 
> I get that a lot of people want the game to be all about making the PCs increasingly  special and unique, and that's fine.  I'm just sad that all the old stories are not only over, they seem to be constantly attacked by fans of the current game.



Nobody is saying you can't like the old plots. But this isn't about making the PCs special. It's about making the games actually playable by everyone, not just people who want to be railroaded along a specific track laid out by the company. _That's _what people don't want. They don't want to be forced to play out a specific story in a specific way.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Nobody is saying you can't like the old plots. But this isn't about making the PCs special. It's about making the games actually playable by everyone, not just people who want to be railroaded along a specific track laid out by the company. _That's _what people don't want. They don't want to be forced to play out a specific story in a specific way.



I get that.  I just always used homebrew (which I believe the majority of tables still do), so this was never a problem for me.  The settings were chapters in a cool story and ideas for home games.  None of us felt the story in the products hurt our gaming experience.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

The races video below.


 I had originally assumed that the Ardlings were really for Planescape and Goliaths were for Bigsby's Giant book, but after Jeremy's interview, I'm not so sure about that.

 If Goliaths get a place in the book as the giant's answer to Dragonborn, then Aasimar should be in as well as the Celestial answer to Fiendish Tieflings.

 I mean they already have popular mechanics for D&D One Aasimar hashed out, just use the 1st Ardlings mechanics.

 I'm going to give the Ardlings another look, but can we please give them a better name, like Elohim or something or hell even Lordlings (given their connection to Beastlords).

 And can we get setting lore updates for all these, what do call them now, subspecies? Where do they fit into FR? eberron, etc...?

 Edit: I took a look at the Ardling and I like it, but given the Lore that they are evovled Celestial Animals shouldn't they have the Celestial type instead of humaniod? Like unlike Aasimar or Tieflings they don't appear to be partially descended from mortal, material plane beings.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> And you don't think people who like the new stuff aren't regularly bashing the old?  That's not what I've seen.  And I like quite a bit of new stuff.  I'd just prefer that it _ actually_ be new, not yet another re-imagining of older material.



No, I really don't.  Because the statement almost always starts with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done!"  

Which is inevitably followed by, "Well, that sucks because it changes something that was written thirty years ago in some supplement that has been out of print for twenty years".  

And thus the cycle restarts with anyone who actually enjoys the new material having to fight a two sided war with canon police on one side and those who just hate everything that WotC publishes no matter what no the other.  

Nobody ever starts the conversation with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done.  I'm sure glad they changed that crappy old thing."  Because, frankly, if you don't like the old thing, you don't talk about it.  It doesn't matter to you.  But, the canon police insist that any changes must be fought tooth and nail, no matter what.  Anything that came before MUST be given primacy and "respected".  

I'm just so unbelievably tired of people who don't like stuff constantly posting in every single thread about how this new thing (whatever this new thing is) sucks so much and how WotC is "abandoning" fans.  Be a positive force for what you like.  Constant, unrelenting, never ending negativity just sucks.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> No, I really don't.  Because the statement almost always starts with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done!"
> 
> Which is inevitably followed by, "Well, that sucks because it changes something that was written thirty years ago in some supplement that has been out of print for twenty years".
> 
> And thus the cycle restarts with anyone who actually enjoys the new material having to fight a two sided war with canon police on one side and those who just hate everything that WotC publishes no matter what no the other.
> 
> Nobody ever starts the conversation with, "Hey, look at this cool new thing that WotC has done.  I'm sure glad they changed that crappy old thing."  Because, frankly, if you don't like the old thing, you don't talk about it.  It doesn't matter to you.  But, the canon police insist that any changes must be fought tooth and nail, no matter what.  Anything that came before MUST be given primacy and "respected".
> 
> I'm just so unbelievably tired of people who don't like stuff constantly posting in every single thread about how this new thing (whatever this new thing is) sucks so much and how WotC is "abandoning" fans.  Be a positive force for what you like.  Constant, unrelenting, never ending negativity just sucks.



I don't want things removed unless its absolutely necessary (inclusion-related mostly).  Adding stuff is fine.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing here is that the Dawn War Pantheon's approach to religion is almost diametrically opposed to that of Eberron. Eberron starts out by assuming that the gods never manifest and might not even exist, but there are a collection of them that are worshipped and that the faith provides the power. What sort of gods would be worshipped? (And you've got the classic Greek/Roman "these two gods are really the same", fitting the gods of other cultures to theirs). Eberron theology is basically polytheistic of the sort we saw in ancient societies in the real world where we're pretty sure that the gods do not in fact exist.



Well, yes, The Dawn War's take on "do the gods exist" is the exact opposite of Eberron's take, but the takes on the religions have always felt more similar to me. They're more complex, nuanced, and there are valid reasons to worship even the evil gods.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Also, I would argue that 2e's metaplot was more for reading than playing, and I liked it that way.



You might have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's good for the game. Again, you're having a hard time separating "things I like" and "things that are good for the game". There may be a Venn Diagram between those two categories with a pretty substantial area of overlap, but there is a huge difference between "things I liked" and "things that are good for the game/should stay a part of it". 

You need to see the difference. Liking metaplots is fine, and the enjoyment you got from them is valid, but wanting them to be a part of the game when they're overall bad for the hobby isn't.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You might have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's good for the game. Again, you're having a hard time separating "things I like" and "things that are good for the game". There may be a Venn Diagram between those two categories with a pretty substantial area of overlap, but there is a huge difference between "things I liked" and "things that are good for the game/should stay a part of it".
> 
> You need to see the difference. Liking metaplots is fine, and the enjoyment you got from them is valid, but wanting them to be a part of the game when they're overall bad for the hobby isn't.




 Certain settings aren't just for TTRPG gameplay exclusively, the prime example of this being the Forgotten Realms, very likely more novel then TTRPG fans for,FR, not counting video game fans abd upcoming movie fans.

 So in terms of settings, you have to look at them in a transmedium terms, not just is this good for the game terms.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Certain settings aren't just for TTRPG gameplay exclusively, the prime example of this being the Forgotten Realms, very likely more novel then TTRPG fans for,FR, not counting video game fans abd upcoming movie fans.
> 
> So in terms of settings, you have to look at them in a transmedium terms, not just is this good for the game terms.



You can have a setting be used in multiple different forms of media without a metaplot. There are novels and video games that take place in Eberron, but it doesn't have a metaplot. There could be movies that take place in Eberron that don't advance the metaplot.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> While I don't like the Spellplague or Sundering, there are those that did. "Ruining" a setting 1) is subjective and not objective, and 2) didn't require a new setting to "fix." They could have just reprinted the old Realms, and Greyhawk and some others have never been updated.



1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates. 

2) No. The "fix" to metaplots is to rewind the clock to when the setting first started. However, Eberron points out that metaplots aren't good or necessary by not having them and still having all the benefits other settings gain from their metaplots. 


Maxperson said:


> Solutions should fix problems. Solutions in search of problems that don't exist should be avoided. If the "problem" requires a DM to go out of his way to create it, it doesn't need to be "fixed." Especially by a new setting. That's just overkill when a paragraph explaining to DMs how to run those NPCs would be sufficient.



Eberron cannot fix problems with other settings, because it is not those other settings. At best, it can shine light on the problems with other settings and offer solutions to fix them. 

How do you not see that removing a potential problem that other settings have is a problem? New DMs exist and often make mistakes like including DMPCs. The setting not including any potential non-PC heroes lowers the potential of the happening. That's a solution to a problem other worlds have. 

Eberron doesn't have a huge problem with metaplot every edition because it doesn't have a metaplot. That's better than the alternative. 


Maxperson said:


> Eberron does not fix anything from any other settings. It was not(unless you can supply citations) created to do so. Eberron was just a nifty new setting that does things differently.



No. Eberron's takes on canon, non-PC heroes, and some other aspects of the world are just objectively better for game settings than they are in other worlds. A lot of the time Eberron is just "different" because it supports different playstyles and preferences. Other times, it's just better.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't want things removed unless its absolutely necessary (inclusion-related mostly).  Adding stuff is fine.



And that's fine.  But, the understanding has to be that just because stuff is removed, doesn't mean it's an attack on anything.  Stuff that came before is not in any way better or worse than what comes later and should receive absolutely no protection.  You still HAVE all the stuff that came before.  Nothing can take that away from you.  So, when a new take on an older product comes along (like Curse of Strahd or whatever) that in no way is a reflection on the things you like.  You now have two options where before you had only one.

More options is a good thing.  

Insisting (and let's be honest here, it's more than insisting in a lot of cases - it's downright demanding) that things must never be changed or removed is only great if you happen to like what came before.  It's gate-keeping.  You're demanding that the game must only cater to you, and what you like, regardless of anyone else.  

I've never really understood it to be honest.  How is it a bad thing to have fifteen different versions of something?  Pick the version you like and go forward.  WotC gave us fey-Kender.  Now, they aren't canon and they won't feature in the new Dragonlance book, but, y'know what?  I don't care.  If I ever run a Dragonlance campaign?  I'm certainly going to push the fey kender narrative and see if I can't get my players to go along with it.  Might not work - the players might want standard Kender.  And that's fine.  I'll live with it.  But, I now have the option of having two different origin stories for Kender where before I only had one.  

Fantastic.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You can have a setting be used in multiple different forms of media without a metaplot. There are novels and video games that take place in Eberron, but it doesn't have a metaplot. There could be movies that take place in Eberron that don't advance the metaplot.




 Eberron is a horrible comparison because it's been explicit from day one that the novels weren't canon, it's one of the reasons the novel line failed.

 The opposite has been true of FR and Dragonlance, the novels have always been canon, it's a core part of those settings and part of why those novel lines succeeded, they actually meant something.


----------



## Scribe

Henadic Theologian said:


> Eberron is a horrible comparison because it's been explicit from day one that the novels weren't canon, it's one of the reasons the novel line failed.
> 
> The opposite has been true of FR and Dragonlance, the novels have always been canon, it's a core part of those settings and part of why those novel lines succeeded, they actually meant something.




Interesting statement. I can say that I may read A (singular) novel in such a case to see how the setting functions as a novel, but yeah if its not canon, I am not sure I would be invested.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Eberron is a horrible comparison because it's been explicit from day one that the novels weren't canon, it's one of the reasons the novel line failed.



Got any evidence for that unfounded statement? 


Henadic Theologian said:


> The opposite has been true of FR and Dragonlance, the novels have always been canon, it's a core part of those settings and part of why those novel lines succeeded, they actually meant something.



No. The claim that "the novels succeeded because of metaplot" is stupid. There have been tons of novels from settings that have metaplot that have failed. Often because the writing quality was bad, they didn't have interesting characters, or there was just inherently less interest in the setting (Spelljammer). 

People would buy Drizzt novels even if they weren't canon and didn't advance the metaplot of the Forgotten Realms. People buy the Drizzt novels because they like its characters. Not because they want to see what world-shaking event happens in the Forgotten Realms this week.


----------



## Hussar

Henadic Theologian said:


> Certain settings aren't just for TTRPG gameplay exclusively, the prime example of this being the Forgotten Realms, very likely more novel then TTRPG fans for,FR, not counting video game fans abd upcoming movie fans.
> 
> So in terms of settings, you have to look at them in a transmedium terms, not just is this good for the game terms.



But, the thing is, those groups don't necessarily overlap.  Fans of the movies, fans of the novels and fans of the game aren't necessarily the same people.  I like playing in Forgotten Realms (now) but I've never read a single FR novel.  And I'm certain there are fans of the novels who've never played the game.

So, there is no real need for there to be a single meta-plot that spans all three.  After all, look at Marvel.  The movies meta-plot and the comic books are completely unrelated.  Mostly because the movies are drawn from stories that were told decades ago.  The events of current comic books are not based on the Marvel movies.  

And, frankly, most of the meta-plot stuff we're talking about is thirty years old.  Most people don't have the first clue about most of it.  And 5e has proven that Forgotten Realms can be incredibly popular, all without a single hint of a meta-plot.  The various adventure paths are all self-contained (other than easter eggs) and don't have any real impact on each other.  

Never minding that D&D IP novels aren't a thing anymore.  There hasn't been an Eberron novel in ten years.  Darksun is about as long.  Ravenloft, other than a couple of bits and bobs, hasn't seen a new novel since the 90's.  

Claiming that meta-plot and trans medium reasons are important kinda ignores the fact that there really isn't any media at all.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Scribe said:


> I dont know, but to me the damage could still be 'cool' assuming its balanced (scaled) well enough, OR they need to give an ability as well as have the damage bonus.
> 
> Fire/Frost able to add a damage rider to their attack is still awesome to me thematically, it just needs to be potent.




I don't think it _can_ be potent, without it becoming a trap option.


----------



## Hussar

Henadic Theologian said:


> Eberron is a horrible comparison because it's been explicit from day one that the novels weren't canon, it's one of the reasons the novel line failed.
> 
> The opposite has been true of FR and Dragonlance, the novels have always been canon, it's a core part of those settings and part of why those novel lines succeeded, they actually meant something.



Umm, what is your criteria for a "successful novel line"?


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates.



No.  This is wrong.  First the players don't have any right to input.  The company owns the setting.  Second, no agency is taken away since they never had any agency over the company's setting in the first place. 

The only time they have input or agency is in their home game and they get to decide which if any metaplot changes happen, so company metaplot changes aren't really relevant. As an example, I run the Forgotten Realms and don't like either the Spellplague or Sundering, so they never happened.  I also like King Azoun, so he never died.  What the company did had no impact on my home game at all.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 2) No. The "fix" to metaplots is to rewind the clock to when the setting first started.



That isn't necessary in every game, though, so it's not some sort of universal issue. For the many who like the changes, there's nothing to rewind.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> However, Eberron points out that metaplots aren't good or necessary by not having them and still having all the benefits other settings gain from their metaplots.



And if that's what Eberron points out, Eberron is partially wrong.  Metaplots may not be necessary, but they are neither good or bad.  They just are.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Eberron cannot fix problems with other settings, because it is not those other settings.



And because they aren't actually problems of the other settings. They're personal issues.  Either YOU like it, or YOU don't.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> How do you not see that removing a potential problem that other settings have is a problem? New DMs exist and often make mistakes like including DMPCs. The setting not including any potential non-PC heroes lowers the potential of the happening.



That's what advice is for. The solution is not to ruin things for people who aren't making those mistakes and the ones who can and do learn from mistakes(and we all make mistakes).  The solution is to give good advice to the DM on how not to make them in the first place.  Advice, not changes to the rules or settings.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's a solution to a problem other worlds have.



This is objectively false.  The problem lies 100% with the DM who runs a DMPC.  DMPCs are not setting specific.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> That's better than the alternative.



Show me your objective proof of that?  Because all I've seen from you so far are personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims of "metaplot bad!"


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Other times, it's just better.



To you.


----------



## JEB

Hussar said:


> Umm, what is your criteria for a "successful novel line"?



Making it to the New York Times Bestseller list probably counts, which both the FR and Dragonlance novel lines have managed.


----------



## Hussar

JEB said:


> Making it to the New York Times Bestseller list probably counts, which both the FR and Dragonlance novel lines have managed.




I would amend that a bit. 

Some of the novels have achieved that. The overwhelming majority have not. Most of the hundreds of novels on each line were utterly forgettable.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Hussar said:


> Umm, what is your criteria for a "successful novel line"?




 Longevity and high numbers published. Eberron novels largely died with 3e. FR novels started in 1e and lasted almost continuously since, lasting decades. Over 300 FR novels published. That is a successful novel. Eberrin did okay, but I think the lack of stakes in the settings future hurt it's (same with Pathfinder novels) because it never impacts that setting at all.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You might have liked it, but that doesn't mean that it's good for the game. Again, you're having a hard time separating "things I like" and "things that are good for the game". There may be a Venn Diagram between those two categories with a pretty substantial area of overlap, but there is a huge difference between "things I liked" and "things that are good for the game/should stay a part of it".
> 
> You need to see the difference. Liking metaplots is fine, and the enjoyment you got from them is valid, but wanting them to be a part of the game when they're overall bad for the hobby isn't.



I don't recall ever saying what I like is good for the game.  I like it, and I want things I like in the game.  Its pretty straightforward.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates.
> 
> 2) No. The "fix" to metaplots is to rewind the clock to when the setting first started. However, Eberron points out that metaplots aren't good or necessary by not having them and still having all the benefits other settings gain from their metaplots.
> 
> Eberron cannot fix problems with other settings, because it is not those other settings. At best, it can shine light on the problems with other settings and offer solutions to fix them.
> 
> How do you not see that removing a potential problem that other settings have is a problem? New DMs exist and often make mistakes like including DMPCs. The setting not including any potential non-PC heroes lowers the potential of the happening. That's a solution to a problem other worlds have.
> 
> Eberron doesn't have a huge problem with metaplot every edition because it doesn't have a metaplot. That's better than the alternative.
> 
> No. Eberron's takes on canon, non-PC heroes, and some other aspects of the world are just objectively better for game settings than they are in other worlds. A lot of the time Eberron is just "different" because it supports different playstyles and preferences. Other times, it's just better.



Has Keith Baker ever said he thinks his setting is "just better" than other settings?  This is your opinion.  You like it better.  If I have to accept that what I like might not be good for the game, you have to accept that what you like might not be objectively superior.  You have to see the difference.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> Has Keith Baker ever said he thinks his setting is "just better" than other settings?  This is your opinion.  You like it better.  If I have to accept that what I like might not be good for the game, you have to accept that what you like might not be objectively superior.  You have to see the difference.



From all I have read on his blog or snippets here or there, no. Baker does not come across as being arrogant enough to make such claims


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates.
> 
> 2) No. The "fix" to metaplots is to rewind the clock to when the setting first started. However, Eberron points out that metaplots aren't good or necessary by not having them and still having all the benefits other settings gain from their metaplots.
> 
> Eberron cannot fix problems with other settings, because it is not those other settings. At best, it can shine light on the problems with other settings and offer solutions to fix them.
> 
> How do you not see that removing a potential problem that other settings have is a problem? New DMs exist and often make mistakes like including DMPCs. The setting not including any potential non-PC heroes lowers the potential of the happening. That's a solution to a problem other worlds have.
> 
> Eberron doesn't have a huge problem with metaplot every edition because it doesn't have a metaplot. That's better than the alternative.
> 
> No. Eberron's takes on canon, non-PC heroes, and some other aspects of the world are just objectively better for game settings than they are in other worlds. A lot of the time Eberron is just "different" because it supports different playstyles and preferences. Other times, it's just better.




 Not every setting has to be Eberron, other settings have other priorities as the driving force, FR has it's transmedium interests into account and it's history as living setting to take into account.

 And the fact that FR has been more successful then Eberron literally for decades attests to the strength of FRs approach.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Btw Eberron as static setting is likely coming to a close with it's integration with the broader cosmos, it just gets in the way of adding Eberron to a DDU (the D&D Cinematic universe that is coming).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't recall ever saying what I like is good for the game.  I like it, and I want things I like in the game.  Its pretty straightforward.



I, on the other hand, prioritize things that are good for the game over things that I like.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Has Keith Baker ever said he thinks his setting is "just better" than other settings?  This is your opinion.  You like it better.  If I have to accept that what I like might not be good for the game, you have to accept that what you like might not be objectively superior.  You have to see the difference.



No. I'm not speaking for Keith Baker. I am, however, pointing out parts of the setting that are objectively better for the game than the alternatives in other settings (the Elminster/Drizzt problem, the metaplot problem, etc).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Not every setting has to be Eberron, other settings have other priorities as the driving force, FR has it's transmedium interests into account and it's history as living setting to take into account.
> 
> And the fact that FR has been more successful then Eberron literally for decades attests to the strength of FRs approach.



The Forgotten Realms also had a huge headstart on Eberron.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I, on the other hand, prioritize things that are good for the game over things that I like.



Thank goodness you're such a better person than I am.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No. I'm not speaking for Keith Baker. I am, however, pointing out parts of the setting that are objectively better for the game than the alternatives in other settings (the Elminster/Drizzt problem, the metaplot problem, etc).



You are pointing out things Eberron does that you prefer over the way other settings do those things.  That's all this is.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> You are pointing out things Eberron does that you prefer over the way other settings do those things.  That's all this is.



Does having a metaplot cause problems at gaming tables by making more work for GMs? Yes

Does having a metaplot cause problems as gaming tables by making it harder for players and GMs to get onto the same page because they don't just to know they are in the setting but when in the setting they are? Yes

Does having a metaplot cause bad writing where the most important events either are where the PCs aren't or are unalterable by the PCs and the PCs are there to hold the NPCs coats? Yes

Does _not _having a metaplot reduce the potential number of hooks and adventure starts? Not meaningfully if at all; the continents are wide enough that this limit isn't one.

Can you give me _any _advantages having a metaplot that exists outside the adventure currently being played gives for the actual game at the table over setting up a powder-keg environment that could blow up in dozens of different ways?

You yourself admit that you weren't actually playing the Forgotten Realms but instead using homebrew when you were enjoying the metaplot.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> No. This is wrong. First the players don't have any right to input. The company owns the setting. Second, no agency is taken away since they never had any agency over the company's setting in the first place.



This. This right here. This is why Eberron is better. This to me reads as a dude in a tuxedo with a monocle and cigar saying "you don't have any right to the setting, I own it, it's mine, you're forced to go along with anything I do to the setting". Eberron, on the other hand, says "I don't care what you do with the setting, it's not mine, it's yours. Make it yours. Do whatever you want. Here, I've given you a bunch of mysteries to find the answer to, do whatever you want". 


Maxperson said:


> What the company did had no impact on my home game at all.



But it does impact the games of people new to the hobby. You don't know what it's like trying to get into the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance after decades of novels, video games, and game products that are all "canon". The Forgotten Realms is drowning in metaplot and canon. Eberron does not have that problem. It recognized the problem that other settings have and took preventative measures to stop it from having the same problems. 


Maxperson said:


> That isn't necessary in every game, though, so it's not some sort of universal issue. For the many who like the changes, there's nothing to rewind.



You can include the metaplot in your game without the owners of it forcing the metaplot into the setting books. Eberron setting products will always start in 998 YK, just like the first Eberron book did 18 years ago. Over a hundred years has passed in the Forgotten Realms. Good luck getting newer players to do 100 years of homework in order to do a deep-dive in the lore of the setting. 


Maxperson said:


> And if that's what Eberron points out, Eberron is partially wrong. Metaplots may not be necessary, but their are neither good or bad. They just are.
> 
> And because they aren't actually problems of the other settings. They're personal issues. Either YOU like it, or YOU don't.



No. Quality exists. You can include things in your setting that are objectively bad and harmful to playing the game there. 


Maxperson said:


> That's what advice is for. The solution is not to ruin things for people who aren't making those mistakes and the ones who can and do learn from mistakes(and we all make mistakes). The solution is to give good advice to the DM on how not to make them in the first place. Advice, not changes to the rules or settings.



If the setting is "ruined" for people by having Elminster and Drizzt removed, they didn't actually like the setting as a game setting. They liked it as a story setting. Which is not prioritizing the needs of the game, and thus, bad for the game. 


Maxperson said:


> This is objectively false. The problem lies 100% with the DM who runs a DMPC. DMPCs are not setting specific.



Newer DMs often fall into traps that veteran DMs don't. Making the setting "stupid proof" is a good quality. 


Maxperson said:


> Show me your objective proof of that? Because all I've seen from you so far are personal opinions and unsubstantiated claims of "metaplot bad!"



Gestures vaguely at all of the discussions over the past decades of people angry that a metaplot ruined the setting for them. The Spellplague, the Faction War, the Prism Pentad, Die, Vecna, Die!, some of the sequel series of Dragonlance, and so on. 

Clearly metaplots ruin the setting for people that previously liked it. Eberron cannot have that problem, because the creators have promised to never advance the timeline or include a metaplot. If that is the result of metaplots, it's better to not include them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Neonchameleon said:


> Does having a metaplot cause problems at gaming tables by making more work for GMs? Yes
> 
> Does having a metaplot cause problems as gaming tables by making it harder for players and GMs to get onto the same page because they don't just to know they are in the setting but when in the setting they are? Yes
> 
> Does having a metaplot cause bad writing where the most important events either are where the PCs aren't or are unalterable by the PCs and the PCs are there to hold the NPCs coats? Yes
> 
> Does _not _having a metaplot reduce the potential number of hooks and adventure starts? Not meaningfully if at all; the continents are wide enough that this limit isn't one.
> 
> Can you give me _any _advantages having a metaplot that exists outside the adventure currently being played gives for the actual game at the table over setting up a powder-keg environment that could blow up in dozens of different ways?
> 
> You yourself admit that you weren't actually playing the Forgotten Realms but instead using homebrew when you were enjoying the metaplot.



Is the starting point of a setting always the best version of the setting?  No.

Does a metaplot interfere with a homebrew game (which is what most players game in)?  No.

Is a GM required to use _ any_ element of a setting (metaplot or no) at their own table?  No.

I don't play in an official setting.  Short of a Dragonlance game back in high school, and a couple of short Ravenloft games, I have never done so.  But I bought and read a lot of setting books, and I bought and read a lot of novels, and magazine articles, and I enjoyed the heck out of most of them.  At no point did they at all affect my playing or running at the table in a negative way, which is what so many people tell is the most important thing.

And how could they?  Its all just stuff, that you can use or not.  Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> This. This right here. This is why Eberron is better. This to me reads as a dude in a tuxedo with a monocle and cigar saying "you don't have any right to the setting, I own it, it's mine, you're forced to go along with anything I do to the setting". Eberron, on the other hand, says "I don't care what you do with the setting, it's not mine, it's yours. Make it yours. Do whatever you want. Here, I've given you a bunch of mysteries to find the answer to, do whatever you want".
> 
> But it does impact the games of people new to the hobby. You don't know what it's like trying to get into the Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance after decades of novels, video games, and game products that are all "canon". The Forgotten Realms is drowning in metaplot and canon. Eberron does not have that problem. It recognized the problem that other settings have and took preventative measures to stop it from having the same problems.
> 
> You can include the metaplot in your game without the owners of it forcing the metaplot into the setting books. Eberron setting products will always start in 998 YK, just like the first Eberron book did 18 years ago. Over a hundred years has passed in the Forgotten Realms. Good luck getting newer players to do 100 years of homework in order to do a deep-dive in the lore of the setting.
> 
> No. Quality exists. You can include things in your setting that are objectively bad and harmful to playing the game there.
> 
> If the setting is "ruined" for people by having Elminster and Drizzt removed, they didn't actually like the setting as a game setting. They liked it as a story setting. Which is not prioritizing the needs of the game, and thus, bad for the game.
> 
> Newer DMs often fall into traps that veteran DMs don't. Making the setting "stupid proof" is a good quality.
> 
> Gestures vaguely at all of the discussions over the past decades of people angry that a metaplot ruined the setting for them. The Spellplague, the Faction War, the Prism Pentad, Die, Vecna, Die!, some of the sequel series of Dragonlance, and so on.
> 
> Clearly metaplots ruin the setting for people that previously liked it. Eberron cannot have that problem, because the creators have promised to never advance the timeline or include a metaplot. If that is the result of metaplots, it's better to not include them.



Other people agree with you, so it must be objectively true?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Thank goodness you're such a better person than I am.



I don't claim to be a better person than you are. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement. However, I do think you're just clearly in the wrong. This is the "I want D&D 5e to do the things that drove TSR bankrupt" discussion over again. 

I am not perfect at this. But the game cannot and should not cater directly towards my tastes. It cannot and should not cater perfectly towards the tastes of any individual person. It should cater towards the widest group of people possible and support people that are just now getting into the hobby. 


Micah Sweet said:


> You are pointing out things Eberron does that you prefer over the way other settings do those things.  That's all this is.



No. I'm pointing out aspects of it that are just better for the hobby. For the game. For newer players. I know what things are good and bad for newer players, because I lived it. The Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, and other settings' metaplots are just bad for the game. They might be enjoyable when you're experiencing them as they happen, but hindsight is 20/20, and they're just bad. They are not good for the game. Liking them does not make them good. Wanting them included because you like them does not make that desire valid or something that should be catered to. 

There are reasons that I prefer Eberron. Objective parts of its design that I think clearly show how competent Keith Baker and the other designers were when making it. Aspects that prove that it not only had good ideas, but the game overall would be better and more friendly to newer players to take some of them. 

There are things that I like that I'll readily admit would be bad for the game if they were implemented or made core to the hobby. As an aspiring game designer, I have to separate the two. There are things that I hate are part of the game, but admit have to be because it's more friendly to newer players. There are parts of the settings that I like that I admit aren't good for the game and parts of settings that I don't like that I admit are good for it. This is important. This is good.


----------



## Remathilis

Every bloody thread. 

Can you all take your weeing contest about which setting is bestest and contain it to a single thread? Eberron, Ravenloft, Metaplot, Dragonlance, and Canon are NOT part of this playtest. The Cleric and Three Races are. Yet half this thread are the same people who show up in every thread arguing about the same things like what they is going to change the other's hearts and minds. Some people want to dig into these changes, discuss the mechanics, figure out what the heck Ardlings are supposed to do, etc.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Other people agree with you, so it must be objectively true?



I personally have no stakes in most metaplots. I'm just an observer watching things that happened, for the most part. And I saw the consequences of metaplots and then made my opinion of them. I didn't go searching for evidence for an opinion that I already had. In fact, I originally liked metaplots. After seeing how bad they were for settings and the game, my view changed.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> This. This right here. This is why Eberron is better. This to me reads as a dude in a tuxedo with a monocle and cigar saying "you don't have any right to the setting, I own it, it's mine, you're forced to go along with anything I do to the setting". Eberron, on the other hand, says "I don't care what you do with the setting, it's not mine, it's yours. Make it yours. Do whatever you want. Here, I've given you a bunch of mysteries to find the answer to, do whatever you want".



Eberron is exactly the same.  You have zero rights to input or agency over what the company does with it.  Case in point. In 5e they changed your unchanging Eberron and attached it to the rest of the multiverse. And that's a very major change as it allows in clerics who know their gods from other worlds. If you view them as tuxedo wearing guys, so be it.  That's how IP works.  You have no rights to their IP.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You can include the metaplot in your game without the owners of it forcing the metaplot into the setting books.



No I can't, because it doesn't exist unless they put it out for me.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No. Quality exists. You can include things in your setting that are objectively bad and harmful to playing the game there.



Excellent.  Prove to me that your opinion on this means that the setting is objectively bad.  With actual facts and not just your repeated and unsubstantiated declarations.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> If the setting is "ruined" for people by having Elminster and Drizzt removed, they didn't actually like the setting as a game setting. They liked it as a story setting. Which is not prioritizing the needs of the game, and thus, bad for the game.



Those characters are part of the setting. The setting isn't the dirt. It's the lore which includes major characters that in now way hinder or diminish the PCs unless the DM causes it.  Removing the major NPCs is equivalent to altering Eberron so that the gods are knowable and verifiable.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Newer DMs often fall into traps that veteran DMs don't. Making the setting "stupid proof" is a good quality.



Attempting to stupid proof the game would itself be exceptionally stupid. It simply can't be done and even if you removed high level NPCs, DMs are fully capable of creating tons of them.  I could run an Eberron game tomorrow and plunk and Elminster strength NPC into every city.  The only way to even come close to curbing high level NPCs in a setting would be to cap PC levels at like 5, but even that wouldn't work completely.

You can't curb stupid, so it's best not to even try.  Instead you ignore stupid and just put out a good product with advice on how to avoid mistakes.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Gestures vaguely at all of the discussions over the past decades of people angry that a metaplot ruined the setting for them. The Spellplague, the Faction War, the Prism Pentad, Die, Vecna, Die!, some of the sequel series of Dragonlance, and so on.



So you know that people are far more likely to be vocal and complain and stay silent when they like something, right?  This is human nature.  That often creates an illusion that the bad outweighs the good.  So you're going to need more than an anecdotal gesture at complainers.  You'll need real facts.


----------



## Minigiant

Remathilis said:


> Every bloody thread.
> 
> Can you all take your weeing contest about which setting is bestest and contain it to a single thread? Eberron, Ravenloft, Metaplot, Dragonlance, and Canon are NOT part of this playtest. The Cleric and Three Races are. Yet half this thread are the same people who show up in every thread arguing about the same things like what they is going to change the other's hearts and minds. Some people want to dig into these changes, discuss the mechanics, figure out what the heck Ardlings are supposed to do, etc.



Can I say something setting related.

If this playtest has Ardlings, Dragonborn, and Goliath will be in the PHB...

Can a brother get a *new freaking setting* with this races as a base assumption in the crafting of the setting?

Who are the Gods of Ardling and Goliaths? Do they like Corellon, Grummush, and Moradin? And which domains do they grant?

Because WOTC finally are thinking about making Minigiants as a core PHB race and Minigiant doesn't want to wait until 8th edition for Minigaint's brothers and sisters fully accepted somewhere.

They are already nixing Half Elves, Half Orcs, and Half Dwarves.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The Forgotten Realms also had a huge headstart on Eberron.




 Greyhawk had huge start over FR, DL a shorter one, FR still won.


----------



## Incenjucar

Minigiant said:


> Can I say something setting related.
> 
> If this playtest has Ardlings, Dragonborn, and Goliath will be in the PHB...
> 
> Can a brother get a *new freaking setting* with this races as a base assumption in the crafting of the setting?
> 
> Who are the Gods of Ardling and Goliaths? Do they like Corellon, Grummush, and Moradin? And which domains do they grant?
> 
> Because WOTC finally are thinking about making Minigiants as a core PHB race and Minigiant doesn't want to wait until 8th edition for Minigaint's brothers and sisters fully accepted somewhere.
> 
> They are already nixing Half Elves, Half Orcs, and Half Dwarves.



Presumably:
Ardlings > Beast Lords or setting applicable universal nature or beast deities 
Goliaths > Primordials or setting applicable universal strength or elemental deities.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Minigiant said:


> Can I say something setting related.
> 
> If this playtest has Ardlings, Dragonborn, and Goliath will be in the PHB...
> 
> Can a brother get a *new freaking setting* with this races as a base assumption in the crafting of the setting?
> 
> Who are the Gods of Ardling and Goliaths? Do they like Corellon, Grummush, and Moradin? And which domains do they grant?
> 
> Because WOTC finally are thinking about making Minigiants as a core PHB race and Minigiant doesn't want to wait until 8th edition for Minigaint's brothers and sisters fully accepted somewhere.
> 
> They are already nixing Half Elves, Half Orcs, and Half Dwarves.




 Sounds like Ardlings will worship the Beast Lords for Gods.

 Goliaths have been around since 3.5e here are their Gods.

 "Religion
Most goliath tribes revered nature and the primal forces. Goliath shamans were known as "skywatchers"[14] or "sunspeakers"[4]. They also worshiped a pantheon of six deities:[28]

Kavaki, the Ram-Lord, was the guardian and creator deity of the goliaths.[28]
Kuliak, the Dead Goddess, was said to have once been a goddess of mountain springs, but was spurned by the other gods after she overslept and failed to lead the goliaths to water. Thus she became instead the goddess of the dead and of exiles.[28]
Manethak, the Wise Hunter, was the god of both hunting and knowledge.[28]
Naki-Uthai, the Brave Climber, was the god of mountains, climbing, and bravery.[28]
Theleya, the Fertile One, was the goddess of fertility and growth.[28]
Vanua, the Harbinger of Woe, was the god of natural disasters and misfortune.[28"


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Incenjucar said:


> Presumably:
> Ardlings > Beast Lords or setting applicable universal nature or beast deities
> Goliaths > Primordials or setting applicable universal strength or elemental deities.




 Agreed on Ardlings, although in Mulhorand I can see them worshipping the Mulhorandi Gods.

 Goliaths in 3e had their own Pantheon 
(see the above post) although given the new lore Giant Gods would also be fitting, maybe some others based on region of the tribe.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Goliaths should still get energy resistance like the did in Frostmaiden.


----------



## Minigiant

The playtest Goliaths are too close to giants for their 3E pantheon to really work. They either need a new one or adopt the giant one somehow.


----------



## Faolyn

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> 1) Metaplots change the setting without input from the players. This is bad because it takes agency away from them whenever the metaplot updates.



This exactly. 

Although it might be amusing to have a metaplot that advances only after player polls. A literal choose-your-own-adventure.Put out a poll every X months, the next book either includes an extended timeline that takes the results into consideration or is an adventure that works its way to those results.

Would it actually work all that well? I have no idea. But it could be very interesting.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Is the starting point of a setting always the best version of the setting?  No.



Care should be taken with settings that _now _is actually interesting.



Micah Sweet said:


> Does a metaplot interfere with a homebrew game (which is what most players game in)?  No.
> 
> Is a GM required to use _ any_ element of a setting (metaplot or no) at their own table?  No.



Then there is _zero _point in buying the books, which means that there is zero point in WoTC producing and selling the books.

The vast, _vast _majority of people buy gaming books because they hope to actually be able to use something from the books at their own table.



Micah Sweet said:


> And how could they?  Its all just stuff, that you can use or not.  Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?



Because if it's not useful to me in some way or another, it means I don't buy it. If enough people share my point of view on the matter, then that's bad for D&D as a whole.

A book that's steeped in metaplot is, especially nowadays, not useful. Why should anyone spend the money to buy something if they have to ignore the majority of it? Who has the _money _for that? If I actually want to read D&D fiction, there are a zillion novels--many of which I can get for free from the library or cheap at a used book store--and over 11,400 English-language D&D fanfics on Ao3. There are nearly 200 there tagged Strahd von Zarovich alone. And that's not counting all the D&D-based fiction on other sources, or webcomics or live plays or other such things. I don't need to pay a penny to read a D&D story.


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> Every bloody thread.
> 
> Can you all take your weeing contest about which setting is bestest and contain it to a single thread? Eberron, Ravenloft, Metaplot, Dragonlance, and Canon are NOT part of this playtest. The Cleric and Three Races are. Yet half this thread are the same people who show up in every thread arguing about the same things like what they is going to change the other's hearts and minds. Some people want to dig into these changes, discuss the mechanics, figure out what the heck Ardlings are supposed to do, etc.



Ardlings--and I will forever want to spell their name with two as, like aardvark and aarwolf--are beast lord, the PC species. There need to be more cleric cantrips if they're going to have the ability to switch 'em out all the time. Personally, I think they'd do better with _druidcraft_ instead of _thaumaturgy._


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> This exactly.
> 
> Although it might be amusing to have a metaplot that advances only after player polls. A literal choose-your-own-adventure.Put out a poll every X months, the next book either includes an extended timeline that takes the results into consideration or is an adventure that works its way to those results.
> 
> Would it actually work all that well? I have no idea. But it could be very interesting.



Legend if the Five Rings did this, based on tournament wins for the CCG.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Care should be taken with settings that _now _is actually interesting.
> 
> 
> Then there is _zero _point in buying the books, which means that there is zero point in WoTC producing and selling the books.
> 
> The vast, _vast _majority of people buy gaming books because they hope to actually be able to use something from the books at their own table.
> 
> 
> Because if it's not useful to me in some way or another, it means I don't buy it. If enough people share my point of view on the matter, then that's bad for D&D as a whole.
> 
> A book that's steeped in metaplot is, especially nowadays, not useful. Why should anyone spend the money to buy something if they have to ignore the majority of it? Who has the _money _for that? If I actually want to read D&D fiction, there are a zillion novels--many of which I can get for free from the library or cheap at a used book store--and over 11,400 English-language D&D fanfics on Ao3. There are nearly 200 there tagged Strahd von Zarovich alone. And that's not counting all the D&D-based fiction on other sources, or webcomics or live plays or other such things. I don't need to pay a penny to read a D&D story.



I've used plenty of elements from setting material.  I just don't play in the settings themselves.  That utility, and the story, are enough for me.  Its no different than cannibalizing pieces of an official adventure.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Is the starting point of a setting always the best version of the setting?  No.



If it isn't then the setting designers haven't started at the right place. Of course you can always improve a setting - but the best way of doing this is by re-writing it using a new edition as an excuse to redevelop it rather than by forcing a metaplot on it and making it worse for everyone trying to use it to play in.


Micah Sweet said:


> Does a metaplot interfere with a homebrew game (which is what most players game in)?  No.



So anyone not playing a homebrew game is having badwrongfun? And the books literally published to provide a setting should not be used for their stated purpose?


Micah Sweet said:


> Is a GM required to use _ any_ element of a setting (metaplot or no) at their own table?  No.



And GMs who want to use a setting _for its stated purpose_ have a much harder time doing so if there is metaplot because then they have to do a whole lot more curation, undermining much of the point of using an established setting.


Micah Sweet said:


> I don't play in an official setting.  Short of a Dragonlance game back in high school, and a couple of short Ravenloft games, I have never done so.  But I bought and read a lot of setting books, and I bought and read a lot of novels, and magazine articles, and I enjoyed the heck out of most of them.  At no point did they at all affect my playing or running at the table in a negative way, which is what so many people tell is the most important thing.



So all material should be tailored to you _when you explicitly do not use settings for their stated purpose_. And because you refuse to use settings for their stated purpose people who do use it the way it was intended should have their experience harmed?


Micah Sweet said:


> And how could they?  Its all just stuff, that you can use or not.  Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?



Being blunt _so is 5e Ravenloft._ And metaplot does far more harm to the settings it's inflicted on than 5e Ravenloft has to classic Ravenloft.

The big difference is that 5e Ravenloft is a reimagining. Metaplots, by their evolving nature while claiming to be the same setting literally tell DMs and players that the way they are picturing the setting is wrong. 

I don't know why 5e Ravenloft, which has an ignorable existence, is a problem for you. But if you have a problem with it surely by analogy you can see why others have issues with the far more intrusive nature of metaplot?


----------



## Aldarc

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I would be very surprised if Keith Baker said that no aspect of Eberron was designed because he thought that he could improve upon parts of other settings (the Superman stays out of Gotham problem that's rampant on Toril, the religion problems that many other settings have, etc). There are many parts of Eberron that are obviously designed as "let's take a part of the assumed lore of D&D and aspects of other settings, and deconstruct and subvert them in better ways". Not that that's a bad thing. I think Keith Baker has proven that he's very good at doing that.
> 
> As @Faolyn said, there are parts of the setting that changed aspects of other worlds for reasons that aren't just "the logical conclusion of how D&D is designed". That is a major part of the setting's design, but there is also a reason why the setting has no metaplot or high-level benevolent spellcasters that could do the adventures instead the PCs. There are parts of Eberron that were definitely designed as a "let's take that bad thing from a different setting, and either change it to make it better or ignore it completely".



Despite common internet parlance, Eberron was not created _Sola Keith Baker_. Bill Slavicsek and James Wyatt were _extremely influential_ on the lore development of Eberron, and they also incorporated elements they liked from other settings that were submitted, such as (supposedly) Rich Burlew's death-worshipping elves. This is important to keep in mind IMHO because Eberron was shaped based upon what WotC's staff wanted out of the setting. The core nugget was Keith Baker's but WotC had a LOT of their own input into the setting. The setting that Keith Baker pitched to WotC is not the setting as published.



Neonchameleon said:


> The thing here is that the Dawn War Pantheon's approach to religion is almost diametrically opposed to that of Eberron. Eberron starts out by assuming that the gods never manifest and might not even exist, but there are a collection of them that are worshipped and that the faith provides the power. What sort of gods would be worshipped? (And you've got the classic Greek/Roman "these two gods are really the same", fitting the gods of other cultures to theirs). Eberron theology is basically polytheistic of the sort we saw in ancient societies in the real world where we're pretty sure that the gods do not in fact exist.
> 
> Meanwhile in the Dawn War pantheon the gods are a fact. They exist. Atheism is basically non-viable. The pantheon was made up about half of pre-existing deities (although The Raven Queen, Erathis, Zehir, Melora, Ioun, and Torog were all new). It then starts with them as powerful people who are forced to work together by outside threats - and then gives most of them relationships with each other. Whereas Eberron is based on the Polytheistic pantheons we've seen in the real world the Dawn War takes pretty huge and obvious inspiration from the Greek Gods inside the stories. They start from fundamentally incompatible points but both work because they commit.



Yeah, the Dawn War pantheon is far more mythic (if not nearly post-apocalyptic) in its scope. The pantheon seems to take cues from Greco-Roman gods, the then popular Scarred Lands RPG setting, and the Chaoskampf motif of ancient mythology. The Dawn War gods are not necessarily the "greatest hits" of gods but also the divine survivors of the aforementioned war. The setting is Points of Light all the way down.



Faolyn said:


> _My _problem with the Dawn War pantheon is that the gods are all things that PCs might worship, not ones that should logically exist. I'm forever annoyed they didn't include gods of agriculture or hearth and home or things like that. They could have used Yondalla.
> 
> The Forgotten Realms gods are very badly done, but at least they remembered that not every one of them has to be PC-friendly. (Although I was in a game once that included a paladin of Chauntea.)



The Dawn War gods represent the survivors of the Dawn War. (Many other lesser deities became Exarchs.) I think that an implicit assumption of 4e was that epic level PCs would achieve apotheosis to become the new gods in the setting and fill in the cracks left by the Dawn War.

I do have an expanded/altered version of the Dawn War pantheon that I often use for my Nentir Vale campaigns, which does incorporate Yondalla, for example, as a goddess of the hearth and regarded as the child of Pelor and Erathis, a child of the sun's warmth and civilization. And it also adds a god of the hunt and psychopomps with something of a gender-swapped Hades/Persephone story.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Minigiant said:


> The playtest Goliaths are too close to giants for their 3E pantheon to really work. They either need a new one or adopt the giant one somehow.




 Or for their OG Pantheon to be Goliath aspects of the Giant Pantheon.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Neonchameleon said:


> If it isn't then the setting designers haven't started at the right place. Of course you can always improve a setting - but the best way of doing this is by re-writing it using a new edition as an excuse to redevelop it rather than by forcing a metaplot on it and making it worse for everyone trying to use it to play in.
> 
> So anyone not playing a homebrew game is having badwrongfun? And the books literally published to provide a setting should not be used for their stated purpose?
> 
> And GMs who want to use a setting _for its stated purpose_ have a much harder time doing so if there is metaplot because then they have to do a whole lot more curation, undermining much of the point of using an established setting.
> 
> So all material should be tailored to you _when you explicitly do not use settings for their stated purpose_. And because you refuse to use settings for their stated purpose people who do use it the way it was intended should have their experience harmed?
> 
> Being blunt _so is 5e Ravenloft._ And metaplot does far more harm to the settings it's inflicted on than 5e Ravenloft has to classic Ravenloft.
> 
> The big difference is that 5e Ravenloft is a reimagining. Metaplots, by their evolving nature while claiming to be the same setting literally tell DMs and players that the way they are picturing the setting is wrong.
> 
> I don't know why 5e Ravenloft, which has an ignorable existence, is a problem for you. But if you have a problem with it surely by analogy you can see why others have issues with the far more intrusive nature of metaplot?



I dislike 5e Ravenloft because it officially ended pre-5e Ravenloft, and I liked that story.  It's clearly an emotional reaction for me.

Look, I'm allowed to like metaplots, and wish the game I grew up with and loved still had them.  I would feel no different is there was no more new Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Marvel comics.  That's what the metaplots of D&D were to me, and until quite recently, even if they weren't really being continued, I could still imagine they were.  Now, they explicitly aren't. 

WotC decided that what I enjoyed most about D&D wasn't worth continuing, and when I complained, most of what I hear is that what I like is, "bad for the game" and shouldn't have ever been there in the first place, and I should just get over it.  And apparently being angry about that is unreasonable.

Why should I feel bad about wanting things in the game that I like?  I'm not the one taking things away.


----------



## shadowoflameth

The statement on D&D Beyond promises backward compatibility to adventures and to Suplements, but it's the PHB that is being playtested for changes. Specifically, changes to characters. (race, class, subclass, and to play rules for PCs.). It has been rightly pointed out here that the promise of backward compatibility was only to the adventures and supplements but given what's being tested, shouldn't characters and races be backward compatible with what we have?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> I dislike 5e Ravenloft because it officially ended pre-5e Ravenloft, and I liked that story.  It's clearly an emotional reaction for me.
> 
> Look, I'm allowed to like metaplots, and wish the game I grew up with and loved still had them.  I would feel no different is there was no more new Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Marvel comics.  That's what the metaplots of D&D were to me, and until quite recently, even if they weren't really being continued, I could still imagine they were.  Now, they explicitly aren't.
> 
> WotC decided that what I enjoyed most about D&D wasn't worth continuing, and when I complained, most of what I hear is that what I like is, "bad for the game" and shouldn't have ever been there in the first place, and I should just get over it.  And apparently being angry about that is unreasonable.
> 
> Why should I feel bad about wanting things in the game that I like?  I'm not the one taking things away.



You are allowed to like metaplots in stories. There are some serious ones out there including the Arrowverse, the Star Wars EU and Star Wars Disney continuity, the MCU, the Marvel  and DC continuities, numerous video game series from Super Smash Bros and Kingdom Hearts onwards (and no that first one wasn't a joke).

The point is that _RPG source books_ are there to facilitate _RPG play._ And in the specific case of _sourcebooks for RPGs_ having a metaplot actively harms the play at the table, thus damaging the primary purpose of the book. When you add metaplot to a setting you are taking away the usability and ownership any DM who uses it for its stated primary purpose has. And this is what you want - to make the RPG settings worse for anyone using them for RPGs

And you yourself admit that the Ravenloft metaplot wasn't being continued other than in your imagination. To quote you "Its all just stuff, that you can use or not.  Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?" Why can't you take the approach you advocate here to the new Ravenloft?  Why must it be _everyone else_ ignoring stuff they don't like even when that stuff they don't like actively takes away GM ownership of the games they are playing?


----------



## Cadence

Neonchameleon said:


> The point is that _RPG source books_ are there to facilitate _RPG play._ And in the specific case of _sourcebooks for RPGs_ having a metaplot actively harms the play at the table, thus damaging the primary purpose of the book. *When you add metaplot to a setting* you are taking away the usability and ownership any DM who uses it for its stated primary purpose has.




Were the published Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms created from metaplot from the beginning? Was Dragonlance created to go along with an unfolding metaplot?  If so, then is metaplot part of their purposes?   Was the Known World published with all the metaplot rolling out with it (like GH and FR had in Dragon Magazine and later on in books), or did it not have that?


----------



## Maxperson

Faolyn said:


> This exactly.



Maybe you can tell me where you get your right to have input regarding their IP and what agency you lose when they change their IP without consulting you first.


----------



## Parmandur

shadowoflameth said:


> The statement on D&D Beyond promises backward compatibility to adventures and to Suplements, but it's the PHB that is being playtested for changes. Specifically, changes to characters. (race, class, subclass, and to play rules for PCs.). It has been rightly pointed out here that the promise of backward compatibility was only to the adventures and supplements but given what's being tested, shouldn't characters and races be backward compatible with what we have?



The Races already are backwards and forwards compatible, 100%. The only mechanical change is the Tasha's arrangements, which do not have any impact on Race balance whatsoever (an ASI bonus is an ASI bonus).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Neonchameleon said:


> You are allowed to like metaplots in stories. There are some serious ones out there including the Arrowverse, the Star Wars EU and Star Wars Disney continuity, the MCU, the Marvel  and DC continuities, numerous video game series from Super Smash Bros and Kingdom Hearts onwards (and no that first one wasn't a joke).
> 
> The point is that _RPG source books_ are there to facilitate _RPG play._ And in the specific case of _sourcebooks for RPGs_ having a metaplot actively harms the play at the table, thus damaging the primary purpose of the book. When you add metaplot to a setting you are taking away the usability and ownership any DM who uses it for its stated primary purpose has. And this is what you want - to make the RPG settings worse for anyone using them for RPGs
> 
> And you yourself admit that the Ravenloft metaplot wasn't being continued other than in your imagination. To quote you "Its all just stuff, that you can use or not.  Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?" Why can't you take the approach you advocate here to the new Ravenloft?  Why must it be _everyone else_ ignoring stuff they don't like even when that stuff they don't like actively takes away GM ownership of the games they are playing?



It's hard to ignore stuff you don't like if people are constantly talking about how great it is on the site you use to engage with your hobby.

Honestly, I was just hoping for a little sympathy here.  How would you like it if something that brought you great joy was unceremoniously ended, and your peers in the community loudly declared how much better things are without the things that you liked?  I refuse to believe that that's a weird attitude to have.

Edit: also, I love all the metaplots you list here (except the video game ones, because I'm not familiar with them).


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> It's hard to ignore stuff you don't like if people are constantly talking about how great it is on the site you use to engage with your hobby.




I think I can easily handle hearing "how great" it is.  It's "how much better" that gets grating.  (Wow Tasha's pizzeria's pineapple pizza is great, vs. wow Tasha's pizzeria's pineapple pizza dunks all over that pepperoni garbage you've always gotten from Xanathar's pizzeria!!!)


----------



## Pedantic

Micah Sweet said:


> Honestly, I was just hoping for a little sympathy here.  How would you like it if something that brought you great joy was unceremoniously ended, and your peers in the community loudly declared how much better things are without the things that you liked?  I refuse to believe that that's a weird attitude to have.



Setting aside metaplot as a specific flashpoint, isn't that the exact emotional arc of every edition change of D&D, at least since 3e, with it's broad online presence? Sweeping changes break parts of the thing you love, new people show up thrilled that it's broken, you explain that it's broken, they tell you you're wrong, and someone swoops in to explain it's better that there's two different things now at least, right?

Those last people are of course wrong, because from an individual perspective it was superior before, when there was no alternative to the thing you liked and all those new people didn't know they liked it better broken yet. They're probably also right, because the divergence of taste and preference is always bigger than expected. Unfortunately, the weird marketplace created by this one dominant game and associated branding means we can't actually split the pie of ongoing attention and design effort and content creation.

Either you get over it like most people and keep quietly loving the thing or go find a different thing...or you become a weird internet partisan like most of us on here with our pet design preferences.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Parmandur said:


> The Races already are backwards and forwards compatible, 100%. The only mechanical change is the Tasha's arrangements, which do not have any impact on Race balance whatsoever (an ASI bonus is an ASI bonus).



The proposed changes to Goliath and Dragonborn aren't. Changing the breath weapon mechanic doesn't hurt, but making them suddenly be able to fly does. On the Goliath, Stone's Endurance is already there, so is powerful build, but not the other options, and making Goliath's that suddenly change sizes changes who they are. I would recommend making the other giant lineage options feats that a Goliath can take, and perhaps even making large size an option but going back and forth between sizes when a prior Goliath character couldn't is not just changing the mechanic of an existing ability, it effectively makes them a different race. On the Dragonborn, perhaps make developing wings a feat for Dragonborn or just make winged Dragonborn a sub-race that has them instead of the breath weapon, and include a feat that allows dragonborn to develop both, but suddenly saying that existing characters have wings that they didn't have isn't backward compatible.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Cadence said:


> Were the published Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms created from metaplot from the beginning? Was Dragonlance created to go along with an unfolding metaplot?  If so, then is metaplot part of their purposes?   Was the Known World published with all the metaplot rolling out with it (like GH and FR had in Dragon Magazine and later on in books), or did it not have that?



Greyhawk and the Realms, no.

Dragonlance was created deliberately as the first formal adventure path and the setting grew from that. You were supposed to play the War of the Lance with your players either playing the characters of or taking the place of the party.

And the big difference between then and now is that _we've been through the 90s_. We've seen the impact of metaplot on gameability of settings, both D&D (Faction War anyone? Time of Troubles? Spellplague?) and the oWoD.  Creating settings round metaplot back then was understandable because it was unexplored.


Micah Sweet said:


> Honestly, I was just hoping for a little sympathy here.



I did have sympathy. I thought you were _wrong_ about metaplot in RPG products for reasons I explained. But most of my actual sympathy vanished when you asked "Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?" Which is why it was after that I brought up the explicit parallel to what you were asking from others and what you don't do with modern Ravenloft; you are asking for people to ignore things they don't like that has a direct impact on the way they play while refusing to do the same to things that don't impact you at the table.


Micah Sweet said:


> How would you like it if something that brought you great joy was unceremoniously ended, and your peers in the community loudly declared how much better things are without the things that you liked?  I refuse to believe that that's a weird attitude to have.



You're talking to a 4e fan  Yes it hurts. And I try to share the good parts of 4e when I can.


Micah Sweet said:


> Edit: also, I love all the metaplots you list here (except the video game ones, because I'm not familiar with them).



I enjoy them too. But I _also_ enjoy stories that are tight and complete. And I dislike metaplot when it makes the actual stories worse (thinking for example of the DCEU, the Dark Universe Cinematic Universe that got no further than the Mummy, and a few other things). Metaplot, as I've explained, in my experience always makes settings worse for play at the table and can lead to it getting far worse.


----------



## Micah Sweet

I


Neonchameleon said:


> Greyhawk and the Realms, no.
> 
> Dragonlance was created deliberately as the first formal adventure path and the setting grew from that. You were supposed to play the War of the Lance with your players either playing the characters of or taking the place of the party.
> 
> And the big difference between then and now is that _we've been through the 90s_. We've seen the impact of metaplot on gameability of settings, both D&D (Faction War anyone? Time of Troubles? Spellplague?) and the oWoD.  Creating settings round metaplot back then was understandable because it was unexplored.
> 
> I did have sympathy. I thought you were _wrong_ about metaplot in RPG products for reasons I explained. But most of my actual sympathy vanished when you asked "Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?" Which is why it was after that I brought up the explicit parallel to what you were asking from others and what you don't do with modern Ravenloft; you are asking for people to ignore things they don't like that has a direct impact on the way they play while refusing to do the same to things that don't impact you at the table.
> 
> You're talking to a 4e fan  Yes it hurts. And I try to share the good parts of 4e when I can.
> 
> I enjoy them too. But I _also_ enjoy stories that are tight and complete. And I dislike metaplot when it makes the actual stories worse (thinking for example of the DCEU, the Dark Universe Cinematic Universe that got no further than the Mummy, and a few other things). Metaplot, as I've explained, in my experience always makes settings worse for play at the table and can lead to it getting far worse.



I would feel far better about all this if I didn't have to listen to people constantly tell me that the things I like suck and I was wrong to like them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Neonchameleon said:


> Greyhawk and the Realms, no.
> 
> Dragonlance was created deliberately as the first formal adventure path and the setting grew from that. You were supposed to play the War of the Lance with your players either playing the characters of or taking the place of the party.
> 
> And the big difference between then and now is that _we've been through the 90s_. We've seen the impact of metaplot on gameability of settings, both D&D (Faction War anyone? Time of Troubles? Spellplague?) and the oWoD.  Creating settings round metaplot back then was understandable because it was unexplored.
> 
> I did have sympathy. I thought you were _wrong_ about metaplot in RPG products for reasons I explained. But most of my actual sympathy vanished when you asked "Why would its ignorable existence be an issue for anyone?" Which is why it was after that I brought up the explicit parallel to what you were asking from others and what you don't do with modern Ravenloft; you are asking for people to ignore things they don't like that has a direct impact on the way they play while refusing to do the same to things that don't impact you at the table.
> 
> You're talking to a 4e fan  Yes it hurts. And I try to share the good parts of 4e when I can.
> 
> I enjoy them too. But I _also_ enjoy stories that are tight and complete. And I dislike metaplot when it makes the actual stories worse (thinking for example of the DCEU, the Dark Universe Cinematic Universe that got no further than the Mummy, and a few other things). Metaplot, as I've explained, in my experience always makes settings worse for play at the table and can lead to it getting far worse.



I prefer serial storytelling to one and done most of the time.  Even the episodic stuff I like at least tends to exist in a shared universe.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> I
> 
> I would feel far better about all this if I didn't have to listen to people constantly tell me that the things I like suck and I was wrong to like them.



Honestly I'd like to hear why you liked the old Ravenloft. Again, as a 4e fan you've my sympathy over that part.

And I'd say you're never wrong to like things that already exist and aren't actively immoral - but may be wrong to want more of them. The two are not the same.


----------



## Parmandur

shadowoflameth said:


> The proposed changes to Goliath and Dragonborn aren't. Changing the breath weapon mechanic doesn't hurt, but making them suddenly be able to fly does. On the Goliath, Stone's Endurance is already there, so is powerful build, but not the other options, and making Goliath's that suddenly change sizes changes who they are. I would recommend making the other giant lineage options feats that a Goliath can take, and perhaps even making large size an option but going back and forth between sizes when a prior Goliath character couldn't is not just changing the mechanic of an existing ability, it effectively makes them a different race. On the Dragonborn, perhaps make developing wings a feat for Dragonborn or just make winged Dragonborn a sub-race that has them instead of the breath weapon, and include a feat that allows dragonborn to develop both, but suddenly saying that existing characters have wings that they didn't have isn't backward compatible.



These are different options, not better, though subject to further balancing. The new Goliath is missing features from the old one. The math balance for the OneD&D options shown so far us the same as the 2014 PHB, even if they are getting sexier.

It remains to be seen if they can make the old Subclasses plug and play, but they seem to be making the effort.


----------



## Parmandur

@shadowoflameth  & @Maxperson  note that this go around WotC is even more explicit that old Subclasses from existing books are going to be usable in the final 2024 books:


----------



## MockingBird

I like metaplots. It gives me ideas for my game.


----------



## Pedantic

Parmandur said:


> @shadowoflameth  & @Maxperson  note that this go around WotC is even more explicit that old Subclasses from existing books are going to be usable in the final 2024 books:




I'm not sure that's what's implied there. That more strongly suggests a commitment to publishing updated versions of all existing subclasses, or to providing conversion guidelines. Particularly as they've said they plan to harmonize the subclass feature schedule this time around.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Honestly, I was just hoping for a little sympathy here. How would you like it if something that brought you great joy was unceremoniously ended, and your peers in the community loudly declared how much better things are without the things that you liked? I refuse to believe that that's a weird attitude to have.




I'm going to assume you don't have children. If you did, you'd be numb to being told the stuff you like is old and lame. Heck, I used to work with children and I wasn't that old (30) and I was tragically unhip. It's part of growing old. It's not the same world man. Tastes change. Attitudes change. Your chinos and Blink 182 CDs aren't in style. It can be hard realizing you aren't the target demographic anymore, but that's life. 

Put another way


----------



## Scribe

Remathilis said:


> I'm going to assume you don't have children. If you did, you'd be numb to being told the stuff you like is old and lame. Heck, I used to work with children and I wasn't that old (30) and I was tragically unhip. It's part of growing old. It's not the same world man. Tastes change. Attitudes change. Your chinos and Blink 182 CDs aren't in style. It can be hard realizing you aren't the target demographic anymore, but that's life.




I have a kid. What really got me was when advertising was clearly not directed at me anymore. That was when I knew I was old. 

I will say, my musical taste is still better than anything 'popular' today however.


----------



## Incenjucar

All the old stuff that isn't horribly regressive still has a place. The 2E Elves handbook was absurd even on the day it was released but it's still a fun read if you're up to learn about all the new powers elves could have from the power of radness and how also they have cybernetic limb technology and also that one time an elf had the hots for a talking tree.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> I've used plenty of elements from setting material.  I just don't play in the settings themselves.  That utility, and the story, are enough for me.  Its no different than cannibalizing pieces of an official adventure.



But you realize that a _lot _of people _do _use the setting material as setting material, not as stuff to cannibalize, right? And that for these people, it's _obnoxiously hard _to use metaplot material in a non-metaplot game?

I get that you enjoy reading the books, but you have to realize that you're not actually using the books the way they were intended, i.e., as game material. And that the books need to be written for people who actually _do _use them as game material.


----------



## Incenjucar

There is certainly a conflict between the writing for Setting as Story and Setting as Game elements. There's a whole genre of fictional histories that are not themselves novels which were a major part of how some settings got popular. Both are very valid to enjoy, but they hit this conflict rather often.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> I'm going to assume you don't have children. If you did, you'd be numb to being told the stuff you like is old and lame. Heck, I used to work with children and I wasn't that old (30) and I was tragically unhip. It's part of growing old. It's not the same world man. Tastes change. Attitudes change. Your chinos and Blink 182 CDs aren't in style. It can be hard realizing you aren't the target demographic anymore, but that's life.
> 
> Put another way



I feel that quote every day.  I do have kids, but they're not old enough to give me a hard time yet.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> It's hard to ignore stuff you don't like if people are constantly talking about how great it is on the site you use to engage with your hobby.



And it's hard to ignore metaplots if all the game books are filled with them.


----------



## Parmandur

Pedantic said:


> I'm not sure that's what's implied there. That more strongly suggests a commitment to publishing updated versions of all existing subclasses, or to providing conversion guidelines. Particularly as they've said they plan to harmonize the subclass feature schedule this time around.



It's not an implication at all, it's explicit that the finalnpublished version of any revised Class will have a process in place to use any existing Subclass from a 5E book: so, Subclassand Races will still be usable, and we already know thanks to Mosnters of the Mulriverse that all Monsters will be backwards and forwards compatible...so, the new books as such will be backwards compatible.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Incenjucar said:


> There is certainly a conflict between the writing for Setting as Story and Setting as Game elements. There's a whole genre of fictional histories that are not themselves novels which were a major part of how some settings got popular. Both are very valid to enjoy, but they hit this conflict rather often.



Yes, exactly.  My enjoyment was valid, darn it! 

You can't tell me that all those campaign settings, with their enormous histories and detail, were just intended to help people play their games.  They were at least in part creating worlds to be enjoyed for their own sake, just like any fictional worlds that weren't explicitly game material.  

And in any case, if a setting like Eberron really was, "objectively better" as some people say, why have they continued to support other settings like the Realms, or retread old settings like Ravenloft, Spelljammer and soon enough Planescape.  Clearly WotC doesn't see Eberron as the best possible D&D.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> And it's hard to ignore metaplots if all the game books are filled with them.



They haven't been filled with them for quite some time, but they didn't explicitly tell us they're abandoning them until very recently.


----------



## shadowoflameth

Pedantic said:


> I'm not sure that's what's implied there. That more strongly suggests a commitment to publishing updated versions of all existing subclasses, or to providing conversion guidelines. Particularly as they've said they plan to harmonize the subclass feature schedule this time around.



Yes, and I appreciate their commitment to do that.  The races though, Goliath and Dragonborn particularly have elements that aren't just an adjustment. Should we just pretend that dragonborn could always fly? It's easily fixed by making winged dragonborn an option just like winged tiefling. Options for the Goliath are mostly fine too, but a Goliath able to change size is fundamentally different. They already have the carrying capacity of a large creature. If that isn't enough for an ancestral ability, add grappling like a large creature, reach or even weapon size, but the 'hulk' option feels both goofy and unnecessary. There are races that now have small or medium size as options, so make goliath medium (with large perks) or just make them large but pick one.


----------



## Incenjucar

Easy to just say that they rediscovered a lost power if you're changing mid-campaign. Permanent Large breaks things.


----------



## Parmandur

shadowoflameth said:


> Yes, and I appreciate their commitment to do that.  The races though, Goliath and Dragonborn particularly have elements that aren't just an adjustment. Should we just pretend that dragonborn could always fly? It's easily fixed by making winged dragonborn an option just like winged tiefling. Options for the Goliath are mostly fine too, but a Goliath able to change size is fundamentally different. They already have the carrying capacity of a large creature. If that isn't enough for an ancestral ability, add grappling like a large creature, reach or even weapon size, but the 'hulk' option feels both goofy and unnecessary. There are races that now have small or medium size as options, so make goliath medium (with large perks) or just make them large but pick one.



The options in question still look like they are following the Tasha's rules with building a Species around a Feat and a half of stuff, though it may beed aomr more finetuning. That's what matters, not a 1-to-1 with older versions.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, exactly.  My enjoyment was valid, darn it!
> 
> You can't tell me that all those campaign settings, with their enormous histories and detail, were just intended to help people play their games.  They were at least in part creating worlds to be enjoyed for their own sake, just like any fictional worlds that weren't explicitly game material.



Yes, they really were. 

If anything, they were a reaction to games like Vampire, which were very florid in their writing and were heavy in metaplot, in contrast to the much drier, more encyclopedia-esque way 1e had been written, where history was written in the form of long, dull timelines. I don't think I've _ever _managed to read a timeline in even Ravenloft without getting bored halfway through. Vampire and similar games changed the way games were presented, and TSR had to keep up--because gamers want to enjoy the game books they're buying, not just stick them on a shelf and only read them when they needed a rule clarified. 

But they were still intended to be used to help people play their games. That's why game companies _also _put out novels and comics--and in the case of Vampire, a TV show--for people who wanted to enjoy the world as a story and _not _a game.



Micah Sweet said:


> And in any case, if a setting like Eberron really was, "objectively better" as some people say, why have they continued to support other settings like the Realms, or retread old settings like Ravenloft, Spelljammer and soon enough Planescape.  Clearly WotC doesn't see Eberron as the best possible D&D.



You yourself constantly talk about how WotC is doing things just for the money. That's why. People have nostalgia for old games. People want to see the setting-specific rules officially updated. WotC can produce those books and sell them.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Yes, they really were.
> 
> If anything, they were a reaction to games like Vampire, which were very florid in their writing and were heavy in metaplot, in contrast to the much drier, more encyclopedia-esque way 1e had been written, where history was written in the form of long, dull timelines. I don't think I've _ever _managed to read a timeline in even Ravenloft without getting bored halfway through. Vampire and similar games changed the way games were presented, and TSR had to keep up--because gamers want to enjoy the game books they're buying, not just stick them on a shelf and only read them when they needed a rule clarified.
> 
> But they were still intended to be used to help people play their games. That's why game companies _also _put out novels and comics--and in the case of Vampire, a TV show--for people who wanted to enjoy the world as a story and _not _a game.
> 
> 
> You yourself constantly talk about how WotC is doing things just for the money. That's why. People have nostalgia for old games. People want to see the setting-specific rules officially updated. WotC can produce those books and sell them.



So they really think Eberron is better, but they still sell other stuff for $$?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Yes, they really were.
> 
> If anything, they were a reaction to games like Vampire, which were very florid in their writing and were heavy in metaplot, in contrast to the much drier, more encyclopedia-esque way 1e had been written, where history was written in the form of long, dull timelines. I don't think I've _ever _managed to read a timeline in even Ravenloft without getting bored halfway through. Vampire and similar games changed the way games were presented, and TSR had to keep up--because gamers want to enjoy the game books they're buying, not just stick them on a shelf and only read them when they needed a rule clarified.
> 
> But they were still intended to be used to help people play their games. That's why game companies _also _put out novels and comics--and in the case of Vampire, a TV show--for people who wanted to enjoy the world as a story and _not _a game.
> 
> 
> You yourself constantly talk about how WotC is doing things just for the money. That's why. People have nostalgia for old games. People want to see the setting-specific rules officially updated. WotC can produce those books and sell them.



Also, I'm a huge history nerd, so stuff like that is like catnip to me.  I'm really going to miss it.


----------



## Bill Zebub

shadowoflameth said:


> shouldn't characters and races be backward compatible with what we have?




They are. You will be able to play a game with 2014 characters and 2024 characters in the same party.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> They are. You will be able to play a game with 2014 characters and 2024 characters in the same party.



Maybe, but the intent of 6e core is clearly not to be compatible with 5e core.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe, but the intent of 6e core is clearly not to be compatible with 5e core.




I haven't seen 6e yet, but One D&D clearly _is_ compatible.

Note that "compatible" is not synonymous with "identical", nor does it necessarily require "seamless".


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> So they really think Eberron is better, but they still sell other stuff for $$?



Why wouldn't they?

Assuming WotC actually _does _think Eberron is better (I have no idea if they do or not and I very much doubt that there will ever be an official statement on it), there are still lots of people who are neutral towards it or actively don't like it, and lots of people who really like the other settings. 

Plus, Eberron isn't as generic as the Realms and some other official settings are, therefore harder to steal ideas from, therefore will be less popular amongst people who strictly use homebrew settings. 

_And _D&D is a basically a mega-company that wants to have _many _people play their game, not a smaller one who is happy to produce a single setting and only cater to people who like that one setting.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Also, I'm a huge history nerd, so stuff like that is like catnip to me.  I'm really going to miss it.



It's still there, in the existing books. You haven't lost anything because you already own the books.

Feel free to do whatever everyone else in the history of fandoms has ever done when their fandom of choice has gone in a direction they don't like: write a fixit fanfic that does what you actually want the fandom to have done. I've read a bunch of "everyone lives" fics for Rogue One, for instance.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I dislike 5e Ravenloft because it officially ended pre-5e Ravenloft, and I liked that story.  It's clearly an emotional reaction for me.
> 
> Look, I'm allowed to like metaplots, and wish the game I grew up with and loved still had them.  I would feel no different is there was no more new Star Wars, or Star Trek, or Marvel comics.  That's what the metaplots of D&D were to me, and until quite recently, even if they weren't really being continued, I could still imagine they were.  Now, they explicitly aren't.
> 
> WotC decided that what I enjoyed most about D&D wasn't worth continuing, and when I complained, most of what I hear is that what I like is, "bad for the game" and shouldn't have ever been there in the first place, and I should just get over it.  And apparently being angry about that is unreasonable.
> 
> Why should I feel bad about wanting things in the game that I like?  I'm not the one taking things away.



There are two things to keep in mind here.

1.  You got what you wanted for twenty or thirty years.  I had to wait that long to get what I wanted.  I didn't want meta-plot.  I don't read settings just to read them.  I wanted settings that I could use in my game without having to do what I felt was too much work removing the meta-plots and working around them.  So, while yes, it's bad for you that you are not getting what you want anymore, there is still the point that you got what you wanted for a very, very long time.

2.  The reason that meta-plot is being removed from the settings is that meta-plot makes settings harder to sell.  Which is bad for the company that makes the products.  It's nothing to do with your or my personal preferences, it's simply market forces.  In other words, it's not personal.  And coming in to every single thread for the past two years and complaining about the same thing over and over again is not exactly an endearing trait.  You've repeatedly claimed that you aren't playing D&D, WotC doesn't make what you want, and you've moved on to a new game.  Great.  Fantastic.  Join the club.  But, again, it's not personal.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> It's hard to ignore stuff you don't like if people are constantly talking about how great it is on the site you use to engage with your hobby.
> 
> Honestly, I was just hoping for a little sympathy here.  How would you like it if something that brought you great joy was unceremoniously ended, and your peers in the community loudly declared how much better things are without the things that you liked?  I refuse to believe that that's a weird attitude to have.
> 
> Edit: also, I love all the metaplots you list here (except the video game ones, because I'm not familiar with them).



Heh.  Try being a 4e fan.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> So they really think Eberron is better, but they still sell other stuff for $$?



"Designed better for the assumptions of the game" doesn't mean "more profitable than every other settings combined".


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Assuming WotC actually _does _think Eberron is better (I have no idea if they do or not and I very much doubt that there will ever be an official statement on it), there are still lots of people who are neutral towards it or actively don't like it, and lots of people who really like the other settings.
> 
> Plus, Eberron isn't as generic as the Realms and some other official settings are, therefore harder to steal ideas from, therefore will be less popular amongst people who strictly use homebrew settings.
> 
> _And _D&D is a basically a mega-company that wants to have _many _people play their game, not a smaller one who is happy to produce a single setting and only cater to people who like that one setting.



My point is, there is no evidence that Eberron actually is objectively better than other settings, and no official statement has ever been made (or is likely ever to be made) saying such.  As a result, value statements about settings are subjective and opinion-based, which is the crux of my disagreement with @Levistus's_Leviathan .

I like Eberron fine.  I just don't see it as the objectively best setting, and there is no evidence to suggest that Keith Baker or WotC see it that way either.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Heh.  Try being a 4e fan.



From everything I've been reading around here, 4e fans have a good amount of company on this site.  As I recall, rpg.net is heavily in favor of 4e as well.


----------



## Hussar

Just a thought about meta-plot.  We should remember that other than Dragonlance (which obviously was created alongside the novels), none of the D&D settings started with anything like a meta-plot.  Greyhawk most certainly didn't.  All those 1e modules were never meant to be a single story.  Forgotten Realms didn't have a meta-plot either.  Not until the 2e changeover and they needed a way to explain the edition changes so we got the Dead Gods trilogy.  Mystara most certainly never had a meta-plot.

Meta-plot is a 2e thing mostly.  Meta-plot represents a significant change for the settings from what they originally were presented as.  All 5e has done is return back to that original approach.  Which is EXACTLY what people were crying for when 5e was released.  They wanted everything reset.  Go back to the good old days.  Bring back old school style when the game was at its best.

Well, careful what you wish for.  You got exactly what you asked for.  You rejected the new and insisted on the old.  WotC is just giving you what you said you wanted.  

Let's not forget, before 4e was a thing, 2e was roundly reviled for its meta-plot and terrible stories.  2e was the red-headed stepchild of the editions.  3e was a rejection of 2e.  Back to the dungeon, remember?  And Realms Shaking Events are also pretty widely regarded as a very bad thing.  4e's Spellplague was entirely rejected, but, various other RSE's were never very popular.  And the Greyhawk Wars are extremely contentious in Greyhawk circles.  Faction War was a big splitting point between Planescape fans.  

Every time they try to do some sort of meta-plot that changes the setting, all it does is fraction the fan base of that setting and, in some cases, kills the setting dead.

Not really a surprise that they are not doing that anymore.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> From everything I've been reading around here, 4e fans have a good amount of company on this site.  As I recall, rpg.net is heavily in favor of 4e as well.



So an entire edition based around rejecting everything 4e, the complete inability to even HAVE discussions about 4e elements, and dev's specifically taking public dumps on 4e is good company?  Dude...  It was so bad back in the day that specific topics had to get their own forums because it was impossible to have a discussion about them without becoming a  massive dump truck of a dumpster fire.

This?  This is nothing.  And, again, you asked the question and you got the answer.  You might not like the answer, fair enough, but, it is asked and answered.


----------



## Incenjucar

I think the most important thing is to avoid having meta-plot replace the core. As a Planescape fan, all I had to do to reject the Faction War was to never buy that book - in fact I only recently downloaded it from Drivethrough the other day out of curiosity. As long as each edition still provides the core details and rules, it's fine if they have a Possible Future splat. Heck, they can have multiple divergent timelines if they want. Just don't stop printing the rules for the original moment in the next edition. Sodkillers? Sure. Still give me Mercykillers rules.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> My point is, there is no evidence that Eberron actually is objectively better than other settings, and no official statement has ever been made (or is likely ever to be made) saying such.  As a result, value statements about settings are subjective and opinion-based, which is the crux of my disagreement with @Levistus's_Leviathan .
> 
> I like Eberron fine.  I just don't see it as the objectively best setting, and there is no evidence to suggest that Keith Baker or WotC see it that way either.



I don't think Eberron is objectively the best setting. Its focus on magitek, noir and subversions and deconstructions of tropes from other settings is of a different genre/theme than base D&D, so it would never work as the core or main setting. It would be like using Don Quixote as an example of the typical stories of chivalrous knights. Eberron is only brilliant if you know what its subverting and deconstructing. 

However, I do think that some major aspects of its design are objectively better for the game than the alternatives many settings used before it. Like how it forbids metaplot and objective canon, how it's designed with the intent of the DM making it their own, and a few other big aspects of how it was designed.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> There are two things to keep in mind here.
> 
> 1.  You got what you wanted for twenty or thirty years.  I had to wait that long to get what I wanted.  I didn't want meta-plot.  I don't read settings just to read them.  I wanted settings that I could use in my game without having to do what I felt was too much work removing the meta-plots and working around them.  So, while yes, it's bad for you that you are not getting what you want anymore, there is still the point that you got what you wanted for a very, very long time.
> 
> 2.  The reason that meta-plot is being removed from the settings is that meta-plot makes settings harder to sell.  Which is bad for the company that makes the products.  It's nothing to do with your or my personal preferences, it's simply market forces.  In other words, it's not personal.  And coming in to every single thread for the past two years and complaining about the same thing over and over again is not exactly an endearing trait.  You've repeatedly claimed that you aren't playing D&D, WotC doesn't make what you want, and you've moved on to a new game.  Great.  Fantastic.  Join the club.  But, again, it's not personal.



To be fair, you're on record for not caring about settings at all, metaplot or no metaplot, so it's unlikely we'll ever see eye to eye on that score.  

The only thing WotC does that I do care about is setting-based, because legally no one else can make stuff for their closed IP.  Hopefully, the DMsguild will make good Dragonlance and eventually Planescape stuff when WotC relaxes their grip. There are certainly plenty of Ravenloft products on there that help me forget VGtR.  Spelljammer is still a little light, but I have faith they'll get there.

I'm dropping my crusade for metaplot though.  Clearly most folks here are in favor of WotC current take, so there's no point to continuing with it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I don't think Eberron is objectively the best setting. Its focus on magitek, noir and subversions and deconstructions of tropes from other settings is of a different genre/theme than base D&D, so it would never work as the core or main setting. It would be like using Don Quixote as an example of the typical stories of chivalrous knights. Eberron is only brilliant if you know what its subverting and deconstructing.
> 
> However, I do think that some major aspects of its design are objectively better for the game than the alternatives many settings used before it. Like how it forbids metaplot and objective canon, how it's designed with the intent of the DM making it their own, and a few other big aspects of how it was designed.



If that's true (and I will admit you make a fine argument), why hasn't WotC either re-made a more traditional setting, like the Realms or Greyhawk) or re-introduced an appropriate setting (like Nerath) or produced a new setting that adheres to the design aspects and values you are so convinced are objectively better?  Greyhawk in particular would be a great candidate for that treatment, as it's metaplot was always pretty thin.  Nerath would work great that way too.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> My point is, there is no evidence that Eberron actually is objectively better than other settings, and no official statement has ever been made (or is likely ever to be made) saying such.  As a result, value statements about settings are subjective and opinion-based, which is the crux of my disagreement with @Levistus's_Leviathan .
> 
> I like Eberron fine.  I just don't see it as the objectively best setting, and there is no evidence to suggest that Keith Baker or WotC see it that way either.



Hasn't Levistsus repeatedly said that their opinions on what's better isn't the same thing as what's best to be published? Or am I confusing them with someone else? There's a lot of people on the thread, but I _know _I've seen people say things like "In my opinion, X is better" and you respond with "you're saying it's objectively better."

But anyway, I also think they've said that Eberron takes the _rules of the game _into account better than other settings do, which quite probably _is _objectively true. For example, it was built with the magic item creation rules taken into account, allowing for magic items to be a more prominent part of the setting and to take the place of technology--as opposed to the Realms, which still can't decide if magic items are common or rare but whichever they are, they have no actual bearing on the setting's history.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> So an entire edition based around rejecting everything 4e, the complete inability to even HAVE discussions about 4e elements, and dev's specifically taking public dumps on 4e is good company?  Dude...  It was so bad back in the day that specific topics had to get their own forums because it was impossible to have a discussion about them without becoming a  massive dump truck of a dumpster fire.
> 
> This?  This is nothing.  And, again, you asked the question and you got the answer.  You might not like the answer, fair enough, but, it is asked and answered.



I'm talking about now.  4e design elements are starting to creep back in to the game, I suspect because the designers want them there.  Given the apparent popularity of the playtest packets, most of those elements will likely stick.  This site is certainly more 4e friendly than it was.  Obviously not everyone likes it, but I think things are better in 2022 if you're a 4e fan.  I played and ran 4e for over a year, and followed it throughout, and while it wasn't what I wanted, it was a solid game that obviously had a lot of fans.


----------



## Pedantic

Parmandur said:


> It's not an implication at all, it's explicit that the finalnpublished version of any revised Class will have a process in place to use any existing Subclass from a 5E book: so, Subclassand Races will still be usable, and we already know thanks to Mosnters of the Mulriverse that all Monsters will be backwards and forwards compatible...so, the new books as such will be backwards compatible.




But that's not compatibility. Publishing updated subclasses and/or providing conversion guidelines both mean the old material is incompatible by definition. That's still a good thing to do, mind, and I don't think I have any problem with it, but they're proposing that they'll provide updated versions of (guidelines to update) existing content, not that the existing stuff will still be usable as is.

Which, is I think good from a design perspective? It frees them up to do a lot more with subclasses and species abilities and all that.


----------



## Cadence

Which of the campaigns used to regularly appear in Dragon Magazine (I'm guessing between issues 63 and 105) with dates of events that were happening in it?  Or am I misremembering something into existence?


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> If that's true (and I will admit you make a fine argument), why hasn't WotC either re-made a more traditional setting, like the Realms or Greyhawk) or re-introduced an appropriate setting (like Nerath) or produced a new setting that adheres to the design aspects and values you are so convinced are objectively better?  Greyhawk in particular would be a great candidate for that treatment, as it's metaplot was always pretty thin.  Nerath would work great that way too.



Why would they want to have _another _traditional setting when they already have the Realms? Traditional settings are easy to make by even people who have no interest in worldbuilding _and _would be in competition with the Realms. 

If they're going to put out brand-new settings (as opposed to MtG settings converted to 5e/One), they're going to put out settings that _aren't _Generic World #497. 

(Also, traditional =/= no lore, and interesting lore is not necessarily easy to make.)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Hasn't Levistsus repeatedly said that their opinions on what's better isn't the same thing as what's best to be published? Or am I confusing them with someone else? There's a lot of people on the thread, but I _know _I've seen people say things like "In my opinion, X is better" and you respond with "you're saying it's objectively better."
> 
> But anyway, I also think they've said that Eberron takes the _rules of the game _into account better than other settings do, which quite probably _is _objectively true. For example, it was built with the magic item creation rules taken into account, allowing for magic items to be a more prominent part of the setting and to take the place of technology--as opposed to the Realms, which still can't decide if magic items are common or rare but whichever they are, they have no actual bearing on the setting's history.



They have repeatedly said that Eberron is an objectively superior setting to others.  If they had just said it was their favorite and they liked the way it did this and that, and didn't out down other settings explicitly, I would have had no objection.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Why would they want to have _another _traditional setting when they already have the Realms? Traditional settings are easy to make by even people who have no interest in worldbuilding _and _would be in competition with the Realms.
> 
> If they're going to put out brand-new settings (as opposed to MtG settings converted to 5e/One), they're going to put out settings that _aren't _Generic World #497.
> 
> (Also, traditional =/= no lore, and interesting lore is not necessarily easy to make.)



If Eberron is made better than other settings, then why not "upgrade" one or more of those settings to comply with those improvements?  The claim is that Eberron is better designed.  If WotC believes that, they should want to bring their other settings up to that standard.


----------



## Incenjucar

A traditional setting with Eberron-level consistency could be interesting, but it's going to struggle to get attention over anything else unless it's attached to another system that doesn't already have several generic fantasy worlds.

I also don't think they're up for supporting new settings from scratch on a large scale, just focused books like Radiant Citadel or things based on popular works like Critical Role. WotC hasn't even been visibly pulling anything from the setting submissions that came in with Eberron after all these years, unless I missed it.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm talking about now.  4e design elements are starting to creep back in to the game, I suspect because the designers want them there.  Given the apparent popularity of the playtest packets, most of those elements will likely stick.  This site is certainly more 4e friendly than it was.  Obviously not everyone likes it, but I think things are better in 2022 if you're a 4e fan.  I played and ran 4e for over a year, and followed it throughout, and while it wasn't what I wanted, it was a solid game that obviously had a lot of fans.



Again, it took TEN YEARS to get to the point where you could talk about 4e design ideas and not get dog piled for it.  And, even now, suggesting things like Skill Challenges or damage on a miss will see the usual responses.  The only way to get 4e material into 5e is by steal thing them in and pretending they aren't from 4e in the first place.  Too many cooties.


----------



## Aldarc

Micah Sweet said:


> If Eberron is made better than other settings, then why not "upgrade" one or more of those settings to comply with those improvements?  The claim is that Eberron is better designed.  If WotC believes that, they should want to bring their other settings up to that standard.



Points of Light, IMHO, was one such attempt. It built the setting in accordance with the 4e rules while also making the setting usable for adventure and player options. As PoL is built around its themes and hooks rather than lore particulars, it's pretty easy to add things into the setting based on those themes. As such PoL/Nentir Vale and Eberron are probably my favorite two D&D settings. I haven't really seen any character options in 5e that wouldn't work in Nentir Vale or the wider Points of Light setting.

I suspect that the new 5e Ravenloft setting book was also meant to update the setting to increase its usability for adventure and similar improvements.



Hussar said:


> Again, it took TEN YEARS to get to the point where you could talk about 4e design ideas and not get dog piled for it.  And, even now, suggesting things like Skill Challenges or damage on a miss will see the usual responses.  *The only way to get 4e material into 5e is by steal thing them in and pretending they aren't from 4e in the first place.  Too many cooties.*



Or via D&D influencers with enough 5e clout: e.g., Matt Colville.


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> Which of the campaigns used to regularly appear in Dragon Magazine (I'm guessing between issues 63 and 105) with dates of events that were happening in it?  Or am I misremembering something into existence?



I believe that would be the Voyages of the Princess Arc stories from Mystara.  Although, to be fair, most of that wasn't really meta-plot but simply setting exposition dressed as fiction.  Fun reads.  But, AIR, there wasn't much connecting one story to another - they went to this place, saw these things, did those things and then moved on to the next place.  

And, to be fair, both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms saw a HUGE amount of setting development in Dragon magazine.  But, again, no meta-plot.  It was mostly just setting exposition - this town/region has this or that in it with these or those bad guys doing bad things.  It was largely a 2e development that you get all the big meta-plot stuff.  Dead Gods, Faction Wars, Greyhawk Wars, etc.  And, again, to be totally fair, most of the 2e material wasn't meta-plot based.  There was tons of stuff that didn't move the campaign setting forward but simply fleshed out existing parts.  One of my favorites was the Faiths and Avatars books for Forgotten Realms.  Those were fun reads.  

But, all that aside, we have to remember that WotC isn't publishing libraries anymore.  You get 5 (ish) books a year, 3 of them will likely be modules.  There just isn't space to get into meta-plots, nor is there space to present an entirely new setting.  

That's what DM's Guild is for.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> I believe that would be the Voyages of the Princess Arc stories from Mystara.  Although, to be fair, most of that wasn't really meta-plot but simply setting exposition dressed as fiction.  Fun reads.  But, AIR, there wasn't much connecting one story to another - they went to this place, saw these things, did those things and then moved on to the next place.
> 
> And, to be fair, both Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms saw a HUGE amount of setting development in Dragon magazine.  But, again, no meta-plot.  It was mostly just setting exposition - this town/region has this or that in it with these or those bad guys doing bad things.  It was largely a 2e development that you get all the big meta-plot stuff.  Dead Gods, Faction Wars, Greyhawk Wars, etc.  And, again, to be totally fair, most of the 2e material wasn't meta-plot based.  There was tons of stuff that didn't move the campaign setting forward but simply fleshed out existing parts.  One of my favorites was the Faiths and Avatars books for Forgotten Realms.  Those were fun reads.
> 
> But, all that aside, we have to remember that WotC isn't publishing libraries anymore.  You get 5 (ish) books a year, 3 of them will likely be modules.  There just isn't space to get into meta-plots, nor is there space to present an entirely new setting.
> 
> That's what DM's Guild is for.



Thanks!

I could have sworn it was things that happened year by year in either GH or FR, but the first half dozen Dragons I randomly flipped through didn't have that.

I did find lots of Deities of Greyhawk stuff in my flipping


----------



## Micah Sweet

Incenjucar said:


> A traditional setting with Eberron-level consistency could be interesting, but it's going to struggle to get attention over anything else unless it's attached to another system that doesn't already have several generic fantasy worlds.
> 
> I also don't think they're up for supporting new settings from scratch on a large scale, just focused books like Radiant Citadel or things based on popular works like Critical Role. WotC hasn't even been visibly pulling anything from the setting submissions that came in with Eberron after all these years, unless I missed it.



That's why I'm suggesting remaking the Realms, or Greyhawk,  or Nerath, like they've done with other settings.  What's good for the goose, after all...


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> However, I do think that some major aspects of its design* are objectively better* for the game than the alternatives many settings used before it. *Like how it forbids metaplot and objective canon*, how it's designed with the intent of the DM making it their own, and a few other big aspects of how it was designed.



You still have not shown hard evidence that your claim is true.  Where is the objective proof that forbidding metaplot is objectively better?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Again, it took TEN YEARS to get to the point where you could talk about 4e design ideas and not get dog piled for it.  And, even now, suggesting things like Skill Challenges or damage on a miss will see the usual responses.  The only way to get 4e material into 5e is by steal thing them in and pretending they aren't from 4e in the first place.  Too many cooties.



Slow and steady wins the race.  Looks like things are slowly going your way, one way or the other.


----------



## Aldarc

Micah Sweet said:


> Slow and steady wins the race.  Looks like things are slowly going your way, one way or the other.



Call me when the game returns to having Rolls against Defenses rather than Saving Throws and Per Encounter-based class designs.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Aldarc said:


> Call me when the game returns to having Rolls against Defenses rather than Saving Throws and Per Encounter-based class designs.



Well, they still want it to look like 5e, so big changes are going to be tricky.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> If that's true (and I will admit you make a fine argument), why hasn't WotC either re-made a more traditional setting, like the Realms or Greyhawk) or re-introduced an appropriate setting (like Nerath) or produced a new setting that adheres to the design aspects and values you are so convinced are objectively better?  Greyhawk in particular would be a great candidate for that treatment, as it's metaplot was always pretty thin.  Nerath would work great that way too.



Nerath used quite a bit of Eberron's design philosophies. Its religions were nuanced, it didn't have a metaplot, it was designed as a D&D setting first and foremost, not as a fantasy story setting. 

However, it was also designed as the setting for 4e. You know, the edition so widely reviled that WotC had to go and make 5e as an entire apology edition for it.


----------



## Vaalingrade

MockingBird said:


> I like metaplots.



I like the idea, but then I remember the 90's and also the Dragonlance discourse.

It's easy to see how it could be done right, but in practice... it's not. And people keep proving that as they bash their heads into that wall again and again and they keep coming up Samuel Haight.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Nerath used quite a bit of Eberron's design philosophies. Its religions were nuanced, it didn't have a metaplot, it was designed as a D&D setting first and foremost, not as a fantasy story setting.
> 
> However, it was also designed as the setting for 4e. You know, the edition so widely reviled that WotC had to go and make 5e as an entire apology edition for it.



If that's still a problem, after 10 years and a huge influx of players who know nothing about 4e, why not Greyhawk then?  Very little metaplot, classic setting.  Easy to convert to the high standards of Eberron.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> They have repeatedly said that Eberron is an objectively superior setting to others.



No, that's not what I said. I think that some specific aspects of its design are objectively superior. Not that I think that the setting overall is objectively superior or that everyone would or should like it. 


Micah Sweet said:


> If they had just said it was their favorite and they liked the way it did this and that, and didn't out down other settings explicitly, I would have had no objection.



Eberron actually isn't my favorite setting. Spelljammer is.


----------



## Pedantic

Aldarc said:


> Call me when the game returns to having Rolls against Defenses rather than Saving Throws and Per Encounter-based class designs.



I've always wondered about the Save vs. NAD differentiation as a 4e touchstone. Mathematically, there's no difference whether you're adding 10 to the attack or the defense modifier to produce a static number, it's just the "elegance" factor of making players roll consistently vs. some flavor in separating how magic vs. weapon attacks work.

As design points go, I don't know that it's particular important, vs. stuff like mostly resetting player HP totals and powers between encounters, but it gets a fair amount of press.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, that's not what I said. I think that some specific aspects of its design are objectively superior. Not that I think that the setting overall is objectively superior or that everyone would or should like it.
> 
> Eberron actually isn't my favorite setting. Spelljammer is.



Fair enough.  I don't think those aspects are superior, but I'm a particular sort and I said I wasn't going to talk about metaplot anymore.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Nerath used quite a bit of Eberron's design philosophies. Its religions were nuanced, it didn't have a metaplot, it was designed as a D&D setting first and foremost, not as a fantasy story setting.
> 
> However, it was also designed as the setting for 4e. You know, the edition so widely reviled that WotC had to go and make 5e as an entire apology edition for it.



I am constantly running up against posters here who are fans of 4e, most of them quite prolific in their posts.  Is EN World some haven for 4e fans then, if the world still hates the edition?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I am constantly running up against posters here who are fans of 4e, most of them quite prolific in their posts.  Is EN World some haven for 4e fans then, if the world still hates the edition?



You can find hundreds of posters on Reddit and D&D Beyond, written by fans that have never played an edition before 5e, that swear that 4e was terrible. Just because an older generation of players told them to think that. Or hundreds of thousands of people that watched a Puffin Forest video about 4e and think that means they know what playing 4e was like.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Aldarc said:


> Call me when the game returns to having Rolls against Defenses rather than Saving Throws and Per Encounter-based class designs.



While I made roll vs defenses an alternate rule, I've got something cooking for ya.

Picture it: Sicily, 1983. Forty years after that, in another country, there's an encounter -centric, feat driven character customization game with narrative controls built in and spells balanced to feats, balanced to items.


----------



## Marandahir

Aldarc said:


> I would probably just combine Nethermancy and Necromancy by saying that it all involves manipulating the power of the Shadowfell and then calling it a day.



That's more the Shadow Magic Sorcerer. Wizards like to compartmentalize, Sorcerers mix and match and pool the concepts all into big pools of subconsciousness made form.


----------



## Aldarc

Marandahir said:


> That's more the Shadow Magic Sorcerer. Wizards like to compartmentalize, Sorcerers mix and match and pool the concepts all into big pools of subconsciousness made form.



You say that is if it's somehow true and not just made up fantasy nonsense.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Aldarc said:


> You say that is if it's somehow true and not just made up fantasy nonsense.



I'm never going to be in favor of having fewer choices.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm never going to be in favor of having fewer choices.



Sometimes less is more.


----------



## Aldarc

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm never going to be in favor of having fewer choices.



That's not really what I am addressing here, but noted.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Aldarc said:


> That's not really what I am addressing here, but noted.



You want to combine two thematically similar things.  That's at least one fewer option.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Sometimes less is more.



But if less is more, think about how much more will be.


----------



## Marandahir

Aldarc said:


> You say that is if it's somehow true and not just made up fantasy nonsense.



I guess what I mean is that when it comes to the tropes of the D&D Wizard, it's very much in the intellectual and categorical, almost proto-scientific space. So Wizards would find it important to split between the disciplines.

Meanwhile, there already IS a Sorcerer subclass that combines Nethermancy and Necromancy -- the Shadow Magic Sorcerer - and they draw specifically magicl from the Shadowfell. Sorcerers are more impacted by the origin of the magic that is behind the spell; Wizards are more about how can be write/draw/say/formulize spells to bring forth magic? A Shadowfell Wizard is very possible to make, I'd just argue it's not something that belongs in the official core WotC material - at least not before a bunch of other concepts.

I do think one could argue for dual-discipline schools, where Wizards are drawing from both Illusion and Necromancy, for example. They've done this once with the War Magic Tradition, which draws from both Abjuration and Evocation. I honestly would love a Beguiller a la the 3.5e PHB2 that is a Wizard tradition specifically focused on combining Illusion and Enchantment. But if a Wizard is doing that, they're combining specific spell schools. Nethermancy, like Pyromancy, were REALLY WEIRD choices for spell schools that were sort of square peg round hole tropes. Pyromancy itself was only in a _Dragon _magazine article, if I recall. Nethermancy was in Heroes of Shadow, and was trying to force the Shadowcaster concept from 3.5e _Tome of Magic_ into the Wizard. This is something WotC were doing in general during _D&D Essentials _- somehow Witches and Sha'ir also got crammed in as Wizard subclasses despite sharing more with Druids, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (Witches) and just plain Warlocks (Sha'ir), narratively. At least the 3.5e Binder got to fit into the class that made sense for it - the Warlock!

Anyway, I was mostly making a off-handed comment as I was reading through the thread about what I though regarding the concept of combining these and tying a Wizard to the Shadowfell. It just felt more Sorcerer to me, and of course we have that in Sorcerer already. But of course if you want it in your game you can make it happen!


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> They have repeatedly said that Eberron is an objectively superior setting to others. If they had just said it was their favorite and they liked the way it did this and that, and didn't out down other settings explicitly, I would have had no objection.



Levistsus has literally said that they _don't _think it's the objectively best setting. What they've said is that they think it's best for the game rules. System rules and setting lore and setting metaplot and general quality are four very distinct things. And only three of those things are needed for a game to be good.



Micah Sweet said:


> If Eberron is made better than other settings, then why not "upgrade" one or more of those settings to comply with those improvements?  The claim is that Eberron is better designed.  If WotC believes that, they should want to bring their other settings up to that standard.



They literally did that: Ravenloft 5e. And you have spent a couple of years complaining about how it's objectively bad and how it ruined the setting. To be frank, I have a gut feeling that it was complaints like this from that kept them from putting decent lore in Spelljammer. If they're going to be damned if they do and damned if they don't, then they might as well not put in the effort.

Also, it's _Levistsus's _claim (that it's best for the rules, not for the game as a whole), not WotC's claim. To the best of my knowledge, WotC has not actively come out and said Eberron is the objectively best setting. So your entire argument here relies on Levistsus is speaking on behalf of WotC, which they _aren't._


----------



## Aldarc

Micah Sweet said:


> You want to combine two thematically similar things.  That's at least one fewer option.



This feels like a very Spinal Tap "these go to eleven" sort of argument. Combining two thematically similar things has no bearing on the number of actual character options that exist. It's about fluff rather than options. 



Marandahir said:


> I guess what I mean is that when it comes to the tropes of the D&D Wizard, it's very much in the intellectual and categorical, almost proto-scientific space. So Wizards would find it important to split between the disciplines.
> 
> Meanwhile, there already IS a Sorcerer subclass that combines Nethermancy and Necromancy -- the Shadow Magic Sorcerer - and they draw specifically magicl from the Shadowfell. Sorcerers are more impacted by the origin of the magic that is behind the spell; Wizards are more about how can be write/draw/say/formulize spells to bring forth magic? A Shadowfell Wizard is very possible to make, I'd just argue it's not something that belongs in the official core WotC material - at least not before a bunch of other concepts.
> 
> I do think one could argue for dual-discipline schools, where Wizards are drawing from both Illusion and Necromancy, for example. They've done this once with the War Magic Tradition, which draws from both Abjuration and Evocation. I honestly would love a Beguiller a la the 3.5e PHB2 that is a Wizard tradition specifically focused on combining Illusion and Enchantment. But if a Wizard is doing that, they're combining specific spell schools. Nethermancy, like Pyromancy, were REALLY WEIRD choices for spell schools that were sort of square peg round hole tropes. Pyromancy itself was only in a _Dragon _magazine article, if I recall. Nethermancy was in Heroes of Shadow, and was trying to force the Shadowcaster concept from 3.5e _Tome of Magic_ into the Wizard. This is something WotC were doing in general during _D&D Essentials _- somehow Witches and Sha'ir also got crammed in as Wizard subclasses despite sharing more with Druids, Sorcerers, and Warlocks (Witches) and just plain Warlocks (Sha'ir), narratively. At least the 3.5e Binder got to fit into the class that made sense for it - the Warlock!
> 
> Anyway, I was mostly making a off-handed comment as I was reading through the thread about what I though regarding the concept of combining. Of course if you want it in your game you can make it happen!



Still made-up fantasy nonsense, but now with a higher word count! I still see no reason why Nethermancy and Necromancy couldn't just be combined as Shadowfell magic. It's not like it has any objective truth in reality.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> But if less is more, think about how much more will be.



Depends on the individual. Some people have choice paralysis. I've a friend who has told me that he's not interested in Level Up _because _he wants a simpler game, not one with a million choices.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> But if less is more, think about how much more will be.



A quote that I think of often is "if I had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter." There is virtue in brevity and efficiency. 

If you can accomplish the same themes, stories, and rules with one option that you can with two, having two separate things is unnecessary and harmful, because it's redundant, wastes space, and doesn't provide anything of value.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm never going to be in favor of having fewer choices.




If the game of Go is ever going to take off it's going to need more options.


----------



## Maxperson

Faolyn said:


> Levistsus has literally said that they _don't _think it's the objectively best setting.



He has also said repeatedly and without any hard evidence that it is objectively better to do what Eberron did and not have metaplots.  And he repeatedly ignores requests to provide the hard evidence that would prove the objectivity of his claim.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> He has also said repeatedly and without any hard evidence that it is objectively better to do what Eberron did and not have metaplots.  And he repeatedly ignores requests to provide the hard evidence that would prove the objectivity of his claim.



What kind of proof would you accept?


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> What kind of proof would you accept?



Hard evidence that you are correct.  All we have that I have seen provided by you and others is subjective.  You like the changes or you don't like the changes that metaplots bring.  This is backed up by people who like the changes and dislike the changes.  Liking or disliking something is not objective.  

What hard evidence are you using to make the claim that having no metaplots is objectively better than having them?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Hard evidence that you are correct.  All we have that I have seen provided by you and others is subjective.  You like the changes or you don't like the changes that metaplots bring.  This is backed up by people who like the changes and dislike the changes.  Liking or disliking something is not objective.
> 
> What hard evidence are you using to make the claim that having no metaplots is objectively better than having them?



You did not answer my question. What is "hard evidence" in this discussion. What proof do I need to bring to prove to you that metaplots are bad for settings and the game in general? And, as I said earlier, I did not make up my mind about metaplots and then go searching for evidence for that opinion. I originally liked metaplots. Some of my first setting ideas (one of which I posted on this site a couple years ago) were of metaplot advancements of settings. My opinion on metaplots changed when I saw the effect that they had on communities. How toxic and divisive it made them. My opinion was formed around and changed by the evidence I saw. Not the other way around. 

So, I repeat the question that you dodged: What proof do I need to provide? What evidence do you want me to post?


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You did not answer my question. What is "hard evidence" in this discussion. What proof do I need to bring to prove to you that metaplots are bad for settings and the game in general? And, as I said earlier, I did not make up my mind about metaplots and then go searching for evidence for that opinion. I originally liked metaplots. Some of my first setting ideas (one of which I posted on this site a couple years ago) were of metaplot advancements of settings. My opinion on metaplots changed when I saw the effect that they had on communities. How toxic and divisive it made them. My opinion was formed around and changed by the evidence I saw. Not the other way around.
> 
> So, I repeat the question that you dodged: What proof do I need to provide? What evidence do you want me to post?



Hard evidence is *objective* proof.  Not based on like or dislike.

As for toxicity of metaplots on communities.  I've seen far less toxicity regarding metaplots than I have regarding alignment, hit points, race, edition, etc. If that's what you're using to say metaplots should go away, then we need to get rid of all the hot button mechanics that are also divisive.


----------



## Marandahir

Aldarc said:


> Still made-up fantasy nonsense, but now with a higher word count! I still see no reason why Nethermancy and Necromancy couldn't just be combined as Shadowfell magic. It's not like it has any objective truth in reality.



Sure, and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. But if less is more, then why not work with what we already have in the Shadow Magic Sorcerer? 

I agree with like 90% of your content on these forms, Aldarc, and respect ya; I really don't want to get into an argument with you over this, so I'll concede the point.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Hard evidence is *objective* proof. Not based on like or dislike.



You're not listening to what I'm asking. What kind of "hard evidence" do you want. Do I need data from polls? Do I need to survey every single D&D fan and show that most people hate metaplots? Do I need financial data from WotC that proves that metaplot eventually makes settings unprofitable?

I'm asking what you're looking for. What evidence do you need? What goose chase do you want to send me on?


Maxperson said:


> As for toxicity of metaplots on communities. I've seen far less toxicity regarding metaplots than I have regarding alignment, hit points, race, edition, etc. If that's what you're using to say metaplots should go away, then we need to get rid of all the hot button mechanics that are also divisive.



I'd argue that the controversy around all of those topics proves that some works needs to be done. I'm also of the opinion that alignment is bad for the game and that the community would be better off without it.


----------



## Parmandur

Pedantic said:


> But that's not compatibility. Publishing updated subclasses and/or providing conversion guidelines both mean the old material is incompatible by definition. That's still a good thing to do, mind, and I don't think I have any problem with it, but they're proposing that they'll provide updated versions of (guidelines to update) existing content, not that the existing stuff will still be usable as is.
> 
> Which, is I think good from a design perspective? It frees them up to do a lot more with subclasses and species abilities and all that.



Seems like semantic quibbling over what counts as "backwards compatible." If I can pick up SCAG, Xanathar's, Tasha's, or any of the 5E Settong books and use the material with the 2024 Core books...that's backwards compatible. Having a formula for compatibility does not mean the material isn't compatible.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Depends on the individual. Some people have choice paralysis. I've a friend who has told me that he's not interested in Level Up _because _he wants a simpler game, not one with a million choices.



Well, Level Up is explicitly designed to have more choices, so clearly that isn't the game for them.  Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> A quote that I think of often is "if I had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter." There is virtue in brevity and efficiency.
> 
> If you can accomplish the same themes, stories, and rules with one option that you can with two, having two separate things is unnecessary and harmful, because it's redundant, wastes space, and doesn't provide anything of value.



Brevity is a virtue, but so is specificity. For my part, I don't want a simpler game.  That's a big part of why I prefer Level Up, because they're not simplifying the fun out of 5e for me.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> If the game of Go is ever going to take off it's going to need more options.



Go is built to be simple to play.  They didn't make a new edition of Go that cuts the game down to just what the highest polling choices are.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> You're not listening to what I'm asking. What kind of "hard evidence" do you want. Do I need data from polls? Do I need to survey every single D&D fan and show that most people hate metaplots? Do I need financial data from WotC that proves that metaplot eventually makes settings unprofitable?



I'm not going to list every possible way to come up with hard evidence. I don't need you to go out and manufacture evidence. 

You made the claim of objectivity, therefore should have hard evidence to support that claim.  What is the hard evidence you are basing your claim of objectivity on?


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> What goose chase do you want to send me on?



I have no interest in sending you on a chase.  You've said that you're using anecdotal experiences from Reddit which is your subjective experience based on what you have seen.  The toxicity you saw was based on the subjective experiences of a number of posters.  That evidence is not objective, it's subjective.  Subjective + subjective =/= objective.

All I want to know is what objective evidence you used to come up with your claim.  If it's none, that's okay.  But no objective evidence means that your claim of objectivity in serious doubt.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I'd argue that the controversy around all of those topics proves that some works needs to be done. I'm also of the opinion that alignment is bad for the game and that the community would be better off without it.



And I'd argue that no matter what you do, people aren't going to like it and there will be a subset of those people who are toxic and will go online to spew it.  Right now there are multiple millions of D&D players.  A sliver of a sliver of multiple millions is still a huge number of people spewing toxicity, but that doesn't mean that anything needs to change or that what the toxic people are complaining about is bad.

It's similar to gun violence.  You'd think from the news talking about mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting with assault rifles, that most gun deaths are caused by mass shootings using assault rifles.  In fact, mass shooting deaths are dwarfed by the number of handgun deaths, but those don't get talked about.  You see a lot of the former, so it misleads people into thinking that that assault rifles are the primary problem.

We can't base a conclusion off of the numbers of complainers and/or toxic people that we see online, because those numbers don't give us the bigger picture.  It may be that most people or even a vast majority dislike metaplots.  Or it may be that most people or a vast  majority like them.  We can't know with any objectivity from what we see online which it is, or even if it is a majority and not even.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> I'm not going to list every possible way to come up with hard evidence. I don't need you to go out and manufacture evidence.



So, nothing. You have absolutely nothing. Thanks _so _much for the help. 

I never, ever asked you to list "every possible way to come up with hard evidence". I asked you for a single example. A lead for what you would want. What could convince you. Because I don't know how your brain works. I don't know what you will accept as evidence. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase across the corners of the internet looking for evidence that you will inevitably dismiss. We've done this dance before in previous discussions. I've seen you do it with other people too. 

So I'm not going to engage in your wild goose chase. Instead, if you want evidence, you have to tell me what you want. Give me one or two leads or things that I could feasibly track down or find even anecdotal evidence for. And if you're not going to do that, well, that just proves that you're not arguing in good faith, doesn't it?


----------



## shadowoflameth

Incenjucar said:


> Easy to just say that they rediscovered a lost power if you're changing mid-campaign. Permanent Large breaks things.



Permanent Large may be too much unless it comes at later levels, but that's why I suggest a feat, but it doesn't really break encounters any more than flight does, and players can already fly with some races. If it is game breaking, limiting it to 10 minute hulk outs won't fix it anymore than 10 minute flight. 'Hey there's an obstacle. I'll fly over it in one round. Hey, there's a big boulder. No problem, my Goliath Rune night will just lift, move or smash that.' It doesn't solve a balance problem and it adds a mechanic that we don't need. Like I said, either allow it or not. If Goliath can't just be large, the Duergar can already do it temporarily. So can anyone with Enlarge.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So, nothing. You have absolutely nothing. Thanks _so _much for the help.
> 
> I never, ever asked you to list "every possible way to come up with hard evidence". I asked you for a single example. A lead for what you would want. What could convince you. Because I don't know how your brain works. I don't know what you will accept as evidence. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase across the corners of the internet looking for evidence that you will inevitably dismiss. We've done this dance before in previous discussions. I've seen you do it with other people too.
> 
> So I'm not going to engage in your wild goose chase. Instead, if you want evidence, you have to tell me what you want. Give me one or two leads or things that I could feasibly track down or find even anecdotal evidence for. And if you're not going to do that, well, that just proves that you're not arguing in good faith, doesn't it?



Again, I don't want you to go looking.  That's not what I'm asking for. I'm not interested in any chases, goose or otherwise. You know the difference between objective and subjective, so you know that what you listed about Reddit was subjective.  

All I want to know is if you have anything objective right now, that you base your opinion on.  If yes, then just tell me what that evidence is.  If no, then tell me that as well.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Maxperson said:


> Again, I don't want you to go looking. That's not what I'm asking for. I'm not interested in any chases, goose or otherwise. You know the difference between objective and subjective, so you know that what you listed about Reddit was subjective.
> 
> All I want to know is if you have anything objective right now, that you base your opinion on. If yes, then just tell me what that evidence is. If no, then tell me that as well.



So you don't actually want that evidence you were asking for. Yeah, you're not arguing in good faith. And I'm not sure that we've ever had a constructive conversation on this site, so I'm Ignoring you. Goodbye for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Incenjucar

shadowoflameth said:


> Permanent Large may be too much unless it comes at later levels, but that's why I suggest a feat, but it doesn't really break encounters any more than flight does, and players can already fly with some races. If it is game breaking, limiting it to 10 minute hulk outs won't fix it anymore than 10 minute flight. 'Hey there's an obstacle. I'll fly over it in one round. Hey, there's a big boulder. No problem, my Goliath Rune night will just lift, move or smash that.' It doesn't solve a balance problem and it adds a mechanic that we don't need. Like I said, either allow it or not. If Goliath can't just be large, the Duergar can already do it temporarily. So can anyone with Enlarge.



Permanent large complicates the heck out of things and is a significant power boost to many character builds and is a problem for others. Flight should outright be assumed after a certain point, but having to adjust adventures for large characters really messes things up on a balance and architecture level. Temporary is fine. Temporary is not permanent.


----------



## Maxperson

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So you don't actually want that evidence you were asking for. Yeah, you're not arguing in good faith.



What's not in good faith is you baselessly accusing me of bad faith when you quote me saying, "All I want to know is if you have anything objective right now, that you base your opinion on." which is all I've ever asked for from you.  It's gross bad faith to try and twist it into me seeking something you don't have and need to go fetch.


Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> And I'm not sure that we've ever had a constructive conversation on this site, so I'm Ignoring you. Goodbye for the foreseeable future.



Sounds good.  At this point it's clear to me that you are basing your claim that no metaplots are objectively better on your subjective experiences and have nothing to support your claims.  That's the only conclusion I can come to when you continue to evade a clear and direct question asked of you multiple times and then accuse me of bad faith the way you did above.

Have a good one(and that's sincerely wished. I don't take things personally).


----------



## Micah Sweet

shadowoflameth said:


> Permanent Large may be too much unless it comes at later levels, but that's why I suggest a feat, but it doesn't really break encounters any more than flight does, and players can already fly with some races. If it is game breaking, limiting it to 10 minute hulk outs won't fix it anymore than 10 minute flight. 'Hey there's an obstacle. I'll fly over it in one round. Hey, there's a big boulder. No problem, my Goliath Rune night will just lift, move or smash that.' It doesn't solve a balance problem and it adds a mechanic that we don't need. Like I said, either allow it or not. If Goliath can't just be large, the Duergar can already do it temporarily. So can anyone with Enlarge.



I just don't see a good reason not to just make Goliaths large.  They sure as heck are size L in my games.


----------



## Incenjucar

Micah Sweet said:


> I just don't see a good reason not to just make Goliaths large.  They sure as heck are size L in my games.



Adventures are made for small and medium characters and it would be very expensive to start building them for large characters too for the rest of the run of the game.


----------



## Mecheon

Goliaths were initially designed in 3.5E as basically Half-Ogres that weren't Large. Because 3.5E's Large had its whole Set of Things going on, so Goliaths came along as a more... Player friendly option. Well, either that or 'we need a race in Races of Stone that isn't just dwarves and gnomes'. But their whole thing is being "Medium but kind of close to Large" so, don't think they should be touching Large myself

Also like, their stats were just. Half Giants without the psionic talents


----------



## Umbran

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> So you don't actually want that evidence you were asking for. Yeah, you're not arguing in good faith. And I'm not sure that we've ever had a constructive conversation on this site, so I'm Ignoring you. Goodbye for the foreseeable future.




*Mod Note:*
It is good for you to be thoughtful, and control your exposure to things that don't work well for you.

It is kind of cheap for you to take a personal parting shot before doing so.  Ignore isn't there so you can lob an insult and then hide under cover.  It isn't like your announcement will "teach" anything except that you can be rude.

The next time you feel the Ignore function would be useful to you, please make use of it, but do so _without announcing it_, please and thanks.


----------



## Pedantic

On the topic of Large goliaths....is there any real benefit to being Large in 5e? We've got increased carrying capacity and lifting heavy stuff, and the mixed benefit/penalty of a larger footprint in combat, letting you block more space but be surrounded and attacked by more people in melee. Outside of that, there's nothing intrinsic to being big that's actually helpful. The Enlarge/Reduce spell gives us +1d4 weapon damage and advantage on strength checks, but there's no real reason to assume any such benefit carries over to PC that are always big, and maybe a vague idea that they should have some kind of reach, but nothing in the rules that makes that intrinsically so.

From an adventure design perspective, all that being Large lets you circumvent is maybe lifting something that's too heavy for a medium PC? That just doesn't feel like it's going to come up enough, and it's easy to design around if it does. You might run into penalties for squeezing in combat in some places, but squeezing will explicitly allow a Large creature to fit anywhere a Medium one can walk normally. I suppose some adventures might have exceptionally small holes that a medium creature needs to squeeze through, but again, that feels easy to work around.

The impact feels frankly just quite small mechanically, and when it does come up, it's mostly a detriment to the PC. I think we're firmly in an aesthetic choice territory, given how size works in 5e, not a design or balance concern.


----------



## Minigiant

Pedantic said:


> On the topic of Large goliaths....is there any real benefit to being Large in 5e? We've got increased carrying capacity and lifting heavy stuff, and the mixed benefit/penalty of a larger footprint in combat, letting you block more space but be surrounded and attacked by more people in melee. Outside of that, there's nothing intrinsic to being big that's actually helpful. The Enlarge/Reduce spell gives us +1d4 weapon damage and advantage on strength checks, but there's no real reason to assume any such benefit carries over to PC that are always big, and maybe a vague idea that they should have some kind of reach, but nothing in the rules that makes that intrinsically so.
> 
> From an adventure design perspective, all that being Large lets you circumvent is maybe lifting something that's too heavy for a medium PC? That just doesn't feel like it's going to come up enough, and it's easy to design around if it does. You might run into penalties for squeezing in combat in some places, but squeezing will explicitly allow a Large creature to fit anywhere a Medium one can walk normally. I suppose some adventures might have exceptionally small holes that a medium creature needs to squeeze through, but again, that feels easy to work around.
> 
> The impact feels frankly just quite small mechanically, and when it does come up, it's mostly a detriment to the PC. I think we're firmly in an aesthetic choice territory, given how size works in 5e, not a design or balance concern.



As written Large Form and Powerful Build stack for carry, push, drag, and lift.

And youcould keep a large size weapon in your bag of holding for another weapon die of damage.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Pedantic said:


> On the topic of Large goliaths....is there any real benefit to being Large in 5e? We've got increased carrying capacity and lifting heavy stuff, and the mixed benefit/penalty of a larger footprint in combat, letting you block more space but be surrounded and attacked by more people in melee. Outside of that, there's nothing intrinsic to being big that's actually helpful. The Enlarge/Reduce spell gives us +1d4 weapon damage and advantage on strength checks, but there's no real reason to assume any such benefit carries over to PC that are always big, and maybe a vague idea that they should have some kind of reach, but nothing in the rules that makes that intrinsically so.
> 
> From an adventure design perspective, all that being Large lets you circumvent is maybe lifting something that's too heavy for a medium PC? That just doesn't feel like it's going to come up enough, and it's easy to design around if it does. You might run into penalties for squeezing in combat in some places, but squeezing will explicitly allow a Large creature to fit anywhere a Medium one can walk normally. I suppose some adventures might have exceptionally small holes that a medium creature needs to squeeze through, but again, that feels easy to work around.
> 
> The impact feels frankly just quite small mechanically, and when it does come up, it's mostly a detriment to the PC. I think we're firmly in an aesthetic choice territory, given how size works in 5e, not a design or balance concern.



I believe these are all the consequences that permanently being Large would provide for a PC:

Occupy more space on the battlefield (so you can block off more of the map from your enemies while still allowing your allies to pass through it, you threaten more squares and have more spaces that enemies can reach you, your auras and radiuses are extended further than they would for Medium or smaller PCs, being more likely to allow your party's Rogue to Sneak Attack, etc). 
Increased carrying capacity
Increased food consumption
The ability to grapple and shove Huge monsters
The immunity to being grappled or shoved by Small creatures
The ability to wield Large weapons (which deal an extra damage die)
The inability to squeeze into Small spaces. 
Only being able to ride Huge and larger mounts
The ability to be mounted by Medium and smaller creatures
Other various size/weight-related issues (not easily fitting through doorways, being more likely to break things, armor and weaponry costing more, etc)
That's not necessarily overpowered, and there are some pretty significant drawbacks, but overall that's a pretty significant buff to frontliner characters. In order to balance a large race, I really think "Your size is Large" kind of has to be the only racial mechanic that you'd get, because adding even more buffs on top of all of that would probably make the race a "must have" for Barbarians, melee Fighters/Rangers, Paladins, and other melee characters. A Goliath that was Large and had the magical "subrace" traits would easily be the best race in the game for warrior PCs.


----------



## JEB

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I believe these are all the consequences that permanently being Large would provide for a PC:
> 
> Occupy more space on the battlefield (so you can block off more of the map from your enemies while still allowing your allies to pass through it, you threaten more squares and have more spaces that enemies can reach you, your auras and radiuses are extended further than they would for Medium or smaller PCs, being more likely to allow your party's Rogue to Sneak Attack, etc).
> Increased carrying capacity
> Increased food consumption
> The ability to grapple and shove Huge monsters
> The immunity to being grappled or shoved by Small creatures
> The ability to wield Large weapons (which deal an extra damage die)
> The inability to squeeze into Small spaces.
> Only being able to ride Huge and larger mounts
> The ability to be mounted by Medium and smaller creatures
> Other various size/weight-related issues (not easily fitting through doorways, being more likely to break things, armor and weaponry costing more, etc)
> That's not necessarily overpowered, and there are some pretty significant drawbacks, but overall that's a pretty significant buff to frontliner characters. In order to balance a large race, I really think "Your size is Large" kind of has to be the only racial mechanic that you'd get, because adding even more buffs on top of all of that would probably make the race a "must have" for Barbarians, melee Fighters/Rangers, Paladins, and other melee characters. A Goliath that was Large and had the magical "subrace" traits would easily be the best race in the game for warrior PCs.



Occurs to me this must be why goliaths don't get their embiggening until level 5, where these advantages are much less impactful than they'd be at level 1. And it's temporary, of course. Guess this is as close as they'll get to compensating with a penalty. (Funny enough, delaying Large size was my homebrew solution as well...)


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> Seems like semantic quibbling over what counts as "backwards compatible." If I can pick up SCAG, Xanathar's, Tasha's, or any of the 5E Settong books and use the material with the 2024 Core books...that's backwards compatible. Having a formula for compatibility does not mean the material isn't compatible.



Backwards compatibility isn't especially important to me, but it seems like more than "semantic quibbling." I think 1D&D is clearly the same frame -- it's not a different game -- but pretty much everything we've seen in the frame has been changed, and in some cases the changes seem like a fundamental difference in design philosophy and objectives.

Like, it seems as though I _would _be able to bring a 5e GWM/PAM/Sentinel barbarian to 1D&D, or a 5e Lore Bard with Additional Magical Secrets at 6th level, or a 5e SS/XBE Hunter with Horde Breaker for the extra +10 damage attacks, or a 5e Twilight Cleric...or whatever...but is any of that stuff really going to be "compatible" with 1D&D? If what we mean is, "It'll work," then yes, and I'd even say it would be easy-to-seamless from a black-letter mechanics perspective. But it's not going to _feel_ like it works very well. It's going to feel terrible for people choosing straight 1D&D options.


----------



## Pedantic

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I believe these are all the consequences that permanently being Large would provide for a PC:
> 
> Occupy more space on the battlefield (so you can block off more of the map from your enemies while still allowing your allies to pass through it, you threaten more squares and have more spaces that enemies can reach you, your auras and radiuses are extended further than they would for Medium or smaller PCs, being more likely to allow your party's Rogue to Sneak Attack, etc).
> Increased carrying capacity
> Increased food consumption
> The ability to grapple and shove Huge monsters
> The immunity to being grappled or shoved by Small creatures
> The ability to wield Large weapons (which deal an extra damage die)
> The inability to squeeze into Small spaces.
> Only being able to ride Huge and larger mounts
> The ability to be mounted by Medium and smaller creatures
> Other various size/weight-related issues (not easily fitting through doorways, being more likely to break things, armor and weaponry costing more, etc)




Yeah, that's more than I was expecting, though you could quibble about the ability to be mounted using the "has the appropriate anatomy" line. The grappling/shoving stuff is fun and interesting, but I don't think generally a significant increase in power, given the opportunity cost of giving up attacks. Really we're talking about the weapon damage die, which is basically somewhere between +6-8 average damage on attacks? 

That's probably good enough to more or less demand taking if you're going to be mostly fighting with a weapon, unfortunately. Maybe they can get away by changing how large weapon damage works altogether.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

JEB said:


> Occurs to me this must be why goliaths don't get their embiggening until level 5, where these advantages are much less impactful than they'd be at level 1. And it's temporary, of course. Guess this is as close as they'll get to compensating with a penalty. (Funny enough, delaying Large size was my homebrew solution as well...)



Also, it's temporary growth. Carrying around a Large-sized weapon while Medium is going to be impractical, no matter how high Powerful Build makes your carrying capacity (unless it can magically shrink).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Pedantic said:


> Yeah, that's more than I was expecting, though you could quibble about the ability to be mounted using the "has the appropriate anatomy" line. The grappling/shoving stuff is fun and interesting, but I don't think generally a significant increase in power, given the opportunity cost of giving up attacks. Really we're talking about the weapon damage die, which is basically somewhere between +6-8 average damage on attacks?
> 
> That's probably good enough to more or less demand taking if you're going to be mostly fighting with a weapon, unfortunately. Maybe they can get away by changing how large weapon damage works altogether.



Instead of large weapons, I'd instead allow them to use certain two-handed weapons with one hand.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Instead of large weapons, I'd instead allow them to use certain two-handed weapons with one hand.



I think someone earlier in the thread said that Pathfinder has oversized weapons just increase in damage size (so a Large Halberd would deal 1d12 damage instead of 1d10, and a Large Greatsword would deal 2d8 damage instead of 2d6, and so on). I think that's definitely better for balancing Large PCs than the "an extra damage die" rule in the DMG. And it would only increase the DPA (damage per attack) by 1-2 damage, instead of the current 2.5-6.5 increase.


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> Backwards compatibility isn't especially important to me, but it seems like more than "semantic quibbling." I think 1D&D is clearly the same frame -- it's not a different game -- but pretty much everything we've seen in the frame has been changed, and in some cases the changes seem like a fundamental difference in design philosophy and objectives.
> 
> Like, it seems as though I _would _be able to bring a 5e GWM/PAM/Sentinel barbarian to 1D&D, or a 5e Lore Bard with Additional Magical Secrets at 6th level, or a 5e SS/XBE Hunter with Horde Breaker for the extra +10 damage attacks, or a 5e Twilight Cleric...or whatever...but is any of that stuff really going to be "compatible" with 1D&D? If what we mean is, "It'll work," then yes, and I'd even say it would be easy-to-seamless from a black-letter mechanics perspective. But it's not going to _feel_ like it works very well. It's going to feel terrible for people choosing straight 1D&D options.



We mean "it will work," yes. That's what Backwards compatible means. One may or may not like how it feels, but the math is in tact. As far as compatibility is concerned, the math is the only thing that matters.


----------



## Pedantic

Parmandur said:


> We mean "it will work," yes. That's what Backwards compatible means. One may or may not like how it feels, but the math is in tact. As far as compatibility is concerned, the math is the only thing that matters.




So, basically anything that doesn't change the proficiency scale or 0-20 attribute scale and ASI timing is going to be called backwards compatible?


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> We mean "it will work," yes. That's what Backwards compatible means. One may or may not like how it feels, but the math is in tact. As far as compatibility is concerned, the math is the only thing that matters.



What do we mean by "the math is intact"? HD/HP, ability scores, Proficiency Bonus, etc.? DPR math seems very unlikely to be intact. Prepared spell math doesn't look to be intact. Like, the math for how characters are described numerically seems the same, but the math for how they play seems very different.

ETA: And again, this is fine with me. I'd just as soon they fix the stuff that needed fixing, including some of the math for how characters play. But I also see why some people have a hard time accepting that this is really "compatibility."


----------



## Clint_L

It's meant to be compatible in the sense that you could play through an adventure published in 2014 and it would still work fine. Or you can incorporate it into your ongoing campaign without difficulty. Just like Tasha's, etc.


----------



## Greg Benage

Clint_L said:


> It's meant to be compatible in the sense that you could play through an adventure published in 2014 and it would still work fine.



Yep, makes sense. It does look like it should be easy to use 5e adventures in a 1D&D campaign. On the one hand, 1e adventures are "compatible" in this respect, but I agree that 1D&D will be much more compatible. Don't even really need to convert. Same game. Thumbs up.



Clint_L said:


> Or you can incorporate it into your ongoing campaign without difficulty. Just like Tasha's, etc.



Hmm. So you could take 1D&D stuff and use in a 5e campaign. Yeah, from what we've seen, that's probably true, but I think whatever you use would have to _replace_ (not supplement) the 5e counterpart. It's not at all like Tasha's in that respect. You're not going to be able to let players mix and match this stuff.


----------



## Parmandur

Pedantic said:


> So, basically anything that doesn't change the proficiency scale or 0-20 attribute scale and ASI timing is going to be called backwards compatible?



Anything that can be used continously in the new rules environment is backwards compatible, yes. If it is compatible, it is compatible.


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> What do we mean by "the math is intact"? HD/HP, ability scores, Proficiency Bonus, etc.? DPR math seems very unlikely to be intact. Prepared spell math doesn't look to be intact. Like, the math for how characters are described numerically seems the same, but the math for how they play seems very different.
> 
> ETA: And again, this is fine with me. I'd just as soon they fix the stuff that needed fixing, including some of the math for how characters play. But I also see why some people have a hard time accepting that this is really "compatibility."



Actually, the DPR seems to be precisely the same. The Adventure Day seems like it may be adjusted, but the point is if every Species, Class, amd Monster option can still be used in the new rules, and all the Adventure material is still usable with new material...then it is 100% backwards compatible. And we have ample evidence at this point that this is an earnest design goal, not a talking point.


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> Yep, makes sense. It does look like it should be easy to use 5e adventures in a 1D&D campaign. On the one hand, 1e adventures are "compatible" in this respect, but I agree that 1D&D will be much more compatible. Don't even really need to convert. Same game. Thumbs up.
> 
> 
> Hmm. So you could take 1D&D stuff and use in a 5e campaign. Yeah, from what we've seen, that's probably true, but I think whatever you use would have to _replace_ (not supplement) the 5e counterpart. It's not at all like Tasha's in that respect. You're not going to be able to let players mix and match this stuff.



Probably more than you may think. We already have people mixing Monsters of the Multiverse stat blocks with 2014 monster stat blocks in the same combatz after all.


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> Actually, the DPR seems to be precisely the same.



How so? The only tea leaves I've seen are:

GWM/SS/XBE/PAM nerfs
Ranger attack nerfs
Off-turn sneak attack nerfs
_Spiritual weapon_ nerf

I'm _hoping_ these indicate that they're approaching all this in a considered, holistic way and that it entails a lower DPR environment in 1D&D. I hope this, because I think it needed some normalizing. I'm not fond of the new _spiritual weapon_ as it stands, but if DPR (at least optimized DPR) is lower in 1D&D, a 1d8 extra attack may have much more value and be well balanced in the new game. This could be excellent, but I don't want to get in front of my skis until I see more.



Parmandur said:


> The Adventure Day seems like it may be adjusted, but the point is if every Species, Class, amd Monster option can still be used in the new rules, and all the Adventure material is still usable with new material...then it is 100% backwards compatible. And we have ample evidence at this point that this is an earnest design goal, not a talking point.



Ohh, what indication is there the Adventure Day may be adjusted? I've been disappointed because I haven't seen any indication that it would be. I'm hopeful the willy-nilly mix of classes built on short- and long-rest resources may be smoothed out, but again, the rogue made me more pessimistic in this regard.


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> Probably more than you may think. We already have people mixing Monsters of the Multiverse stat blocks with 2014 monster stat blocks in the same combatz after all.



I'm not worried about compatibility at all, but I'm _really_ not worried about DM-side compatibility. I can do whatever I want with it on that side, regardless of what they do.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Maybe, but the intent of 6e core is clearly not to be compatible with 5e core.




I am still unsure, where you get information about 6e.
If you mean OneDnD, I am baffled, that you draw that conclusion.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hussar said:


> So an entire edition based around rejecting everything 4e, the complete inability to even HAVE discussions about 4e elements, and dev's specifically taking public dumps on 4e is good company?




This is 10 years ago and was uncool.
I think it is time to get over it and lets just hope, we will see more 4e influence now.
Reading the first few UAs makes me hopeful.
(Clearer, more universally structured rules and classes).


----------



## Minigiant

Greg Benage said:


> GWM/SS/XBE/PAM nerfs



Well in the official playtest video, the extra weapon damage will be part of the base Warrior classes instead of via feats.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hussar said:


> Again, it took TEN YEARS to get to the point where you could talk about 4e design ideas and not get dog piled for it.  And, even now, suggesting things like Skill Challenges or damage on a miss will see the usual responses.  The only way to get 4e material into 5e is by steal thing them in and pretending they aren't from 4e in the first place.  Too many cooties.




That was necessary back then. Sadly.
4e destroyed so much goodwill, by the way WotC handled the whole edition. Including calling 3e badwrongfun.
Sometimes you need to let something rest for a while before bringing it back.

I have played and DMed 4e for its whole run. I have not gotten skill challenges to work although I tried it often enough.
I'd like to see more damage on a miss. That was incredible.


----------



## Aldarc

Marandahir said:


> Sure, and I'm not going to convince you otherwise. But if less is more, then why not work with what we already have in the Shadow Magic Sorcerer?
> 
> I agree with like 90% of your content on these forms, Aldarc, and respect ya; I really don't want to get into an argument with you over this, so I'll concede the point.



Okay, I appreciate your clarification better now, and I apologize for my snark.

I did not put forth the argument that less is more. I advocated combining Necromancy and Nethermancy primarily for the sake of simplicity and consistency: i.e., "It's all Shadowfell magic." It's easy to tell players that their shadowy necromantic magic comes from the Shadowfell.

Moreover, combining them IMO gives a greater range of archetypes that can exist under that combined umbrella in a way that better reinforces the core thematic ideas. If I could, Marandahir, there would not be a Shadow Magic Sorcerer or a Necromancer Wizard or a Death Cleric. I don't think that the Necromancer Wizard does a good job at being what many players want out of a Necromancer. I don't think that the Death Cleric does a good job at being what people want out of a Necromancer. I don't think that the Shadow Magic Sorcerer really scratches the itch of a Shadow Mage. IME, having necromancy and such split between these three different classes (or even four with the Warlock) makes it difficult for players to have the full package deal, leaving many players (again IME) with an unsatisfying itch they can't fully scratch.

There would be a singular Necromancer/Nethermancer that would be the go-to class for dark, edge lord spellcasters of death, shadow, etc. with subclasses built around that theme: e.g., Dread Necromancer, Shadow Mage, Necro-Gish, Skeleton Army Necro, Healing Necro, Flesh/Blood Golem Necro, etc.

ETA: I recommend checking out the Necromancer in Kevin Crawford's Worlds Without Number (free). It's probably one of the better Necromancers I have seen lately come out of a d20 game.


----------



## Marandahir

That's certainly a different way to cut the pie. 

I'm more in favour of sitting necromantic ideas within different classes, but I understand how it could be done the otherway around. Much like how the equivalents of the 4e Warlord and Swordmage have been spread around in 5e, while many folks would love them to have their own D&D classes…


----------



## Aldarc

Marandahir said:


> That's certainly a different way to cut the pie.
> 
> I'm more in favour of sitting necromantic ideas within different classes, but I understand how it could be done the otherway around. Much like how the equivalents of the 4e Warlord and Swordmage have been spread around in 5e, while many folks would love them to have their own D&D classes…



I get the "different ways to do X concept" idea in theory, but I find that in practice it results in a bunch of underdeveloped concepts with a good solid building foundation or leaving the concept feeling "thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread." 

Again, there are so many times I have had players tell me that they wish they could play a proper Necromancer class and spell list that was something between a Cleric and a Necromancer Wizard. I don't think that D&D has produced a good, solid Necromancer archetype, and splitting the archetype between classes, IMO, is a contributing factor to the problem rather than a net benefit.


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> How so? The only tea leaves I've seen are:
> 
> GWM/SS/XBE/PAM nerfs
> Ranger attack nerfs
> Off-turn sneak attack nerfs
> _Spiritual weapon_ nerf
> 
> I'm _hoping_ these indicate that they're approaching all this in a considered, holistic way and that it entails a lower DPR environment in 1D&D. I hope this, because I think it needed some normalizing. I'm not fond of the new _spiritual weapon_ as it stands, but if DPR (at least optimized DPR) is lower in 1D&D, a 1d8 extra attack may have much more value and be well balanced in the new game. This could be excellent, but I don't want to get in front of my skis until I see more.
> 
> 
> Ohh, what indication is there the Adventure Day may be adjusted? I've been disappointed because I haven't seen any indication that it would be. I'm hopeful the willy-nilly mix of classes built on short- and long-rest resources may be smoothed out, but again, the rogue made me more pessimistic in this regard.



The Feat changes are more of a wash than a nerf: their damage was lowered, but they took away the hit malus, so the DPR is about the same but without being a power gaming lightning rod.

No particular indication yet, but that is a guideline I could see them adjusting without changing core math.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am still unsure, where you get information about 6e.
> If you mean OneDnD, I am baffled, that you draw that conclusion.



The 2024 corebooks are intended to replace the 2014 corebooks.  They never never the core three would be backwards compatible, just adventures and supplements (and supplement compatibility won't be perfect either).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Aldarc said:


> I get the "different ways to do X concept" idea in theory, but I find that in practice it results in a bunch of underdeveloped concepts with a good solid building foundation or leaving the concept feeling "thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."
> 
> Again, there are so many times I have had players tell me that they wish they could play a proper Necromancer class and spell list that was something between a Cleric and a Necromancer Wizard. I don't think that D&D has produced a good, solid Necromancer archetype, and splitting the archetype between classes, IMO, is a contributing factor to the problem rather than a net benefit.



Valda's Spire of Secrets from Mage Hand Press has a great necromancer class.  I've already seen two in my games.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> The 2024 corebooks are intended to replace the 2014 corebooks.  They never never the core three would be backwards compatible, just adventures and supplements (and supplement compatibility won't be perfect either).




Ah. 2024 corebooks of 5e...


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ah. 2024 corebooks of 5e...



5e is being replaced in 2024.  There have been a bunch of videos and playtest packets about it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> 5e is being replaced in 2024.  There have been a bunch of videos and playtest packets about it.




You seem to have watched different videos and read different playtest packets than I.
Are you sure you did not mix it up with LevelUp?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

UngeheuerLich said:


> Ah. 2024 corebooks of 5e...



In the same sense that there are 1989 core books of 1e, sure.


----------



## Remathilis

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> In the same sense that there are 1989 core books of 1e, sure.



It was so weird, all the assassins and half-orcs in my game exploded, my copy of Tomb of Horrors became gibberish, and all of a sudden my Fiend Folio was in Swahili.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> In the same sense that there are 1989 core books of 1e, sure.




Which is about the same as 2003 to 2000 core books.
About half an edition. With 4e and 3e, it seems we should look at the not so far distant past. There are a lot of gamers who were not born in 1989 and might remember 2003 or 2008 or 2012. So shouldn't we stop spreading fear and misinformation and focus on the actual changes?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

UngeheuerLich said:


> So shouldn't we stop spreading fear and misinformation and focus on the actual changes?



I'm just amused that people are so phobic about the word edition.


----------



## Cadence

It feels to me like if you have to specify which printing of a book to use because the amount of substantive errata is no longer able to be sifted through easily, then it's effectively a new edition.

If going from 7th to 8th edition of Intro Stats brings a few rewritten paragraphs, a two page new subject, and a handful of new homework problems, then I feel bad having the students buy it over a used copy of the old one even if the publisher wants to act like it's not just a cash grab in their part.  If half the homework problems are different, it changed the software examples, altered which test for proportions it had, updated half of the examples, and added two new chapters then it kind of feels like a new thing and I'll recommend they get the new one.

The big genealogy book I have about Cappeln came with a page of edits tucked in.  Since then I was emailed three more new pages.  At some point there will be enough pages of new info that it will be awkward and painful to use the original printed book.  It won't matter if the author wants to act like it's the same thing.  It's kind of like the year book supplements that used to come out for encyclopedias - at some point you really just wanted a new set.

My son loves Minecraft, but hates how some of his books become outdated because there's a new Minecraft version out because the options and code don't exist anymore in the current versions.   That the code and options in the book are obsolete doesn't change based on whether or not the author specified a version number in the book.  If Minecraft stopped using version numbers it wouldn't change whether the books were obsolete.  On the other hand some books don't have much at all that has changed and they work just fine with the new edition.

As has been noted elsewhere, plenty of tables used to play OD&D, B/X, and 1e at the same table.  Others argued over whether 4e and essentials were different games. The only thing that seems abundantly clear to me is that what the publisher calls it is far from the biggest determinant into what the practicalities are.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> I'm just amused that people are so phobic about the word edition.




And I am asking why some people are so adamant about using it.
Looking at this forum, it comes from people who don't like 5e. So my job is makimg sure misinformation is called out, so that people who happen to read it here know that there is no 6e coming, that will totally revamp the game as 3e or 4e or 5e did.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Cadence said:


> Snip.




Totally agreement here.
But since the official numbers are totally off already, and the (recent) customers of DnD have a certain understanding of edition, it seems a good idea to not use the word in a totally different way.

As I said elsewhere: 4e alone had 20 editions, going by the iterative uselessness of the PHB1.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Which is about the same as 2003 to 2000 core books.
> About half an edition. With 4e and 3e, it seems we should look at the not so far distant past. There are a lot of gamers who were not born in 1989 and might remember 2003 or 2008 or 2012. So shouldn't we stop spreading fear and misinformation and focus on the actual changes?



I was born in 1976 and remember every edition change from '89 on just fine.


----------



## Cadence

UngeheuerLich said:


> Totally agreement here.
> But since the official numbers are totally off already, and the (recent) customers of DnD have a certain understanding of edition, it seems a good idea to not use the word in a totally different way.
> 
> As I said elsewhere: 4e alone had 20 editions, going by the iterative uselessness of the PHB1.




If the changes are big enough that a few pages of errata don't do it and if it's denoted 5e2024 or 5e1.01 or whatnot is fine to me. I'm ok if it doesn't end up being called 5.5.  Minecraft seems to have big versions with lots of little updates as does the programming language R.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> I was born in 1976 and remember every edition change from '89 on just fine.



Yes. But you are not the majority.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I’m really not following the semantics debate…


----------



## glass

Umbran said:


> Mistaking rules mastery for investment or engagement is an error.



They are not the same thing, but all other things being equal people with more of the latter will generally have more of the former.



Bill Zebub said:


> How many times this morning did you repeat into the mirror: “My preferences are not popular.” ?



Having unpopular preferences is not crime.



Neonchameleon said:


> Ardlings are not Aasimar and despite a whole lot of trying aasimar are not going to happen. They've been around a long time but never even come close to gnomes in popularity.



In around three decades of play with many groups over the years, I can count the gnome PCs I have seen played on one hand, and I do not need all the fingers. I have played more aasimar than that myself, and have seen plenty of other people play them too. So I agree that aasimar never came close to gnomish popularity - they never sank that low!



Xamnam said:


> Even more minor, but I only just learned how to actually pronounce Aasimar from the recent playtest videos.



I know how _I_ pronounce it. After the "siggle" debacle, I am loathe to hear the official pronunciation of anything (and I would not conflate "official" with "correct" ).



Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I, on the other hand, prioritize things that are good for the game over things that I like.



And it is complete coincidence that you argue for things you happen to like?



Micah Sweet said:


> From everything I've been reading around here, 4e fans have a good amount of company on this site.  As I recall, rpg.net is heavily in favor of 4e as well.



Both RPGnet and here are something of a haven for 4e fans compared with the wider Internet, but that is a fairly low bar, and is less true than it used to be when 4e was current (at least for the former, I wasn't here during the the 4e era).



Incenjucar said:


> Adventures are made for small and medium characters and it would be very expensive to start building them for large characters too for the rest of the run of the game.



How so? Making dungeon rooms bigger is just a matter of drawing them that way - nobody actually has to excavate the extra earth!


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. But you are not the majority.



Not my concern.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Not my concern.




Obviously. So I just translate your number to those of common use.
Luckily I am 42 and can understand your language and those of younger people.


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> Not my concern.




What is your concern?  Why is how long you've been around relevant to the discussion?  Because without some direction, I expect folks will read it as some sort of assertion of authority, and we know how appeals to authority work out...


----------



## Clint_L

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> I'm just amused that people are so phobic about the word edition.



I'm not amused but amazed that WotC can introduce 1e by specifically, emphatically rejecting the old "editions" model as flawed, explain their reasons at length, lay out the new parameters of what they want to do...only to have so many folks simply stuff their fingers in their ears and declare "can't be done. The old "editions" model is the only one possible." The power of paradigmatic thinking is truly impressive.

Even the title of this forum is telling: "One D&D (5.5e)."


----------



## glass

Micah Sweet said:


> I was born in 1976 and remember every edition change from '89 on just fine.



Me too, on both counts (technically I started with 2e, but it was brand new and in something of a transitional phase.)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> What is your concern?  Why is how long you've been around relevant to the discussion?  Because without some direction, I expect folks will read it as some sort of assertion of authority, and we know how appeals to authority work out...



I don't consider my opinions less valid because they're not shared by the majority.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't consider my opinions less valid because they're not shared by the majority.



You can totally have an opinion. We just don't have to agree.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

UngeheuerLich said:


> Yes. But you are not the majority.



With the explosive growth of the game in the past near decade, I'm not sure the majority of players have any memory of prior editions.


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> The Feat changes are more of a wash than a nerf: their damage was lowered, but they took away the hit malus, so the DPR is about the same but without being a power gaming lightning rod.



They're not a wash at all IMO. GWM loses -5/+10 in favor of +PB damage _*once per turn*_. SS loses -5/+10 and gets no damage raiser. XBE loses bonus action attack. Ranger loses their situational extra attack features. No _spiritual weapon_ + _spirit guardians. _No off-turn sneak attacks. No Steady Aim. It may be that new warrior features completely offset these nerfs, but that doesn't seem very likely based on what they've done with the rogue class.

If we actually playtested these rules and optimized characters with what we have today, DPR would be considerably lower than the 5e meta (kinda hate that term, but there you go). I _hope_ that's a conscious design intention, but obviously it's a long way to 2024.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> With the explosive growth of the game in the past near decade, I'm not sure the majority of players have any memory of prior editions.




Do why insisting of using that concept?


----------



## Cadence

Clint_L said:


> I'm not amused but amazed that WotC can introduce 1e by specifically, emphatically rejecting the old "editions" model as flawed, explain their reasons at length, lay out the new parameters of what they want to do...only to have so many folks simply stuff their fingers in their ears and declare "can't be done. The old "editions" model is the only one possible." The power of paradigmatic thinking is truly impressive.




There are lots of new models they could do that would work for me.

One computer package I use puts in a new number up front for big changes and little ones for small incremental things. I'm usually not even sure what version it is until the big changes unless a package warns me to update.   Apparently I have 4.1.1 installed write now and the most recent one is 4.2.2.   I think one of the flavors of Minecraft does the same.  

So 5e-2024?  5e1.01?   5.5?  Whatever.  The only problem I'll have is if they keep letting Amazon sell it with the note "The essential rulebook for Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition)" and the changes are big enough that someone buying a previous one labeled that same way will be greatly disappointed that they don't have the rules in the new one, and that it isn't fixable by a few pages of errata. 





-----

I guess a pair of questions I have about editions and D&D is: 

If WotC had just kept calling the new 3.5 printings 3rd edition, would that have been problematic?  (Would folks have been shocked if they showed up at a table with one and it was the other?)

If TSR had called the later printing of 2e with a new cover 3e, would that have been problematic?   (Would folks be disappointed buying the book and expecting changes, only to not get them?)


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> There are lots of new models they could do that would work for me.
> 
> One computer package I use puts in a new number up front for big changes and little ones for small incremental things. I'm usually not even sure what version it is until the big changes unless a package warns me to update.   Apparently I have 4.1.1 installed write now and the most recent one is 4.2.2.   I think one of the flavors of Minecraft does the same.
> 
> So 5e-2024?  5e1.01?   5.5?  Whatever.  The only problem I'll have is if they keep letting Amazon sell it with the note "The essential rulebook for Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition)" and the changes are big enough that someone buying a previous one labeled that same way will be greatly disappointed that they don't have the rules in the new one, and that it isn't fixable by a few pages of errata.
> 
> View attachment 268937
> 
> -----
> 
> I guess a pair of questions I have about editions and D&D is:
> 
> If WotC had just kept calling the new 3.5 printings 3rd edition, would that have been problematic?  (Would folks have been shocked if they showed up at a table with one and it was the other?)
> 
> If TSR had called the later printing of 2e with a new cover 3e, would that have been problematic?   (Would folks be disappointed buying the book and expecting changes, only to not get them?)



This is not a new printing of the 2014 books.  Pretending it is will just lead to disappointment and anger from people who think all "5e" core books are equivalent.


----------



## Clint_L

Cadence said:


> So 5e-2024?  5e1.01?   5.5?  Whatever.  The only problem I'll have is if they keep letting Amazon sell it with the note "The essential rulebook for Dungeons & Dragons (5th edition)" and the changes are big enough that someone buying a previous one labeled that same way will be greatly disappointed that they don't have the rules in the new one, and that it isn't fixable by a few pages of errata.



Then you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D." That's the whole premise of OneD&D. That's the first thing they tell us in the announcement video.


----------



## glass

Clint_L said:


> Then you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D."



WotC pretending it is not a new edition does not make it not one.


----------



## Remathilis

I wonder how many people are confused by Microsoft Windows numbering? I mean, I'm not. You losers are stuck on Windows 11, but *I'm* on Windows 98! That 87 editions later!


----------



## Cadence

Clint_L said:


> The n you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D." That's the whole premise of OneD&D.




My point wasn't about whether edition is used.  It is about me thinking it's bad to sell a product that is substantially different [Edit: in terms of rules] in the eyes of most purchasers without being upfront about it.   If after a decade the accumulated changes in the "D&D Players Handbook" printed in 2024 and 2034 are so different that people really care about which one they got, but WotC buries that there is a difference then that would feel dishonest to me.  If they're referred to as the 2014 PHB, 2024 PHB, and 2035 PHB... that's fine.  There are lots of ways to do it.  Does software usually use "version"?  I'm not sure why the one side cares so much its called a new edition, and the other side desperately doesn't want it called that - apparently "edition" has more power than I thought it did.


----------



## Cadence

Clint_L said:


> Then you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D." That's the whole premise of OneD&D. That's the first thing they tell us in the announcement video.



Or, to follow up.  How do they reword the top two sentences of the following if the newer resource is also called "Player's Handbook" to differentiate it from the 2024 Player's Handbook.  Or will they produce a set of errata containing all of the accumulated changes since 2014 (like they have now) for the PHB?


----------



## SkidAce

Clint_L said:


> I'm not amused but amazed that WotC can introduce 1e by specifically, emphatically rejecting the old "editions" model as flawed, explain their reasons at length, lay out the new parameters of what they want to do...only to have so many folks simply stuff their fingers in their ears and declare "can't be done. The old "editions" model is the only one possible." The power of paradigmatic thinking is truly impressive.
> 
> Even the title of this forum is telling: "One D&D (5.5e)."



You are amazed (imo) because you see the reasoning clearly and feel its valid.

Other folks see things that, for them, "cross the line" and in their view the reasoning is not valid.

Not a lot we can do about that over internet discussions. 

I find myself in the middle, I applaud WotC for planning a departure from the "edition" model to "evergreen", and understand their reasoning, but some of their changes and inputs really stretch the meaning of ...say... compatible.


----------



## Micah Sweet

SkidAce said:


> You are amazed (imo) because you see the reasoning clearly and feel its valid.
> 
> Other folks see things that, for them, "cross the line" and in their view the reasoning is not valid.
> 
> Not a lot we can do about that over internet discussions.
> 
> I find myself in the middle, I applaud WotC for planning a departure from the "edition" model to "evergreen", and understand their reasoning, but some of their changes and inputs really stretch the meaning of ...say... compatible.



Its a nice idea, but I don't see it being practical if you actually want people to buy new books.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> The 2024 corebooks are intended to replace the 2014 corebooks.  They never never the core three would be backwards compatible, just adventures and supplements (and supplement compatibility won't be perfect either).




But WTF does “backwards compatible” even mean if something isn’t being replaced? If Windows 17 is backwards compatible with Windows 16 it doesn’t mean you can run both operating systems at the same time, it means you get rid of 16 and you can still run your apps and use your files.   “Whaaaah but I like the juggling clown icon in 16! It’s not backwards compatible if I can’t still have that!”


----------



## Micah Sweet

Bill Zebub said:


> But WTF does “backwards compatible” even mean if something isn’t being replaced? If Windows 17 is backwards compatible with Windows 16 it doesn’t mean you can run both operating systems at the same time, it means you get rid of 16 and you can still run your apps and use your files.   “Whaaaah but I like the juggling clown icon in 16! It’s not backwards compatible if I can’t still have that!”



That's my point.  The adventures and supplements (in theory, according to WotC) are backwards compatible, but the core three are being replaced with the new core three.  That's what the playtest packets are about.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> That's my point.  The adventures and supplements (in theory, according to WotC) are backwards compatible, but the core three are being replaced with the new core three.  That's what the playtest packets are about.




And this is not a full edition change.
So if you don't want people to be confused by telling them, it is the same, you should also not tell them it is something totally different.

It strikes right into the middle. A lot of things are compatible and quite a few things are more or less heavily updated, a few things are replaced.


----------



## Micah Sweet

UngeheuerLich said:


> And this is not a full edition change.
> So if you don't want people to be confused by telling them, it is the same, you should also not tell them it is something totally different.
> 
> It strikes right into the middle. A lot of things are compatible and quite a few things are more or less heavily updated, a few things are replaced.



Its not as big a change as 3.5e to 4e, or 4e to 5e, but its at least as big as 1e to 2e, and to my mind 3e to 3.5e.  I think it's a mistake for WotC to insist that it isn't an edition change when they clearly want you to re-buy the core books.  The more people understand that, the better.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Micah Sweet said:


> Its not as big a change as 3.5e to 4e, or 4e to 5e, but its at least as big as 1e to 2e, and to my mind 3e to 3.5e.  I think it's a mistake for WotC to insist that it isn't an edition change when they clearly want you to re-buy the core books.  The more people understand that, the better.




Totally. I am with you. But I'd stick to 5.5 if you really want to give the right impression. The core stays mostly untouched. Species, classes, backgrounds, feats or not, proficiency bonus, action economy all stays the same.
I think in today's terms ADnD 2e would only be 1.5.
But back then, we did not have that much of a precendent.

Had they called 3.5 4e and 4e 5e and 4e essentials 6e and 5e 7e, then it would be 8e.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Micah Sweet said:


> That's my point.  The adventures and supplements (in theory, according to WotC) are backwards compatible, but the core three are being replaced with the new core three.  That's what the playtest packets are about.




Sure, but that is not a profound insight, nor evidence of a conspiracy. They are updating a game that will be 10 years old. As game designers they want to improve the game.  As business people they hope lots of people will buy the new books.

But they clearly (from the evidence so far) are not changing so many things that anybody would _have_ to buy the new books to stay in the hobby.  You could use new class/subclass designs with 2014 rules.  You could use 2014 class/subclasses with the new rules. You could show up at a One D&D table with zero knowledge of it yourself, and some things would have to be clarified during play (is offhand attack a bonus action or part of attack action?) but it would be fine.

Yes, it's change, but it's overall a pretty gentle change.


----------



## Remathilis

I think the big issue is that the last three editions of D&D were majorly different from the one before it. Basic, 1e and 2e all used similar enough mechanics that you could fuzzy use them together. (A 2e ranger and a 1e monk could go through BX Keep on the Borderlands and it would be fine if you don't look too close). 3e was a large departure from that, but it also went for a long time and had two major revisions (3.5 and Pathfinder) that again was mostly compatible. 4e was a clean break from 3e (very little was mechanically portable from 3e) and 5e a break from that. The fact that 1D&D is going back to the "close enough to use with little change" model is less a radical notion and more a return to form after the clean breaks from prior.


----------



## Cadence

Bill Zebub said:


> But they clearly (from the evidence so far) are not changing so many things that anybody would _have_ to buy the new books to stay in the hobby.  You could use new class/subclass designs with 2014 rules.  You could use 2014 class/subclasses with the new rules. You could show up at a One D&D table with zero knowledge of it yourself, and some things would have to be clarified during play (is offhand attack a bonus action or part of attack action?) but it would be fine.
> 
> Yes, it's change, but it's overall a pretty gentle change.




So, how do you think they'll have Adventurer's League run?   Will they say a PHB (using latest errata in the usual errata link) or will they not have a comprehensive 2014->2024 errata document and just say PHB 2024 printing?


----------



## Faolyn

Greg Benage said:


> Hmm. So you could take 1D&D stuff and use in a 5e campaign. Yeah, from what we've seen, that's probably true, but I think whatever you use would have to _replace_ (not supplement) the 5e counterpart. It's not at all like Tasha's in that respect. You're not going to be able to let players mix and match this stuff.



Is that a real problem, though? You can just tell players that if they want to use a class or race from the 5e books, then they can only use archetypes from 5e, and if they want to use a class or species from One, then they can only use archetypes from One. And then you, as DM, just have to decide which version of a feat, spell, magic item, monster you're going to use based on your preferences, and you can decide those if and when they come up.


----------



## glass

Bill Zebub said:


> Sure, but that is not a profound insight, nor evidence of a conspiracy. They are updating a game that will be 10 years old. As game designers they want to improve the game. As business people they hope lots of people will buy the new books.



Nobody said it was a "conspiracy". All anyone is saying AFAICT is that it is a new edition, and WotC's saying it isn't does not actually change anything (they said the same about 3.5 at times, and it wasn't true then either).



Remathilis said:


> I think the big issue is that the last three editions of D&D were majorly different from the one before it.



3.0 => 3.5 was one of the last three, and that was one of the less drastic ones. Conversely, OD&D => AD&D and OD&D => Basic were each fairly drastic in their own ways. Edition changes that were of different scales, thereby giving rise to edition families, have been a thing for almost as long as there have been edition changes.


----------



## Umbran

Micah Sweet said:


> I don't consider my opinions less valid because they're not shared by the majority.




That's fine.  But I don't see when you were born, nor how many edition changes you see, matters to that.  Your opinions are not _more_ valid for being born in 1976, for example.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> So, how do you think they'll have Adventurer's League run?   Will they say a PHB (using latest errata in the usual errata link) or will they not have a comprehensive 2014->2024 errata document and just say PHB 2024 printing?



Excellent question.  AL will make them choose a side.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Umbran said:


> That's fine.  But I don't see when you were born, nor how many edition changes you see, matters to that.  Your opinions are not _more_ valid for being born in 1976, for example.



Sure.  But we were discussing new players who might not have seen an edition change before.  Having some history with the process can be helpful.


----------



## Greg Benage

Faolyn said:


> Is that a real problem, though? You can just tell players that if they want to use a class or race from the 5e books, then they can only use archetypes from 5e, and if they want to use a class or species from One, then they can only use archetypes from One. And then you, as DM, just have to decide which version of a feat, spell, magic item, monster you're going to use based on your preferences, and you can decide those if and when they come up.



Nah, I don't think you're going to be able to mix and match classes, based on what we've seen. And no, that's not a problem for me.

I'm playing almost exclusively on Roll20* these days, so from a practical perspective, I'm either going to run 5e or 1D&D. Other VTTs may be different, but Roll20 pretty much makes you pick a rule set, unless I want to do a bunch of manual work that I pay good money not to do. I'm hopeful I'll go with 1D&D, but I'm buying it either way. It's the 50th Anniversary!

* Assuming D&D on Roll20 is still a thing in 2024.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Greg Benage said:


> They're not a wash at all IMO. GWM loses -5/+10 in favor of +PB damage _*once per turn*_. SS loses -5/+10 and gets no damage raiser. XBE loses bonus action attack. Ranger loses their situational extra attack features. No _spiritual weapon_ + _spirit guardians. _No off-turn sneak attacks. No Steady Aim. It may be that new warrior features completely offset these nerfs, but that doesn't seem very likely based on what they've done with the rogue class.
> 
> If we actually playtested these rules and optimized characters with what we have today, DPR would be considerably lower than the 5e meta (kinda hate that term, but there you go). I _hope_ that's a conscious design intention, but obviously it's a long way to 2024.



What they've done would appear to be _lower the skill gap_. They've cut down the difference between a rogue played between a savvy but non-expert player and an expert one by taking away the off-turn sneak attack. They've lowered the difference between a fighter played by a naive player and one played by someone with high system mastery by weakening the power attack feats. And they've lowered the gap between an average cleric and one played by someone with high system mastery by nerfing the one skill that combos with everything.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> The 2024 corebooks are intended to replace the 2014 corebooks.  They never never the core three would be backwards compatible, just adventures and supplements (and supplement compatibility won't be perfect either).



Ok, let's be clear here.

There have been at LEAST 12 print runs of the 5e PHB and some of those are different from the 2014 print because they include errata.

Does that mean that your 2014 PHB is no longer compatible?  After all, these print runs replace the 2014 core books.


----------



## Greg Benage

Neonchameleon said:


> What they've done would appear to be _lower the skill gap_.



That sounds right today. Of course, new skill gaps and space for system mastery will be introduced. They always are. But if the new meta is, like, charging with javelins or something instead of hand crossbows, I'll take it.


----------



## Faolyn

Greg Benage said:


> Nah, I don't think you're going to be able to mix and match classes, based on what we've seen. And no, that's not a problem for me.
> 
> I'm playing almost exclusively on Roll20* these days, so from a practical perspective, I'm either going to run 5e or 1D&D. Other VTTs may be different, but Roll20 pretty much makes you pick a rule set, unless I want to do a bunch of manual work that I pay good money not to do. I'm hopeful I'll go with 1D&D, but I'm buying it either way. It's the 50th Anniversary!
> 
> * Assuming D&D on Roll20 is still a thing in 2024.



Well, I meant, one person plays 5e fighter and another person plays One cleric. I think that could likely work too well. It might even work having one person play a 5e fighter and another person playing a One fighter, depending on the types of players and the archetypes involved--I doubt that there will be versions of every single 5e archetype, and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.

And, of course, not _everyone _plays via Roll20. I know a whole lot of people do and that it may be impossible to mix 5e and One characters--I have no idea how _any _VTT works, actually. For people who play via discord (like me) or zoom or whatever, or who play in person, though, it won't be so hard.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

glass said:


> And it is complete coincidence that you argue for things you happen to like?



Have you seen every time that I've argued that something should be included in the game? Because I often do argue that things that I'm not a fan of be included. Because I think that the health of the game is more important than my own personal desires.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> This is not a new printing of the 2014 books.  Pretending it is will just lead to disappointment and anger from people who think all "5e" core books are equivalent.



You're absolutely right.  The 2014 books haven't been in print in years.  They were abandoned for newer printings at least once in 2018.  Probably multiple times.  Anyone who started 5e play after 2015 has probably never even seen a 2014 version of the rules.


----------



## Hussar

Micah Sweet said:


> Its not as big a change as 3.5e to 4e, or 4e to 5e, but its at least as big as 1e to 2e, and to my mind 3e to 3.5e.  I think it's a mistake for WotC to insist that it isn't an edition change when they clearly want you to re-buy the core books.  The more people understand that, the better.



Ok, you're not even trying here anymore.

Are they removing entire classes?  Are they rewriting entire classes from the ground up?  No?  Then it's not "at least as big as 1e to 2e".  Good grief.  1e and 2e are barely compatible and you most certainly could never play a 1e class and a 2e version of the same class at the same table and expect it to work out of the box.  

THIS is what people are pushing against when people start blathering on about "new edition".  The ludicrous hyperbole and what looks like very deliberate misinterpretation and misleading presentation of facts.


----------



## Greg Benage

Faolyn said:


> It might even work having one person play a 5e fighter and another person playing a One fighter, depending on the types of players and the archetypes involved



Only if they're really chill players who don't care about "balance," I think. I'm not that chill. If I think we're playing 1D&D and make a Lore Bard and you bring in a 5e Lore Bard, I'm going to be slightly miffed.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's be clear here.
> 
> There have been at LEAST 12 print runs of the 5e PHB and some of those are different from the 2014 print because they include errata.
> 
> Does that mean that your 2014 PHB is no longer compatible?  After all, these print runs replace the 2014 core books.




Is this the entire PHB errata https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf  on five pages?

It feels like whether they are printing the errata for the 2024 printing going all the way back, and if so how long it is relevant?  At some point with enough errata doesn't it become no longer compatibile in a practical sense?  (I have no idea how long that is). 

Hm.  When did they get rid of trap the soul?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's be clear here.
> 
> There have been at LEAST 12 print runs of the 5e PHB and some of those are different from the 2014 print because they include errata.
> 
> Does that mean that your 2014 PHB is no longer compatible?  After all, these print runs replace the 2014 core books.



Technically, yes, although obvious in much smaller ways than the 2024 books look to be, judging by what we've seen so far.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Sure.  But we were discussing new players who might not have seen an edition change before.  Having some history with the process can be helpful.



Not when the last 20 years of D&D history that the definition of an entirely new edition has shifted. That's a part of D&D history. It's how WotC have always defined a new edition. Why does the definition from the first two decades overrule the definition from the last two?


----------



## Neonchameleon

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Have you seen every time that I've argued that something should be included in the game? Because I often do argue that things that I'm not a fan of be included. Because I think that the health of the game is more important than my own personal desires.



And I'll argue for things I outright dislike and never want to play. A champion fighter, for example, would bore me rigid - but I think that either a champion fighter or simple barbarian should be _there_ because not everyone is me. And if it's there it should be mechanically powerful enough to be reasonably balanced (the way the current Champion isn't).


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Not when the last 20 years of D&D history that the definition of an entirely new edition has shifted. That's a part of D&D history. It's how WotC have always defined a new edition. Why does the definition from the first two decades overrule the definition from the last two?



It has clearly gone back and forth. It could be argued that 3.0 and 3.5 were "backwards compatible".  I won't argue it, but I think 2024 will be a new edition too, so what do I know?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> And I'll argue for things I outright dislike and never want to play. A champion fighter, for example, would bore me rigid - but I think that either a champion fighter or simple barbarian should be _there_ because not everyone is me. And if it's there it should be mechanically powerful enough to be reasonably balanced (the way the current Champion isn't).



Yeah, exactly. I'm not a fan of Rangers, but I'll never argue against their inclusion in the rulebooks. I've let my players play Rangers, and I don't punish them for picking a class that I'm not a fan of. The health and fun of the game is more important than my petty preferences. 

So I argue in favor of things being included that are just a matter of taste. If they can actually reduce the playability of the game or fun at the table, and I think the problems are common enough to warrant change, I do argue that they should be changed. I do think objectively good game design exists, especially when you're trying to appeal to the most people possible.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> It has clearly gone back and forth. It could be argued that 3.0 and 3.5 were "backwards compatible".  I won't argue it, but I think 2024 will be a new edition too, so what do I know?



I don't know? What do you know about the nature of edition changes that WotC doesn't? 

Because that's what you're arguing here. You're saying that you know better than the designers of the game when it comes to edition changes. And, by your definition, they've made 4 different editions of D&D. Wouldn't they know the meaning of "edition" better than you do?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I don't know? What do you know about the nature of edition changes that WotC doesn't?
> 
> Because that's what you're arguing here. You're saying that you know better than the designers of the game when it comes to edition changes. And, by your definition, they've made 4 different editions of D&D. Wouldn't they know the meaning of "edition" better than you do?



Yeah, I think they're wrong, and this won't go the way their promotional videos claim. That's my right.  I know you don't agree.  That's your right.


----------



## Staffan

Micah Sweet said:


> I get that.  I just always used homebrew (which I believe the majority of tables still do), so this was never a problem for me.  The settings were chapters in a cool story and ideas for home games.  None of us felt the story in the products hurt our gaming experience.




Here's a story where metaplot caused actual problems for me.

I was planning on running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms, and I had been reading through the 2e boxed set to figure out what region looked best. After some thought, I settled on Tethyr, because I figured I could get quite a bit of juice out of the civil war going on there with numerous nobles all jockeying for advantage, while the PCs could help the downtrodden and/or ally with one warlord over the rest and so on. That seemed like a cool campaign premise. And hey, there's a new boxed set out that's about Tethyr and Amn, _Lands of Intrigue_. I'm sure that's going to have lots of useful info on the different warlords and their territories, let's check it out.

And then I learn that no, the civil war is over. One of the nobles went off to Waterdeep to recruit mercenaries and allies, and while she was at it she married the Rightful Heir to the throne who had been hidden away and had spent the last decade or so in hiding as the *scribe to frickin' Elminster!* So now all was well in the new realm, and all the former warlords had either sworn fealty to the new King and Queen, or been either killed or sent into exile, and the low-level ranks of nobility had seemingly been removed and replaced with elected Sheriffs, and I don't know what else. And all that happened off-screen in some novel trilogy.

Needless to say, that campaign didn't happen.



Henadic Theologian said:


> Eberron is a horrible comparison because it's been explicit from day one that the novels weren't canon, it's one of the reasons the novel line failed.
> 
> The opposite has been true of FR and Dragonlance, the novels have always been canon, it's a core part of those settings and part of why those novel lines succeeded, they actually meant something.




Given that TSR's novel line was the immediate cause of the company's failure, I'm not sure I'd say the novel lines "succeeded" when taken as a whole.

Yes, there were multiple causes, as there often is. But the actual blow that, in game terms, put TSR at 0 hp was that Random House got tired of taking payment for unsold novels in new novels that didn't sell either, and demanded that TSR repay them with actual money – money they didn't have.



Neonchameleon said:


> You are allowed to like metaplots in stories. There are some serious ones out there including the Arrowverse, the Star Wars EU and Star Wars Disney continuity, the MCU, the Marvel  and DC continuities, numerous video game series from Super Smash Bros and Kingdom Hearts onwards (and no that first one wasn't a joke).



I'm pretty sure that's not metaplot. That's just ongoing plot. Metaplot is, at least according to Wikipedia, a term that's specifically about overarching events in RPGs.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, I think they're wrong, and this won't go the way their promotional videos claim. That's my right.  I know you don't agree.  That's your right.



Why is your opinion more valid than the people who have designed entire editions of the game?


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> Is this the entire PHB errata https://media.wizards.com/2021/dnd/downloads/PH-Errata.pdf on five pages?
> 
> It feels like whether they are printing the errata for the 2024 printing going all the way back, and if so how long it is relevant? At some point with enough errata doesn't it become no longer compatibile in a practical sense? (I have no idea how long that is).
> 
> Hm. When did they get rid of trap the soul?




Well it’s relevant for adventurers league. You haven’t been able to use a 2014 phb since at least 2018. 

Since that’s being touted as the standard for edition and all.


----------



## Faolyn

Greg Benage said:


> Only if they're really chill players who don't care about "balance," I think. I'm not that chill. If I think we're playing 1D&D and make a Lore Bard and you bring in a 5e Lore Bard, I'm going to be slightly miffed.



That's up to the players to work out, though. And in reality, how likely is it that two players are going to both want to play Lord Bards?


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> Well it’s relevant for adventurers league. You haven’t been able to use a 2014 phb since at least 2018.




I only did one Adventurer's league years ago (maybe pre-2018) and didn't know that.  Do you have a favorite reference as to needing the 2018 or newer one? Or do the errata not go back all the way to the 2014 one?

What happens now if a player shows up with a 2014 PHB?



Hussar said:


> Since that’s being touted as the standard for edition and all.



I don't think it's necessarily a standard, but it feels like it could be insightful as to how they're viewing the new version/printing/reorganization/whatnot.


----------



## Greg Benage

Faolyn said:


> That's up to the players to work out, though. And in reality, how likely is it that two players are going to both want to play Lord Bards?



In my games, about 87%. I think 1D&D might solve that, though.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Why is your opinion more valid than the people who have designed entire editions of the game?



Their experience might be more valid, but their opinion is no better than mine.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> Their experience might be more valid, but their opinion is no better than mine.



Weren't you saying that they were wrong to not call it a new edition? So, their opinion isn't more valid than yours (even though they have more experience with this subject than you do), but yours is somehow more valid than theirs?


----------



## Maxperson

Micah Sweet said:


> 5e is being replaced in 2024.  There have been a bunch of videos and playtest packets about it.



It's being replaced in the same was as 3e was.  With a half edition change.  The mechanics aren't going to be so different that it's a new edition.


----------



## Maxperson

Clint_L said:


> Then you're in luck, because they are removing the word "edition" entirely and just labeling it "D&D." That's the whole premise of OneD&D. That's the first thing they tell us in the announcement video.



Gimmicks are just that, gimmicks.  It's going to be 5.5 regardless of their effort to foist off on us their gimmick name.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Weren't you saying that they were wrong to not call it a new edition? So, their opinion isn't more valid than yours (even though they have more experience with this subject than you do), but yours is somehow more valid than theirs?



No, I just think this isn't going to work out the way they've said.  I could be wrong too.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> No, I just think this isn't going to work out the way they've said.  I could be wrong too.



They know how extensive the changes are going to be. At least, they know better than we do (they don't completely know what the finished product will be, but they know what they've designed so far). I see no reason to believe that they are lying.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They know how extensive the changes are going to be. At least, they know better than we do (they don't completely know what the finished product will be, but they know what they've designed so far). I see no reason to believe that they are lying.



I don’t think they're lying.  I think this will functionally end up as a new edition in the minds of the fans (where it really matters) once the dust has settled, regardless of what WotC wants.  Adventurer's League is also a place where the edition question will be determined.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I don’t think they're lying.  I think this will functionally end up as a new edition in the minds of the fans (where it really matters) once the dust has settled, regardless of what WotC wants.  Adventurer's League is also a place where the edition question will be determined.



They know where the extent of the changes they're proposing. So you're either saying that your opinion is more valid than the game designers', who have designed several editions of the game and very much know what that term means, or you're saying that they're lying.


----------



## Azzy

Cadence said:


> It feels to me like if you have to specify which printing of a book to use because the amount of substantive errata is no longer able to be sifted through easily, then it's effectively a new edition.



Oh, I agree. There's enough changes in the playtests that '24 will effectively be a new edition as I'm used to the term being used (much like B/X to BECMI, 1e to 2e and, to an extent, 3e to 3.5e). However, since WotC's stewardship of D&D, a new "edition" has pretty much meant a whole system overhaul (3e to 4e to 5e), so I get why they are saying that it's not a new "edition" (even if, to me, it is a new edition). WotC's intention (and my takeaway from the playtests) is that the '24 edition will be compatible enough that you'll be able to use older much of the older 5e material, run '14 characters and '24 characters in the same campaign, and/or mix and match elements from each edition. Sure, there will be some stuff that will need varying degrees of modifications (just like when my group and I ran hybrid 1e/2e games), but that's to be expected and doesn't take away from the overall compatibility of the two.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They know where the extent of the changes they're proposing. So you're either saying that your opinion is more valid than the game designers', who have designed several editions of the game and very much know what that term means, or you're saying that they're lying.



I'm not allowed to think a company's business plan isn't going to have the exact results they want?

Huh.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm not allowed to think a company's business plan isn't going to have the exact results they want?
> 
> Huh.



No, I'm not discussing whether or not the community will call it a new edition or .5 edition (I currently think the published rulebooks will be referenced to with a variety of terms when they're published, like they are now). I'm saying that if you think WotC is wrong to not call it a new edition, you're saying that their opinion is less valid than yours is, even though they have more experience with this subject than you do.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, I'm not discussing whether or not the community will call it a new edition or .5 edition (I currently think the published rulebooks will be referenced to with a variety of terms when they're published, like they are now). I'm saying that if you think WotC is wrong to not call it a new edition, you're saying that their opinion is less valid than yours is, even though they have more experience with this subject than you do.



Agree to disagree.  I'm done fighting on this.  We're each allowed to have our opinions.


----------



## FrogReaver

For all the hype of being new player friendly they force a new player to build a cleric to meet the requirements of medium armor, only to give him the option of heavy armor at level 2 that due to not knowing about the choice ahead of time may mean he doesn't have the stat spread to actually benefit from heavy armor.  And if he does know about it, they put him in a position of having to be way worse off at level 1 by dumping dex and using medium armor or having a crap stat spread when swapping over to heavy armor at level 2.

IMO, Heavy armor clerics are now an annoying trap!  Okay, they aren't that bad, but seriously, why make them feel so jank to actually build/play starting from level 1?

Even if the argument that it's to prevent multiclass abuse, medium armor and shield prof is just as good as heavy armor due to prioritizing 14 dex which tends to be better than prioritizing 15 str.  1 less AC, 2 more initiative and dex save.  (cheaper armors too).


----------



## Incenjucar

If your stats don't work with heavy armor then don't choose the heavy armor option, just like you don't grab a feat you can't use.


----------



## FrogReaver

Incenjucar said:


> If your stats don't work with heavy armor then don't choose the heavy armor option, just like you don't grab a feat you can't use.



Doesn't sound very new player friendly.


----------



## Incenjucar

FrogReaver said:


> Doesn't sound very new player friendly.



Neither is armor in general.


----------



## Hussar

Cadence said:


> I only did one Adventurer's league years ago (maybe pre-2018) and didn't know that.  Do you have a favorite reference as to needing the 2018 or newer one? Or do the errata not go back all the way to the 2014 one?
> 
> What happens now if a player shows up with a 2014 PHB?
> 
> 
> I don't think it's necessarily a standard, but it feels like it could be insightful as to how they're viewing the new version/printing/reorganization/whatnot.



It was posted earlier in this thread that if newer material contradicts older material, the newer material takes precedence. So, if you showed up with a 2014 PHB and tried to use something that had been errata'd, the newer printed PHB would take precedence.

Granted, it's not like the game has changed so incredibly radically that having a 2014 PHB would cause problems in most cases.  I don't really track errata that closely, so, I'm the wrong person to ask.  

My point though is that if we're insisting that the definition of "backwards compatible" is that I can use a 2014 PHB as is, in orgnanized play, then, well, that's already out the window and has been for years.  The thing is, now they are flat out telling you what the changes are and that from 2024 forward, you can expect the OneD&D version to be the assumed PHB on the table.  

It's not really all that unreasonable of an assumption, is it?  This is not looking like a terribly enormous change.  Mostly cleaning up verbiage  and another kick at the cat to fix some stuff that's been considered not terribly well done for a long time.  Plus, apparently, our 2024 PHB is going to have some new stuff in it too - new races at the very least.  So, it's not like we're not getting some value out of new books.


----------



## FrogReaver

Incenjucar said:


> Neither is armor in general.



This makes 0 sense to me.


----------



## Hussar

FrogReaver said:


> For all the hype of being new player friendly they force a new player to build a cleric to meet the requirements of medium armor, only to give him the option of heavy armor at level 2 that due to not knowing about the choice ahead of time may mean he doesn't have the stat spread to actually benefit from heavy armor.  And if he does know about it, they put him in a position of having to be way worse off at level 1 by dumping dex and using medium armor or having a crap stat spread when swapping over to heavy armor at level 2.
> 
> IMO, Heavy armor clerics are now an annoying trap!  Okay, they aren't that bad, but seriously, why make them feel so jank to actually build/play starting from level 1?
> 
> Even if the argument that it's to prevent multiclass abuse, medium armor and shield prof is just as good as heavy armor due to prioritizing 14 dex which tends to be better than prioritizing 15 str.  1 less AC, 2 more initiative and dex save.  (cheaper armors too).



Kinda?  Since none of the cleric weapons are finesse (AFAIR) then having a low dex, high str is actually a pretty big benefit for clerics.  And, come on, we're now presuming that someone is going to read the cleric entry and NOT look at anything beyond first level?  I know we want to make it as easy as possible, but...


----------



## Incenjucar

FrogReaver said:


> This makes 0 sense to me.



The actual issue is armor stat requirements and interactions. There are multiple other ways to be able to pick up armor proficiency after level one, each faces similar issues.


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> They're not a wash at all IMO. GWM loses -5/+10 in favor of +PB damage _*once per turn*_. SS loses -5/+10 and gets no damage raiser. XBE loses bonus action attack. Ranger loses their situational extra attack features. No _spiritual weapon_ + _spirit guardians. _No off-turn sneak attacks. No Steady Aim. It may be that new warrior features completely offset these nerfs, but that doesn't seem very likely based on what they've done with the rogue class.
> 
> If we actually playtested these rules and optimized characters with what we have today, DPR would be considerably lower than the 5e meta (kinda hate that term, but there you go). I _hope_ that's a conscious design intention, but obviously it's a long way to 2024.



Per WotC own data, very very few players do any sort of optimization to any degree whatsoever. WotC is trying to make the game easy to use not appeal to a meta. 2014 rules did a pretty good job flattening the playing field, bit they seem to be plugging more holes for 2024z to make the gap between optimized and unoptimized as small as possible.


----------



## Bill Zebub

I don’t understand why changes to AL rules signify anything. They get changed practically every season with new rules and new restrictions. When they implemented PHB+1 was that a new “edition” of D&D?


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> Nah, I don't think you're going to be able to mix and match classes, based on what we've seen. And no, that's not a problem for me.
> 
> I'm playing almost exclusively on Roll20* these days, so from a practical perspective, I'm either going to run 5e or 1D&D. Other VTTs may be different, but Roll20 pretty much makes you pick a rule set, unless I want to do a bunch of manual work that I pay good money not to do. I'm hopeful I'll go with 1D&D, but I'm buying it either way. It's the 50th Anniversary!
> 
> * Assuming D&D on Roll20 is still a thing in 2024.



Based on what they have printed, it will be possible to use old Subclass options, and probably will work fine to run the old Base Classes in a game with the new ones. It won't make a difference to the way the game runs


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> Only if they're really chill players who don't care about "balance," I think. I'm not that chill. If I think we're playing 1D&D and make a Lore Bard and you bring in a 5e Lore Bard, I'm going to be slightly miffed.



People don't tend to think in terms of "balance" when playing D&D. When I learned to play, we were hobbling together 3E and 3.5 willy-nilly, and 5E/OneD&D mixed games seem like a cinch in comparison. Just remember, specific beats general.


----------



## Parmandur

Cadence said:


> I only did one Adventurer's league years ago (maybe pre-2018) and didn't know that.  Do you have a favorite reference as to needing the 2018 or newer one? Or do the errata not go back all the way to the 2014 one?
> 
> What happens now if a player shows up with a 2014 PHB?
> 
> 
> I don't think it's necessarily a standard, but it feels like it could be insightful as to how they're viewing the new version/printing/reorganization/whatnot.



Per what you shared, if someone ahows.up with a 2014 PHab they have to use the rules from the most current Errata instead.

But AL is just one campaign, it's not the official Way to Play.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> Gimmicks are just that, gimmicks.  It's going to be 5.5 regardless of their effort to foist off on us their gimmick name.



On the contrary, whatever nomenclature WotC actually uses in the end will eventually catch on. As proof, I submit thst you are here in 2022 talking about "half editions" and ".5 updates" with a straight face, which was even more of a gimmick foisted on people in 2003.


----------



## Parmandur

Azzy said:


> Oh, I agree. There's enough changes in the playtests that '24 will effectively be a new edition as I'm used to the term being used (much like B/X to BECMI, 1e to 2e and, to an extent, 3e to 3.5e). However, since WotC's stewardship of D&D, a new "edition" has pretty much meant a whole system overhaul (3e to 4e to 5e), so I get why they are saying that it's not a new "edition" (even if, to me, it is a new edition). WotC's intention (and my takeaway from the playtests) is that the '24 edition will be compatible enough that you'll be able to use older much of the older 5e material, run '14 characters and '24 characters in the same campaign, and/or mix and match elements from each edition. Sure, there will be some stuff that will need varying degrees of modifications (just like when my group and I ran hybrid 1e/2e games), but that's to be expected and doesn't take away from the overall compatibility of the two.



Honestly, not.muxh more will be needed to change than is currently the case if one runs a 5E Adventure with 6 PCs, say.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> On the contrary, whatever nomenclature WotC actually uses in the end will eventually catch on. As proof, I submit thst you are here in 2022 talking about "half editions" and ".5 updates" with a straight face, which was even more of a gimmick foisted on people in 2003.



If you notice in my discussions, I almost always refer to the entire run as 3e.  It's only when someone will be utterly confused if I don't use 3.5 that I use it.  

I'll do the same with 5e and 5.5 I'm sure.

Edit: But you're right in that most people use 3.5, so that caught on.  I'm not convinced One D&D will be the same, since it's not a number and is waaaay gimicky.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> Per what you shared, if someone ahows.up with a 2014 PHab they have to use the rules from the most current Errata instead.



Now I am genuinely curious how they will handle the new core in 2024. Right now you can reference any printing of the book, errata just takes precedence (and there's errata online, so you don't technically need to have a newer printing on hand). But when Monsters of the Multiverse came out, and there were now multiple competing versions of the races available, they said you had to update your old DDAL characters to the new rules and couldn't use the older versions anymore.


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> People don't tend to think in terms of "balance" when playing D&D. When I learned to play, we were hobbling together 3E and 3.5 willy-nilly, and 5E/OneD&D mixed games seem like a cinch in comparison. Just remember, specific beats general.




As I’ve related previously, my very first D&D character, created for me by a friend’s friend’s older brother, who apparently owned multiple rule sets, was an Elf (that’s class, not race) with 18/33 strength. I played that character a long time before I even realized something was amiss.

I fully expect that newer, younger players, happily ignorant of the concept of ‘edition wars’, will freely mix 2014 and 2024 versions without a second thought.


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> People don't tend to think in terms of "balance" when playing D&D.



::blink::
If there's one "discourse" that, in my experience, has dominated D&D, and certainly 5e, it's "martial-caster balance." Players want equally good options. Players don't want "traps" that make their characters less capable than those that chose other options. Players want niche protection: If they play a rogue, they want to be the go-to guy or girl for sneaking and such. If they're a greatsword fighter, they don't want CoDzilla showing up and dishing out more damage, but also tanking damage, healing, flying, teleporting, and doing just about anything else that comes up better than they can.

I'm not saying _every_ player cares about these things, but I'd confidently say most do, in my experience, and I think the designers over the decades have recognized it and attempted to address it, with varying levels of success. At various times during the game's history, it's been possible to mix and match some things without running afoul of normie D&D player balance concerns, definitely. That doesn't mean _most people _are going to have one Lore Bard with 6th-level Magical Secrets at the table alongside another that has to wait until 11th level and not run into a problem. Put it this way: I'll bet you good money they don't try to run AL that way, and I certainly wouldn't run my table that way.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Greg Benage said:


> You're not going to be able to let players mix and match this stuff.



Everything but what is updating the core books will be perfectly mix and match friendly, from what we have so far, and from all the statements they’ve made and what they’re publishing now. 

And even the phb stuff, game won’t break if you use old versions of some thing and new versions of other things.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> Well, I meant, one person plays 5e fighter and another person plays One cleric. I think that could likely work too well. It might even work having one person play a 5e fighter and another person playing a One fighter, depending on the types of players and the archetypes involved--I doubt that there will be versions of every single 5e archetype, and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.



Where on earth are you even getting this idea? 

Absolutely not from any evidence of statements from the devs or from the UAs. 

You will be able to play any subclass from any supplement with the appropriate class from any PHB published from 2014 to 2025.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> If you notice in my discussions, I almost always refer to the entire run as 3e.  It's only when someone will be utterly confused if I don't use 3.5 that I use it.
> 
> I'll do the same with 5e and 5.5 I'm sure.
> 
> Edit: But you're right in that most people use 3.5, so that caught on.  I'm not convinced One D&D will be the same, since it's not a number and is waaaay gimicky.



To be fair, I don't think "OneD&D" is going to be on the book covers. That's the name for the testing initiative.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> Now I am genuinely curious how they will handle the new core in 2024. Right now you can reference any printing of the book, errata just takes precedence (and there's errata online, so you don't technically need to have a newer printing on hand). But when Monsters of the Multiverse came out, and there were now multiple competing versions of the races available, they said you had to update your old DDAL characters to the new rules and couldn't use the older versions anymore.



I think it's pretty simple: the 2024 Core books will be categorized as Legacy content, so available on D&D Beyond for use if not sale, and not AL legal.


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> ::blink::
> If there's one "discourse" that, in my experience, has dominated D&D, and certainly 5e, it's "martial-caster balance." Players want equally good options. Players don't want "traps" that make their characters less capable than those that chose other options. Players want niche protection: If they play a rogue, they want to be the go-to guy or girl for sneaking and such. If they're a greatsword fighter, they don't want CoDzilla showing up and dishing out more damage, but also tanking damage, healing, flying, teleporting, and doing just about anything else that comes up better than they can.
> 
> I'm not saying _every_ player cares about these things, but I'd confidently say most do, in my experience, and I think the designers over the decades have recognized it and attempted to address it, with varying levels of success. At various times during the game's history, it's been possible to mix and match some things without running afoul of normie D&D player balance concerns, definitely. That doesn't mean _most people _are going to have one Lore Bard with 6th-level Magical Secrets at the table alongside another that has to wait until 11th level and not run into a problem. Put it this way: I'll bet you good money they don't try to run AL that way, and I certainly wouldn't run my table that way.



You would confidently be incorrect: the overwhelming majority don't care about that sort of thing, per WotC and Beyond numbers cited over the years, and that matched my experience and observation. A small percentage pay any attention to any bit of that "discourse," which is why WotC usually just ignores it.


----------



## Faolyn

doctorbadwolf said:


> Where on earth are you even getting this idea?
> 
> Absolutely not from any evidence of statements from the devs or from the UAs.
> 
> You will be able to play any subclass from any supplement with the appropriate class from any PHB published from 2014 to 2025.



I think you were misunderstanding what I was talking about. Especially since I was talking to someone who was saying that you wouldn't be able to mix and match classes. You will, and at the least there likely will be no problems is some people prefer to play the 5e version of a class/archetype and some people prefer the One version.


----------



## JEB

Parmandur said:


> I think it's pretty simple: the 2024 Core books will be categorized as Legwcy content, so available on D&D Beyond for use if not sale, and not AL legal. But



But...?


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> But...?



Yeah, not sure what I was going for there.


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> You would confidently be incorrect: the overwhelming majority don't care about that sort of thing, per WotC and Beyond numbers cited over the years, and that matched my experience and observation. A small percentage pay any attention to any bit of that "discourse," which is why WotC usually just ignores it.



But...they _don't _ignore it. They've never ignored it! Like, forever! This is from Holmes' _Fantasy Roleplaying Games_:



> In the D&D world fighters can not do magic, but magicians are so weak that they need to be protected by fighters. Clerics can heal wounds and do a lot of fighting but are no good at long distance offensives because they can not shoot arrows or throw offensive spells. *The constraints of the rules practically dictate cooperation and mutual respect for the talents and weaknesses of each class*, and I find it hard to believe that Gygax was not fully conscious of the principle when he wrote them.
> 
> Gygax calls this "play balance" and insists that it is not good for one character to grow too powerful with respect to the others.




This design consideration has _driven_ edition changes!

Here's Monte Cook talking about 4e.



> To make this work, the game’s design—rather than an individual GM—controls the character creation phase of the game. In other words, the game designer can’t really control what a GM throws at the PCs (although he can try, providing strict guidelines on matching character level to threat level to reward level). But he can absolutely control the way a player creates a character. The rules are very specifically designed, and the choices are very carefully balanced.




Holy Smokes! Every once in a while, I'm told I'm wrong about something that strikes me as so fundamental and obvious, it makes me question my sanity. Is this what the kids mean by "gaslighting"?

Here's a measured take from Mearls (a blog post he wrote) that recognizes that balance isn't important to everyone, but is important to a lot of players and is an important consideration in game design.



> A well-balanced game means more than simply making all options equal. A well balanced game offers a lot of distinct choices and vivid options, without _needlessly_ restricting them. That's really the trick - where does that needless line rest? 4e catches a lot of heat for this. For some people, wizard spells that obviated skills were bad because they replaced rogues in those critical situations where the rogue had a chance to shine. Others didn't care, or rarely had rogues in the party, or had enough chances for the rogue to shine that the wizard didn't steal them all.




People care. Designers know people care and try to make them happy.

Why do we do this kind of thing when we have these discussions? What's the point?


----------



## Incenjucar

Balance has always been a factor and always will be. Even asymmetric games need to balance comparable options so that they can predict the shape of the outcome to provide adequate challenges. You can't build adventures if you can't predict how they will play.


----------



## Parmandur

Greg Benage said:


> But...they _don't _ignore it. They've never ignored it! Like, forever! This is from Holmes' _Fantasy Roleplaying Games_:
> 
> 
> 
> This design consideration has _driven_ edition changes!
> 
> Here's Monte Cook talking about 4e.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Smokes! Every once in a while, I'm told I'm wrong about something that strikes me as so fundamental and obvious, it makes me question my sanity. Is this what the kids mean by "gaslighting"?
> 
> Here's a measured take from Mearls (a blog post he wrote) that recognizes that balance isn't important to everyone, but is important to a lot of players and is an important consideration in game design.
> 
> 
> 
> People care. Designers know people care and try to make them happy.
> 
> Why do we do this kind of thing when we have these discussions? What's the point?



The designers care about creating a fair play environment, but they know that very few gamers actually engage with that in a "metagame" sense. See the repeated statements from the designers over the years, but more key the D&D Beyond statistics are revealing.

For an example of my point, note that the designers are letting people who do care know in the playtest document that mixing old Subclasses with the new revised Classes will be balanced in the final publication.


----------



## Incenjucar

Ideally, players should never have to engage with balance because it's already built into the system and they can just pick the stuff they like instead of having to figure out if it's optimal.


----------



## Parmandur

Incenjucar said:


> Ideally, players should never have to engage with balance because it's already built into the system and they can just pick the stuff they like instead of having to figure out if it's optimal.



This, exactly. Because most players aren't going to want to engage on thst level, nor should they have to.


----------



## Greg Benage

Parmandur said:


> The designers care about creating a fair play environment, but they know that very few gamers actually engage with that in a "metagame" sense. See the repeated statements from the designers over the years, but more key the D&D Beyond statistics are revealing.



Can you cite some actual examples?

I've been playing for more than 40 years. I've played with aaaaallllll kinds of players, from grognards who started in the mid-70s to zoomers who started this year. The _vast_ majority of D&D players have cared about balance (compared to almost no one caring about it other RPGs). This doesn't strike me as at all surprising, given the kind of RPG D&D is.

I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "engage with that in a metagame sense." They realize they chose a trap option and they want to fix it. They ask to ban twilight clerics because they think they're broken. They ask to start a new campaign because Kevin's CoDzilla is stupid. They say they'll only play casters because they're better and have so many options than martials. They ask to reroll their straight-class paladin when someone brings in a paladin with a hexblade dip. They (we, in this case) decide to only play low-level AL events (or non-campaign events) at conventions because all the optimized characters with all the best available magic items turn us into sidekicks who wouldn't strictly need to be present at all. I could go on.

Is any of that "engaging in the metagame sense"?

ETA: I do appreciate the 180 on the "designers ignore it" bit. My sanity is in a less precarious position, at least.


----------



## Greg Benage

Incenjucar said:


> Ideally, players should never have to engage with balance because it's already built into the system and they can just pick the stuff they like instead of having to figure out if it's optimal.



This here, but, to bring it back on topic, balance isn't going to be built into the system if one guy's bringing a 5e SS/XBE hand crossbow archer to a 1D&D game where the other ranged characters are rocking 1d8+Dex attacks.


----------



## Incenjucar

Greg Benage said:


> This here, but, to bring it back on topic, balance isn't going to be built into the system if one guy's bringing a 5e SS/XBE hand crossbow archer to a 1D&D game where the other ranged characters are rocking 1d8+Dex attacks.



True. We should expect WotC to nudge players toward adopting the newer rules to bring everyone in line. It's the right path even if you ignore the financial incentive. Not much else to be done without making *everyone* unhappy.


----------



## Aldarc

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> They know where the extent of the changes they're proposing. So you're either saying that your opinion is more valid than the game designers', who have designed several editions of the game and very much know what that term means, or you're saying that they're lying.





Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> No, I'm not discussing whether or not the community will call it a new edition or .5 edition (I currently think the published rulebooks will be referenced to with a variety of terms when they're published, like they are now). I'm saying that if you think WotC is wrong to not call it a new edition, you're saying that their opinion is less valid than yours is, even though they have more experience with this subject than you do.



I'm not sure if this is a fair reading, Levistus. 

I don't think it's about invalidating WotC's opinion or accusing WotC of being "liars." I don't think that this is an issue of truth or lies at all. I find that to be an unhelpful framework. Nor do I think that having the opinion that "WotC is wrong to not call it a new edition" means "that their opinion is less valid than yours is," though it does seem that you are trying to invalidate Micah's valid opinion with this argumentation. Micah says that he doesn't think that all this will go down the way that WotC thinks that it will. Regardless of whether I agree or disagree with him, I don't think that what you are doing here is cool. 

That said, WotC is a corporate entity. There are business and marketing reasons that often go behind calling something a new edition or not that is distinct from the designers' actual experiences with the revised rules. There are a lot of complex behind-the-scenes business "shenanigans" that goes into these sorts of things. While I do want to take the _people_ at WotC at their word, I also recognize that they work at a for-profit business with the lion's share of the TTRPG market so I do prefer having a healthy dose of cynicism when it comes to what WotC as a business says.


----------



## FrogReaver

In a few years they will be telling us, we said 'you can' not 'you should' mix 5e and One character options.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> 5e is being replaced in 2024.  There have been a bunch of videos and playtest packets about it.



Well, no. It’s being revised and updated. 


Faolyn said:


> I think you were misunderstanding what I was talking about. Especially since I was talking to someone who was saying that you wouldn't be able to mix and match classes. You will, and at the least there likely will be no problems is some people prefer to play the 5e version of a class/archetype and some people prefer the One version.



So, what I was specifically reacting to, and should have singled out in the post, was this: “and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.”

And judging by the UA and dev statements they absolutely _will_ be able to play a psi knight or any other supplemental fighter subclass with the revised version of the fighter. 

They can do a lot with the fighter without chanlging the subclasses.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Greg Benage said:


> But...they _don't _ignore it. They've never ignored it! Like, forever! This is from Holmes' _Fantasy Roleplaying Games_:
> 
> Snip




Maybe "don't care was the wrong words here".

It is rather: "all classes need things they are good at and you are happy to play the class" kind of balance, instead of "class x mist do y damage at level z" kind of balance.
They heavily misjudged that in 4e, where they tried to balance D&D this way.

5e is actually not that bad and from the UA videos it seems, they try to improve both kinds of balance with OneDnD.

But they won't try to achieve perfect balance of the latter type only sane bounds.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

doctorbadwolf said:


> Well, no. It’s being revised and updated.
> 
> So, what I was specifically reacting to, and should have singled out in the post, was this: “and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.”
> 
> And judging by the UA and dev statements they absolutely _will_ be able to play a psi knight or any other supplemental fighter subclass with the revised version of the fighter.
> 
> They can do a lot with the fighter without chanlging the subclasses.




We are using the UA in our current games, and right now, using war cleric domain is a bit more update work. So we are still usining the old class. I think in some cases, using the old 5e base classinstead of converting might be the better choice. But we actually don't know.
You would still use new spells and feats and grapple rules probably.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Greg Benage said:


> Can you cite some actual examples?
> 
> I've been playing for more than 40 years. I've played with aaaaallllll kinds of players, from grognards who started in the mid-70s to zoomers who started this year. The _vast_ majority of D&D players have cared about balance (compared to almost no one caring about it other RPGs). This doesn't strike me as at all surprising, given the kind of RPG D&D is.
> 
> I'll admit I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "engage with that in a metagame sense." They realize they chose a trap option and they want to fix it. They ask to ban twilight clerics because they think they're broken. They ask to start a new campaign because Kevin's CoDzilla is stupid. They say they'll only play casters because they're better and have so many options than martials. They ask to reroll their straight-class paladin when someone brings in a paladin with a hexblade dip. They (we, in this case) decide to only play low-level AL events (or non-campaign events) at conventions because all the optimized characters with all the best available magic items turn us into sidekicks who wouldn't strictly need to be present at all. I could go on.
> 
> Is any of that "engaging in the metagame sense"?
> 
> ETA: I do appreciate the 180 on the "designers ignore it" bit. My sanity is in a less precarious position, at least.




I think all the problems you mention are less balance and instead fair play issues.

Being able to always chose the perfect class combination for a certain level and campaign and some few combinations too good too often in kind of adventures are problematic.


----------



## FrogReaver

Incenjucar said:


> The actual issue is armor stat requirements and interactions. There are multiple other ways to be able to pick up armor proficiency after level one, each faces similar issues.



Subclass seems like it would be the most pertinent to this discussion.  I don't think any level 2 or 3 subclasses ever gave heavy armor proficiency?  None to Light or Light to Medium all function off dex so it seems you don't face the same issues there.

Feats would be the next place to look but in 5e they were intentionally optional.
Multiclassing is the same.


----------



## glass

Hussar said:


> Are they rewriting entire classes from the ground up?



Yes they are.



Micah Sweet said:


> I won't argue it, but I think 2024 will be a new edition too, so what do I know?



I think you know two things of import in this situation: What "edition" means in the context of D&D, and that you should not put too much stock in a large company's marketing spin.



Hussar said:


> Well it’s relevant for adventurers league. You haven’t been able to use a 2014 phb since at least 2018.



Is this really true? It seems unlikely to me, although I think my AL play was pre-2018.



Maxperson said:


> It's being replaced in the same was as 3e was. With a half edition change.



"Half edition" is like "half pregnant" - either it is a new edition or it isn't (and it is).



Micah Sweet said:


> No, I just think this isn't going to work out the way they've said.  I could be wrong too.



We both could, but at this point it seems rather unlikely.



Maxperson said:


> But you're right in that most people use 3.5, so that caught on.



IIRC it caught on before publication. They put 3.5 on the books because that was what people on the Internet were calling it, rather than the other way around.


----------



## Cadence

Hussar said:


> It was posted earlier in this thread that if newer material contradicts older material, the newer material takes precedence. So, if you showed up with a 2014 PHB and tried to use something that had been errata'd, the newer printed PHB would take precedence.




Right. You brought up the 2014 and 2018 in particular, so I thought there was something strange happening that I had missed in 2018.



Hussar said:


> Granted, it's not like the game has changed so incredibly radically that having a 2014 PHB would cause problems in most cases.  I don't really track errata that closely, so, I'm the wrong person to ask.
> 
> My point though is that if we're insisting that the definition of "backwards compatible" is that I can use a 2014 PHB as is, in orgnanized play, then, well, that's already out the window and has been for years.  The thing is, now they are flat out telling you what the changes are and that from 2024 forward, you can expect the OneD&D version to be the assumed PHB on the table.




That's why I keep bringing up the errata when I asked the question (posts 694, 710, and 725).  All the new printings of the (5e) PHB have seemingly have their errata added to the list.  Having small updates with a new printing seems to be a standard publishing thing, and putting out a printed or downloadable errata is something textbook companies seem to do and something bigger other game companies do too.

A player, as far as I know, can show up with any (5e) PHB printing, but needs to use the several pages of errata.



Hussar said:


> It's not really all that unreasonable of an assumption, is it?  This is not looking like a terribly enormous change.  Mostly cleaning up verbiage  and another kick at the cat to fix some stuff that's been considered not terribly well done for a long time.  Plus, apparently, our 2024 PHB is going to have some new stuff in it too - new races at the very least.  So, it's not like we're not getting some value out of new books.




I'm fine with WotC ditching the "edition" terminology.  But it seems like it's clearly not just a new "printing" by any definition or usage of printing I've ever seen, even if WotC did print out a huge errata file - which I don't picture them doing if it has new races and subclasses and would take scores of pages.

I was thinking that pondering how they could phrase it for Adventurer's League might be a way to try and guess what we'll end up with:  2024? 5e version 1.1?   version 5.1? Expanded 5th edition?  Swerve and call it a "Players' Guide" so that they don't have to sunset the 2014 PHB and deal with the question?

-----

Somewhere between the prospective DM saying they're thinking of running a D&D game and the dice hitting the table, the group presumably needs to say what flavor of D&D -- and often have throughout the years : 4e and/or essentials, 5e core books, 5e + Tasha's, 5e + all expansions, 1e PHB,  1e + UA, etc...  

My pondering is about the question - when one wants to specify the 2024 set-up, what words will be the most commonly used to do that?


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

glass said:


> I think you know two things of import in this situation: What "edition" means in the context of D&D, and that you should not put too much stock in a large company's marketing spin.



"Ze game is ze same! Ze game is ze same!"


----------



## Scribe

Parmandur said:


> 2014 rules did a pretty good job flattening the playing field, bit they seem to be plugging more holes for 2024z to make the gap between optimized and unoptimized as small as possible.



I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.

Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.
> 
> Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.



I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be happy to have it gone because it's "bad for the game".


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would be happy to have it gone because it's "bad for the game".



Sadly true.

The problem is, if you iron out and flatten any of this kind of thing, you absolutely are pulling out yet another aspect of the game people engage with and enjoy.

MtG used to understand that providing multiple ways to engage with a product is a good thing.


----------



## Remathilis

Scribe said:


> I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.
> 
> Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.



I don't imagine that they can or will flatten the optimization curve, but I have noticed a theme developing.

* Things that should be class-based that are currently hiding in other areas of the game are being moved to classes. For example, the damage potential of martials shouldn't be hidden in feats.

* Spells and abilities that are over performing are being taken down a notch. Guidance and spiritual weapon are no-brainers for clerics and they are sky-blue on every optimizer list. That probably means they are a little too good. 

* Spells and abilities that are underperforming are getting boosts, such as Resistance. 

* There is going to be a little more choice in builds. For example, Separating holy order from domain allows for more build choices as far as martial, skilled or caster types. 

* If something is important to the identity of a class, they will get it as part of the class. Warlock's will get eldritch blast. Rangers get hunter's mark. Clerics get a little healing regardless of spell selection. That both opens up your options (so that the warlock doesn't effectively say "pick eldritch blast and one other cantrip") and makes sure you have what's needed to be effective. 

I doubt the char-ops people will be out of a job. But I think it will be easier to avoid traps and build will be less about picking the right race or feats and more about looking within the class.


----------



## Remathilis

Scribe said:


> lMtG used to understand that providing multiple ways to engage with a product is a good thing.




If only.

When they went with the NWO design, where commons are draft junk and uncommons are signposts to draft, the only viable cards for any constructed format are at rare or mythic rare. It's why deck costs are skyrocketing, eternal formats are floundering, standard is dead and Commander is the system of choice. Once the format is solved, the only way to play is to netdeck a current meta-deck or accept that you'll lose more than you win.


----------



## Incenjucar

Scribe said:


> I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.
> 
> Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.



There is always optimization, it's just whether or  not it can break the game.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

UngeheuerLich said:


> We are using the UA in our current games, and right now, using war cleric domain is a bit more update work. So we are still usining the old class. I think in some cases, using the old 5e base classinstead of converting might be the better choice. But we actually don't know.
> You would still use new spells and feats and grapple rules probably.



What work? I’m looking at the two and it is extremely straightforward, to me. 

I do think Holy Order should be level 1, but I also don’t mind the idea of moving the cleric more toward Priest and more away from van helsing, and having level 1 not have heavy armor fits that. 

But either way I wouldn’t call having to wait to level 2 to get heavy armor prof an update work issue, so much as a preference no lining up with how things are in the UA.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Scribe said:


> I really hope they don't go too far on this. There is a segment of the player base that enjoys optimization and building.
> 
> Don't remove someone's joy Wizards.




You can optimize characters for certain aspects without having them unbalance the game.

It take no genius to make a hexblade2/any cha bases class x.

The fun starts when you find neat combos that combine less powerful features into something playable.

If your only goal is being far more powerful than your fellow adventurers, I think you are doing it wrong* (even if the rule system allows for such characters).

*because this usually diminishes the fun of the other players.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

doctorbadwolf said:


> What work? I’m looking at the two and it is extremely straightforward, to me.
> 
> I do think Holy Order should be level 1, but I also don’t mind the idea of moving the cleric more toward Priest and more away from van helsing, and having level 1 not have heavy armor fits that.
> 
> But either way I wouldn’t call having to wait to level 2 to get heavy armor prof an update work issue, so much as a preference no lining up with how things are in the UA.




You get your special channel divinity later and what is with the level 1 extra attack feature. It is work. Even if it is not too much work.

There just might be some subclasses that  could end up beong more work and if the game is as compatible as I expect, just running the 2014 version will prove unproblematic.

The monk for example just works well woth the new rules. I'd say, the monk has never worked that well.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

UngeheuerLich said:


> You get your special channel divinity later and what is with the level 1 extra attack feature. It is work. Even if it is not too much work.
> 
> There just might be some subclasses that  could end up beong more work and if the game is as compatible as I expect, just running the 2014 version will prove unproblematic.
> 
> The monk for example just works well woth the new rules. I'd say, the monk has never worked that well.



What I don’t get is where is the work, in that? You just get the features when the base class says you get the next subclass feature level. What am I missing?

Agreed on the monk.


----------



## SkidAce

Parmandur said:


> People don't tend to think in terms of "balance" when playing D&D. When I learned to play, we were hobbling together 3E and 3.5 willy-nilly, and 5E/OneD&D mixed games seem like a cinch in comparison. Just remember, specific beats general.



we were "hobbling together" 1E, 2E, 3/3.5 "willly-nilly"

I agree, balance is certainly less of a factor for us.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

doctorbadwolf said:


> What I don’t get is where is the work, in that? You just get the features when the base class says you get the next subclass feature level. What am I missing?




Because it will make the character play different (at our current level 4). As I said, not much work, but it is work and might be a bit unconvenient.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

SkidAce said:


> we were "hobbling together" 1E, 2E, 3/3.5 "willly-nilly"
> 
> I agree, balance is certainly less of a factor for us.




I used Night Below (2e) in 3e nearly unmodified. I just usually put in the monsters from the 3e monster manual or converted them on the fly.


----------



## Scribe

UngeheuerLich said:


> It take no genius to make a hexblade2/any cha bases class x



Agreed, and I particularly hate that build path.

I just feel 5e was already light in this area with optional feats, and has just been more simplified (floating ASI.

I don't know, it's fine, but feels...kind of dull still.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

UngeheuerLich said:


> Because it will make the character play different (at our current level 4). As I said, not much work, but it is work and might be a bit unconvenient.



Ah, okay. That doesn’t fall into the category of needing work, for me, but I get where you’re coming from. 

To me, needing work would be something that doesn’t work, not something that just plays a bit different at a given level. 

I do think they should move holy order to 1, and explicitly say in the new phb cleric writeup that if your cleric domain gives a level 2 feature, you gain that at level 3 alongside the level 1 features, or the level 6 feature. 

How it is now works, but it’d work better if level 2 gets combined with another level.


----------



## Faolyn

Parmandur said:


> This, exactly. Because most players aren't going to want to engage on thst level, nor should they have to.



Have you checked out reddit? Because the posters on the D&D subreddits are _all _about balance.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> Have you checked out reddit? Because the posters on the D&D subreddits are _all _about balance.



And yet, all the data we have seen from wotc and ddb about what people play suggests most people don’t care about optimization, to the point that the most popular options are often ones that internet discourse insists are garbage. 

Most telling, IMO, is that the class and subclass rankings from DDB didn’t change when only viewing people who had unlocked all supplements and PHB. 

“people who discuss D&D on twitter and Reddit and various forums” is a tiny portion of the player base. 

And IME, those discussions have a lot more people who care about fair play and basic stuff like making sure homebrew isn’t broken, than people who care about the nitty gritty of balance. 

not to mention all the people who always pop up to say, “this doesn’t matter” in some form or other in nearly all of those threads about balance.


----------



## Incenjucar

A number of players are aware of balance problems but suck it up because optimized builds are often boring in execution or feel bad to play. Some DMs will also ban it, including myself.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Faolyn said:


> Have you checked out reddit? Because the posters on the D&D subreddits are _all _about balance.



They're also all about posting fake horror stories and adding that the 'villain' liked anime, videogames or furries to mine karma, so let's not ever listen to what reddit has to say.

Edit: And I say this a someone who does value balance and dislikes the attempts to demonize basic game design principles.


----------



## Greg Benage

Faolyn said:


> Have you checked out reddit? Because the posters on the D&D subreddits are _all _about balance.



For that matter, they may have run across the stray balance discussion on enWorld (ENworld? not sure how to write it...) over the last twenty years.


----------



## Scribe

doctorbadwolf said:


> “people who discuss D&D on twitter and Reddit and various forums” is a tiny portion of the player base.




We all are. I know this has been mentioned in various discussions, but by virtue of even being on this site (or reddit, twitter, whatever people have run away from twitter on) we are a dramatically small, hyper invested, almost myopically focused sub group of the "D&D Players" group.


----------



## Xamnam

Scribe said:


> We all are. I know this has been mentioned in various discussions, but by virtue of even being on this site (or reddit, twitter, whatever people have run away from twitter on) we are a dramatically small, hyper invested, almost myopically focused sub group of the "D&D Players" group.



And then, on top of that, if we're discussing things like how classes compare, we can't bring in our personal experiences in a meaningful way, nor house rules or table etiquette, which, to a degree, only leaves white-room math as something that we can at least all agree on the structural premises of (and not even always then).


----------



## Faolyn

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, what I was specifically reacting to, and should have singled out in the post, was this: “and if someone wants to play, I dunno, a psi knight, they may not be able to do so easily with the One version of the fighter.”
> 
> And judging by the UA and dev statements they absolutely _will_ be able to play a psi knight or any other supplemental fighter subclass with the revised version of the fighter.
> 
> They can do a lot with the fighter without chanlging the subclasses.



I said "*may not *be able to do so," not "definitely won't be able to." Because we don't know what the fighter is going to look like.


----------



## Faolyn

Vaalingrade said:


> They're also all about posting fake horror stories and adding that the 'villain' liked anime, videogames or furries to mine karma, so let's not ever listen to what reddit has to say.
> 
> Edit: And I say this a someone who does value balance and dislikes the attempts to demonize basic game design principles.



But listen to EnWorlders?


----------



## Bill Zebub

Parmandur said:


> You would confidently be incorrect: the overwhelming majority don't care about that sort of thing, per WotC and Beyond numbers cited over the years, and that matched my experience and observation. A small percentage pay any attention to any bit of that "discourse," which is why WotC usually just ignores it.




Yeah I agree with this.  I personally am into 'balance' and geek out on mechanics and math.  The people I play with?  Not so much.  There's one member of my group who has pretty good system mastery, but the rest of them mostly just go for flavor and don't really seem to care how mechanically effective they are, nor how they compare to others.  (As an optimizer myself it sometimes drives me crazy.)

I am also the only one who reads Enworld or follows the news.  I've tried to talk about the One D&D stuff and they all kind of look at me blankly.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Faolyn said:


> But listen to EnWorlders?



Oh heavens no.

No, no, no, no.

Of course not!


----------



## Aldarc

nevermind


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Scribe said:


> We all are. I know this has been mentioned in various discussions, but by virtue of even being on this site (or reddit, twitter, whatever people have run away from twitter on) we are a dramatically small, hyper invested, almost myopically focused sub group of the "D&D Players" group.



That’s the point I made in the text you quoted. 



Faolyn said:


> I said "*may not *be able to do so," not "definitely won't be able to." Because we don't know what the fighter is going to look like.



But we basically do know, at least as far as subclasses working with the class. They’ve been very clear about that. Whatever they change, will probably be less than they’ve proposed for the cleric, but even if they change quite a bit, it will be done so that existing subclasses work with the new class.

The only “may” in all that is that literally anything _could_ happen, however unlikely.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Any guesses on what parts of this playtest packet will make 70% or 80%+ even? Does anything fail?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Henadic Theologian said:


> Any guesses on what parts of this playtest packet will make 70% or 80%+ even? Does anything fail?




If they ask if pushing subclass to level 3 is liked, I'd say, we get less than 80%.
I just hope they don't ask that question.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

UngeheuerLich said:


> If they ask if pushing subclass to level 3 is liked, I'd say, we get less than 80%.
> I just hope they don't ask that question.




@JEB
To clarify:
I think sometimes it takes less popular decisions to make something objectively better. Change is sometimes accompanied by resistance due to being used to something unwieldy or outdated (e. g. Keyboard layout, self trained techniques in sports etc., the term "race", lesser grade mathematical techniques, ThAC0)
And when you finally got used to the new way of doing it, you finally notice the advantages and wonder why you didn't do it that way before. 

As a math teacher, I can definitely say, that if I teach new rules only if more than 70% of the class votes for it, we would only do elementary school math...


----------



## Bill Zebub

UngeheuerLich said:


> As a math teacher, I can definitely say, that if I teach new rules only if more than 70% of the class votes for it, we would only do elementary school math...




As long as you don’t teach them how to compute percentages you have nothing to worry about. “Oh, look, 93% of you want to learn polynomials!”


----------



## Henadic Theologian

The fact that Aasimar are going to be playable in yet another D&D video game (BG3 this time) is more evidence that Aasimar deserve to be in the One D&D PHB. I encourage all of you to send WotC that message in the feedback for this playtest.


----------



## Pedantic

It is frustrating that they pitched Aardlings immediately with flavor stolen from the existing Aasimar, mostly because it's completely unnecessary. They could absolutely sell the entry on it's own without the "celestial" and "counterpart to Tieflings" stuff, but they immediately started on the wrong foot.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

PSA that flying Winged Figure in the video is not an Angel, D&D Aasimon Angels don't wear Armour, their bodies are tougher then steel, they don't need it and they have physical wings and fly, physical armour would be an absolutely epic pain in the ass, not to mention really hard to put on and remove, even with custom armour (there is a reason Pixies and Aacrokra aren't depicted where plate Armour ever).

 The art backs me up, in D&D you never see Aasimon Angels wearing armour, you can barely get them to wear clothes, Aasimar are often Paladins, they wear armour, their flesh is no more resistant to steel then a humans.

 So it dressed like a Stripper its an Angel, if its armoured like a knight of the Round Table its an Aasimar, Aasimar Sorcerers and Monks are possible exceptions, just a rule of thumb.

 Also engergy Angels of 4e weirdly are an exception as are newer MtG Angels (which look stupid compared to the older MtG Angel art, I mean these creatures fly for goodness sakes, why would they want to be weighed down?). 

 I noticed alot of confusion online over this so I just thought I'd clarify.


----------



## Scribe

Henadic Theologian said:


> Any guesses on what parts of this playtest packet will make 70% or 80%+ even? Does anything fail?




I still think ardlings dont get there, but they are anathema to me regardless. I'm sure people will like the Goliath, but I expect most of the options to even be buffed. Cleric looks fine.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Henadic Theologian said:


> Any guesses on what parts of this playtest packet will make 70% or 80%+ even? Does anything fail?



Goliath level five might fail (or at least there should be a more mundane option). Divine Intervention possibly? Double prof bonus for Divine Spark?

I think in a lot more danger is the Expert playtest.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Ardlings are probably going to come in on the line again. They don't seem to make anyone they're aiming for happy.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

Vaalingrade said:


> Ardlings are probably going to come in on the line again. They don't seem to make anyone they're aiming for happy.



In my experience, people who want to play a dog person want the doggiest dog person imaginable with a bunch of dog traits (ex Superscent, Bite Attack, Pack Tactics, Howl) that help express the dog concept.  

It is the specifics that matter to them, not a generalized animal-headed thing that doesn't really have any flavor.  The fact that this version was at the very low end of the power spectrum for species is not going to help its popularity either.


----------



## Vaalingrade

The Myopic Sniper said:


> In my experience, people who want to play a dog person want the doggiest dog person imaginable with a bunch of dog traits (ex Superscent, Bite Attack, Pack Tactics, Howl) that help express the dog concept.
> 
> It is the specifics that matter to them, not a generalized animal-headed thing that doesn't really have any flavor.  The fact that this version was at the very low end of the power spectrum for species is not going to help its popularity either.



They aren't doing well in the smell test for a Now Shut Up element.

It seems the designers either don't understand or don't care for the reasons people want to play animal people species and the Ardlings feel like them saying 'now stop bothering us' to the ones who do.

Buuuut, the fact that they genuinely tried again and tried to tie them into D&D lore suggests to me that maybe they really think they're doing people right by creating an all-animal species without, again, really getting the appeal.


----------



## Faolyn

Vaalingrade said:


> Buuuut, the fact that they genuinely tried again and tried to tie them into D&D lore suggests to me that maybe they really think they're doing people right by creating an all-animal species without, again, really getting the appeal.



Maybe they're trying to not appeal to the "weird" furry crowd?


----------



## Remathilis

My problem with ardling is they feel like they are now sharing a design space with the shifter (humanoid with vague animalistic qualities) that doesn't really give the impression you're some sort of animal folk. I'm not sure how you fix that. I can't imagine any reason I'd pick a cat-ardling over a tabaxi, for example.


----------



## Incenjucar

Remathilis said:


> My problem with ardling is they feel like they are now sharing a design space with the shifter (humanoid with vague animalistic qualities) that doesn't really give the impression you're some sort of animal folk. I'm not sure how you fix that. I can't imagine any reason I'd pick a cat-ardling over a tabaxi, for example.



Ironically, this would be clearer if they left tabaxi as jaguar people only. Homogenization of related concepts makes everything smudged and indistinct, and then it gets even less distinct because new ideas are clumped in with old ones.

That said, which would you pick if you were trying to play something like a rakshasa instead of a cat furry?


----------



## Vaalingrade

Incenjucar said:


> That said, which would you pick if you were trying to play something like a rakshasa instead of a cat furry?



Tiefling.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Faolyn said:


> Maybe they're trying to not appeal to the "weird" furry crowd?



Fair enough.  Who _ are_ they trying to appeal to with the ardling?


----------



## Incenjucar

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough.  Who _ are_ they trying to appeal to with the ardling?



I would assume mythology fans.


----------



## Remathilis

Incenjucar said:


> Ironically, this would be clearer if they left tabaxi as jaguar people only. Homogenization of related concepts makes everything smudged and indistinct, and then it gets even less distinct because new ideas are clumped in with old ones.
> 
> That said, which would you pick if you were trying to play something like a rakshasa instead of a cat furry?



I like the tabaxi as generic cat people. I liked the old Rakasta of Mystara, and so tabaxi being a mix of both is fine by me.

I think this is one of the areas I want to see what WotC has in store beyond "is this balanced?" UA design. Are we supposed to be looking at this as animal-headed humanoids, humans with animalistic features, or humanoid shaped animals? Give me a concept sketch WotC! Because the last one is full of races like lizardfolk, tabaxi and tortles, and the middle is the home of the shifter, so I need a little more help understanding the need for the first. 

I'm also very sure that if this was a race for a specific setting, I'd be more open, but in the "generic" PHB, you really gotta sell me on what niche this is filling.


----------



## Incenjucar

The original ardent description gave them the option of having normal human-like bodies with skin, but then the feedback apparently said "we want furries".


----------



## Maxperson

Incenjucar said:


> I would assume mythology fans.



Or furries.


----------



## Incenjucar

Maxperson said:


> Or furries.



Only if they know nothing about what furries like.


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> My problem with ardling is they feel like they are now sharing a design space with the shifter (humanoid with vague animalistic qualities) that doesn't really give the impression you're some sort of animal folk. I'm not sure how you fix that. I can't imagine any reason I'd pick a cat-ardling over a tabaxi, for example.



I can see some reasons, but they're purely thematic. Like, if your world was very human-centric, you might not want anthros but are fine with "cynocephaly"-type people.

In standard D&D, though, no. There's not a huge reason.


----------



## Incenjucar

I imagine a big part of this is that, for most players, this is entirely out of the blue. Guardinals were never the best-known, Egyptomania is long gone - the recentish movies didn't help, the living systems that use it are off-limits, and the other usages are pretty obscure knowledge for most people, PLUS the whole furry dichotomy thing.

They make all the sense in the world to me, but I get why most people would need more context to care. Maybe if they were introduced in a big adventure involving guardinals, animal lords, and other old school ideas brought to new life, then people could see Oh that's why this is cool.


----------



## Faolyn

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough.  Who _ are_ they trying to appeal to with the ardling?



I have _no _idea. I _like _animal-headed humans (as you could tell with the therolians in my LU book) and I still think the aardlings aren't done very well. Maybe they think people who like anthro animals will like discount anthro animals just as much. Or maybe they're planning on an adventure that takes place in the Beastlands and this is a tie-in that may or may not actually be in the PHB.


----------



## Incenjucar

"people with animal heads" on GIS actually comes up with some fascinating examples, though mostly in modern clothes.

I think a bit more lore might help, but the degree to which they've changed their abilities makes me wonder how coherent their vision is. Taking the pieces they've given I can come up with a dozen fun ideas and designs, but that's drawing from decades of experience, not just a direct line from what they've presented.

A big part is that the animal and supernatural parts are not connected. This works if the animal portion is purely cosmetic and metaphorical, but if they are truly animal beings, the magic and animal parts should probably connect more.

Perhaps they could speak with animals of their type and be able to heal those animals more easily, making them a bit like low-grade animal lords without making it an overwhelming element. Perhaps their senses can be briefly enhanced at level 5, too.

I still really like the flexible cantrip, especially if that gets used to split them into arcane and primal types while maintaining the divine default.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough.  Who _ are_ they trying to appeal to with the ardling?




My own limited survey says the triceratops headed one hits a lot of the approx. 13 yo boys range.  (It may well hit other ages and non-boys too, but they weren't in the room when I asked).


----------



## Cadence

Incenjucar said:


> I imagine a big part of this is that, for most players, this is entirely out of the blue. Guardinals were never the best-known, Egyptomania is long gone - the recentish movies didn't help, the living systems that use it are off-limits, and the other usages are pretty obscure knowledge for most people, PLUS the whole furry dichotomy thing.
> 
> They make all the sense in the world to me, but I get why most people would need more context to care. Maybe if they were introduced in a big adventure involving guardinals, animal lords, and other old school ideas brought to new life, then people could see Oh that's why this is cool.




Given how popular Aarakocra were after I just bought all the DnD Beyond races, alphabetical order powers alone might help quite a bit


----------



## Neonchameleon

Micah Sweet said:


> Fair enough.  Who _ are_ they trying to appeal to with the ardling?



The weird thing is I could see exactly who they were trying to appeal to with the Ardling _1.0_. A mostly female target audience who does want to play sparkly angelic animal people*. It's a race pitched at ten year old girls (and people who remember being ten year old girls) - which is fine, and there's plenty pitched at ten year old boys in D&D but I doubt there are any 10 year old girls on this board and only a few who remember being ten year old girls. And it's one case where the polling should be dumped because the target audience has so little overlap with poll respondents.

Shifters again have their target audience. Shifters aren't animal people. They're werewolves and other lycanthropes cut down to fit within the design space allowed by 3.5 LA+0 humanoid races (and should absolutely be tuned up for One D&D with the full transformation coming at level 5)

Ardling 2.0? This new take on race appears to me as if someone went to a Furry convention and tried to make a generic race to represent Fursonas starting with the common feature that the furries at the convention are almost all humans wearing masks on their head so the race is humanoid body, animal mask. 

* For anyone who's watched Wednesday Ardling 1.0 would be Enid Sinclair's first choice of PC race.


----------



## Faolyn

Neonchameleon said:


> The weird thing is I could see exactly who they were trying to appeal to with the Ardling _1.0_. A mostly female target audience who does want to play sparkly angelic animal people*. It's a race pitched at ten year old girls (and people who remember being ten year old girls) - which is fine, and there's plenty pitched at ten year old boys in D&D but I doubt there are any 10 year old girls on this board and only a few who remember being ten year old girls. And it's one case where the polling should be dumped because the target audience has so little overlap with poll respondents.



You know, I have absolutely no idea if I would have gone for an aardling at the age of 10. (I will forevermore spell it with two _A_s.). My first character was at the age of 14, and I played a half-elf because I really wanted to play an elf but didn't want to go fully non-human for my first try.



Neonchameleon said:


> * For anyone who's watched Wednesday Ardling 1.0 would be Enid Sinclair's first choice of PC race.



Hah! Probably, yeah.


----------



## Mecheon

Cadence said:


> My own limited survey says the triceratops headed one hits a lot of the approx. 13 yo boys range. (It may well hit other ages and non-boys too, but they weren't in the room when I asked).



We really do need Saurials back

... Also T-rex and dromaeosaur ones. And the flying ones to not be plucked and have their pycnofibers


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Mecheon said:


> We really do need Saurials back
> 
> ... Also T-rex and dromaeosaur ones. And the flying ones to not be plucked and have their pycnofibers




 I think Saurials will be saved for the next FR Setting book, because they are one of the few races to have their start in the Forgotten Realms.


----------



## JEB

Henadic Theologian said:


> I think Saurials will be saved for the next FR Setting book, because they are one of the few races to have their start in the Forgotten Realms.



Dragonbait has a statblock in Tomb of Annihilation, so they certainly have some idea of how they should work in 5E (and One D&D shouldn't be a radical leap).


----------



## Parmandur

Faolyn said:


> Have you checked out reddit? Because the posters on the D&D subreddits are _all _about balance.



The D&D Reddits are small compared to the D&D Beyond subscriber base.


----------



## Parmandur

SkidAce said:


> we were "hobbling together" 1E, 2E, 3/3.5 "willly-nilly"
> 
> I agree, balance is certainly less of a factor for us.



Honestly, willy-nilly hobbling is a big part of the fun of tabletop gaming for me. If I want slick and polished, I'll play a computer game.


----------



## Yaarel

Incenjucar said:


> Only if they know nothing about what furries like.



What do furries like?


----------



## Incenjucar

Yaarel said:


> What do furries like?



Fursonas' animal components are almost always continuous across the entire character unless limited to only a few features like ears and eyes. A full animal head on a full human body is usually only going to come up if it's a direct reference to mythology. The stark division between animal and human is closer to a mermaid than to a sahuagin, and few would call mermaids furries/scalies.


----------



## Yaarel

Incenjucar said:


> Fursonas' animal components are almost always continuous across the entire character unless limited to only a few features like ears and eyes. A full animal head on a full human body is usually only going to come up if it's a direct reference to mythology. The stark division between animal and human is closer to a mermaid than to a sahuagin, and few would call mermaids furries/scalies.



Ah. So "furry" is about blending, not attaching.

A Werewolf counts as a furry?

The OneD&D Species rules says, a character of mixed parentage can describe their character however they like, so a character could be both Aardling and Human, choose either the Aardling or Human stats, then depict their character as a blend of Humanoid and Beast.

That sorta counts a furry?


----------



## Incenjucar

Yaarel said:


> Ah. So "furry" is about blending, not attaching.
> 
> A Werewolf counts as a furry?
> 
> The OneD&D Species rules says, a character of mixed parentage can describe their character however they like, so a character could be both Aardling and Human, choose either the Aardling or Human stats, then depict their character as a blend of Humanoid and Beast.
> 
> That sorta counts a furry?



It's not a matter of whether it "counts" but whether your average furry fan would actually want that appearance for a furry character. It's not about gatekeeping or anything like that, it's just what descriptions they generally prefer. The original ardling appearance with an animal head on a human-like-skin body is incredibly niche among furry fans, compared to one that defaults to having fur or feathers all over the body, which seems to be what the audience pressured WotC into through the survey.


----------



## Yaarel

When playing an earlier edition game, one of my characters was killed by a Werewolf.

It occurs to me, the character isnt really dead, but is an NPC Werewolf. So. In 5e, this a playable character concept.

I plan on creating a 5e version of the same character, and creating a new Feat for him.

The Feat grants two Alternate Forms: a natural Wolf form and a Werewolf Form that is a transitional anthropomorphic wolf. Balancewise, this is no problem. The idea for supernatural Strength is, an Alternate Form can swap any higher Mental Ability for any lower Physical Ability. For example, Str 10 and Int 16 becomes Str 16 and Int 10 during the Alternate Form. If swapping in this way, the character must make a saving throw using the lower swapped Mental Ability. A success means maintaining ones self-identity, a failure means loosing ones humanity within the animal identity, for a duration before reverting back to Human (or in this case back to Elf). The player decides which Abilities swap if any, when gaining the Feat.

I havent played the character yet, and am still building its concept mechanically. But it should be fun.


----------



## Incenjucar

Yaarel said:


> When playing an earlier edition game, one of my characters was killed by a Werewolf.
> 
> It occurs to me, the character isnt really dead, but is an NPC Werewolf. So. In 5e, this a playable character concept.
> 
> I plan on creating a 5e version of the same character, and creating a new Feat for him.
> 
> The Feat grants two Alternate Forms: a natural Wolf form and a Werewolf Form that is a transitional anthropomorphic wolf. Balancewise, this is no problem. The idea for supernatural Strength is, an Alternate Form can swap any higher Mental Ability for any lower Physical Ability. For example, Str 10 and Int 16 becomes Str 16 and Int 10 during the Alternate Form. If swapping in this way, the character must make a saving throw using the lower swapped Mental Ability. A success means maintaining ones self-identity, a failure means loosing ones humanity within the animal identity, for a duration before reverting back to Human (or in this case back to Elf). The player decides which Abilities swap if any, when gaining the Feat.
> 
> I havent played the character yet, and am still building its concept mechanically. But it should be fun.



Werefolk come with a lot of interesting roleplay opportunities, and things get extra weird if you combine them with non-humans as a base, like a dwarf. I played up something similar with a deva who used wildshape to become a rakshasa-like tiger, who would always seem confused when anyone brought it up.


----------



## Yaarel

Incenjucar said:


> a deva who used wildshape to become a rakshasa-like tiger, who would always seem confused when anyone brought it up.



Heh, that is kinda awesome.


----------



## Incenjucar

A fun little trick is a speed boost that requires both hands to be empty, to represent going to all fours while in a humanoid form, etc. Can apply to a lot of non-human character types.


----------



## Yaarel

Incenjucar said:


> A fun little trick is a speed boost that requires both hands to be empty, to represent going to all fours while in a humanoid form, etc. Can apply to a lot of non-human character types.



Shifting from Were Form to Wolf Form does that, Speed goes from 30 to 40, and can shift back to Were Form.

"Werefolk" is probably a good name for the Feat, and can open it up to more animals.


----------



## Azzy

Yaarel said:


> A Werewolf counts as a furry?



IMNSHO, yes. Try seeing the Howling (or other werewolf horror movies) through that light now.


----------



## Chaosmancer

Referencing back to the compatibility issue, I have a way to look at this that may help some people. 

When the "One D&D isn't compatible" discussion on this thread started, someone mentioned Dragonborn and Goliath not being compatible, because they have new abilities. However, this leads me to a question. 

Was Fizban's Dragonborn compatible with 5e DnD? 

Because before Fizban's the Dragonborn had resistance and an action breath weapon, and basically nothing else. In Fizban's the dragonborn had resistance, five new potential energy types, attack breath weapons that scaled diffrently, and new abilities including immunity, a massive AOE shove, AND LIMITED FLIGHT. The Gem dragonborn flight is basically identical to the version in One DnD. 

So, if OD&D is not compatible, because Dragonborn have flight as a new ability... wouldn't that have meant that Fizban's wasn't compatible with DnD 5e either? 


Now, a stronger argument can be made for the cleric. They did rearrange some of the abilities... but again, not really incompatible, is it? 

Let us say that I wanted to play a One D&D cleric with the Grave Domain. We haven't seen this one playtested, but it would be rather simple for me to do. At 3rd level I'd get Circle of Mortality and Eyes of the Grave features. The Domain spells would cut off the 1st level spells, but otherwise I'd get the same spells at the same levels.

6th level, the Channel Divinity: Path to the Grave feature. 10th Sentinel at Death's Door. 14th, Keeper of Souls. 

Yes, there are changes, but as we keep saying "compatible =/= identical" 


The only class of the four we have seen so far, that I could not trivially work into the One D&D framework, is the Bard. Because, to date, it is the only class that only has THREE subclass features in normal DnD, where the One D&D standard is four. 

Now, this is a compatibility issue, but one that can be solved by simply having a default bard feature to plug into the level 10 slot. Something any bard can have to replace their normal feature with. 

Looking ahead, the only other classes that have subclass issues like this are the Fighter (five subclass features) and the warlock because of their dual-subclass nature and unusual class design. Neither of which we have actually seen yet, so we can only speculate on whether or not it will be an issue. 

I will admit, The Fighter is a tricky one. My best current solution would be to combine two of the subclass features, and give them both at the level. But, since we haven't even SEEN the fighter class yet, we don't even know if that will be necessary

And that's... really it. Nothing else we have seen is "incompatible" with 5e. Feat at level 1? Already exist in 5e. Most of the "changes" exist to one degree or another, or are things like changing the rules for grappling, or how a spell works. Which are perfectly compatible, because they are no different than a Grave Cleric saying "now you can cast spare the dying as a bonus action with a range of 60 ft". It is a change, but it is compatible with the game.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

JEB said:


> Dragonbait has a statblock in Tomb of Annihilation, so they certainly have some idea of how they should work in 5E (and One D&D shouldn't be a radical leap).



Sadly ToA just presents him as the world's worst Paladin (and even says "dude isn't a Paladin", which seems super-mean). He can't even smite or cast any spells and his aura is from his Holy Avenger, not him.

And he has absolutely no racial abilities whatsoever, he's just a dude who can't talk, only make smells (I've met guys like that lol). They even drew him with a normal-looking sword and no tail, just to complete his humiliation. Even his AC is just what you'd expect from the listed breastplate, shield, DEX 13 (apparently this dude doesn't even have Heavy armour proficiency!). He doesn't even have Darkvision, which is further mean-ness!

This innocent and lovely Saurial has been BULLIED by whoever wrote ToA. Poor thing.

(I will admit he can detect alignment at will due to being a "Champion of Good" - i.e. cut-rate Paladin, which seems like a huge no-no in 5E design, but whatever I guess.)

In 2E, Saurials had a base AC, 60' Infravision, natural weapons back when the didn't suck and gave you multiple attacks, and a bonus on saves against sonic attacks.

As Dragonbait gets literally NONE of that, I think it's hard to say what they'd have in 5E from ToA.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Is Dragonbait the same as that stinky Paladin from that awful Azure Bond book?


----------



## Azzy

Vaalingrade said:


> Is Dragonbait the same as that stinky Paladin from that awful Azure Bond book?



Yep.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Azzy said:


> Yep.



Tell him I hate him!


----------



## Mecheon

While I do love Saurials as a concept, Dragonbait's kind of. Not great. And barely looking like a dinosaur. Just a leathery old lizardman with a horn that doesn't even look like a hadrosaur

Mind I am very aware how dinosaur depictions have evolved over time, but, like, he's just a really poor depiction of a hadrosaur-man.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

overgeeked said:


> White Wolf would like to say hello. WW was ubiquitous when D&D was floundering.



Yep. And today isn't the 90's. People are a lot more aware of stuff outside the mainstream.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It'd be a damned shame if projects like these -- which WotC would _never_ do -- went away because of someone not understanding that rising tides can lift all boats.



My worry, with so much cooberation so far, is that they really think they are the tide.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> There _is_ a flood of new systems and mechanics out there. The audience just hasn't gone looking for them.
> 
> And I don't know that this decision will send the majority of fans out looking, unless tastemakers like Critical Role switch systems.



The audience has, though. The communities for those games are healthy and going strong.)


----------



## DEFCON 1

Even if Ardlings get scored low for inclusion in the 2024 book, WotC could always pivot and just release them in the Planescape book this year since they are adapted from planar creatures.  Same way the Goliaths could appear in the giants book rather than 1D&D.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

DEFCON 1 said:


> Even if Ardlings get scored low for inclusion in the 2024 book, WotC could always pivot and just release them in the Planescape book this year since they are adapted from planar creatures.  Same way the Goliaths could appear in the giants book rather than 1D&D.




 With the current crisis who knows if One D&D is still even going to be a thing.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Henadic Theologian said:


> With the current crisis who knows if One D&D is still even going to be a thing.



Me.  

Potential OGL issues will not stop WotC's production of their own books.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

DEFCON 1 said:


> Me.
> 
> Potential OGL issues will not stop WotC's production of their own books.




 Of course not, but it could cause them to rethink things and change direction.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Of course not, but it could cause them to rethink things and change direction.



I seriously doubt that the updated game rules are based in any way on the "openness" of the OGL. I really don't see how these two things would relate in any way. They might delay a few playtest packets if they need to spend time sorting out OGL-related issues, but I see no other way that the OGL controversy could change the content of OneD&D.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I seriously doubt that the updated game rules are based in any way on the "openness" of the OGL. I really don't see how these two things would relate in any way. They might delay a few playtest packets if they need to spend time sorting out OGL-related issues, but I see no other way that the OGL controversy could change the content of OneD&D.




 OGL 1.1 was a key part of the D&D One plan, they maybe rethinking a lot of things. 

 That being said I think it's more likely that this disaster does effect D&D One directly, beside maybe reducing the amount of playtester who are pissed at WotC and want nothing to do with them.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> OGL 1.1 was a key part of the D&D One plan, they maybe rethinking a lot of things.



Do you have any evidence for this? You've been doing an awful lot of jumping to conclusions on very little/no evidence recently.


----------

