# "The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)



## overgeeked

The advertising suggests if you have a high perception check you can spot a hint.

Ray’s wearing an AD&D shirt.

Hmm...


----------



## overgeeked

Revised 5E in 2024.

Fully backward compatible.


----------



## overgeeked

Hope that monster book will be available standalone.


----------



## Scribe

Any Planescape news?

Revised 5e, in 2 years, doesnt move me.


----------



## Lidgar

So … 5.5 edition? 6th edition? AD&D 5e? Just curious how they will brand it.


----------



## Bitbrain

Morrus said:


> *D&D is exploring the multiverse*
> Revisiting classic settings... Next year, the other two major classic D&D settings come out....
> 
> ...Plus a "little peek" at a third classic D&D setting - a cameo.
> 
> In 2023, yet another classic setting is coming out.
> 
> *Evolving D&D*
> ... More adventure anthologies.




I’ve been wanting to use this GIF for forever here on ENWorld, and I finally have a good reason to:


----------



## Lidgar

Guess we now know what the Amazon leak is. Pass, but can see how some may want it.


----------



## TheAlkaizer

2024 is a while away. I'm curious as to how the TTRPG landscape will evolve in the next three years.

Also, if they update the core sets in 2024, I don't think we can expect a new edition or major revisions for quite a while! Not that it is wrong.

I'm very interested in the new monster book. Always need more monsters.


----------



## overgeeked

Monsters will be available stand alone in 2022. Good.


----------



## Rabulias

overgeeked said:


> Hope that monster book will be available standalone.



Sounds like it will be later in 2022.


----------



## EthanSental

overgeeked said:


> Hope that monster book will be available standalone.



Jeremy said it would be on its own late in 2022…Rabulas hit reply before me,


----------



## the Jester

overgeeked said:


> Hope that monster book will be available standalone.



No kidding- even though I probably have everything in it, I'm an easy mark for a monster book... but not for $165, even if it comes with three more books that I already own.


----------



## ersatzphil

overgeeked said:


> Hope that monster book will be available standalone.



Crawford just said that it would be available on its own later in the year.


----------



## overgeeked

Cool. Revamp NPC casters. Good.


----------



## Parmandur

30 new playable races in the new monster book? Real chance to recast traditionally Monstrous creatures, love it.


----------



## ReshiIRE

I wonder if there will be any certain present and upcoming 5e revisions that WoTC will be looking at for ideas on how to revise 5e... 

5.5e sounds like the perfect middle ground between a 6e etc. for now. Going to be an interesting next few years.


----------



## grimslade

Lidgar said:


> So … 5.5 edition? 6th edition? AD&D 5e? Just curious how they will brand it.



I think it will still be 5E rules but streamlined with the new racial rules and revised guides for Dungeon Maters like in Wild Beyond the Witch Light. They may incorporate some of the subclasses from the splats, but no real rules overhauls.


----------



## EthanSental

With the new stat blocks and such or updated Tasha and Volo gift set for errata and reprint, I wonder if my dndbeyond will get those updates for me to download.


----------



## Scribe

Are there better pics of the previews here?


----------



## ReshiIRE

EthanSental said:


> With the new stat blocks and such or updated Tasha and Volo gift set for errata and reprint, I wonder if my dndbeyond will get those updates for me to download.




The place D&D Beyond are in right now is going to be potentially complicated; they'll ideally want to make sure they don't step on anyone's toes that may not want the changes or revisions. But how will WoTC's contract with them interact with that?


----------



## overgeeked

Two new settings in development.


----------



## Xeviat

I knew they weren't going to let the 50th go uncelebrated.


----------



## schneeland

Will be interesting to see what they come up with. Full backward compatibility certainly limits the amount of changes that can be expected. Not necessarily what I would have hoped, but makes sense from a business perspective.


----------



## overgeeked

Boo the Miniature Giant Space Hamster. In front of a beholder?


----------



## Kurotowa

Lidgar said:


> So … 5.5 edition? 6th edition? AD&D 5e? Just curious how they will brand it.




5e is only 5e in fan circles. The official branding on the books is just "D&D". So expect that to continue, especially since they were at pains to assure us that the new version would be reverse compatible with all current and future 5e material.


----------



## ersatzphil

BOOO!


----------



## grimslade

Boo teased. Miniature Giant Space Hamster means... Spelljammer Confirmed!


----------



## Scribe

schneeland said:


> Will be interesting to see what they come up with. Full backward compatibility certainly limits the amount of changes that can be expected. Not necessarily what I would have hoped, but makes sense from a business perspective.




Just look at the way races and monster stat blocks are done in Feywild. Thats it for those things I would think, backward compatible because its just saying 'do as you please' for most of what defines a race.

Class/Subclass will get cleaned up to look like the Tasha's model.


----------



## EthanSental

overgeeked said:


> Boo the Miniature Giant Space Hamster.



I’m looking forward to more info on this book.


----------



## schneeland

Scribe said:


> Just look at the way races and monster stat blocks are done in Feywild. Thats it for those things I would think, backward compatible because its just saying 'do as you please' for most of what defines a race.
> 
> Class/Subclass will get cleaned up to look like the Tasha's model.



Yeah, that would be in line with having an edition that's generally doing quite well, while at the same time addressing the issues some of the player's have with fixed racial bonuses.


----------



## grimslade

Boo-ty is in the eye of the Beholder?


----------



## overgeeked

EthanSental said:


> With the new stat blocks and such or updated Tasha and Volo gift set for errata and reprint, I wonder if my dndbeyond will get those updates for me to download.



The gift set is Tasha’s and Xanathar’s and a new Mord Monsters book. They’re not updating the reprinted books. They’re releasing a new book with monsters in the updated format.


----------



## J.Quondam

Happy with the announcement. Nothing that fills me with dreaded FOMO, but still good and/or useful stuff clearly on the horizon. 
I feel like I've got a little breathing room, now.


----------



## overgeeked

schneeland said:


> Yeah, that would be in line with having an edition that's generally doing quite well, while at the same time addressing the issues some of the player's have with fixed racial bonuses.



I’d expect the races to be handled almost exactly as they are in Tasha’s and Witchlight.


----------



## overgeeked

J.Quondam said:


> Happy with the announcement. Nothing that fills me with dreaded FOMO, but still good and/or useful stuff clearly on the horizon.
> I feel like I've got a little breathing room, now.



Sorry, but WTF is FOMO?


----------



## Lidgar

Boo in front of one of these?


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> Sorry, but WTF is FOMO?



Fear of missing out. A pretty familiar feeling with D&D books.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> 30 new playable races in the new monster book? Real chance to recast traditionally Monstrous creatures, love it.



And a chance to redo Genasi, to make them, you know, actually playable (well, Fire Genasi are playable. The others, not so much).


----------



## J.Quondam

overgeeked said:


> Sorry, but WTF is FOMO?



Heh, sorry! 
FOMO is "fear of missing out."


----------



## overgeeked

With them willing to go silly and twee sometimes, I really hope we can get Spelljammer.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

ersatzphil said:


> BOOO!
> View attachment 144422



Go for the eyes, Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
(And Beholders have a lot of them to choose from!)


----------



## darjr

I go run a bunch of games at a convention and you all open up the multiverse! Woot!


----------



## Zaukrie

I got a one star review on a product for using spells as actions..... Very happy wotc is catching up to many of us. Will level up look at this and possibly change their blocks? That would be an insane account of work....


----------



## ersatzphil

darjr said:


> I go run a bunch of games at a convention and you all open up the multiverse! Woot!



I'm showing my own preferences and biases in this, but with the sheer number of times they used the word 'multiverse' in that panel, I'm kind of bewildered they didn't announce Planescape.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

Parmandur said:


> 30 new playable races in the new monster book? Real chance to recast traditionally Monstrous creatures, love it.



I read that as the 30 playable races from outside the PHB are being collected in this new book; but they are not _new_ to the overall 5e rules.


----------



## This Effin’ GM

My money for 2024 is on rewriting previous classes in phb to be more in line w tashas standards, rewriting MM to be more in line with new stat blocks introduced in Wild Beyond the Witchlight, and rewriting DMG to include Xanathars “variants” on down time, trap design, and encounter building rules.

a very “pathfinder unchained” feel to me. Not a full new edition per se, but a “man we know a lot better now” sort of evolution


----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr




----------



## darjr




----------



## pukunui

Parmandur said:


> 30 new playable races in the new monster book? Real chance to recast traditionally Monstrous creatures, love it.



Jeremy said: _"Over thirty playable races ... These are all of the playable races that we have published outside the _Player's Handbook_ that are setting agnostic -- meaning different playable options that are not tied to a particular D&D world but rather people who you can find anywhere in the multiverse."_


----------



## Parmandur

ersatzphil said:


> I'm showing my own preferences and biases in this, but with the sheer number of times they used the word 'multiverse' in that panel, I'm kind of bewildered they didn't announce Planescape.



I expect that is the next Setting.


----------



## vecna00

Have there even been 30 setting agnostic races outside of the PHB?

Time to do some counting!

Also, because they mentioned "Multiverse" so much, I'm pretty certain we're getting Planescape next year. And more than likely the Perkins manuscript.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> I expect that is the next Setting.



I dunno. The Boo cover makes me think Spelljammer (or, at least, Planejammer).


----------



## Demetrios1453

vecna00 said:


> Have there even been 30 setting agnostic races outside of the PHB?



Easily. Volo's has nearly half of that alone (13).


----------



## Rune

schneeland said:


> Will be interesting to see what they come up with. Full backward compatibility certainly limits the amount of changes that can be expected. Not necessarily what I would have hoped, but makes sense from a business perspective.



They did a good job of it with 4e Essentials. A few weaker feats became obsolete, but everything else could play together fine. And the class design philosophy of Essentials was _very_ different from that of early 4e.


----------



## Zaukrie

Are they making spellcasting monsters less about spells? I hope not. Variety is spice ... But that's what I hear


----------



## vecna00

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I dunno. The Boo cover makes me think Spelljammer (or, at least, Planejammer).



Either Spelljammer or an adventure that includes Minsc and Boo.


----------



## Eyes of Nine

All I can hear is...

*Planejammer confirmed*


----------



## vecna00

Demetrios1453 said:


> Easily. Volo's has nearly half of that alone (13).



I did a quick run through and counted 26 total setting agnostic races. This includes tortles!

Not sure where the others are coming from.


----------



## Zaukrie

It's it true, they still have not told us the classic settings coming back?


----------



## Omand

Zaukrie said:


> It's it true, they still have not told us the classic settings coming back?



Yup, they did not reveal anything (except the Boo reveal if you think that is a setting clue rather than an adventure clue).

Cheers


----------



## This Effin’ GM

If we look at upcoming novels and look at this year of adventures, the most likely culprit for next classic settings are Planescape and Dragonlance.

Granted I firmly content that Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica was an attempt to be a stealth sigil release


----------



## pukunui

Morrus said:


> View attachment 144417



Looking at this one in full screen on my desktop via the YouTube video. It looks like the top section of the statblock is the same except for the addition of the proficiency bonus on the same line as the CR.

The bottom half is very different. The new bard has no more traits / features. It's all about the actions now. And spellcasting is one of its actions, but instead of spell slots, it's got a number of at will spells plus some 1/day each spells. Taunt is now listed under "Bonus Actions" at the bottom. 

It's also got a new Cacophony action, and it's now got Multiattack (and can replace one weapon attack with a spell).


----------



## ersatzphil

Zaukrie said:


> It's it true, they still have not told us the classic settings coming back?



I believe they said "two classic settings would return in 2022", but additionally that "a third would have a cameo", which is a new addition to what we know about the road map. But yea, mum is still the word. I kinda wonder if Boo is that cameo.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Does anyone have the exact number of stat blocks in Volo's and Mordenkainen's? Volo's is advertised as "nearly 100" and Mordenkainen's as "over 140", so that doesn't quite get us to our "over 250" mentioned as being in the new book. I'm just curious how close we are to 250 without having to go count them out lol. I'm assuming that if they'll be grabbing a few stat blocks from some adventures that haven't been re-published in dedicated monster books to make up any difference (_maybe_ from setting guides too, but there aren't many setting-agnostic monsters in them - possibly the living spells from Eberron)...


----------



## Omand

ersatzphil said:


> I believe they said "two classic settings would return in 2022", but additionally that "a third would have a cameo", which is a new addition to what we know about the road map. But yea, mum is still the word. I kinda wonder if Boo is that cameo.



They did say that, as well as another Classic setting in 2023.  So that was new as well, but really no word on which settings.

Cheers


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Scribe said:


> Just look at the way races and monster stat blocks are done in Feywild. Thats it for those things I would think, backward compatible because its just saying 'do as you please' for most of what defines a race.
> 
> Class/Subclass will get cleaned up to look like the Tasha's model.



Yep. Almost certainly. 

I think the PHB classes will get some reworking as well, but they won't make any of them different in ways that make any subclass ever officially printed not work with the revision, unless the new phb also errata-reprints that subclass. 

Hopefully, along with the high priority stuff like giving some weight to more of the ranger features and dropping the level down on some of them so they aren't getting tier two features in tier three so much, they will look at stuff like how feature-barren the wizard base class is, and expand it's high level features to start lower and get more powerful at high levels.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> And a chance to redo Genasi, to make them, you know, actually playable (well, Fire Genasi are playable. The others, not so much).



Nah they're plenty playable. Could use an update for the sake of optimized tables, but the vast majority of games aren't that, and in those Genasi are fine, and quite popular.


----------



## Dausuul

overgeeked said:


> Revised 5E in 2024.
> 
> Fully backward compatible.



Hmm. I wonder exactly what backward compatibility means in this context. Does it mean an Essentials-style update, with new versions of the classes and races but none of the "general rules" altered? Or does it mean changes to the rules are allowed as long as they don't invalidate existing classes and races?


----------



## pukunui

Dausuul said:


> Hmm. I wonder exactly what backward compatibility means in this context. Does it mean an Essentials-style update, with new versions of the classes and races but none of the "general rules" altered? Or does it mean changes to the rules are allowed as long as they don't invalidate existing classes and races?



I think it will mean that it still uses the same underlying 5e chassis, it will just present different takes on the races (presenting them in the "lineage" style with no fixed stat bonuses and such), revamped monsters (including their new take on spellcasting NPCs), and various rules tweaks and refinements.

Yes, I expect you could end up with some confusion at the table if some players are using the old books while others are using the new ones, but overall it'll be pretty similar.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Also, a "scary place we've never been before" - maybe an aberration-centered adventure that goes to the Far Realm?


----------



## Zaukrie

Demetrios1453 said:


> Also, a "scary place we've never been before" - maybe an aberration-centered adventure that goes to the Far Realm?



One can hope


----------



## J.Quondam

Demetrios1453 said:


> Also, a "scary place we've never been before" - maybe an aberration-centered adventure that goes to the Far Realm?



It's either that or Florida.


----------



## Kobold Stew

Eyes of Nine said:


> I read that as the 30 playable races from outside the PHB are being collected in this new book; but they are not _new_ to the overall 5e rules.




Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)

1 Aasimar
2 Bugbear
3 Centaur (Theros)
4 Changeling (Eberron)
5 Fairy (WBtW)
6 Firbolg
7 Goblin
8 Goliath
9 Harengon (WBtW)
10 Hobgoblin
11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
12 Kenku
13 Kobold
14 Leonin (Theros)
15 Lizardfolk 
16 Minotaur (Theros)
17 Orc
18 Satyr (Theros)
19 Shifter (Eberron)
20 Tabaxi 
21 Triton
22 Warforged (Eberron)
23 Yuan-Ti

(all VGTM unless noted)


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Monsters of the Multiverse is a must buy for me. And so is the revised core books in 2024!


----------



## Demetrios1453

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti
> 
> (all VGTM unless noted)




Gith from Mordenkainen's, Genasi from PoA.

Tortles from ToA

Loxodon from Ravnica would work fine as well, as the FR have had playable "Loxo" (the setting version of elephant people) in previous editions.


----------



## pukunui

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti
> 
> (all VGTM unless noted)



Jeremy said they're not including the setting-specific races, but he didn't specify what he meant by that. It may be that none of the Eberron races are included or it's just the Dragonmarked House subraces that aren't included. Hard to know at this point.

Loxodon might be generic enough, but Simic Hybrid is probably limited to Ravnica.

I wonder if they'll include the Verdan from the Acq Inc book.


----------



## TerraDave

Xeviat said:


> I knew they weren't going to let the 50th go uncelebrated.



You, @Mercurius, and others called it.

Compatible new core books. That are not like next year's monster/npc book. 

Hmm. The semantics wars will continue! 

New 5e? or 5e New? 5N?


----------



## Rabulias

I may be reading too much into it (probably), but Chris Perkins had a ship model behind him - possible _Spelljammer/Planejammer_ hint?


----------



## Nathaniel Lee

So now I have _two_ gift sets I have to buy since even the "standard" version covers have the special foil treatment on them that won't be available on the individually sold books. :\


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti
> 
> (all VGTM unless noted)



Aasimar have 3 subraces, and Genasi have 4. They could split each of those subraces into their own races (like they're doing to Dragonborn in Fizban's) and that would get them almost all of the way to 30. (And the book could have the Hobgoblin of the Feywild.)


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Demetrios1453 said:


> Does anyone have the exact number of stat blocks in Volo's and Mordenkainen's? Volo's is advertised as "nearly 100" and Mordenkainen's as "over 140", so that doesn't quite get us to our "over 250" mentioned as being in the new book. I'm just curious how close we are to 250 without having to go count them out lol. I'm assuming that if they'll be grabbing a few stat blocks from some adventures that haven't been re-published in dedicated monster books to make up any difference (_maybe_ from setting guides too, but there aren't many setting-agnostic monsters in them - possibly the living spells from Eberron)...




There are a lot of statblocks scattered around in published adventures as well that I assume will also be collected into this book. Combined, I think they can get to 250.


----------



## Nathaniel Lee

Parmandur said:


> 30 new playable races in the new monster book? Real chance to recast traditionally Monstrous creatures, love it.



Maybe I misinterpreted it, but it sounded more to me like they were just collating all the races that weren't in the PHB? I recall one of the articles saying that it wasn't new content but rather just updated content.


----------



## Rabulias

TerraDave said:


> Hmm. The semantics wars will continue!
> 
> New 5e? or 5e New? 5N?



They did promise that the new core books will be fully compatible with all current D&D books, as well as those released between now and 2024.


----------



## ersatzphil

Rabulias said:


> I may be reading too much into it (probably), but Chris Perkins had a ship model behind him - possible _Spelljammer/Planejammer_ hint?



It's been in the background of all the streams he's done from home - probably just his taste in decor.

_edit: _I have literally nothing to base this on, but for some reason I get the vibe that Perkins would be an "Aubrey & Maturin" fan.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Urriak Uruk said:


> There are a lot of statblocks scattered around in published adventures as well that I assume will also be collected into this book. Combined, I think they can get to 250.



And the setting books have some pretty generic monsters, too. Like the Nymphs from Mythic Odysseys of Theros, Soldiers from Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica, and Frost Giant Zombies from Explorer's Guide to Wildemount.


----------



## pukunui

TerraDave said:


> You, @Mercurius, and others called it.
> 
> Compatible new core books. That are not like next year's monster/npc book.
> 
> Hmm. The semantics wars will continue!
> 
> New 5e? or 5e New? 5N?



I'm thinking they might just refer to them as the 50th anniversary editions or something.



Nathaniel Lee said:


> Maybe I misinterpreted it, but it sounded more to me like they were just collating all the races that weren't in the PHB? I recall one of the articles saying that it wasn't new content but rather just updated content.



All the "setting agnostic" races that aren't in the PHB. Not sure what counts as specific to a setting, though. Dragonmarked House subraces for sure, but are warforged, kalashtar, and shifters setting specific? We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti




24. Aarakocra
25. Genasi
26. Goliath
27. Feral Tiefling
28. Tortle
29. Gith
30. Verdan
31. Locathah
32. Grung

If we remove some of the specific ones (Loxodon for example) but count some of the subraces as seperate (different Genasi, Githyanki/Githzerai) you can get to 30.


----------



## Charlaquin

Huzzah for revised core books! Top of my wishlist:

- Fix Feats that give you new spells to all let you cast them with your regular spell slots, _a la_ Tasha’s.

- Tasha’s alternate class features baked into the classes from the get-go (I’ll get over the features I don’t love being there).

- Expanded class spell lists from Tasha’s and Xanathar’s

- Tasha’s Beastmaster companions in at base instead of picking a stat block from the monster manual.

- Maybe a big ask, but rework Wild Shape to modify your own stats instead of picking a stat block from the monster manual.

- Tasha’s summon spells replacing the ones that let you summon stat blocks from the monster manual.

- New Dragonborn replacing the current PHB Dragonborn

- Tiefling subraces in the PHB

- My biggest wish, and also the one that’s least likely to come true: please, please PLEASE don’t replace everything that recovers on a short rest with PB uses per long rest.

- Since the previous item is definitely not going to come true, at least leave the Warlock alone. Please, if there is any justice in this world, let the Warlock remain it’s bizarre and cool self and not just become another boring daily caster.


----------



## TerraDave

5e 50, 5.50, 50A...


----------



## Kobold Avenger

How much of this Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, is a do-over of Volo's Guide of Monster? Is there some "new" stuff in it?


----------



## Demetrios1453

Urriak Uruk said:


> There are a lot of statblocks scattered around in published adventures as well that I assume will also be collected into this book. Combined, I think they can get to 250.



Oh, they can easily get to 250, as they aren't terribly far from it with just Volo's and Mordenkainen's alone. That why I was musing on the exact number of stat blocks from the two as I assume the monsters from those two products will be ported over wholesale, and wondering how many monsters from adventures they will bring in. For example, I hate that a classic creature like the ixitxachitl has only appeared in an adventure (OotA) and not in an "official" monster book yet, and hope that it, and some other classics, get to make the leap...

A further thing on this is that perhaps they will consider this to be on par with the MM when it comes to adventures, so they won't have to reprint so many stat blocks. I know the rule has been either it's in the MM or it's reprinted, but if they stretch it to cover MMotM, that will free up pages of design space for future adventures...


----------



## TerraDave

Charlaquin said:


> .....
> 
> - My biggest wish, and also the one that’s least likely to come true: please, please PLEASE don’t replace everything that recovers on a short rest with PB uses per long rest.
> 
> - Since the previous item is definitely not going to come true, at least leave the Warlock alone. Please, if there is any justice in this world, let the Warlock remain it’s bizarre and cool self and not just become another boring daily caster.




Some of the things on your list are definitely happening. Because its now obvious...

_They have been playtesting all along..._

But the last is the big, big questions. Something will give. Maybe short rests will be easier, or somehow redifiend? Or they will just do what you fear.


----------



## TerraDave

Kobold Avenger said:


> How much of this Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, is a do-over of Volo's Guide of Monster? Is there some "new" stuff in it?



The way they are doing the expansion gift set implies that these are the only (extra) crunch books you really need.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> - Maybe a big ask, but rework Wild Shape to modify your own stats instead of picking a stat block from the monster manual.



I think what is easier and (to me at least) just as good if not better, is to provide stat blocks like the Tasha's summon spells and beast master companion that you can use instead of normal beasts.


Charlaquin said:


> - Tasha’s summon spells replacing the ones that let you summon stat blocks from the monster manual.



I'd really, really, hate that. Having both is just better. I can't see any benefit to getting rid of the Conjure XYZ spells.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah they're plenty playable. Could use an update for the sake of optimized tables, but the vast majority of games aren't that, and in those Genasi are fine, and quite popular.



There are people that will play 4 Element Monks, Undying Warlocks, and Purple Dragon Knights. Just because people play it, doesn't mean that it's "playable". (I mean, I'm obviously wrong here, because if people play it, it's obviously playable. However, you get my point. Some things are just so egregiously bad mechanically that they're "unplayable", even if there is a strange minority of people that will play it.)

I want Genasi to be balanced in comparison to the other races in the game, I want them to become lineages like the Gothic Lineages from Ravenloft, and maybe have a bit of tweaking lore-wise (as Genasi used to be people who were just touched by the elemental planes, instead of having to be half-genie).


----------



## Charlaquin

Kobold Avenger said:


> How much of this Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse, is a do-over of Volo's Guide of Monster? Is there some "new" stuff in it?



It sounds like reprints of existing stat blocks, but in the new format with “typically [alignment]” instead of just two letters, proficiency bonus listed in the stat block, and spellcasting monsters re-worked to have combat-related spells written out as actions.


----------



## Scribe

Demetrios1453 said:


> Also, a "scary place we've never been before" - maybe an aberration-centered adventure that goes to the Far Realm?



I'd be very down with that.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think what is easier and (to me at least) just as good if not better, is to provide stat blocks like the Tasha's summon spells and beast master companion that you can use instead of normal beasts.



Good point.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I'd really, really, hate that. Having both is just better. I can't see any benefit to getting rid of the Conjure XYZ spells.



Just cleaner. I doubt they will remove them, but I would prefer if PC abilities didn’t refer you to the monster manual.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Charlaquin said:


> It sounds like reprints of existing stat blocks, but in the new format with “typically [alignment]” instead of just two letters, proficiency bonus listed in the stat block, and spellcasting monsters re-worked to have combat-related spells written out as actions.




They are also redoing some of the actions of spellcasters to encourage optimal spell usage. As they found folks were using them un-optimally because there's too many spells listed.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Scribe said:


> I'd be very down with that.



Especially if it's like The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and isn't tied to any specific D&D setting, so you can set it in Eberron's "Far Realm", Xoriat, or in the Magic: the Gathering worlds as a part of the Blind Eternities.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> There are people that will play 4 Element Monks, Undying Warlocks, and Purple Dragon Knights. Just because people play it, doesn't mean that it's "playable". (I mean, I'm obviously wrong here, because if people play it, it's obviously playable. However, you get my point. Some things are just so egregiously bad mechanically that they're "unplayable", even if there is a strange minority of people that will play it.)



But genasi aren't even unpopular. They're one of the most popular non-phb races.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> I want Genasi to be balanced in comparison to the other races in the game, I want them to become lineages like the Gothic Lineages from Ravenloft, and maybe have a bit of tweaking lore-wise (as Genasi used to be people who were just touched by the elemental planes, instead of having to be half-genie).



Gods please no. They're not humans or elfs touched by an elemental plane, they're their own race, and have been for a couple editions now, at least. The impulse to force things into symmetry is bad for the game, and for art in general.


Charlaquin said:


> Good point.



Thanks! I really hope they do update wildshape, including relaxing the restrictions on movement types and opening things up to some fey and plants, even if it has to list out specific ones in order to do that, or make things like nymphs and dryads and treants the sort of thing that gets a tasha's style statblock. Oh, and monstrosities. Come on. Owlbears are part of nature at this point.


Charlaquin said:


> Just cleaner. I doubt they will remove them, but I would prefer if PC abilities didn’t refer you to the monster manual.



I get that, for sure. To me, the versatility of those spells leads to a wider range of surprising and engaging moments than the mechanics of the Summon XYZ spells do, and i see great value in both styles of summoning.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> It sounds like reprints of existing stat blocks, but in the new format with “typically [alignment]” instead of just two letters, proficiency bonus listed in the stat block, and spellcasting monsters re-worked to have combat-related spells written out as actions.



And hopefully stuff like just having Dryads have 16 AC (Barkskin) as part of it's stats, rather than having to cast it or concentrate on it.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Ok, a bunch of the same questions keep coming up about the Monsters of the Multiverse, and I've listened to the stream, so I'll make some bullets;


There is _probably not_ any truly new material (monsters or races) in this book. The word "new" was not mentioned, and the book seems purposefully made to collect material scattered across other already-released books.
What is new: there is going to be new art (entirely new or updated) for some monsters.
Monsters with spellcasting may be redone, to help encourage optimal spell/ability usage. CRs seem to remain unchanged.

So, great book to get if you just need another supplementary Monster Manual. It's essentially a Monster Manual 2, by pooling together a bunch of already released books.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I get that, for sure. To me, the versatility of those spells leads to a wider range of surprising and engaging moments than the mechanics of the Summon XYZ spells do, and i see great value in both styles of summoning.



Yeah, makes sense. On the plus side, fully backwards compatible, so presumably anything they remove, you’ll still be able to use the original version of if you want.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> But genasi aren't even unpopular. They're one of the most popular non-phb races.



Which is probably because they were also the first race to come out after the PHB and were free. And, just because something's popular, it doesn't mean that it's not subject to modifications. That's kind of the point of the whole "revising the core races and rulebooks" thing that WotC just announced that they were doing. D&D 5e is popular, but that doesn't mean that it isn't subject to modifications. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Gods please no. They're not humans or elfs touched by an elemental plane, they're their own race, and have been for a couple editions now, at least. The impulse to force things into symmetry is bad for the game, and for art in general.



How would it diminish their identity at all to allow them to be any race that is half-genie (or possibly just touched by the elemental planes, like in 4e)? That wouldn't change their mechanics, because D&D 5e's Genasi are already not at all connected to their Genie heritage, they're just elemental in mechanics. It would just be a fluff-option, like in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount where Genasi can be the result of babies born during natural/magical disasters, but opened up to all races. 

If Half-Hags are a lineage, I don't see any reason why Half-Genies shouldn't be one, too.


----------



## Nathaniel Lee

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti
> 
> (all VGTM unless noted)



Owlin from the Strixhaven book...? Grung? Locathah? Are those even actual "official" races?


----------



## Azzy

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti
> 
> (all VGTM unless noted)



Duergar
Svirfneblin
Eladrin
Shadar-Kai
Gith
Tortles
Tiefling variants
Aaracokra
Genasi
Locatath
Grung
Verdan


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Nathaniel Lee said:


> Grung? Locathah? Are those even actual "official" races?



Yes, yes they are.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, makes sense. On the plus side, fully backwards compatible, so presumably anything they remove, you’ll still be able to use the original version of if you want.



True!


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Which is probably because they were also the first race to come out after the PHB and were free.



That is an enormous stretch, 7 years later.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> And, just because something's popular, it doesn't mean that it's not subject to modifications.



Who said it was?


AcererakTriple6 said:


> How would it diminish their identity at all to allow them to be any race that is half-genie (or possibly just touched by the elemental planes, like in 4e)?



It would make them not a race? Their identity is equal parts what they can do and where they come from. Dramatically changing their origin dramatically changes their identity.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> That wouldn't change their mechanics, because D&D 5e's Genasi are already not at all connected to their Genie heritage, they're just elemental in mechanics. It would just be a fluff-option, like in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount where Genasi can be the result of babies born during natural/magical disasters, but opened up to all races.
> 
> If Half-Hags are a lineage, I don't see any reason why Half-Genies shouldn't be one, too.



Half-genies are only one origin of genasi, first of all. Hexbloods were invented from the ground up to be something you can become, genasi aren't. 

Meanwhile, you can just describe your genasi as looking more like a dwarf than a human, if you want. Nothing stops you.


----------



## Nathaniel Lee

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yes, yes they are.



I wonder about that due to the nature of the releases in which they were introduced. D&D Beyond warns that they're only playable if the DM allows them since they didn't undergo final design or editing, which sounds a lot like how they describe Unearthed Arcana?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Nathaniel Lee said:


> I wonder about that due to the nature of the releases in which they were introduced. D&D Beyond warns that they're only playable if the DM allows them since they didn't undergo final design or editing, which sounds a lot like how they describe Unearthed Arcana?



I really hope grung get a reprint. Even if they change them to play nicer with the assumptions of the game, I like frog folk, but grung are kinda odd mechanically.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

If they are redoing everything from Volo's Guide, I think they need a better picture of the Morkoth with a short written description, because I still don't have a good consistent idea of what one looks like across multiple editions.


----------



## Parmandur

Demetrios1453 said:


> Also, a "scary place we've never been before" - maybe an aberration-centered adventure that goes to the Far Realm?



Minsk & Boo versus Abominatuons...in Space? Could be the next Adventure.


----------



## overgeeked

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already.  I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti
> 
> (all VGTM unless noted)



Those plus the Wildemount and Ravenloft races/lineages and we're over the count. I don't think they're going to limit the Ravenloft lineages to just Ravenloft. That's silly. They'd work just as well in any setting.


----------



## overgeeked

TerraDave said:


> You, @Mercurius, and others called it.
> 
> Compatible new core books. That are not like next year's monster/npc book.
> 
> Hmm. The semantics wars will continue!
> 
> New 5e? or 5e New? 5N?



I'm hoping they'll call it AD&D. But that's not likely.

More likely R5E. Revised 5E.


----------



## EthanSental

I’m also curious (and excited) about the 2 settings in current development that are brand new and if they are fully developed, be the first new ones since Eberron in 2004.  Chris seemed excited about them and one could be the far realm mention in posts above.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

overgeeked said:


> I'm hoping they'll call it AD&D. But that's not likely.
> 
> More likely R5E. Revised 5E.




They don't even call D&D 5E, so they probably won't call this anything, at least officially.


----------



## Parmandur

Urriak Uruk said:


> They don't even call D&D 5E, so they probably won't call this anything, at least officially.



"50th Anniversary Printing: new art, cleaned up rules!"


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Parmandur said:


> Minsk & Boo versus Abominatuons...in Space? Could be the next Adventure.




This was my first thought too... Spelljammer adventure, starting in FR but heading to SPAAAACE. Lots of spooky Far Realm shenanigans, Mind Flayers, beholders, etc.


----------



## J.Quondam

"D&D in 2024, the year of Lord 50th"


----------



## Remathilis

Kobold Stew said:


> Well, we're mostly there already. I do not expect much that's new (though I hold out for Gnoll...)
> 
> 1 Aasimar
> 2 Bugbear
> 3 Centaur (Theros)
> 4 Changeling (Eberron)
> 5 Fairy (WBtW)
> 6 Firbolg
> 7 Goblin
> 8 Goliath
> 9 Harengon (WBtW)
> 10 Hobgoblin
> 11 Kalashtar (Eberron)
> 12 Kenku
> 13 Kobold
> 14 Leonin (Theros)
> 15 Lizardfolk
> 16 Minotaur (Theros)
> 17 Orc
> 18 Satyr (Theros)
> 19 Shifter (Eberron)
> 20 Tabaxi
> 21 Triton
> 22 Warforged (Eberron)
> 23 Yuan-Ti
> 
> (all VGTM unless noted)



I suspect the fact they said "setting agnostic" will cut the unique races from the MTG settings, Eberron and Ravenloft. Gotta sell them setting books somehow.


----------



## Krachek

Lidgar said:


> So … 5.5 edition? 6th edition? AD&D 5e? Just curious how they will brand it.



100% backward compatible, 
I think they will present it as DnD.
You were playing DnD, you can still play DnD with the new core books, or the old ones, or a mix, it is still DnD. that’s how I would present it.


----------



## J.Quondam

Or...
*D&D Five-O*


Spoiler: theme song


----------



## Parmandur

Urriak Uruk said:


> This was my first thought too... Spelljammer adventure, starting in FR but heading to SPAAAACE. Lots of spooky Far Realm shenanigans, Mind Flayers, beholders, etc.



If Boo is involved, it will tie into the Sword Coast: but a minurature giant space hamster is a perfect NPC for a gnarly space Adventure. And all these Mindflayer seeds they've shown over the years gotta go somewhere.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> That is an enormous stretch, 7 years later.



Really? Because D&D Beyond's most popular subclasses are still the ones that are provided in the D&D 5e SRD. A lot of D&D players only play what's available for free on the sources where we get the information about the most played races and classes. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Who said it was?



It sure sounded like you meant that when you said "genasi aren't even unpopular. They're one of the most popular non-phb races.", as if applying that their popularity made it so they weren't subject to mechanical changes. Please correct me if that wasn't your intent there, it just came off that way. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> It would make them not a race?



Not really. They'd be a lineage, which is more or less the same thing as a race. A lineage is just something you can become, while a race is something you're almost always born as (barring the use of the Reincarnate spell). IMO, "letting dwarves be Genasi would diminish the identity of the Genasi" is not at all a compelling argument. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Their identity is equal parts what they can do and where they come from. Dramatically changing their origin dramatically changes their identity.



So, you're saying that the Genasi from 4e aren't actually Genasi (or, at least, they're completely different from 5e's Genasi). 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Half-genies are only one origin of genasi, first of all. Hexbloods were invented from the ground up to be something you can become, genasi aren't.



Why not? How would allowing a person to become a Genasi through the blessing of a Genie or a similar option diminish their identity? 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Meanwhile, you can just describe your genasi as looking more like a dwarf than a human, if you want. Nothing stops you.



Great. Yet another person online saying "No! Keep the game how I want it, instead of also making way for your room to coexist with mine! Just reflavor it however you want!"

That argument hasn't been convincing the first 99 times I heard it, and it's not any more convincing the 100th time.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Two notes that seem to have been buried a bit; we are getting another design blogpost soon that explains a bit more what is coming.

And, a new book will be announced next month.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

EthanSental said:


> I’m also curious (and excited) about the 2 settings in current development that are brand new and if they are fully developed, be the first new ones since Eberron in 2004.



Everyone forgets Nentir Vale! Everyone!


EthanSental said:


> Chris seemed excited about them and one could be the far realm mention in posts above.



I don't think we're getting a Far Realm setting. That would be an adventure, at the most.


----------



## ad_hoc

Urriak Uruk said:


> This was my first thought too... Spelljammer adventure, starting in FR but heading to SPAAAACE. Lots of spooky Far Realm shenanigans, Mind Flayers, beholders, etc.




I hope we get a minis set full of this stuff.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Everyone forgets Nentir Vale! Everyone!




Well, it was forgettable!   

I wondered when they first announced new settings if they were going to be MTG settings that were _also _new (New Capenna for example). I'm doubting that more now, based on how they described it. They sound like they want to get very, very different with these.

Btw, they may never actually happen, they're still in the development phase.


----------



## Omand

Urriak Uruk said:


> Well, it was forgettable!
> 
> I wondered when they first announced new settings if they were going to be MTG settings that were _also _new (New Capenna for example). I'm doubting that more now, based on how they described it. They sound like they want to get very, very different with these.
> 
> Btw, they may never actually happen, they're still in the development phase.



I don't think that in house WotC considers Nentir Vale to be a full setting.  There was never a setting treatment for it, which appears to be their criteria based upon today's video.

And an important point that @Urriak Uruk brings up.  Crawford and Perkins were at pains to point out the development part of the work and how it can change at several points in the video.

Cheers


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I don't think we're getting a Far Realm setting. That would be an adventure, at the most.



The hint about a "scary place we've never been before" with the Boo art seems to be an Adventure, nit a Setting. How could a Classic Setting being brought back be "somewhere we've never been before"?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Urriak Uruk said:


> Well, it was forgettable!
> 
> I wondered when they first announced new settings if they were going to be MTG settings that were _also _new (New Capenna for example). I'm doubting that more now, based on how they described it. They sound like they want to get very, very different with these.
> 
> Btw, they may never actually happen, they're still in the development phase.



They already announced earlier this year that they were brainstorming two completely new D&D settings (non-M:tG), so this isn't really news. I'm glad that neither of them have been dropped (yet), though. 

I'm still crossing my fingers for the two settings to be prehistoric and modern/futuristic.


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> They already announced earlier this year that they were brainstorming two completely new D&D settings (non-M:tG), so this isn't really news. I'm glad that neither of them have been dropped (yet), though.
> 
> I'm still crossing my fingers for the two settings to be prehistoric and modern/futuristic.



Dollars to Donuts that one of them is an expansion of the Domains of Delight tie-in with Witchlight: a playteat for a potential Fey Setting, similar to Ravenloft.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> The hint about a "scary place we've never been before" with the Boo art seems to be an Adventure, nit a Setting. How could a Classic Setting being brought back be "somewhere we've never been before"?



(This also makes me chuckle about the people who think D&D's being "sanitized" and made "kid-friendly".)

Or, it could be the First World. A world set during the Dawn War, where there's an ongoing war between the Gods and the Primordials, could be pretty scary, and they've never been there before. (If they did that and gave a ton of stats for the Dawn War pantheon's gods, I would be super stoked.)


----------



## ersatzphil

Parmandur said:


> Dollars to Donuts that one of them is an expansion of the Domains of Delight tie-in with Witchlight: a playteat for a potential Fey Setting, similar to Ravenloft.



There's a real chance you're right, but they did kinda quietly release a Domains of Delight pdf on DMsguild with a lot of that kind of thing in it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> Dollars to Donuts that one of them is an expansion of the Domains of Delight tie-in with Witchlight: a playteat for a potential Fey Setting, similar to Ravenloft.



Could be. But based on the Domains of Delight DMsGuild product, I'm not sure we're getting that anytime soon. At least not until enough DMsGuild products with different homebrew Domains of Delight that WotC can just gather and compile are published.


----------



## overgeeked

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Everyone forgets Nentir Vale! Everyone!



Well, they built 5E on the bones of 4E and managed to convince a lot of people that they left 4E behind. If they were to bring back Nentir Vale (which I hope they do), then people might start noticing all the other 4E-isms that are in 5E.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Parmandur said:


> Dollars to Donuts that one of them is an expansion of the Domains of Delight tie-in with Witchlight: a playteat for a potential Fey Setting, similar to Ravenloft.




I would bet against this myself; the DoD release seemed purposefully setup to take ideas they sort-of wanted to put in the Witchlight, but couldn't. I think if they really wanted to do a Feywild counterpart to Ravenloft, they wouldn't have released DoD.

Plus, the Feywild is not an entirely new setting, especially after Witchlight.


----------



## Parmandur

ersatzphil said:


> There's a real chance you're right, but they did kinda quietly release a Domains of Delight pdf on DMsguild with a lot of that kind of thing in it.



Exactly, similar to how they put out the Wayfinders Guide to Ebwrron. I'm thinking that is a playtest document, to test responses to a serious longterm project.


----------



## Parmandur

Urriak Uruk said:


> I would bet against this myself; the DoD release seemed purposefully setup to take ideas they sort-of wanted to put in the Witchlight, but couldn't. I think if they really wanted to do a Feywild counterpart to Ravenloft, they wouldn't have released DoD.
> 
> Plus, the Feywild is not an entirely new setting, especially after Witchlight.



If they were considering it, why wouldn't they playtest the framework...?


----------



## Urriak Uruk

AcererakTriple6 said:


> (This also makes me chuckle about the people who think D&D's being "sanitized" and made "kid-friendly".)
> 
> Or, it could be the First World. A world set during the Dawn War, where there's an ongoing war between the Gods and the Primordials, could be pretty scary, and they've never been there before. (If they did that and gave a ton of stats for the Dawn War pantheon's gods, I would be super stoked.)




The First World is my only guess for one of the two new settings. I mean, they're new, so not a lot to go on!

If its anything like Planegea (which is getting a KS), it should be fun.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Parmandur said:


> If they were considering it, why wouldn't they playtest the framework...?




Sorry, I don't understand this. Are you saying DoD is a playtest? It's not really, you have to pay for it unlike a UA.


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> (This also makes me chuckle about the people who think D&D's being "sanitized" and made "kid-friendly".)
> 
> Or, it could be the First World. A world set during the Dawn War, where there's an ongoing war between the Gods and the Primordials, could be pretty scary, and they've never been there before. (If they did that and gave a ton of stats for the Dawn War pantheon's gods, I would be super stoked.)



The new Settings aren't ready for prime time, and this was a tease for a new book. The Nentir Vale...ain't going to be one of the returning Settings.


----------



## Parmandur

Urriak Uruk said:


> Sorry, I don't understand this. Are you saying DoD is a playtest? It's not really, you have to pay for it unlike a UA.



They had people pay for the Wayfinders Guide to Eberron (not even for charity!),and still included all of it in a printed book a year and a half latter.


----------



## TerraDave

In concluding the host does say there may be a "new edition". 

Just a fully compatible one.


----------



## Demetrios1453

I'm beginning to lean towards our "little peek" at a classic setting will be an adventure that's Spelljammer in part. They've been teasing something like that for years (The whole hints at Lantan in the run up to ToA, for example), and this would be a CoS-type way of testing the waters before releasing full-fledged campaign book. Maybe Minsc has taken it upon himself to find the origins of Boo?


----------



## Parmandur

TerraDave said:


> In concluding the host does say there may be a "new edition".
> 
> Just a fully compatible one.



In the broader gaming industry, new editions are usually fully compatible. Incompatible editions was a weird TSR thing that WotC thought they could monetize.


----------



## Parmandur

Demetrios1453 said:


> I'm beginning to lean towards our "little peek" at a classic setting will be an adventure that's Spelljammer in part. They've been teasing something like that for years (The whole hints at Lantan in the run up to ToA, for example), and this would be a CoS-type way of testing the waters before releasing full-fledged campaign book. Maybe Minsc has taken it upon himself to find the origins of Boo?



Hey, the Lantan hints haven't paid off yet, that's a good call.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Oh, and beyond that, the actual individual release of MPMotM (with the emphasis on the _Multiverse _part) around the same time as a Planescape setting release would make sense, wouldn't it?


----------



## Omand

TerraDave said:


> In concluding the host does say there may be a "new edition".
> 
> Just a fully compatible one.



True, Elle does say that.  But watching the stream, it seems she is literally what she claims to be, a host who gets to have fun doing the hosting.

I get the sense that she has no inside knowledge about what is going to be mentioned as part of these events.  She likely has a list of things she has been told to ask the WotC staff about (that are rather cryptic and open-ended), but beyond that she ad-libs or reacts as she wants.

Notice at one point Perkins had to have her redirect a question to Crawford since he still had previews to show that she had not followed up on.

I would take nothing she says as part of "commentary" as actually indicative of the official WotC direction, especially since this is a live stream and cannot be edited.

Cheers


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> The new Settings aren't ready for prime time, and this was a tease for a new book. The Nentir Vale...ain't going to be one of the returning Settings.



I didn't say Nentir Vale. I said the First World. They're different concepts, even if they both have the Dawn War (FR has the Dawn War, too).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Demetrios1453 said:


> Oh, and beyond that, the actual individual release of MPMotM (with the emphasis on the _Multiverse _part) around the same time as a Planescape setting release would make sense, wouldn't it?



Or Spelljammer. Or the First World, as it's what created the Multiverse in D&D.


----------



## Omand

Demetrios1453 said:


> Oh, and beyond that, the actual individual release of MPMotM (with the emphasis on the _Multiverse _part) around the same time as a Planescape setting release would make sense, wouldn't it?



Maybe, but in the live stream they admitted the book was supposed to be released for the holiday season (late November/early December) and that it was delayed to January due to supply chain issues (COVID and all that).

Plus, the book is actually a compilation of existing material, so not really focused on the planes any more than the original source material.

Cheers 

Edited: Spelling is hard.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Parmandur said:


> They had people pay for the Wayfinders Guide to Eberron (not even for charity!),and still included all of it in a printed book a year and a half latter.




I don't think that was a playtest either. That was Keith Baker really pushing WotC that he made that for him (with some help from their staff). Then Ravnica proved popular and the PDF sold well, so they moved forward with it.

The Wayfinder's Guide is more of a confluence of strange circumstances than a rubric for the future.


----------



## teitan

ReshiIRE said:


> I wonder if there will be any certain present and upcoming 5e revisions that WoTC will be looking at for ideas on how to revise 5e...
> 
> 5.5e sounds like the perfect middle ground between a 6e etc. for now. Going to be an interesting next few years.



Member when an edition change was a subtle shift and not a complete rewrite of the game every time? I member


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Parmandur said:


> Hey, the Lantan hints haven't paid off yet, that's a good call.




Every year I bet on a Spelljammer/Lantan adventure... this time, I swear is it!

More seriously, it is entirely possible it was developed and pushed back. One, Avernus was pulled forward due to Baldur's Gate III (the D&D team actually admitted this). Two, Witchlight got pulled forward due to the Domains of Delight (so it could release after Ravenloft's Domains of Dread). So this adventure could have languished in development for some time.


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I didn't say Nentir Vale. I said the First World. They're different concepts, even if they both have the Dawn War (FR has the Dawn War, too).



The "First World" may be involved with one of the far.off new Settings: still not related to the new product about to be teased.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Omand said:


> True, Elle does say that.  But watching the stream, it seems she is literally what she claims to be, a host who gets to have fun doing the hosting.
> 
> I get the sense that she has no inside knowledge about what is going to be mentioned as part of these events.  She likely has a list of things she has been told to ask the WotC staff about (that are rather cryptic and open-ended), but beyond that she ad-libs or reacts as she wants.
> 
> Notice at one point Perkins had to have her redirect a question to Crawford since he still had previews to show that she had not followed up on.
> 
> I would take nothing she says as part of "commentary" as actually indicative of the official WotC direction, especially since this is a live stream and cannot be edited.
> 
> Cheers




Agreed, Elle did not appear to have inside information. She's just a very good presenter, making it seem at times the whole thing was scripted. Which it probably wasn't, at least not entirely.


----------



## Parmandur

Urriak Uruk said:


> I don't think that was a playtest either. That was Keith Baker really pushing WotC that he made that for him (with some help from their staff). Then Ravnica proved popular and the PDF sold well, so they moved forward with it.
> 
> The Wayfinder's Guide is more of a confluence of strange circumstances than a rubric for the future.



While true, the Domains of Delight document looks like a testbed to me


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Parmandur said:


> While true, the Domains of Delight document looks like a testbed to me




Fair. I haven't read it myself, just seen the preview pages. I'm additionally doubtful, as Perkins seemed to indicate Whichlight may be one of his few chances to make material for the Feywild.

Lumping additional material into PDFs is not exactly new either. Ravnica got an adventure released on DMsGuild, for example.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Really? Because D&D Beyond's most popular subclasses are still the ones that are provided in the D&D 5e SRD. A lot of D&D players only play what's available for free on the sources where we get the information about the most played races and classes.



Except we know that isn’t the case. Bradford confirmed multiple times that the subclass rankings don’t change _at all_ when only looking at users that have content unlocked. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> It sure sounded like you meant that when you said "genasi aren't even unpopular. They're one of the most popular non-phb races.", as if applying that their popularity made it so they weren't subject to mechanical changes. Please correct me if that wasn't your intent there, it just came off that way.



It very clearly wasn’t, because it doesn’t follow in any way. You’re making a leap, and/lost track of the conversation. I replied to your insistence that they are unpopular by pointing out that this isn’t the case. It’s that simple. 




AcererakTriple6 said:


> Not really. They'd be a lineage, which is more or less the same thing as a race. A lineage is just something you can become, while a race is something you're almost always born as (barring the use of the Reincarnate spell). IMO, "letting dwarves be Genasi would diminish the identity of the Genasi" is not at all a compelling argument.



Okay. I disagree. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> So, you're saying that the Genasi from 4e aren't actually Genasi (or, at least, they're completely different from 5e's Genasi).






AcererakTriple6 said:


> Why not? How would allowing a person to become a Genasi through the blessing of a Genie or a similar option diminish their identity?
> 
> Great. Yet another person online saying "No! Keep the game how I want it, instead of also making way for your room to coexist with mine! Just reflavor it however you want!"
> 
> That argument hasn't been convincing the first 99 times I heard it, and it's not any more convincing the 100th time.



Except you’re trying to change something that is good the way it is, and is loved by a lot of people _the way it is_, into something more generic and bland.


----------



## Xeviat

Charlaquin said:


> - My biggest wish, and also the one that’s least likely to come true: please, please PLEASE don’t replace everything that recovers on a short rest with PB uses per long rest.
> 
> - Since the previous item is definitely not going to come true, at least leave the Warlock alone. Please, if there is any justice in this world, let the Warlock remain it’s bizarre and cool self and not just become another boring daily caster.



Your biggest wish, unfortunately, didn't work out with the way different groups play games, sadly. I love the short-rest mechanic, but you really have to stick with a 2 short rests per 1 long rest structure to have class balance, or the long rest classes steal the spotlight a lot. This isn't a problem for a lot of groups, though, so it's one that likely goes unnoticed. As a DM, I notice it when I want to push my players and make them afraid, but I have to push things hard enough to challenge the Wizard and Cleric, and then the Fighter and Monk end up suffering.

The Warlock, yeah, it would be sad to see it go. Maybe it could get a redesign and become significantly more at-will?


----------



## Dungeonosophy

As the author of the petition to release Jeff Grubb's lost Mystara Worldbook manuscript, I'm guessing (and sorely hoping) that one of the _four_ classic settings in 2022-2023 will be Mystara. There was that kerfuffle awhile back where one WotC rep approved the Mystara Worldbook release, and then another rep nixed it, resulting in some community-wide disappointment. I'm guessing (and hoping) that WotC will turn lemons into lemonade by revamping Grubb's text and giving it 5E stats and art, as full-blown release. We'll see!

_"Next year, the other *two* major classic D&D settings come out. Both in formats they've never published products before. Plus a "little peek" at a *third *classic D&D setting - a cameo. In 2023, *yet another* classic setting is coming out."_


----------



## Erdric Dragin

Oh...yay. So after buying all those original books, let's sell you a compilation with "UPDATES!" because god forbid we sell you a faulty product and instead of just putting it up as free errata, like we should, we'll repackage it and sell it to you all over again and you can chuck the other ones out cause, well, they're useless now. And because we got you rabidly loving 5e D&D, you'll buy it no questions asked and attack anyone who disagrees. 

Yup. That sounds about right with WotC.


----------



## teitan

Settings... I think we got a subtle clue to Greyhawk. I'm thinking we will see Planescape and Greyhawk, based on the strength of the Saltmarsh sales. Planescape because that's a lot of references to Multiverse aaaand Spelljammer will make the cameo as a Spelljamming ship actually functioning and being a part of another upcoming adventure.


----------



## Erdric Dragin

Worried what's gonna get wrecked with the classic settings coming out.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> Except we know that isn’t the case. Bradford confirmed multiple times that the subclass rankings don’t change _at all_ when only looking at users that have content unlocked.
> 
> It very clearly wasn’t, because it doesn’t follow in any way. You’re making a leap, and/lost track of the conversation. I replied to your insistence that they are unpopular by pointing out that this isn’t the case. It’s that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Except you’re trying to change something that is good the way it is, and is loved by a lot of people _the way it is_, into something more generic and bland.



I'm not saying that they're unpopular, I'm just saying their popularity is overrepresented based on them being free and the oldest non-PHB race in the game. 

As far as I can tell, you're the only one here that thinks that letting Genasi be half-dwarves would dilute the concept of the Genasi.


----------



## Charlaquin

Xeviat said:


> Your biggest wish, unfortunately, didn't work out with the way different groups play games, sadly. I love the short-rest mechanic, but you really have to stick with a 2 short rests per 1 long rest structure to have class balance, or the long rest classes steal the spotlight a lot. This isn't a problem for a lot of groups, though, so it's one that likely goes unnoticed. As a DM, I notice it when I want to push my players and make them afraid, but I have to push things hard enough to challenge the Wizard and Cleric, and then the Fighter and Monk end up suffering.
> 
> The Warlock, yeah, it would be sad to see it go. Maybe it could get a redesign and become significantly more at-will?



I get why, but I hate everything being long rest based. The problem, in my estimation, is short rests taking an hour. Often, if you can get one hour undisturbed, you can get eight. Rather than being an hour and expecting two of them per day, they really should have stuck with 4e’s 5-minute short rest, expected after every encounter. I tried to stress this back during the playtest, but since you can heal on a short rest, 5 minutes was considered too short - too close to the _verboten_ “martial healing.” Sigh


----------



## pukunui

Did anyone else catch Liz Schuh’s comment about incorporating technology into their experiments with new formats?

She didn’t elaborate on it at all, but I sure hope she wasn’t talking about micro transactions or DLC or anything like that.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Dungeonosophy said:


> As the author of the petition to release Jeff Grubb's lost Mystara Worldbook manuscript, I'm guessing (and sorely hoping) that one of the _four_ classic settings in 2022-2023 will be Mystara. There was that kerfuffle awhile back where one WotC rep approved the Mystara Worldbook release, and then another rep nixed it, resulting in some community-wide disappointment. I'm guessing (and hoping) that WotC will turn lemons into lemonade by revamping Grubb's text and giving it 5E stats and art, as full-blown release. We'll see!
> 
> _"Next year, the other *two* major classic D&D settings come out. Both in formats they've never published products before. Plus a "little peek" at a *third *classic D&D setting - a cameo. In 2023, *yet another* classic setting is coming out."_





teitan said:


> Settings... I think we got a subtle clue to Greyhawk. I'm thinking we will see Planescape and Greyhawk, based on the strength of the Saltmarsh sales. Planescape because that's a lot of references to Multiverse aaaand Spelljammer will make the cameo as a Spelljamming ship actually functioning and being a part of another upcoming adventure.



Wow. I personally think Mystara and Greyhawk are way down below on the list of the options of previous editions' settings to convert to D&D 5e, and the more likely options are Planescape, Dark Sun, and apparently Spelljammer (due to the Boo-book cover).


----------



## Faolyn

vecna00 said:


> I did a quick run through and counted 26 total setting agnostic races. This includes tortles!
> 
> Not sure where the others are coming from.



Elven subraces.


----------



## overgeeked

They mentioned players being scared to go to one of the settings. Since Ravenloft is already done, the only other revisit I can think of that could fit would be Dark Sun. If it’s a new setting...why make another horror or scary setting after releasing Ravenloft? Unless it’s book 2 of Ravenloft and the Domains of Dread. Or the Shadowfell.


----------



## Faolyn

Parmandur said:


> The hint about a "scary place we've never been before" with the Boo art seems to be an Adventure, nit a Setting. How could a Classic Setting being brought back be "somewhere we've never been before"?



An established setting with a previously unexplored area? Or something like Spelljammer, but instead of including all the established settings they created a brand new universe unconnected to Realmspace, Greyspace, and the rest?


----------



## overgeeked

Faolyn said:


> An established setting with a previously unexplored area? Or something like Spelljammer, but instead of including all the established settings they created a brand new universe unconnected to Realmspace, Greyspace, and the rest?



Spelljammer is a First World problem.


----------



## Azzy

Erdric Dragin said:


> Worried what's gonna get wrecked with the classic settings coming out.



Purile "purists".


----------



## darjr

Dungeonosophy said:


> As the author of the petition to release Jeff Grubb's lost Mystara Worldbook manuscript, I'm guessing (and sorely hoping) that one of the _four_ classic settings in 2022-2023 will be Mystara. There was that kerfuffle awhile back where one WotC rep approved the Mystara Worldbook release, and then another rep nixed it, resulting in some community-wide disappointment. I'm guessing (and hoping) that WotC will turn lemons into lemonade by revamping Grubb's text and giving it 5E stats and art, as full-blown release. We'll see!
> 
> _"Next year, the other *two* major classic D&D settings come out. Both in formats they've never published products before. Plus a "little peek" at a *third *classic D&D setting - a cameo. In 2023, *yet another* classic setting is coming out."_



Did you see the Mystara character in witchlight?


----------



## Dungeonosophy

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Wow. I personally think Mystara and Greyhawk are way down below on the list of the options of previous editions' settings to convert to D&D 5e, and the more likely options are Planescape, Dark Sun, and apparently Spelljammer (due to the Boo-book cover).



Okay, I disagree. Historically everyone assumes Mystara is the the last on the list (except for Birthright!), yet remember: ENWorld announced several months ago that *WotC had approved* the release of lost Jeff Grubb's 2E Mystara Worldbook, and that Jeff Grubb was slated to write a new introduction to the book; only for WotC to backslide and retract the announcement; yet there were also cryptic indications that the project wasn't cancelled, just postponed, and for a positive reason.

Well, a positive reason would be that Grubb's manuscript was given the green-light to be upgraded to a proper 5E Mystara Campaign Setting! Why keep referring to Mystara in the DMG and in Mystara conversion notes (e.g. in the Saltmarsh book) if it's never going to be revisited again? WotC has Grubb's manuscript in hand now; what better time to finally get Mystara into the 5E stable, and open it up to DMs Guild creator content?

Another point: Warduke and Strongheart (from Witchlight) existed in Mystara (canonically, Strongheart retired to the Kingdom of Ierendi in Mystara), so Mystara's early 80s vibe could be timely.

As for Greyhawk: there have been a number of mentions of Oerth recently. See, for example: *Mordenkainen's* Multiverse of Monsters!


----------



## darjr

Dungeonosophy said:


> Okay, I disagree. Historically everyone assumes Mystara is the the last on the list (except for Birthright!), yet remember: ENWorld announced several months ago that *WotC had approved* the release of lost Jeff Grubb's 2E Mystara Worldbook, and that Jeff Grubb was slated to write a new introduction to the book; only for WotC to backslide and retract the announcement; yet there were also cryptic indications that the project wasn't cancelled, just postponed, and for a positive reason. Well, a positive reason would be that Grubb's manuscript was given the green-light to be upgraded to a proper 5E Mystara Campaign Setting! Why keep referring to Mystara in the DMG and in Mystara conversion notes (e.g. in the Saltmarsh book) if it's never going to be revisited again? WotC has Grubb's manuscript in hand now; what better time to finally get Mystara into the 5E stable, and open it up to DMs Guild creator content?
> 
> Another point: Warduke and Strongheart (from Witchlight) existed in Mystara (canonically, Strongheart retired to the Kingdom of Ierendi in Mystara), so Mystara's early 80s vibe could be timely.
> 
> As for Greyhawk: there have been a number of mentions of Oerth recently. See, for example: *Mordenkainen's* Multiverse of Monsters!



WotC didn’t retract anything. The Mystara folk misspoke or was misquoted.


----------



## ersatzphil

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Wow. I personally think Mystara and Greyhawk are way down below on the list of the options of previous editions' settings to convert to D&D 5e, and the more likely options are Planescape, Dark Sun, and apparently Spelljammer (due to the Boo-book cover).



I'm starting to wonder if the Boo cover is the cover of a new Forgotten Realms campaign setting book - that could be the Xanathar behind him, and the whole cover could be portraits of memorable Realms NPCs.

I'm honestly kind of skeptical of Greyhawk returning - they've spent the last seven years mining most of the cool NPCs out of it and sticking it in the Realms.


----------



## Dausuul

Charlaquin said:


> - My biggest wish, and also the one that’s least likely to come true: please, please PLEASE don’t replace everything that recovers on a short rest with PB uses per long rest.
> 
> - Since the previous item is definitely not going to come true, at least leave the Warlock alone. Please, if there is any justice in this world, let the Warlock remain it’s bizarre and cool self and not just become another boring daily caster.



I have a fond dream that the "PB uses per long rest" mechanic is a placeholder for a new rule in which short rests become 1 minute long, but you are capped at PB short rests per day.

It's not _completely_ implausible. If you wanted an "in the wild" playtest of changes to the short rest rules--without having to actually change those rules before you got the results of the playtest--you would need a placeholder that approximated the effect of the intended change. "PB uses per long rest" is about as close as you can get within the existing ruleset. (Due to nova potential, it is strictly but modestly more powerful; so any mechanic which isn't overpowered under PB uses per long rest, won't be a problem with capped short rests either.)

Do I actually believe this is what they're doing? Not really. I think the writing is on the wall for short rest classes, which makes me sad. But one can always hope.


----------



## bedir than

Dungeonosophy said:


> ENWorld announced several months ago that *WotC had approved* the release of lost Jeff Grubb's 2E Mystara Worldbook,



ENWorld did this, or a user on ENWorld did this?
The lack of citation makes it almost certain it was just a user, not someone with any sort of formal role.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I'm not saying that they're unpopular, I'm just saying their popularity is overrepresented based on them being free and the oldest non-PHB race in the game.



You literally said they’re unpopular.  

As for overrepresentation, there is no actual reason to assume that, considering that the folks at DDB have said repeatedly that most of their stats change very little if at all when only looking at characters made by users with the PHB or more unlocked. The data from Wizards and from DDB show that the majority of players don’t choose race or class based on optimization. 

Meanwhile, they’re consistently popular, show up on a ton of actual play shows, and there is an ocean of OC fan art of genasi characters.  

They don’t need an overhaul or a reinvention, they need their primary racial features to be more broadly useful. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> As far as I can tell, you're the only one here that thinks that letting Genasi be half-dwarves would dilute the concept of the Genasi.



Seeing as you’re working from a sample size of two people, on a forum with too few (regularly active) people to function as a useful sample size even if you polled every regular poster, I’m not sure what you think you’ve got, with this comment.


----------



## darjr

ersatzphil said:


> I'm starting to wonder if the Boo cover is the cover of a new Forgotten Realms campaign setting book - that could be the Xanathar behind him, and the whole cover could be portraits of memorable Realms NPCs.
> 
> I'm honestly kind of skeptical of Greyhawk returning - they've spent the last seven years mining most of the cool



And putting them in Ravenloft and the wider multiverse……


----------



## darjr

bedir than said:


> ENWorld did this, or a user on ENWorld did this?
> The lack of citation makes it almost certain it was just a user, not someone with any sort of formal role.



I posted it as a user, it was promoted to a news item and the editors took a pass at it.









						D&D General - UPDATE: this isn't greenlit : Jeff Grubb's Lost Mystara Sourcebook To Be Released
					

Ex-TSR designer Jeff Grubb wrote a Known World of Mystara sourcebook for AD&D 2E that was sadly never published. But now WotC has given permission for it's release to Shawn Stanley of the Vaults of Pandius website, the Official Mystara Homepage!    Grubb posted on Facebook:  "A long time ago I...




					www.enworld.org


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Some things are just so egregiously bad mechanically that they're "unplayable", even if there is a strange minority of people that will play it.)



This is, directly, saying that they are unpopular. A thing can’t be only played by a strange minority, and be anything other than unpopular.  

 You’re also completely off base about non-optimizers being anything other than the majority.


----------



## ersatzphil

darjr said:


> And putting them in Ravenloft and the wider multiverse……



...yeah.

Full disclosure: as someone currently running that module, getting to roleplay as Mordenkainen for a bit was super cool.


----------



## darjr

ersatzphil said:


> ...yeah.
> 
> Full disclosure: as someone running that module, getting to roleplay as Mordenkainen for a bit was super cool.



Oh same! I would love a 5e Greyhawk setting, fyi


----------



## ersatzphil

darjr said:


> Oh same! I would love a 5e Greyhawk setting, fyi



To be fair, I have a really fun time encountering all those old characters - I'm not trying to knock WotC using them at all. 

At the same time, I look at Greyhawk and find myself thinking, "...what's left?"


----------



## Demetrios1453

ersatzphil said:


> I'm starting to wonder if the Boo cover is the cover of a new Forgotten Realms campaign setting book - that could be the Xanathar behind him, and the whole cover could be portraits of memorable Realms NPCs.
> 
> I'm honestly kind of skeptical of Greyhawk returning - they've spent the last seven years mining most of the cool NPCs out of it and sticking it in the Realms.



Like whom?

The only Greyhawk characters that I'm aware of that have been used in 5e adventures are Mordenkainen, who is shown in Ravenloft and the Nine Hells, and Iggwilv, who appears in the Feywild; neither are shown in the Realms. There might be an argument concerning the Princes of Elemental Evil, but they first appeared in the Realms products way back in 2e, so 5e can hardly be blamed for that...

In any case, I suspect that if setting books continue to be popular, we'll see a Greyhawk one during the 50th anniversary, which would be the perfect tie-in.

Edit. I forgot about Acererak. But he's pretty multiversal as well...


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I guarantee you they will call it simply "Dungeons & Dragons 50th Anniversary Edition" or some variation on that. Of course, if history is anything to go by, the online community will dub it "5 point 5".


----------



## FrogReaver

I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.


----------



## Mercurius

Dungeonosophy said:


> As the author of the petition to release Jeff Grubb's lost Mystara Worldbook manuscript, I'm guessing (and sorely hoping) that one of the _four_ classic settings in 2022-2023 will be Mystara. There was that kerfuffle awhile back where one WotC rep approved the Mystara Worldbook release, and then another rep nixed it, resulting in some community-wide disappointment. I'm guessing (and hoping) that WotC will turn lemons into lemonade by revamping Grubb's text and giving it 5E stats and art, as full-blown release. We'll see!
> 
> _"Next year, the other *two* major classic D&D settings come out. Both in formats they've never published products before. Plus a "little peek" at a *third *classic D&D setting - a cameo. In 2023, *yet another* classic setting is coming out."_



I don't think that quote means they're publishing four classic setting products, but three, plus a fourth showing us a cameo.

My guess would be Planescape, Dark Sun and Dragonlance, with Spelljammer being the cameo via a spelljammer ship being part of an adventure.


----------



## BookTenTiger

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.



How do you measure the happiness of the base?

Maybe by number of players?

If so, the base seeks to be pretty happy, and growing every year.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.



I think they will!

(I admit that personally I am for more tweaks rather than less - I have never been fully satisfied with the skill system (mostly how tools work with it); Monster design (too nsny of them feel like a bag of HP); Exploration and Dowtime still need work; and I think that most subclasses could use a pass of rebalancing). 

Even so... I don't feel a need for 6e. Everything I want should be doable with backward compatibility.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.



I’m rather confident the base is largely happy to do exactly that, and that most groups enjoy stability in the game and don’t actually like it when the game changes dramatically.  

5e is also quite flexible, and heterogenous in play experience. There are a lot of dials and nobs to tune the experience with, and we get expansions on those options every year. My guess is that 2024 will see a spike in that dynamic. Expanded and better codified specialized systems to effectively create a variant game that becomes “Noir D&D” or “Cosmic Horror D&D” or “Fairy Tale D&D”.


----------



## FrogReaver

BookTenTiger said:


> How do you measure the happiness of the base?
> 
> Maybe by number of players?
> 
> If so, the base seeks to be pretty happy, and growing every year.



Sure, but we are only at year 7 of the same game.


----------



## FrogReaver

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think they will!
> 
> (I admit that personally I am for more tweaks rather than less - I have never been fully satisfied with the skill system (mostly how tools work with it); Monster design (too nsny of them feel like a bag of HP); Exploration and Dowtime still need work; and I think that most subclasses could use a pass of rebalancing).
> 
> Even so... I don't feel a need for 6e. Everything I want should be doable with backward compatibility.



Depends on what you mean by 'backward compatible' I guess.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Demetrios1453 said:


> Like whom?
> 
> The only Greyhawk characters that I'm aware of that have been used in 5e adventures are Mordenkainen, who is shown in Ravenloft and the Nine Hells, and Iggwilv, who appears in the Feywild; neither are shown in the Realms. There might be an argument concerning the Princes of Elemental Evil, but they first appeared in the Realms products way back in 2e, so 5e can hardly be blamed for that...
> 
> In any case, I suspect that if setting books continue to be popular, we'll see a Greyhawk one during the 50th anniversary, which would be the perfect tie-in.
> 
> Edit. I forgot about Acererak. But he's pretty multiversal as well...



And Vecna, if you count the Hand of Vecna appearing in Descent into Avernus.


----------



## MonsterEnvy

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.



A redone 5e is pretty much the same as going from 1e to 2e. Both lasted a long time.


----------



## FrogReaver

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m rather confident the base is largely happy to do exactly that, and that most groups enjoy stability in the game and don’t actually like it when the game changes dramatically.



Sure.  I'm not advocating for a 4e sized change.  But I think there's alot that could be improved with a fresh take instead of a rehash.  



doctorbadwolf said:


> 5e is also quite flexible, and heterogenous in play experience. There are a lot of dials and nobs to tune the experience with, and we get expansions on those options every year. My guess is that 2024 will see a spike in that dynamic. Expanded and better codified specialized systems to effectively create a variant game that becomes “Noir D&D” or “Cosmic Horror D&D” or “Fairy Tale D&D”.



IMO.  We've been promised dials and knobs since day 1 and there's hardly any that actually exist.  I won't hold my breath there.


----------



## Scribe

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.




I believe the core of the game is largely satisfactory to the majority of its player base, and that the various additions (Xanathar’s, MToF, Tasha's) in addition to the Adventures and Settings is easily enough to keep the ball rolling forward.

I literally only want them to push a Planar/Alignment centered book (Planescape) and something for the Gods (Dawn War/First World?) something which in combination leans hard into the cosmology side.

At that point? Adventure's, 3rd Party settings, Level Up, I mean that amount of material available can be overwhelming at that point no? I could happily play around in the 5e sandbox at that point with little to no further involvement from Wizards.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> Sure.  I'm not advocating for a 4e sized change.  But I think there's alot that could be improved with a fresh take instead of a rehash.
> 
> 
> IMO.  We've been promised dials and knobs since day 1 and there's hardly any that actually exist.  I won't hold my breath there.



There are…quite a lot of them, though.


----------



## FrogReaver

Scribe said:


> I believe the core of the game is largely satisfactory to the majority of its player base



It is for now.  My speculation is that 6-10 more years is alot of time.  5e may very well might not be satisfactory that far into the future.  I know 5e already feels a little stagnant for me.  Will others feel that way in 6-10 more years?  Will they start looking for other games?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> It is for now.  My speculation is that 6-10 more years is alot of time.  It very well might not be that far into the future.  I know 5e already feels a little stagnant for me.  Will others feel that way in 6-10 more years?



Then they can keep releasing more subclasses and races in books similar to Xanathar's/Tasha's and Volo's/Mordenkainen's/Fizban's. More content, adventures, and rules will keep the edition going for as long as possible.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Then they can keep releasing more subclasses and races in books similar to Xanathar's/Tasha's and Volo's/Mordenkainen's/Fizban's. More content, adventures, and rules will keep the edition going for as long as possible.



More sublcasses and races haven't really solved the problem though.  More adventures don't really help there either.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> More sublcasses and races haven't really solved the problem though.  More adventures don't really help there either.



You mean for you? Because they certainly have helped for the community.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You mean for you? Because they certainly have helped for the community.



Helped and solved are 2 different things.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> Helped and solved are 2 different things.



You just moved the goalposts from "helped" to "solved". Nothing is forever, but we want D&D 5e to last as long as possible. There are no perfect solutions.


----------



## FrogReaver

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You just moved the goalposts from "helped" to "solved". Nothing is forever, but we want D&D 5e to last as long as possible. There are no perfect solutions.



I said solved 


FrogReaver said:


> More sublcasses and races haven't really *solved* the problem though.  More adventures don't really help there either.





AcererakTriple6 said:


> You mean for you? Because they certainly have *helped* for the community.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FrogReaver said:


> I said solved



Then you're asking for an impossible feat. There's no way to 100% solve the problem. Every edition before D&D 5e has died. 5e will die to. The best that we can hope for is to keep it going for as long as possible. 
(I forgot to mention setting books. More settings that cover a more wide range of themes of fantasy will help out a ton, especially if/when we get a prehistoric setting, or a futuristic/modern setting, and Planescape/Dark Sun translated to 5e.)


----------



## doctorhook

overgeeked said:


> I'm hoping they'll call it AD&D. But that's not likely.
> 
> More likely R5E. Revised 5E.



Ah we’ve already got A5E coming up (Advanced 5E—Kickstarter begins soon!) but it’s not an official revision, alas. Still I’ve got somewhat more faith in ENPublishing than I do in Hasbro right now


----------



## grimslade

There is a lot more they can do with 5e. The base game is sound, but the D&D Next playtest showed how much more there can be done within bounded accuracy. The Dials and Knobs have been installed so far with child-proof tampering. Time to release the helicopter development style.
If they start releasing content that expands the game, versus the replication of subclasses and spells, I can see the current edition lasting more than a decade. There are glimmers of brilliance every few books, but WotC is very conservative with their second golden goose. Magic the Gathering is pretty conservative in its development too but is still fundamentally the same.
I hope we get Spelljammer but it may just be the cameo setting in a Lantan adventure. Planescape seems a solid bet. I think Greyhawk would be closer to the 50th anniversary slate of releases. Dark Sun would be glorious, but until we see some defiling rules in playtest and a 4th(?) run at a psionics system, I don't see it next year. So Planescape and Dragonlance with Greyhawk in 2024.


----------



## doctorhook

EthanSental said:


> I’m also curious (and excited) about the 2 settings in current development that are brand new and if they are fully developed, be the first new ones since Eberron in 2004.  Chris seemed excited about them and one could be the far realm mention in posts above.



Ah I’m afraid they’ll just be “new” (ie: to D&D) Magic the Gathering settings instead. So far those have been pretty great! But they’re somewhat smaller than a typical D&D setting


----------



## Urriak Uruk

This panel also confirmed 3 classic settings are coming, 2 in 2022, 1 in 2023. New formats, but dunno what that means.

My bets are Planescape, Dark Sun, and Dragonlance. Sorry Mystara, it just can't hold up to those three.


----------



## Mercurius

The D&D "base" is not the same as it was even seven years ago. Back in 2014, the base was comprised of long-time D&D players and people who had started with 3E or 4E. Since then, the base has exponentially grown, mostly with younger people new to gaming, as well as a much larger international contingent.

I don't think anyone--even that new base--knows how long their interest will remain. WotC doesn't know. They're hoping that most of the gains can be maintained, but it is also possible that the current popularity is faddish and will contract again. But even so, will it contract from 50 million (or whatever) to 25 million, and still be more popular than anytime before the last few years, or will it collapse back to 5 million?

It is also worth nothing that these new fans came into a game that is overall less crunchy than the past couple editions, and it may be that their focus is less on the game mechanics and more on the stories and worlds--which makes sense, considering WotC's publishing schedule. So it may be less important to reset interest via a new rules set than it is to continually churn out new stories and worlds, which doesn't require a new edition--just revisions to the core rules every so many years.


----------



## JEB

Urriak Uruk said:


> And, a new book will be announced next month.



Kind of weird that they didn't announce the new book along with everything else.

Meanwhile, I expected Wizards to do an update to existing monsters and races, to match their new design philosophy, but I'm pretty surprised to see it as soon as January. (And it sounds like it would have originally been this year, apparently!)

I also wonder if we'll start to see certain books (mainly thinking of Volo's) allowed to go out of print, now that an all-in-one update will be available without older 5E baggage. Though that may wait for the general-release version of Monsters of the Multiverse. (Or they'll just coast until the "anniversary edition" comes out.)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Urriak Uruk said:


> This panel also confirmed 3 classic settings are coming, 2 in 2022, 1 in 2023. New formats, but dunno what that means.
> 
> My bets are Planescape, Dark Sun, and Dragonlance. Sorry Mystara, it just can't hold up to those three.



I'm going to say that it's a toss-up between Dragonlance and Spelljammer right now, and will be at least until we know what book the Boo-cover book will be (which they said will be coming out next year).


----------



## Malmuria

FrogReaver said:


> It is for now.  My speculation is that 6-10 more years is alot of time.  5e may very well might not be satisfactory that far into the future.  I know 5e already feels a little stagnant for me.  Will others feel that way in 6-10 more years?  Will they start looking for other games?



I think their goal is to keep adding new players and to not split the player base with a new non compatible edition.  It would be a disaster to move to a new edition only for half of the players to stick to the old edition.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Nentin Vale was designed to be incomplete, to be a sandbox. And it is perfect for a world-size second Sigil. Everything from the rest of the multiverse can visit Nentir Vale, and this can explain where come from all the future possible new PC races, classes and monsters. 

We don't know the possible plans for a reboot of the crystal spheres (Spelljammer) or if the return of the chronomancers could alter the metagame (today thanks Disney's Loki Show and the TVA the idea of timecop fighting in a multiversal war may be popular).

I guess Hasbro's strategy is to promote old lineas could become multimedia franchises, different products. Here Dragonlance has got a lot of tickets to get the jackpot.

Dark Sun will come back, but the subsystem for the psionic powers still need a lot of work, and now some players want to get some ideas from Pathfinder occultist classes.

Planescape can return, at least a planar handbook and some modules. My theory is after Baldur's Gate III the next project will be the videogame Planescape 2, or a remake of the first.


----------



## teitan

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Wow. I personally think Mystara and Greyhawk are way down below on the list of the options of previous editions' settings to convert to D&D 5e, and the more likely options are Planescape, Dark Sun, and apparently Spelljammer (due to the Boo-book cover).



My thoughts are, with Greyhawk, that Saltmarsh sold extremely well and was one of the best received adventure books. It is the fourth adventure on the list of top 100 D&D products, only outsold by Strahd (twice), Dragon Heist, Candlekeep and Witchlight, the last of which is no. 1 and time will tell if it continues to sell so well. This is a pretty consistent rank for it and Ravenloft would have been thought to be pretty low on the list as well but got a setting book on the strength of Strahd. On top of that it's the "original" setting and the anniversary is coming up for D&D. WHile still early for a 50th anniversary book, it is still fitting to get it out. 

Spelljammer would also be pretty low on that priority list because historically it didn't sell. Boo is not a SPelljammer character, he is a Baldur's Gate, thus FR, character so it more strongly hints at FR than Spelljammer. Boo never appeared in a SPelljammer product, post-dating Spelljammer byt a handful of years. So a Spelljammer may appear in an adventure with Minsc & Boo as characters the PC's encounter, fulfilling the cameo.

Planescape, more than SPelljammer, is a certainty, in the vein of Ravenloft. Most likely as a book on Sigil with the core planes as examples and rules on making new planes of existence. That seems to be the model with something like this that they are going to explore. 

Yeah but Spelljammer, people have hyped themselves on that a lot. I just don't see it being anything more than a rules set and some guidelines they can put in a book, it doesn't really need a setting.


----------



## EllisEthel

I’m an old fart who thinks 5e wandered into blandsville of blandness land. They keep smoothing any rough edges off to the point where it’s hard to get a grip on the game. It’s become the Lego Movie of roleplaying games...everything is awesome.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

EllisEthel said:


> I’m an old fart who thinks 5e wandered into blandsville of blandness land. They keep smoothing any rough edges off to the point where it’s hard to get a grip on the game. It’s become the Lego Movie of roleplaying games...everything is awesome.



You know the Lego Movie was massively popular and profitable, right?


----------



## teitan

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.



Why not? It works for Call of Cthulhu, Vampire: The Masquerade, Traveller, GURPS, Hero... etc...


----------



## teitan

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And Vecna, if you count the Hand of Vecna appearing in Descent into Avernus.



Also Planar, it just starts in the Realms.


----------



## teitan

Mercurius said:


> I don't think that quote means they're publishing four classic setting products, but three, plus a fourth showing us a cameo.
> 
> My guess would be Planescape, Dark Sun and Dragonlance, with Spelljammer being the cameo via a spelljammer ship being part of an adventure.



We already know one of the three was Ravenlost so... you can pick 2.


----------



## Aldarc

Charlaquin said:


> Huzzah for revised core books! Top of my wishlist:
> 
> - Fix Feats that give you new spells to all let you cast them with your regular spell slots, _a la_ Tasha’s.
> 
> - Tasha’s alternate class features baked into the classes from the get-go (I’ll get over the features I don’t love being there).
> 
> - Expanded class spell lists from Tasha’s and Xanathar’s
> 
> - Tasha’s Beastmaster companions in at base instead of picking a stat block from the monster manual.
> 
> - Maybe a big ask, but rework Wild Shape to modify your own stats instead of picking a stat block from the monster manual.
> 
> - Tasha’s summon spells replacing the ones that let you summon stat blocks from the monster manual.
> 
> - New Dragonborn replacing the current PHB Dragonborn
> 
> - Tiefling subraces in the PHB



I too am hoping for a revised Wild Shape with less book-keeping. I did suggest that WotC switch to Wild Shape templates (e.g., Guardian, Flight, Swim, etc.) that scale with Druid level rather than having to know and memorize each animal or beast.



Charlaquin said:


> - My biggest wish, and also the one that’s least likely to come true: please, please PLEASE don’t replace everything that recovers on a short rest with PB uses per long rest.
> 
> - Since the previous item is definitely not going to come true, at least leave the Warlock alone. Please, if there is any justice in this world, let the Warlock remain it’s bizarre and cool self and not just become another boring daily caster.



In the recent core PHB survey, I did suggest that they switch the Warlock's spellcasting a bit, namely its pact magic to equal proficiency modifier. The Warlock's current spells per short rest feels too limiting, especially when you are stuck on 2 spells per short rest for what feels like an eternity. 



Urriak Uruk said:


> Well, it was forgettable!



One issue is that we never got the Nentir Vale Setting Book that was apparently in the works. So the lore for Nentir Vale, the Dawn War, and Nerath are all over the place. But IMHO, the Nentir Vale was D&D's high myth, points-of-light setting that was great for DIY DMs to use without too much worry about lore or history. I don't expect Nentir Vale in 5e. If so, I would want Rich Baker, James Wyatt, and Chris Perkins for the writing team. IMHO, these are the people on staff that probably get the setting best, though I would be curious about @Zeromaru X's dream team for the writing staff.


----------



## Lucas Yew

Eh, more and more further from my ideal "balanced simulationism" rules... (sigh)


----------



## Demetrios1453

Urriak Uruk said:


> This was my first thought too... Spelljammer adventure, starting in FR but heading to SPAAAACE. Lots of spooky Far Realm shenanigans, Mind Flayers, beholders, etc.



That's definitely a possibility (and the one I think is more likely), but I'm also considering the possibility it might be an anthology collection of "crazy adventures with Minsc and Boo" that, like the other anthologies can be run separately or lightly linked together. One of which would be a Spelljammer adventure as our "sneak peek"...


----------



## Henadic Theologian

teitan said:


> We already know one of the three was Ravenlost so... you can pick 2.




 He was referring to a new 3rd classic setting coming in 2023, after the 2.5 classic settings in 2022.

 I think it's going to be Planescape, Dragonlance, with a Spelljammer camoe in an FR adventure exploring realmspace, and the one in 2023 the classic setting will be a revisit to FR to tie onto the D&D $100,000,0000 dollar movie and BG3's full release.

 Does anyone want to hazard a guess on the two new settings will be and if they survive the exploration phase? Could be a Domain of Delight setting?

 I think one of them will be a setting inspired by Africa or Oceania. Or both if there is no Domains of Delight book. They've never really done a Setting or even a subsettibg based on Africa (except Egypt) or Oceania before. Otherwise maybe a completely aquatic setting with Atlanteans as water breathing human race.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Why  was LEGO a blockbuster but Playmobil movie a bomb?

---

A new setting based in African civilitations is possible, but I guess this would arrive before as a Magic: the Gathering setting.

I like the idea of a world with oceans of "oxiwater", the air-breather creatures and ordinary PCs could explore.

WotC is not going to publish now a new edition when they can sell the revival of "old glories". 

My advice is before a 6Ed to publish a new no-fantasy TTRPG with a revised d20 system, for example d20 Modern 2.0.


----------



## clearstream

Charlaquin said:


> - My biggest wish, and also the one that’s least likely to come true: please, please PLEASE don’t replace everything that recovers on a short rest with PB uses per long rest.



What did you think of the experiment in TCoE Soul Knife? Where all psionic dice are tied to prof/long rest, but one psionic die can be regained with an ability that itself recharges on a _short _or long rest?


----------



## Plaguescarred

So many exciting news yet very little was actually announced in concrete terms!


----------



## eyeheartawk

Some questions. 

Does the new Monster book obviate the previous two (as far as listings of monsters are concered)?

Are the other two books in this boxed set (Tasha's and Xanathar) altered in any way (stat block changes, layout etc) or are they the same books as current versions?


----------



## NaturalZero

The way you encourage your player base to pirate your book is to only include it in an expensive bundle until some future date.


----------



## Lyxen

Plaguescarred said:


> So many exciting news yet very little was actually announced in concrete terms!



Of course it has not, after all, it's for changes in more than 2 years time anyway, which will give them the appropriate time to judge the mood and playtest. But seeing that everything will be compatible, I don't think it's going to be huge changes anyway.


----------



## Retreater

I have a wait and see perspective. If it's as much of a departure as 3.5 was, I might have to get it. If it's more like when the 2nd edition black cover editions came out, I probably won't need it - playing online means I don't really get the full value of new art and layout.


----------



## Marc_C

How many times can a man buy the same product in a life time? So far 8 times. I think I'll play another game instead.


----------



## Plaguescarred

Lyxen said:


> Of course it has not, after all, it's for changes in more than 2 years time anyway, which will give them the appropriate time to judge the mood and playtest. But seeing that everything will be compatible, I don't think it's going to be huge changes anyway.



Revisited Campaign Settings will be published in less than 2 years, i would have expected them to reveal some of them at D&D Celebration ☺


----------



## Aldarc

Marc_C said:


> How many times can a man buy the same product in a life time? So far 8 times. I think I'll play another game instead.


----------



## Li Shenron

schneeland said:


> Will be interesting to see what they come up with. Full backward compatibility certainly limits the amount of changes that can be expected.



When they say full compatibility, I don't think they mean what we mean. Basically I expect them to do whatever  change they want and claim it's compatible because they say so.


----------



## RichGreen

Urriak Uruk said:


> This was my first thought too... Spelljammer adventure, starting in FR but heading to SPAAAACE. Lots of spooky Far Realm shenanigans, Mind Flayers, beholders, etc.



Mine too! I would love this!


----------



## Lyxen

Plaguescarred said:


> Revisited Campaign Settings will be published in less than 2 years, i would have expected them to reveal some of them at D&D Celebration ☺



And this is why speculating about what might or might not come out in more than 2 years is extremely hazardous indeed...


----------



## Blue

vecna00 said:


> I did a quick run through and counted 26 total setting agnostic races. This includes tortles!
> 
> Not sure where the others are coming from.



Did that include the new ones from Witchlight?  Fizban's may also have redone Dragonborn if they kept the UA.


----------



## Lyxen

Li Shenron said:


> When they say full compatibility, I don't think they mean what we mean. Basically I expect them to do whatever  change they want and claim it's compatible because they say so.




I'm honestly not sure. For example aligning all the races to the Tasha model is really compatible, it's just a matter of moving an option into the mainstream.


----------



## Marc_C

Aldarc said:


>



Well, at least 5e will have lasted 10 years. Right up there with 2e.


----------



## Bolares

AcererakTriple6 said:


> There are people that will play 4 Element Monks, Undying Warlocks, and Purple Dragon Knights. Just because people play it, doesn't mean that it's "playable". (I mean, I'm obviously wrong here, because if people play it, it's obviously playable. However, you get my point. Some things are just so egregiously bad mechanically that they're "unplayable", even if there is a strange minority of people that will play it.)
> 
> I want Genasi to be balanced in comparison to the other races in the game, I want them to become lineages like the Gothic Lineages from Ravenloft, and maybe have a bit of tweaking lore-wise (as Genasi used to be people who were just touched by the elemental planes, instead of having to be half-genie).



I'm curious about what is unplayable about them (sorry if you go in to detail latter in the thread, haven't gotten there yet. I have an air genasi player at my table, and after I changed the Scores to match tasha's the race functioned fine.


----------



## Li Shenron

Lyxen said:


> I'm honestly not sure. For example aligning all the races to the Tasha model is really compatible, it's just a matter of moving an option into the mainstream.



Probably that kind of update will be completely fine. 

But I don't think they'll stop there. I expect them to fall again for the "we need more substantial changes to let everyone buy the books again". If they start boosting a couple of classes, they will want to boost them all even slightly, and that's when compatibility becomes a shaky concept. Their meaning of back-compatible is "your new books will let you play the same game as before" but not "your old books will still be usable/worth".


----------



## Lyxen

Li Shenron said:


> Probably that kind of update will be completely fine.
> 
> But I don't think they'll stop there. I expect them to fall again for the "we need more substantial changes to let everyone buy the books again". If they start boosting a couple of classes, they will want to boost them all even slightly, and that's when compatibility becomes a shaky concept. Their meaning of back-compatible is "your new books will let you play the same game as before" but not "your old books will still be usable/worth".




We shall see, but I'm pretty sure that they are aware how much that could potentially cost them as well. They actually did really well with the playtest and survey of 5e, I would expect them to do the same and if there is a large portion of the player base telling them that money-grabbing would be counterproductive, maybe they'll listen...


----------



## Blue

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.



As a gentle reminder, edition change is determined by the beancounters.  Look at 3.0 -> 3.5.  Here's Monte Cook's take on the timing of it: Archived Topics   REVIEWS

So if it continues to sell well, they will (rightly?) take it as a sign that it's doing well and keep it around.  If sales fall off then they will consider a new edition.  So ideas based on how long we expect a new edition to stay need to be based on that, not on what we would expect it's longevity to be as a game.


----------



## Zi Mishkal

My gut feeling is that the two settings will be Spelljammer and Mystara. But each setting will be so thoroughly gutted as to be only barely recognizable to those who grew up with them. 

Spelljammer has been talked about to death - but the premise behind it back in the 1990s was extremely clunky. Mystara is a great opportunity for WotC to put the dagger in Paizo. The big thing about Mystara was that each country was its own very distinct culture - very similar to Golarion. But Mystara was also a product of the 1980s and would need significant 'cleaning up' to bring it forward. 
Mystara was also groundbreaking back in the day for supporting character races for everything under the sun. Its also forgotten enough that it will seem fresh and new to most of the fanbase. 

But we'll see. _chews popcorn_


----------



## Hurin88

Seems like the Bethesda/Rockstar approach:

Repackage mostly the same stuff, with a few tweaks and quality of life upgrades, and resell it again and again.

After 7 years, the lack of depth in 5e is starting to show. It's been fantastic at getting new players into the hobby, but there's only so many times I can play a Fighter or roll 1d8 for damage. Glad know it is time to move on though.

I was never a big fan of 5e, though, so I am biased. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

FrogReaver said:


> I'm disappointed on 3 more years for a rehash of 5e and then probably a 3-7 year lifecycle for that.  I'm just not sure that the base will be happy playing virtually the same game for 6-10 more years.



I personally don’t see a need for another version of D&D ever, but I’ve no idea if I’m part of the “base” or not


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

AcererakTriple6 said:


> And Vecna, if you count the Hand of Vecna appearing in Descent into Avernus.



Vecna was part of the core in 4e (maybe sooner, IDK), so you can’t blame that on 5e as well.


----------



## BookTenTiger

I think supplements like Strixhaven are what is going to keep 5e sustainable into the future.

One of my groups is wrapping up a 3-year-long 5e game, a very classic "go into dungeons to save the world" game. If we are to continue playing 5e in the next campaign, I bet it will be with a very different adventure model, like Strixhaven.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

FrogReaver said:


> Sure.  I'm not advocating for a 4e sized change.  But I think there's alot that could be improved with a fresh take instead of a rehash.
> 
> 
> IMO.  We've been promised dials and knobs since day 1 and there's hardly any that actually exist.  I won't hold my breath there.



Oh there are lots of dials and knobs, you just have to do some of the turning and pushing yourself.


----------



## FrogReaver

Blue said:


> As a gentle reminder, edition change is determined by the beancounters.  Look at 3.0 -> 3.5.  Here's Monte Cook's take on the timing of it: Archived Topics   REVIEWS
> 
> So if it continues to sell well, they will (rightly?) take it as a sign that it's doing well and keep it around.  If sales fall off then they will consider a new edition.  So ideas based on how long we expect a new edition to stay need to be based on that, not on what we would expect it's longevity to be as a game.



I mean, I think they made the right business decision.  You don’t throw away a well received product on a hunch that people might years from now lose interest.

Besides backwards compatible is a pretty loosely defined term. If they later decide they want to change a lot, it’s pretty easy to do so and still call it backward compatible. See Level Up advanced 5e.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

doctorhook said:


> Ah I’m afraid they’ll just be “new” (ie: to D&D) Magic the Gathering settings instead. So far those have been pretty great! But they’re somewhat smaller than a typical D&D setting



They said they are not MTG settings


----------



## BookTenTiger

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Oh there are lots of dials and knobs, you just have to do some of the turning and pushing yourself.



I doubt they're going to do this, but it would be so interesting if WotC published some adventures with those dials and knobs turned.

For example, what would a WotC adventure look like if it was designed with Gritty Healing "turned on?"


----------



## Blue

Li Shenron said:


> When they say full compatibility, I don't think they mean what we mean. Basically I expect them to do whatever  change they want and claim it's compatible because they say so.



My opinion is the other way.  It will mean exactly what we think it will mean.  Because I think they've already showed us what they are going to do.

I think we'll see all of the races including the change to ability scores, and possibly changing the name from "race".

I think we'll get more choices that can be swapped in for the existing classes like Tasha's did.  The PHB Ranger is "fully compatible" with Tasha's - which doesn't mean that the beastmaster option that was problematic wasn't addressed as well as some base class features.  It's just that you can continue to play a PHB Ranger.  

I expect more of the same - everything you have still works, but now there are more customization options for races and classes so you can also play more - and some of those address issues that have been around since the beginning, while still allowing you to chose those original features that have issues.

I don't expect a single word that would invalidate an existing character.  I do expect a bunch that would make one want to design that same character differently, much like when Tasha's came out.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

My husband buys the same Starbucks coffee everyday, so I would say thousands at least!


Marc_C said:


> How many times can a man buy the same product in a life time? So far 8 times. I think I'll play another game instead.


----------



## Lyxen

Hurin88 said:


> Seems like the Bethesda/Rockstar approach:
> 
> Repackage mostly the same stuff, with a few tweaks and quality of life upgrades, and resell it again and again.
> 
> After 7 years, the lack of depth in 5e is starting to show. It's been fantastic at getting new players into the hobby, but there's only so many times I can play a Fighter or roll 1d8 for damage. Glad know it is time to move on though.
> 
> I was never a big fan of 5e, though, so I am biased.




It shows, we played for something like 20 years with AD&D 1e because 2e was certainly not an improvement in any direction except for the settings (which were the best ever, look at what people are clamoring for today) which were backwards compatible, and 5e has way more depth and options than AD&D ever had.

And I very much doubt that you have played all the classes and the archetypes, and combination with races. Now, some people want more crunch (why not, it's been in some previous editions of the game), but I'm pretty sure that it's not going to happen, one of the reason for 5e being so successful was clearly the simplicity and streamlining...


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn!

I 


BookTenTiger said:


> I doubt they're going to do this, but it would be so interesting if WotC published some adventures with those dials and knobs turned.
> 
> For example, what would a WotC adventure look like if it was designed with Gritty Healing "turned on?"



I wasn’t trying to imply that WotC will do that, but who knows!


----------



## Parmandur

doctorhook said:


> Ah I’m afraid they’ll just be “new” (ie: to D&D) Magic the Gathering settings instead. So far those have been pretty great! But they’re somewhat smaller than a typical D&D setting



They've confirmed that these are not Magic Settings.


----------



## DEFCON 1

If anyone thinks they are going to be bored with 5E by the time 2024 comes around... do yourself a favor and find other RPGs _right now_ to try out and play.

You will be amazed at the type of "palate cleansers" are out there that you and your friends can enjoy the heck out of... and then when the time is right you can jump right back in to 5E with a new campaign later.

This is especially true with all those players who are continually p.o.d at WotC for not expanding the breadth of the game mechanics they use.  If you want to experience different mechanics... try a different game!  There are plenty that will liven up your dice rolling and change the look and feel of your roleplaying experience.  Much better doing that than begrudgingly playing 5E continually as it is and banging your head against the desk over and over and over again.


----------



## Weiley31

While I get 2024 is the 50th Anniversary of DND as a whole, it does kinda suck to have to wait till that long to see what these new revised Core set does. I'm kinda interested to see what they do or if they make all the PHB races into Lineages.


----------



## Sacrosanct

2024 isn't too far from now.  Iron Man came out 13 years ago.  2024 is in three years.  It's been 3 years since Venom came out.  COVID has been here almost 2 years already.  3 years from now will be here before you know it.


----------



## Scribe

Sacrosanct said:


> 2024 isn't too far from now.  Iron Man came out 13 years ago.  2024 is in three years.  It's been 3 years since Venom came out.  COVID has been here almost 2 years already.  3 years from now will be here before you know it.



I feel personally attacked, and old.


----------



## Parmandur

Sacrosanct said:


> 2024 isn't too far from now.  Iron Man came out 13 years ago.  2024 is in three years.  It's been 3 years since Venom came out.  COVID has been here almost 2 years already.  3 years from now will be here before you know it.



It's longer than the Next aytest period.


----------



## dave2008

wow, I'm offline for a day or two and the world explodes


----------



## clearstream

dave2008 said:


> wow, I'm offline for a day or two and the world explodes



So you're the only one here without an alibi?


----------



## Squirrel Nutkin

I hope the new core rulebooks place a greater emphasis on squirrels.


----------



## Charlaquin

clearstream said:


> What did you think of the experiment in TCoE Soul Knife? Where all psionic dice are tied to prof/long rest, but one psionic die can be regained with an ability that itself recharges on a _short _or long rest?



Basically Arcane Recovery. It’s cool, I like that it uses both rest types. Still hope they don’t get rid of true short rest recovery though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Li Shenron said:


> Probably that kind of update will be completely fine.
> 
> But I don't think they'll stop there. I expect them to fall again for the "we need more substantial changes to let everyone buy the books again". If they start boosting a couple of classes, they will want to boost them all even slightly, and that's when compatibility becomes a shaky concept. Their meaning of back-compatible is "your new books will let you play the same game as before" but not "your old books will still be usable/worth".



Depends... The way 5e books are structured, you really don't lose a lot. They have a lot of fluff and the adventures don't lose anything, if classes are restructured to be long rest based, if races get improved or if suprise now works differently. 
Actually they updated background things in xanathar (tools, downtime) and tasha (optional class features) and no single adventure was somehow killed. 

I also used 3.0 material for quite a while after 3.5 came out. Some vombinations became a bit unbalanced, but overall, no problem.


----------



## qstor

"Two all-new settings. Completely new."

I wonder if one is GI Joe?


----------



## Omand

qstor said:


> "Two all-new settings. Completely new."
> 
> I wonder if one is GI Joe?



It will not be.  That is already in the works as a licence from Hasbro to another company.

Was reported on the boards a while back, but I can't find the reference.

Cheers


----------



## Parmandur

qstor said:


> "Two all-new settings. Completely new."
> 
> I wonder if one is GI Joe?



Probably not, but WotC is making a G. I. Joe video game now, in their rile as the digital side of Hasbro.


----------



## darjr

qstor said:


> "Two all-new settings. Completely new."
> 
> I wonder if one is GI Joe?



If it is than that crazy wonderful diamond who posts here is a genius.

note I think he is anyways.


----------



## Warpiglet-7

I like the strategy in general.

much like 3.5, I am going to skip the core books.

however, I will still be buying adventures and such (especially yawning portal-like collections) as well as minis.

had this not been compatible changes, they would not get the $ from me.

it’s almost like they know what they’re doing my quibbles with some of their choices aside…


----------



## Umbran

Sacrosanct said:


> 2024 is in three years.




Or, two-and-a-quarter, depending how you want to read the calendar.


----------



## skotothalamos

in the article:


> Spellcasting trait is gone. Spellcasting action, slimmed down. Spellcasting monsters need less prep.
> 
> Spell slots are gone for NPCs. Regular actions that would have once been spells.




Glad to see they are still mining the corpse of 4E for "new" ideas.


----------



## Zeromaru X

Aldarc said:


> One issue is that we never got the Nentir Vale Setting Book that was apparently in the works. So the lore for Nentir Vale, the Dawn War, and Nerath are all over the place. But IMHO, the Nentir Vale was D&D's high myth, points-of-light setting that was great for DIY DMs to use without too much worry about lore or history. I don't expect Nentir Vale in 5e. If so, I would want Rich Baker, James Wyatt, and Chris Perkins for the writing team. IMHO, these are the people on staff that probably get the setting best, though I would be curious about @Zeromaru X's dream team for the writing staff.




I'll add Bill Slaviseck. These four were the original creators of the Nentir Vale and I believe that even if they use the current concepts of D&D, their ideas will be faithful to the original "feel" of the Nentir Vale/PoL setting.


----------



## Helpful NPC Thom

Sacrosanct said:


> 2024 isn't too far from now.  Iron Man came out 13 years ago.  2024 is in three years.  It's been 3 years since Venom came out.  COVID has been here almost 2 years already.  3 years from now will be here before you know it.



I measure my lifespan in between media franchises.


----------



## clearstream

Charlaquin said:


> Basically Arcane Recovery. It’s cool, I like that it uses both rest types. Still hope they don’t get rid of true short rest recovery though.



There is a proficiency-bonus uses per long rest world that retains some sort of 'arcane recovery-like' partial refresh on short rest.

Maybe that is where 5.5e will land?


----------



## Haffrung

Zaukrie said:


> I got a one star review on a product for using spells as actions..... Very happy wotc is catching up to many of us. Will level up look at this and possibly change their blocks? That would be an insane account of work....



One of my disappointments with 5e when it was released was the work needed to run spellcasting enemies. Seemed like a big step back. I don’t want to have multiple books and tabs open to run a foe just because it’s a spellcaster. A stat block should give you everything you need to run an encounter at the table

In general, I think 5e’s designers made a mistake throwing out many of the presentation and usability innovations of 4e, and rejecting ease of play in favour of the traditional walls of text format. Maybe enough time has passed that WotC’s designers can abandon the reflexive hostility to 4e.


----------



## Scribe

Haffrung said:


> In general, I think 5e’s designers made a mistake throwing out many of the presentation and usability innovations of 4e, and rejecting ease of play in favour of the traditional walls of text format. Maybe enough time has passed that WotC’s designers can abandon the reflexive hostility to 4e.



I wonder how much of the resistance was due to ease of use or mechanics such as this, vs setting/'feel' soft changes.

I know where I sit on that, and making caster monsters easier to manage certainly was not as issue at the time.

I feel like a lot of '4e did this right' is perhaps looking at what wasn't for a lot of people, the primary issue anyway.


----------



## Charlaquin

clearstream said:


> There is a proficiency-bonus uses per long rest world that retains some sort of 'arcane recovery-like' partial refresh on short rest.
> 
> Maybe that is where 5.5e will land?



It’s possible. I still hope not, but it is possible.


----------



## Mercurius

teitan said:


> We already know one of the three was Ravenlost so... you can pick 2.



Well, he said 2 in 2022 and 1 more in 2023 - so three more within the next two years.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Haffrung said:


> One of my disappointments with 5e when it was released was the work needed to run spellcasting enemies. Seemed like a big step back. I don’t want to have multiple books and tabs open to run a foe just because it’s a spellcaster. A stat block should give you everything you need to run an encounter at the table
> 
> In general, I think 5e’s designers made a mistake throwing out many of the presentation and usability innovations of 4e, and rejecting ease of play in favour of the traditional walls of text format. Maybe enough time has passed that WotC’s designers can abandon the reflexive hostility to 4e.




 I very much disagree with this yes it might be easier, but at the cost thar they don't feel like spellcasters anymore and you can just switch out spells keep them fresh.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Mercurius said:


> Well, he said 2 in 2022 and 1 more in 2023 - so three more within the next two years.




 3.5 in the next 2 years, you forgot the cameo.


----------



## Parmandur

Henadic Theologian said:


> 3.5 in the next 2 years, you forgot the cameo.



I've said it elsewhere here, but I think the "cameo" is the big FR Adventure venturing into Realmapace via Spelljamming.

Foe the others, I'm thinking Planescape, Dark Sun, and Dragonlance.


----------



## Charlaquin

Henadic Theologian said:


> I very much disagree with this yes it might be easier, but at the cost thar they don't feel like spellcasters anymore and you can just switch out spells keep them fresh.



From the players’ side, there’s really no noticeable difference. Monster wiggles its fingers and mutters some gibberish and a supernatural effect happens - doesn’t matter if the monster spent an Xth level spell slot to do it, or what spells they had prepared, cause that’s all stuff you’ll never see as a player. That’s all DM-facing stuff, and as DM, I don’t really care if it “feels like a spellcaster” to me. That’d be like Oz making sure the buttons and levers behind the curtain “looked magical.”


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Parmandur said:


> I've said it elsewhere here, but I think the "cameo" is the big FR Adventure venturing into Realmapace via Spelljamming.
> 
> Foe the others, I'm thinking Planescape, Dark Sun, and Dragonlance.




 I agree except with Darksun, I still think you won't see Darksun until they take at least one more stab at a Psion class. 

 I do think the 2023 book is the revisit (of a classic setting) because no mention was made of the revisit, but the timeline matches up with when the revisit would be released. So if the two new settings don't get thrown out, we could have the classic revisit setting and 2 new settings in 2023.


----------



## Charlaquin

Henadic Theologian said:


> I agree except with Darksun, I still think you won't see Darksun until they take at least one more stab at a Psion class.



I disagree. We’ve got psionic options in printed books now, which means like it or not, we’ve got what 5e psionics looks like nailed down. I don’t think there’s going to be a dedicated psion class, just various psychic-themed subclasses.


----------



## teitan

Revisit is totally Greyhawk. The only other option is an Ebberon adventure.


----------



## Bolares

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think there’s going to be a dedicated psion class, just various psychic-themed subclasses.



Didn't they said exactly this somewhere? (maybe an UA or something)


----------



## bedir than

Henadic Theologian said:


> I agree except with Darksun, I still think you won't see Darksun until they take at least one more stab at a Psion class.



There's literally two years where we might see a UA for a 2023 Dark Sun


----------



## Bolares

teitan said:


> The only other option is an Ebberon adventure.



Don't give me hope please....


----------



## Scribe

Bolares said:


> Didn't they said exactly this somewhere? (maybe an UA or something)



I think so.


----------



## Marandahir

It’s totally 5.5e or 5Essentials.

things like Tasha’s fix to lineages and the Ranger need to be in the 5.5e PHB, as do fixes for say Way of the Four Elements. No way to fix that via errata.

Perkins has been saying forever how the DMG doesn’t go far enough in providing support for DMs with various dials. Some of these made it into Xanathar’s or Tasha’s or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but in general these DMs Toolbox chapters should be in the DMG itself.

Monster Manual needs to say suggested alignment like more recent books so as not to claim that Drow or Orcs are always evil etc.

It would be nice if some of the classes had more or different subclasses as core depending on which ones are really popular.

Fighter might make sense to eliminate Champion and Battle Master as separate archetypes and have a single baseline Fighter and layer manuevers on as an advanced dial for all fighters, like WotC have said they wanted to do for a while and like they half implemented with the feat and fighting style options.


----------



## Bolares

Marandahir said:


> Monster Manual needs to say suggested alignment like more recent books so as not to claim that Drow or Orcs are always evil etc.



Monster Manual also sorelly needs more interesting stat blocks. It's 90% slam, bite, claw...


----------



## Charlaquin

Bolares said:


> Didn't they said exactly this somewhere? (maybe an UA or something)



I don’t think so. I mean, they said they weren’t pursuing the Mystic any more in one of the Psionics UAs. I think maybe the one with the psi die? But that doesn’t _necessarily_ mean no dedicated psionic class, just that if they did make one it would be a new design, totally divorced from the Mystic.

I still don’t think they’re going to make a dedicated psionic class any time soon if at all, but I don’t think that statement can be taken as confirmation there won’t be one.


----------



## Charlaquin

Marandahir said:


> It’s totally 5.5e or 5Essentials.
> 
> things like Tasha’s fix to lineages and the Ranger need to be in the 5.5e PHB, as do fixes for say Way of the Four Elements. No way to fix that via errata.
> 
> Perkins has been saying forever how the DMG doesn’t go far enough in providing support for DMs with various dials. Some of these made it into Xanathar’s or Tasha’s or Ghosts of Saltmarsh, but in general these DMs Toolbox chapters should be in the DMG itself.
> 
> Monster Manual needs to say suggested alignment like more recent books so as not to claim that Drow or Orcs are always evil etc.
> 
> It would be nice if some of the classes had more or different subclasses as core depending on which ones are really popular.
> 
> Fighter might make sense to eliminate Champion and Battle Master as separate archetypes and have a single baseline Fighter and layer manuevers on as an advanced dial for all fighters, like WotC have said they wanted to do for a while and like they half implemented with the feat and fighting style options.



Maybe we’ll finally get the 5e they wanted to make originally, before playtesters told them to remove or hide everything that smelled vaguely of 4e.


----------



## Mercurius

Henadic Theologian said:


> 3.5 in the next 2 years, you forgot the cameo.



No, I just think "cameo" means it will appear in another product. I'm just talking about full treatments.

As I said upthread, my guess for the cameo is Spelljammer, either in FR-based story arc (the PCs find and fly a spelljammer) and/or as part of Planescape.


----------



## rgoodbb

There seem to be hints for other settings but none for Athas. That in itself by the way WOTC historically conduct their information releases actually gives me hope for Dark Sun. 

A forlorn hope, but still hope.


----------



## Bolares

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think so. I mean, they said they weren’t pursuing the Mystic any more in one of the Psionics UAs. I think maybe the one with the psi die? But that doesn’t _necessarily_ mean no dedicated psionic class, just that if they did make one it would be a new design, totally divorced from the Mystic.
> 
> I still don’t think they’re going to make a dedicated psionic class any time soon if at all, but I don’t think that statement can be taken as confirmation there won’t be one.



I found what they said exactly:



			https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/UA2020_PsionicOptions.pdf
		


"The philosophy of this approach is most akin to the one taken in the 1st edition of D&D, where psionic powers weren’t the domain of any particular class but were available for characters of different types to experience. We’ve crafted the new options in this article to work seamlessly with the D&D you’re already playing. And hearing your desire for psionic options to feel like one another in some way, we’ve woven a common thread through the psionic subclasses and feats: the Psionic Talent die. We invite you to try out these new options the same way you try out any other subclass, spell, or feat. And as always, we look forward to hearing what you think!"

This to me says they are not interested in making a full psionic class (or at least weren't last year)...


----------



## Demetrios1453

teitan said:


> Revisit is totally Greyhawk. The only other option is an Ebberon adventure.



Or a full-fledged FR campaign guide.


----------



## bedir than

Marandahir said:


> Fighter might make sense to eliminate Champion



This is very much a message board optimizer opinion that ignores that the Champion is the most played subclass in the game


----------



## Zaukrie

Bolares said:


> Monster Manual also sorelly needs more interesting stat blocks. It's 90% slam, bite, claw...



And the only thing that high level ones have is a lot of hit points. The monster design is awful, at least for me. 3rd party books are much better, but then, they have more design freedom.


----------



## overgeeked

bedir than said:


> This is very much a message board optimizer opinion that ignores that the Champion is the most played subclass in the game



Don't make the mistake of thinking what's the most created character on D&D Beyond is the same as what's the most played subclass in the game. The champion is the free option. Cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard are the free options. Fighter is the most basic of the four...and champion is the only subclass option for fighters. So of course more people make them. That has zero correlation to what people actually use at the table.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

At the 33:50 mark we learn that in October there will be announcement of a book that will take us to a new place we've never been to before, a scary, terrifying setting. What setting could this be other then Innistrad? I mean with Ravenloft already released what classic D&D setting could be described as new, scary, and terrifying? Planescape maybe, it does have the lower planes? The way they described it makes it sound horror themed.

 The timing, with might be at the same time as Innistrad double feature, could be a hint too.

 Guesses?


----------



## bedir than

overgeeked said:


> Don't make the mistake of thinking what's the most created character on D&D Beyond is the same as what's the most played subclass in the game. The champion is the free option. Cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard are the free options. Fighter is the most basic of the four...and champion is the only subclass option for fighters. So of course more people make them. That has zero correlation to what people actually use at the table.



This is only true if you believe DnDBeyond is lying about correcting for usage and for paid options.


----------



## Maxperson

Lidgar said:


> Boo in front of one of these?
> 
> View attachment 144423



Psh!


----------



## Warpiglet-7

bedir than said:


> This is very much a message board optimizer opinion that ignores that the Champion is the most played subclass in the game



I am about to play artificer and really like warlocks.

I like a very “clean” option and may even give a champion a go.

I would need a compelling personality and goal but I very well may try champion one day.


----------



## Marandahir

bedir than said:


> This is very much a message board optimizer opinion that ignores that the Champion is the most played subclass in the game



I’m not arguing that the Champion disappear. I’m arguing that the flavour that distinguishes the Champion from other subclasses of Fighter be established as clear. As it stands Champion and Battle Master serve as two alternative baseline versions of the Fighter with no narrative hooks as opposed to the other Fighter subclasses that all have a story reason of “Fighter, but different in x way.”

If anything, I’m arguing that the Battle Master doesn’t justify its own existence. Maneuvers, yes. But not the Battle Master. 

Personally, I’d just make it an option for all Fighters to get Maneuvers OR to get some Champion-style damage/accuracy bump. So you can still have a single baseline fighter but maneuvers can be a dial layer for all fighters if they want that complexity.

And I’d scrap the culturally insensitive Samurai subclass from Xanathar’s and merge some of its features into a new Battle Master subclass that focuses on being a knightly warrior-poet sort of fighter. Without Maneuvers as the main subclass mechanic, this Battle Master could freely steal the stuff from Samurai and represent courtly blademasters, swordsaints, war masters, strategists, etc from many cultures.


----------



## Bitbrain

Henadic Theologian said:


> At the 33:50 mark we learn that in October there will be announcement of a book that will take us to a new place we've never been to before, a scary, terrifying setting. What setting could this be other then Innistrad? I mean with Ravenloft already released what classic D&D setting could be described as new, scary, and terrifying? Planescape maybe, it does have the lower planes? The way they described it makes it sound horror themed.
> 
> The timing, with might be at the same time as Innistrad double feature, could be a hint too.
> 
> Guesses?




Setting Innistrad aside for a moment (and assuming he means new with regards to “5e hasn’t created an official product for this place yet”), there are a number of other settings that can easily be described as scary and terrifying.  Without necessarily being “horror”-themed.

Dark Sun for example was sometimes called by TSR “the most dangerous setting in all of Dungeons & Dragons”.


----------



## Bolares

I think if one fighter should dissapear it is the Battle Master... Maneuvers should be one of the main things the Fighter class does as a base.


----------



## Remathilis

Henadic Theologian said:


> At the 33:50 mark we learn that in October there will be announcement of a book that will take us to a new place we've never been to before, a scary, terrifying setting. What setting could this be other then Innistrad? I mean with Ravenloft already released what classic D&D setting could be described as new, scary, and terrifying? Planescape maybe, it does have the lower planes? The way they described it makes it sound horror themed.
> 
> The timing, with might be at the same time as Innistrad double feature, could be a hint too.
> 
> Guesses?



I don't think it's Innistrad. I'd be more inclined to think it's something planar like the Abyss or the Far Realm. Innistrad just doesn't have enough daylight (heh) separating it from Ravenloft at this point. Mostly humans, vaguely 16th-17th century, all the classic Universal Monsters accounted for, gothic tropes, and playable monsters. There is nothing Innistrad brings to the table thematically that Ravenloft doesn't.

I guess we'll see, but I think Innistrad is just too close to Ravenloft to be released a year later.


----------



## Charlaquin

Bolares said:


> I think if one fighter should dissapear it is the Battle Master... Maneuvers should be one of the main things the Fighter class does as a base.



I’d be down with that, for sure.


----------



## Marandahir

Bolares said:


> I think if one fighter should dissapear it is the Battle Master... Maneuvers should be one of the main things the Fighter class does as a base.






Charlaquin said:


> I’d be down with that, for sure.



I would too, as I said above.

I don’t think it should be something all Fighters HAVE to do - 5e playtests made it clear that at least in 2013, most Fighter players didn’t want that level of complexity and the continued popularity of the Champion means that if such complexity was baseline, a lot players would be overwhelmed by it.

Instead, I think it should be an advanced dial akin to how we can trade our ASIs for Feats. Fighters already get more ASIs than other classes; just build in that at some ASIs they can instead of taking a feat follow the Maneuver build.


----------



## Bolares

Marandahir said:


> I would too, as I said above.
> 
> I don’t think it should be something all Fighters HAVE to do - 5e playtests made it clear that at least in 2013, most Fighter players didn’t want that level of complexity and the continued popularity of the Champion means that if such complexity was baseline, a lot players would be overwhelmed by it.
> 
> Instead, I think it should be an advanced dial akin to how we can trade our ASIs for Feats. Fighters already get more ASIs than other classes; just build in that at some ASIs they can instead of taking a feat follow the Maneuver build.



I think they would be fine as a base in a revised, backwards compatible PHB. If you like the complexity, use the revised, if you don't, use the 2015 chassi.


----------



## grimslade

I know that my desire for a new psionics subsystem is a pipe dream with the conservative design the WotC currently pursues. I still do not see many of the other components necessary for Dark Sun to be one of the settings except maybe the 2023 one. You still need defiling/preserving playtested, psionic talents/feats, a slew of different monster types, and character races. Add in a hint of other psionic subclasses, particularly a full caster version and Dark Sun is not imminent.


----------



## Marandahir

Bolares said:


> I think they would be fine as a base in a revised, backwards compatible PHB. If you like the complexity, use the revised, if you don't, use the 2015 chassi.




I don’t think that works because they will be discontinuing the 2014 core rules with this as a replacement. Maybe if they included original VS revised versions of the classes in the book making that clear, but it would probably only make things more confusing for new players who picked up the book and wanted the simple version of the Fighter.

I guess this really speaks to the niche that Level Up exists it - it can a more complex iteration on 5e without having to cater to desires for simple streamlined versions of the classes as well. It can live alongside it. But WotC won’t say go look at the Level Up rulebook to find the Advanced Fighter, so they need to cater to both audiences in the same core PHB.


----------



## Maxperson

J.Quondam said:


> Or...
> *D&D Five-O*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: theme song



Initiative Danno.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Bitbrain said:


> Setting Innistrad aside for a moment (and assuming he means new with regards to “5e hasn’t created an official product for this place yet”), there are a number of other settings that can easily be described as scary and terrifying.  Without necessarily being “horror”-themed.
> 
> Dark Sun for example was sometimes called by TSR “the most dangerous setting in all of Dungeons & Dragons”.




 I actually considered Darksun for the reasons you mentioned as well as its post acopocyltic themes, but I'm skeptical they'd go there without having a Psion Class at least. But if the reason they are announcing it next month is because they are beginning playtests on Darksun races and a new Psion Class, then that fits together perfectly the same way they announced Cirriculum of Chaos before Fizban's because of a playtest. Okay you've convinced me it's mostly Darksun with UA well done detective.


----------



## Li Shenron

UngeheuerLich said:


> Depends... The way 5e books are structured, you really don't lose a lot. They have a lot of fluff and the adventures don't lose anything, if classes are restructured to be long rest based, if races get improved or if suprise now works differently.
> Actually they updated background things in xanathar (tools, downtime) and tasha (optional class features) and no single adventure was somehow killed.
> 
> I also used 3.0 material for quite a while after 3.5 came out. Some vombinations became a bit unbalanced, but overall, no problem.



Fluff and adventures are not exactly a good argument to claim compatibility... I have been running 1e, 2e and 3e adventures almost on the fly in 5e games, why would I expect 5e adventures NOT to stay compatible with 5.5? And fluff by definition is rules agnostic (except implied fluff like every character of class/race X having ability Y).


----------



## Bitbrain

Henadic Theologian said:


> I actually considered Darksun for the reasons you mentioned as well as its post acopocyltic themes, but I'm skeptical they'd go there without having a Psion Class at least. But if the reason they are announcing it next month is because they are beginning playtests on Darksun races and a new Psion Class, then that fits together perfectly the same way they announced Cirriculum of Chaos before Fizban's because of a playtest. Okay you've convinced me it's mostly Darksun with UA well done detective.




I just really want Dark Sun.  I also remembered that while they used Horror as a genre term to describe Van Richten’s, in an old Lore You Should Know video, Chris Perkins described the Mournland as “a place that can be very scary”.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Bitbrain said:


> I just really want Dark Sun.  I also remembered that while they used Horror as a genre term to describe Van Richten’s, in an old Lore You Should Know video, Chris Perkins described the Mournland as “a place that can be very scary”.




 And the Mournland shares some dark themes with Darksun. Darksun is also likely one of the settings that would require playtesting and its a Tier 1 Setting. I still think Planescape will also be next year, also a Tier 1 Setting, with Spelljammer getting a Camoe.

  If I'm right about 2023 Classic setting being the FR revisit, then that is every single Tier 1 Setting with a proper campaign Setting Guide, Eberron, Ravenloft, Darksun, Planescape, and Forgotten Realms. They can then move onto Tier two settings in earnest, along with new settings.


----------



## Amrûnril

My preference would actually be for keeping both the Champion and the Battlemaster. One provides a simple fighter experience, while the other gives the player tools to build a broad range of more complex fighters. And both are relatively flexible in their flavor. This strikes me as a good approach to making sure the most important bases are covered, before branching out to more unique, narrowly tailored options in extended rule books.

I do think the balance of the Champion needs to be adjusted, though. Critting on a 19 does nothing for 95% of attack rolls, and seems pretty clearly inferior, power-wise*, to any other fighter subclass's level 3 bonus.

*outside the context of multiclasses designed around crit mechanics, which aren't relevant to a player looking far a simple fighter


----------



## Bolares

Bitbrain said:


> Chris Perkins described the Mournland as “a place that can be very scary”.






Henadic Theologian said:


> And the Mournland shares some dark themes with Darksun.



NEW EBERRON BOOK TAKING PLACE IN THE MOURNLAND CONFFIRMED!


----------



## Bolares

Amrûnril said:


> I do think the balance of the Champion needs to be adjusted, though. Critting on a 19 does nothing for 95% of attack rolls, and seems pretty clearly inferior, power-wise*, to any other fighter subclass's level 3 bonus.



Even moreso after the hexblade also got 19 crit (in a limited fashion, but still). That was the main thing about the champion...


----------



## Parmandur

Bolares said:


> I think they would be fine as a base in a revised, backwards compatible PHB. If you like the complexity, use the revised, if you don't, use the 2015 chassi.



If anything, I would expect the 2024 edition to dial down on complexity.


----------



## Bolares

Parmandur said:


> If anything, I would expect the 2024 edition to dial down on complexity.



Oh, I bet it will. I was just saying what I'd want to happen if they messed with the champion/battlemaster stuff. I'd never expect what I wrote to happen.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Li Shenron said:


> Fluff and adventures are not exactly a good argument to claim compatibility... I have been running 1e, 2e and 3e adventures almost on the fly in 5e games, why would I expect 5e adventures NOT to stay compatible with 5.5? And fluff by definition is rules agnostic (except implied fluff like every character of class/race X having ability Y).



Yes, and since so much in 5e is fluff and not hard coded mechanics in so many books, we are good. 

Of course, probably subclasses will need some rearranging, if they unify it. 
I hope multiclassing mainly stays as is as an option. But I fully expect multiclassing via feats or subclass choice as a secondary option.


----------



## Zaukrie

Parmandur said:


> If anything, I would expect the 2024 edition to dial down on complexity.



I hope not.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

Innistrad could be very possible. It is not a demiplane but a complete world, with enough space to can bring in lots of monsters and even factions and societies of supernatural creatures (vampire clans, werebeast tribes, spellcasters guilds, fae courts..). 

Intercompany crossovers aren't easy to deal but I almost wouldn't be too surprised if Hasbro and Capcom talked about a new videogame set in Mystara, the world of the arcades "Tower of Doom" and its sequel "Shadow over Mystara". Mystara has got two potentially interesting spin-off, Hollow World, with prehistoric beasts and ancient cultures with a little touch of Hyrborea Age, and Red Steel/Savage Coast, pirates + mutants. 

I am too used to the racial abilities bonus. I guess the system in Pathfinder 2 was right, you can choose between +2A, +2B or +2A+2B-2C.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Squirrel Nutkin said:


> I hope the new core rulebooks place a greater emphasis on squirrels.



You a Swarmkeeper Ranger?


----------



## Bolares

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Innistrad could be very possible.



Except they made it clear it is not and MTG setting. But in the future, I agree there is a possibility, and there is a space for an Innistrad book.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bolares said:


> I'm curious about what is unplayable about them (sorry if you go in to detail latter in the thread, haven't gotten there yet. I have an air genasi player at my table, and after I changed the Scores to match tasha's the race functioned fine.



I'm not going to go too in depth, but my main gripes (mechanically) with the race are:

Their innate spellcasting is weaker than almost every other spellcasting race's innate spellcasting (most of the subraces only get 1 spell once per long rest, while Water and Fire Genasi get that and a cantrip, which is just straight up worse than Drow, Hexblood, Fairy, and Triton spellcasting).
Water Genasi are supposed to be an aquatic race, but they can't breathe underwater (strangely, Air Genasi sort of have the ability to do this). Edit: It has come to my attention that I somehow completely missed the "Amphibious" feature. Ignore this completely. 
They just straight up get less racial features than other races (compare them to an Elf or Dwarf, and you'll see it), and a lot of them that they do get are just awful, in that they're so situational that you're almost never going to be able to make use of them (like the Earth Genasi's Earth Walk and the Air Genasi's Unending Breath).
Like I said above, the Fire Genasi is the most playable Genasi subrace. I personally would have them become Lineages, so a Dwarf, Orc, or any other non-human race could become a Genasi, but I also would like for their lore to match their racial mechanics. Nothing about the race's features connects them to their Genie parent, they're just elemental in nature. (Genies get Darkvision, Flight, and other features that the Genasi don't get, while Genasi get abilities and spells that none of the Genies get.)


----------



## Bolares

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I'm not going to go too in depth, but my main gripes (mechanically) with the race are:
> 
> Their innate spellcasting is weaker than almost every other spellcasting race's innate spellcasting (most of them only get 1 spell once per long rest, while Water and Fire Genasi get that and a cantrip, which is just straight up worse than Drow, Hexblood, Fairy, and Triton spellcasting).
> Water Genasi are supposed to be an aquatic race, but they can't breathe underwater (strangely, Air Genasi sort of have the ability to do this).
> They just straight up get less racial features than other races (compare them to an Elf or Dwarf, and you'll see it), and a lot of them that they do get are just awful, in that they're so situational that you're almost never going to be able to make use of them (like the Earth Genasi's Earth Walk and the Air Genasi's Unending Breath).
> Like I said above, the Fire Genasi is the most playable Genasi subrace. I personally would have them become Lineages, so a Dwarf, Orc, or any other non-human race could become a Genasi, but I also would like for their lore to match their racial mechanics. Nothing about the race's features connects them to their Genie parent, they're just elemental in nature. (Genies get Darkvision, Flight, and other features that the Genasi don't get, while Genasi get abilities and spells that none of the Genies get.)



Okay, got you. Your points make sense to me, it's just that.... unplayable is a strong word. All that makes them subpar IMO, but unplayable is kind of a stretch. Maybe my table is an outlier on this, but my player is pretty happy with his air genasi stomr sorc, and never did the character feel like it was behind because of the racial choice. (of course, me letting him change his racial stats even before tasha's helped a lot)


----------



## Henadic Theologian

bedir than said:


> There's literally two years where we might see a UA for a 2023 Dark Sun




 Actually we're thinking for the October announced Setting for 2022.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bolares said:


> Okay, got you. Your points make sense to me, it's just that.... unplayable is a strong word. All that makes them subpar IMO, but unplayable is kind of a stretch. Maybe my table is an outlier on this, but my player is pretty happy with his _*air genasi stomr sorc*_,



Oh, my poor eyes! They burn! How could you do that to me!?!? Sure, they thematically fit when combined, but oh, that is just sooo awful of a combo! The second worst Genasi subrace combined with the second worst Sorcerer subclass.

_Clears throat_
Okay. I think I've recovered from the melodramatic optimization attack. That character sounds cool, and it's great if he's having fun, but I could never play that in the current written forms of both the Storm Sorcerer and the Air Genasi. It would just be unfun for me. Storm Sorcerers are a bit infamous amongst powergamers/optimizers (such as myself) for being one of the worst sorcerer subclasses (barely better than Wild Magic Sorcerers), and mechanically, the Air Genasi is just slightly better than the Earth Genasi and overall worse than almost every other race/subrace in the game.

Good for your player for having fun with at. I just could never play it, and would like WotC to rebalance those options.


Bolares said:


> and never did the character feel like it was behind because of the racial choice. (of course, me letting him change his racial stats even before tasha's helped a lot)



I'm glad that you at least let him do that. Good on you. I still would never play it, even with using TCoE, though.


----------



## Parmandur

Zaukrie said:


> I hope not.



Why would they move the opposite direction of their market...?


----------



## Zaukrie

Parmandur said:


> Why would they move the opposite direction of their market...?



The game is simple enough for me. I don't want simpler. Not sure what the market has to do with what I want.....


----------



## Parmandur

Zaukrie said:


> The game is simple enough for me. I don't want simpler. Not sure what the market has to do with what I want.....



I'm talking what they will likely do.


----------



## Bolares

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Oh, my poor eyes! They burn! How could you do that to me!?!? Sure, they thematically fit when combined, but oh, that is just sooo awful of a combo! The second worst Genasi subrace combined with the second worst Sorcerer subclass.
> 
> _Clears throat_
> Okay. I think I've recovered from the melodramatic optimization attack. That character sounds cool, and it's great if he's having fun, but I could never play that in the current written forms of both the Storm Sorcerer and the Air Genasi. It would just be unfun for me. Storm Sorcerers are a bit infamous amongst powergamers/optimizers (such as myself) for being one of the worst sorcerer subclasses (barely better than Wild Magic Sorcerers), and mechanically, the Air Genasi is just slightly better than the Earth Genasi and overall worse than almost every other race/subrace in the game.
> 
> Good for you player for having fun with at. I just could never play it, and would like WotC to rebalance those options.
> 
> I'm glad that you at least let him do that. Good on you. I still would never play it, even with using TCoE, though.



You badmouthed the wild magic sorcerer… we can no longer be friends!


----------



## Malmuria

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Water Genasi are supposed to be an aquatic race, but they can't breathe underwater (strangely, Air Genasi sort of have the ability to do this)



I think they can?  From the elemental evil player companion:


----------



## schneeland

Parmandur said:


> I'm talking what they will likely do.



Seems likely to me, too. IMO the defining feature of D&D5 is that it is relatively approachable for newcomers. If anything, I expect them to double down on that with the 50A edition.


----------



## Bolares

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Oh, my poor eyes! They burn! How could you do that to me!?!? Sure, they thematically fit when combined, but oh, that is just sooo awful of a combo! The second worst Genasi subrace combined with the second worst Sorcerer subclass.
> 
> _Clears throat_
> Okay. I think I've recovered from the melodramatic optimization attack. That character sounds cool, and it's great if he's having fun, but I could never play that in the current written forms of both the Storm Sorcerer and the Air Genasi. It would just be unfun for me. Storm Sorcerers are a bit infamous amongst powergamers/optimizers (such as myself) for being one of the worst sorcerer subclasses (barely better than Wild Magic Sorcerers), and mechanically, the Air Genasi is just slightly better than the Earth Genasi and overall worse than almost every other race/subrace in the game.
> 
> Good for you player for having fun with at. I just could never play it, and would like WotC to rebalance those options.
> 
> I'm glad that you at least let him do that. Good on you. I still would never play it, even with using TCoE, though.



Being more serious now… I get they are not optimized. I agree with that. But you’d have to make an effort to make a bad sorcerer. I have some optmizers in my group and I create some tough encounters, and in the two years the player is playing the character it never felt really behind everyone. And the wild magic sorc can be good to, it’s “just” really DM dependant.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Malmuria said:


> I think they can?  From the elemental evil player companion:
> 
> View attachment 144468



Ah, I'd misread that. I'll go fix my post. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## bergec

pukunui said:


> Did anyone else catch Liz Schuh’s comment about incorporating technology into their experiments with new formats?
> 
> She didn’t elaborate on it at all, but I sure hope she wasn’t talking about micro transactions or DLC or anything like that.



When I heard the "a format we've never done before", my hope was immediately some sort of wiki-like site. Setting material would really benefit from hyperlinks and tooltips. When Liz made her comment about incorporating technology, my hope was further stoked.


----------



## overgeeked

bedir than said:


> This is only true if you believe DnDBeyond is lying about correcting for usage and for paid options.



Because the sum total of all players of D&D 5E all use D&D Beyond? Again, the usage stats for D&D Beyond are not the same as what's actually played at the table.


----------



## Matt S1

D&D is going down a path my group and I just don't care for.  Way too silly and safe.  Not the end of the world because we just play it like we want and don't buy or use most of the new stuff.  If you're reading this saying "what silly stuff" then you haven't been playing D&D very long.  I have high hopes for Level Up.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bolares said:


> You badmouthed the wild magic sorcerer… we can no longer be friends!



I can understand liking them. One of my favorite characters from D&D campaign diaries on Youtube is Dingo Doodles' Sips character. In 5e, they're just not great mechanically when compared to Draconic Bloodline Sorcerers, Divine Soul Sorcerers, Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul Sorcerers. They're at the bottom of mechanical effectiveness in the game, especially because their main feature is so dependent on the DM and randomness. 


Bolares said:


> Being more serious now… I get they are not optimized. I agree with that. But you’d have to make an effort to make a bad sorcerer. I have some optmizers in my group and I create some tough encounters, and in the two years the player is playing the character it never felt really behind everyone. And the wild magic sorc can be good to, it’s “just” really DM dependant.



IMO, there's a difference between playing an _"optimized"_ character and a _"playable"_ one. I'd play a ton of non-optimized options in the game, like an Orc Wizard or High Elf Warlock. However, there are just some things I consider unplayable. Like an Air Genasi Storm Sorcerer, Kobold Undying Warlock, PHB Dragonborn Purple Dragon Knight, and so on. There's not many, but they exist. 

(I consider abilities that are really DM dependent to be "broken". That's why people always complained about the PHB ranger, because it's extremely DM and campaign dependent. If you play something that has a high chance of being underpowered at another table, that's where I draw the line of "Broken" versus "Not Broken".)


----------



## overgeeked

Matt S1 said:


> D&D is going down a path my group and I just don't care for.  Way too silly and safe.  Not the end of the world because we just play it like we want and don't buy or use most of the new stuff.  If you're reading this saying "what silly stuff" then you haven't been playing D&D very long.  I have high hopes for Level Up.



Down with silliness and frivolity!

I'm still waiting for them to match the silliness of the old days. 

"At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese Samurai fighting man."

Can you imagine? A _lawful_ werebear! The cheek.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Matt S1 said:


> D&D is going down a path my group and I just don't care for.  Way too silly and safe.  Not the end of the world because we just play it like we want and don't buy or use most of the new stuff.  If you're reading this saying "what silly stuff" then you haven't been playing D&D very long.  I have high hopes for Level Up.



I disagree that you can't say "what silly stuff" if you haven't been playing D&D for very long. I've been playing for 5 years, and I know for certain that silly stuff, like Strixhaven and The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, are certainly not new at all to the game. Spelljammer and Planescape were both things before I was even born. The Expedition to the Barrier Peaks adventure is even older than those. The Owlbear has been around since basically the start of the game. 

Weird and silly stuff is practically part of the game's core identity, just as much as High Fantasy is.


----------



## Bolares

Matt S1 said:


> D&D is going down a path my group and I just don't care for.  Way too silly and safe.  Not the end of the world because we just play it like we want and don't buy or use most of the new stuff.  If you're reading this saying "what silly stuff" then you haven't been playing D&D very long.  I have high hopes for Level Up.



The game has a FLAIL SNAIL for decades! There are space ships moved by giant hamsters in giant hamsterwheels….


----------



## Matt S1

overgeeked said:


> Down with silliness and frivolity!
> 
> I'm still waiting for them to match the silliness of the old days.
> 
> "At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese Samurai fighting man."
> 
> Can you imagine? A _lawful_ werebear! The cheek.



I was playing when that came out.  Words from a basic set that never got much, if any support.


----------



## overgeeked

Bolares said:


> The game has a FLAIL SNAIL for decades! There are space ships moved by giant hamsters in giant hamsterwheels….



I absolutely love the fail snail. And the goofy-ass spaceships powered by giant space hamsters. D&D is at its best when it doesn't take itself too seriously.


----------



## Bolares

overgeeked said:


> I absolutely love the fail snail. And the goofy-ass spaceships powered by giant space hamsters. D&D is at its best when it doesn't take itself too seriously.



I love them too. Was just pointing out that d&d now is just as silly as it ever was


----------



## Matt S1

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Weird and silly stuff is practically part of the game's core identity, just as much as High Fantasy is.



Exactly my point.  5 years isn't even pre 5E.


----------



## overgeeked

Matt S1 said:


> I was playing when that came out.  Words from a basic set that never got much, if any support.



Well, yeah. It was quashed by that stick-in-the mud Gygax and his seven paragraph screed about punishing players who want to play anything besides the provided races.


----------



## Matt S1

Hey, you guys can love and have fun with silly.  D&D sales are doing great so whatever it takes to keep D&D going works for me.  Just saying it's taken a serious turn.


----------



## Bolares

Matt S1 said:


> Just saying it's taken a serious turn.



You can like what you like. It’s ok if you don’t like silly. But our point is that we disagree d&d has changed because of two books


----------



## darjr

Zaukrie said:


> The game is simple enough for me. I don't want simpler. Not sure what the market has to do with what I want.....



Oh wow does @Morrus have a Kickstarter for you!

Seriously though, LevelUp is going to be epic.


----------



## darjr

It’s revised core books for this edition of the game.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Matt S1 said:


> Exactly my point.  5 years isn't even pre 5E.



So, since I've never played any previous editions, I can't have opinions on them or know that settings like Planescape, Spelljammer, and adventures like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks have been a core part of D&D for decades?

Sorry, but you don't get to gatekeep opinions or _knowledge _based on age or experience in the game. D&D has been silly for basically forever. The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and Strixhaven don't make it any sillier than it already was.


----------



## overgeeked

Matt S1 said:


> Hey, you guys can love and have fun with silly.  D&D sales are doing great so whatever it takes to keep D&D going works for me.  Just saying it's taken a serious turn.



So you're mad that modern D&D has silly bits...but admit that old-school D&D had silly bits. So it's more that you dislike WotC or D&D's new popularity rather than the silliness per se. Weird argument to make.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Listening to the panel again, and interestingly on the two new settings is that Perkins specifically says that the last time they made entirely new setting like this was Eberron. Meaning, in this definition Strixhaven is not really an "entirely new setting." So the new settings are not Magic the Gathering related at all, even if they are new to that (like say New Capenna).

The book being announced will "goes into a place we've never been to before" that is "wonderful, scary, players will be absolutely terrified when they go into it, setting." Not sure if Spelljammer counts for that, as its not entirely new.





And on the topic of this alt-cover... now that I've looked at it closer, that background behind Boo is _definitely _an eye (probably surrounded by more eyes). It's got veins, and a little reflection much like how eyes are typically drawn. Another thing is how Boo is mentioned so prominently, and that he is a miniature-giant-space-hammer, but his owner Minsc is not mentioned at all.

Anyway, it's really hard to think this cover is anything but Spelljammer. With Boo (and the comment specifically on how he's a Spelljammer creature), and likely a Beholder or Beholder-Craft Spelljammer looming behind him, this alt-cover _SCREAMS _Spelljamming.

That said, I doubt the book announced next month will be this one. If the alt-cover is only just a sketch so recently, I'd be surprised if they announce it so soon (it would need both cover and alt-cover ready for announcing). But this book does nicely fit as the Annual Big Adventure for 2022.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

I looked it up, there's 96 monsters in Volo's Guide and 140 monsters in Mordenkainen's Tome. If this new book combines those 2 together it'll reach the number of more than 250.


----------



## Morrus

Urriak Uruk said:


> If the alt-cover is only just a sketch so recently, I'd be surprised if they announce it so soon (it would need both cover and alt-cover ready for announcing).



They only showed us a sketch. That doesn't mean that they only _have_ a sketch.


----------



## darjr

Boo finally got those eyes.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Kobold Avenger said:


> I looked it up, there's 96 monsters in Volo's Guide and 140 monsters in Mordenkainen's Tome. If this new book combines those 2 together it'll reach the number of more than 250.



With a few stat blocks from other scattered books, presumably.


----------



## Demetrios1453

By the way, if anyone thinks recent products are "too silly and safe", be aware that _Wild Beyond the Witch Light_ features _child slave labor_.


----------



## Scribe

Matt S1 said:


> Hey, you guys can love and have fun with silly. D&D sales are doing great so whatever it takes to keep D&D going works for me. Just saying it's taken a serious turn.




I mean, it depends on what one focuses on I think.

Core books? Straight up Fantasy.
Most of the Adventures? Fantasy.
XGtE, MToF? Perfectly fine.
Guide to Ravenloft? Again, read some of it, it's adult horror.

Feywild? It's how you pitch it. Yes, it could be cute, or it could be fairy tales of kids getting cooked into a snack.

Now, I did my time at school, I'm not interested in doing that again, but someone IN school, may love it, and 'its not harry potter'people can claim all they want, but give 100 people a 25 word description on this setting, and they will say 'oh, Harry Potter.'

Wizards can be so lucky to have such an easy, modern, trope to ride.

That said, outside of my own stubborn lines in the sand, the only books I skip automatically, are because they are MTG.

The rest is serviceable if not for me being stubborn.



Urriak Uruk said:


> The book being announced will "goes into a place we've never been to before" that is "wonderful, scary, players will be absolutely terrified when they go into it, setting." Not sure if Spelljammer counts for that, as its not entirely new.



I really wonder if Far Realm will appeal, or if I'm off on my guess.


----------



## Azzy

Demetrios1453 said:


> With a few stat blocks from other scattered books, presumably.



Hopefully.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Morrus said:


> They only showed us a sketch. That doesn't mean that they only _have_ a sketch.




Perkins said they got the sketch just a couple days before the panel. Hydro74 is talented, but can he get a final cover art done in two days?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I'm not going to go too in depth, but my main gripes (mechanically) with the race are:
> 
> Their innate spellcasting is weaker than almost every other spellcasting race's innate spellcasting (most of the subraces only get 1 spell once per long rest, while Water and Fire Genasi get that and a cantrip, which is just straight up worse than Drow, Hexblood, Fairy, and Triton spellcasting).
> Water Genasi are supposed to be an aquatic race, but they can't breathe underwater (strangely, Air Genasi sort of have the ability to do this). Edit: It has come to my attention that I somehow completely missed the "Amphibious" feature. Ignore this completely.
> They just straight up get less racial features than other races (compare them to an Elf or Dwarf, and you'll see it), and a lot of them that they do get are just awful, in that they're so situational that you're almost never going to be able to make use of them (like the Earth Genasi's Earth Walk and the Air Genasi's Unending Breath).
> Like I said above, the Fire Genasi is the most playable Genasi subrace. I personally would have them become Lineages, so a Dwarf, Orc, or any other non-human race could become a Genasi, but I also would like for their lore to match their racial mechanics. Nothing about the race's features connects them to their Genie parent, they're just elemental in nature. (Genies get Darkvision, Flight, and other features that the Genasi don't get, while Genasi get abilities and spells that none of the Genies get.)




 Not all Genasi are related to Genies, the Genasi of Abeir  are related to Primordials and their servants I believe.

 Otherwise I agree with this, although I'll not Water and Fire Genasi get piles of useful abilities, Air and Earth one use of one good spell, and a ribbon ability so even within the race, there is imbalance. They are still better then the poor Kenku however.

 It's because they created them based on the 2e Genasi which had cool flavour, but awful designs. 

 3e/3.5e and 4e had far, far better designed Genasi that were well balanced with each other and had more Genasi variety (for example Thunder and Void Genasi).

 So I hope they fix them and the Kenku, everything else is just tweaks.

 Genasi are very important to the Forgotten Realms and Planescape, and moderate presence in  Eberron and Nerath, and could fit into a few more settings like Ravenloft, so are very important race to get right. They should even be in the Core 3 in 2024 along with Goblins, Orcs, Aasimar IMHO.


----------



## EllisEthel

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You know the Lego Movie was massively popular and profitable, right?



Touche Turtle away! Yep...you got me beat with that.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Scribe said:


> Now, I did my time at school, I'm not interested in doing that again, but someone IN school, may love it, and 'its not harry potter'people can claim all they want, but give 100 people a 25 word description on this setting, and they will say 'oh, Harry Potter.'



I know that I could easily turn a school adventure into a horror story. 

"You show up late to class, and you forgot to do your Math homework! Oh, the humanity!!!"


----------



## Zaukrie

darjr said:


> Oh wow does @Morrus have a Kickstarter for you!
> 
> Seriously though, LevelUp is going to be epic.



I'm in on day 1. 100%.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You know the Lego Movie was massively popular and profitable, right?




 Profit and popularity are not indicators of quality.


----------



## TheSword

Interesting article, only just seen it.

Great news to see we won’t be seeing a 6th edition in 2024 just revised rule books. That makes me very happy and can hopefully put pay to that speculation.

Slightly concerned that they’re releasing the new settings in a forum never seen before… so not through setting book, campaign book, or adventure path. That’s a bit scary!


----------



## Scribe

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I know that I could easily turn a school adventure into a horror story.
> 
> "You show up late to class, and you forgot to do your Math homework! Oh, the humanity!!!"



I kid you not, I'm 20+ years removed from Highschool, but if I am REALLY stressed over something, if I have I nightmare I'm in those same halls, trying to find my class.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Not all Genasi are related to Genies, the Genasi of Abeir  are related to Primordials and their servants I believe.



Well, they're explicitly stated in the 5e description of Genasi to be descendants of genies so . . .   
I know that previous editions and different settings have different origins for Genasi (I noted Exandria awhile back in this thread), I was more just complaining about how the base lore of 5e doesn't match the mechanics. 

(I'd also be perfectly fine with Genasi that are descended from Genies being different from Genasi that are just Elemental Planetouched.
Something similar to the SCAG's Feral Tiefling Variants could work to differentiate Genie-Genasi from nonGenie-Genasi.)


Henadic Theologian said:


> Otherwise I agree with this, although I'll not Water and Fire Genasi get piles of useful abilities, Air and Earth one use of one good spell, and a ribbon ability so even within the race, there is imbalance. They are still better then the poor Kenku however.



Yeah, Kenku are pretty bad. They're also extremely annoying. I'd personally prefer if they weren't a race at all, or if they have to be a race, have them be Kenku that still have their voices and wings.


Henadic Theologian said:


> They should even be in the Core 3 in 2024 along with Goblins, Orcs, Aasimar IMHO.



I'd be extremely happy if a future PHB has Genasi, Aasimar, Orcs, Goblins, and other races in it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Henadic Theologian said:


> Profit and popularity are not indicators of quality.



Not always, but for a movie or a game? It often is.


----------



## Maxperson

Bolares said:


> You badmouthed the wild magic sorcerer… we can no longer be friends!



I dunno.  That post of his was a wild surge if I ever saw one.


----------



## Scribe

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Not always, but for a movie or a game? It often is.



Nah. It simply means it's popular. Quality is far more difficult to quantify objectively.


----------



## Azzy

Henadic Theologian said:


> Profit and popularity are not indicators of quality.



No, but in the case of The LEGO Movie, critics and audiences agreed that it was pretty darm good.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Scribe said:


> Nah. It simply means it's popular. Quality is far more difficult to quantify objectively.



That's why I said "not always" and "often". Popular things that you often pay for often have to be of good quality. There are definitely breakers to this overgeneralization, but it certainly applies to the Lego Movie and D&D 5e.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Azzy said:


> No, but in the case of The LEGO Movie, critics and audiences agreed that it was pretty darm good.




 proving both can be wrong (I mean a movie with characters made from Legos, it's an auto fail).


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Henadic Theologian said:


> proving both can be wrong (I mean a movie with characters made from Legos, it's an auto fail).




Lego Movie: Makes ton of money, critics love it, audiences love it.

Naysayer: See? Proof that everybody is wrong, and I'm right!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Lyxen said:


> And I very much doubt that you have played all the classes and the archetypes, and combination with races.



So what? 

No, seriously, so what? I'm not ever going to play a cleric, an aasimar, or dozens of other concepts represented in the books. The game is still, however, missing things that I would immediately play upon release. 

The fact I can't play enough dnd to play all of the options is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not more stuff should come out, or if the release schedule is fast enough, etc. 

For clarity, I speak as someone who would prefer they slow it back down and maybe even slow down to 3 books a year.


overgeeked said:


> Don't make the mistake of thinking what's the most created character on D&D Beyond is the same as what's the most played subclass in the game. The champion is the free option. Cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard are the free options. Fighter is the most basic of the four...and champion is the only subclass option for fighters. So of course more people make them. That has zero correlation to what people actually use at the table.



Your argument here relies on the mistaken premise that the rankings of class and subclass would change if they only looked at active characters with the PHB and/or other sources unlocked. This isn't the case. The rankings don't change _at all_, and so we can know that within the sample being examined, only having the free stuff available is not why the Champion is the most played fighter subclass.


Marandahir said:


> And I’d scrap the culturally insensitive Samurai subclass from Xanathar’s



I've never encountered this before. What about the Samurai is culturally insensitive?


AcererakTriple6 said:


> You a Swarmkeeper Ranger?



My Eberron campaign's Swarmkeeper has a swarm of flying ferrets. When he earned a boon from a primordial spirit of the woods and the transition between day and night and winter and summer, and was gifted the Stag's shed antlers, he gained the ability to turn one of his ferrets into a large flying ferret, and all his ferrets now have antlers and add his wisdom mod to damage whenever he deals damage from the swarm.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> I'm not going to go too in depth, but my main gripes (mechanically) with the race are:
> 
> Their innate spellcasting is weaker than almost every other spellcasting race's innate spellcasting (most of the subraces only get 1 spell once per long rest, while Water and Fire Genasi get that and a cantrip, which is just straight up worse than Drow, Hexblood, Fairy, and Triton spellcasting).
> Water Genasi are supposed to be an aquatic race, but they can't breathe underwater (strangely, Air Genasi sort of have the ability to do this). Edit: It has come to my attention that I somehow completely missed the "Amphibious" feature. Ignore this completely.
> They just straight up get less racial features than other races (compare them to an Elf or Dwarf, and you'll see it), and a lot of them that they do get are just awful, in that they're so situational that you're almost never going to be able to make use of them (like the Earth Genasi's Earth Walk and the Air Genasi's Unending Breath).
> Like I said above, the Fire Genasi is the most playable Genasi subrace. I personally would have them become Lineages, so a Dwarf, Orc, or any other non-human race could become a Genasi, but I also would like for their lore to match their racial mechanics. Nothing about the race's features connects them to their Genie parent, they're just elemental in nature. (Genies get Darkvision, Flight, and other features that the Genasi don't get, while Genasi get abilities and spells that none of the Genies get.)



You don't see how this idea makes them less unique than they currently are?

Why wouldn't a rewrite move the other way, and make them less tied to genies and more interesting and unique?


Bolares said:


> Okay, got you. Your points make sense to me, it's just that.... unplayable is a strong word. All that makes them subpar IMO, but unplayable is kind of a stretch. Maybe my table is an outlier on this, but my player is pretty happy with his air genasi stomr sorc, and never did the character feel like it was behind because of the racial choice. (of course, me letting him change his racial stats even before tasha's helped a lot)



Yeah the idea they're unplayable is just nonsense. Pretty much nothing in 5e hits that mark. In past editions, yeah for sure, but not really in 5e. Especially when it comes to races and some classes subclasses, sorcerer included. Most of the Sorcerer's power is in spellcasting and metamagic, and races just don't modify what a character does _that_ much. Mechanically, race isn't all that important. It primarily matters for character concept.


overgeeked said:


> Because the sum total of all players of D&D 5E all use D&D Beyond? Again, the usage stats for D&D Beyond are not the same as what's actually played at the table.



That isn't how sample size works. Sampling thousands of actively used characters with at least the PHB available is going to give fairly reliable data about what is being played.

Oh, and Wizards have said multiple times that the simple options like standard human and champion fighter are the most popular options in the game and _always have been_.


Henadic Theologian said:


> Profit and popularity are not indicators of quality.



Profit could go either way, I suppose, though it's hard to imagine something making mountains of money while being unpopular. Popularity is absolutely an indicator of quality. Maybe you're using the wrong word, in "indicators"? An indicator suggests or points to something, it doesn't prove or guarantee it. 9999 times out of 10000, when someone thinks a popular thing is garbage, they're just being a snob.


Scribe said:


> Nah. It simply means it's popular. Quality is far more difficult to quantify objectively.



Quality could reasonably be described as a "a thing that people mostly approve of". I may not like most of what's on pop radio, but I know better than to mistake preference for objective judgement of quality.


----------



## Scribe

doctorbadwolf said:


> Quality could reasonably be described as a "a thing that people mostly approve of".



I mean, I cannot see this as being a productive use of our time to go down, but in no way whatsoever is popularity a marker on quality to me.

It could be cost efficiency.
It could be brand recognition.
It COULD be quality.
It could be simply snowballing hype.

Are the transformers movies actually good? Or do they simply make money?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I fully plan to use Strixhaven to run a Murdering Evil Wizards game, so _tone_ is pretty subjective, and up to the table.


----------



## the Jester

AcererakTriple6 said:


> So, since I've never played any previous editions, I can't have opinions on them or know that settings like Planescape, Spelljammer, and adventures like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks have been a core part of D&D for decades?
> 
> Sorry, but you don't get to gatekeep opinions or _knowledge _based on age or experience in the game. D&D has been silly for basically forever. The Wild Beyond the Witchlight and Strixhaven don't make it any sillier than it already was.



"Next thing you know, there will be some sort of absurd Alice in Wonderland adaptation!"


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Scribe said:


> Are the transformers movies actually good? Or do they simply make money?




I'm not sure that _anybody_ actually _likes_ them. They just go see them anyway.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> You don't see how this idea makes them less unique than they currently are?



Nope. I don't see how letting a Dwarf, Orc, Aarakocra, Sea Elf, or any other race become/be born as a Genasi would make them any less unique than they already are. If this were to happen, you could still play a human Genasi as normal. It would just open up the race to allow for more options.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Why wouldn't a rewrite move the other way, and make them less tied to genies and more interesting and unique?



. . . Weren't you just saying that you don't want the Genasi lore to change at all? I'd even mentioned how Genasi in Exandria are just elemental-planetouched, and I thought that you expressed that you disliked that? Or am I remembering incorrectly.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Scribe said:


> I mean, I cannot see this as being a productive use of our time to go down, but in no way whatsoever is popularity a marker on quality to me.
> 
> It could be cost efficiency.
> It could be brand recognition.
> It COULD be quality.
> It could be simply snowballing hype.
> 
> Are the transformers movies actually good? Or do they simply make money?



Again, I didn't say profit is a reliable indicator, a few of them are quite good, yeah. Of course, some folks snobbishly try to restrict the term "good" to only refer to those things which meet some academic standard of artistic integrity or whatever nonsense, but that's all BS. Good art is just art which successfully affects an audience, especially when the effect is the intended effect. Though of course, some art becomes good by accident, having failed at it's intent but nontheless creating enormous and meaningful impact upon the audience in some unforseen manner. 

And no, popularity cannot be cost efficiency, and brand recognition and snowballing hype are extremely unlikely. They'll make money, but they won't generate popularity, unless you're defining popularity to include flash in the pan hype that is immediately forgotten, in which case plenty of stuff is "popular" before it is even released, making the definition entirely useless and thus false.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Nope. I don't see how letting a Dwarf, Orc, Aarakocra, Sea Elf, or any other race become/be born as a Genasi would make them any less unique than they already are. If this were to happen, you could still play a human Genasi as normal. It would just open up the race to allow for more options.



And forcing them all to be mini-genies would restrict them to a single concept, regardless of mechanical options to grab little optimized bits from other races.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> . . . Weren't you just saying that you don't want the Genasi lore to change at all? I'd even mentioned how Genasi in Exandria are just elemental-planetouched, and I thought that you expressed that you disliked that? Or am I remembering incorrectly.



You are remember things that didn't happen, I'm afraid. I never said any such thing.


----------



## Scribe

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Weren't you just saying that you don't want the Genasi lore to change at all? I'd even mentioned how Genasi in Exandria are just elemental-planetouched, and I thought that you expressed that you disliked that? Or am I remembering incorrectly.



I'm not sure who said what here but my book says.

"...genie unions..." or down the tree from such a union

OR

"Elemental energy saturates any creatures in the area and might alter their nature enough that their offspring with other mortals are born as genasi."

And, I'm sure any other creation story works just as well as any other at your own table.


----------



## Faolyn

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Why  was LEGO a blockbuster but Playmobil movie a bomb?



Having seen neither, I would guess it's because LEGO appeals to adults but Playmobil is only for little kids.


----------



## Scribe

Faolyn said:


> Having seen neither, I would guess it's because LEGO appeals to adults but Playmobil is only for little kids.



I cant speak to the playmobil one, but the Lego movie had some pretty good themes for adults to think about, as well as being a lot of fun for kids obviously.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

the Jester said:


> "Next thing you know, there will be some sort of absurd Alice in Wonderland adaptation!"



"First aliens, robots, and evil chaos frogs, then fairy tales?!?! Who put fantasy in my fantasy game!?!?"


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> That isn't how sample size works. Sampling thousands of actively used characters with at least the PHB available is going to give fairly reliable data about what is being played.




It can certainly tell you what percentage of characters made on DnD Beyond are of each class or race or whatever really well.

It can't necessarily tell you what is played in DnD in general though without additional evidence that either those using DnD Beyond are the vast majority of all DnD players or are very similar to those not using it.

And I'm not sure how it would be corrected for what folks would play if they had access to everything.

And, does DnD Beyond actually keep track of if the characters are used as PCs as compared to just made for fun and discarded or made for NPCs?


----------



## doctorhook

Parmandur said:


> They've confirmed that these are not Magic Settings.



Ah, good to know!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> And forcing them all to be mini-genies would restrict them to a single concept, regardless of mechanical options to grab little optimized bits from other races.



. . . But I literally said that I would give them options, like the Feral Tieflings, to choose different origins. And they're already lore-restricted in the base game to a single concept, so I'm not sure what part of "let's make the mechanics actually make sense based on the lore" you dislike.


----------



## Azzy

Henadic Theologian said:


> proving both can be wrong (I mean a movie with characters made from Legos, it's an auto fail).



Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's of bad quality.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Azzy said:


> Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's of bad quality.




 I know I know, I just don't see the appeal of Lego character movies, but I know your right, I apologize.


----------



## Scribe

Henadic Theologian said:


> I know I know, I just don't see the appeal of Lego character movies, but I know your right, I apologize.



Got a young son? If so, get it, watch it, and you'll understand.


----------



## Bolares

Scribe said:


> Got a young son? If so, get it, watch it, and you'll understand.



Or watch it with @AcererakTriple6!


----------



## Parmandur

Henadic Theologian said:


> I know I know, I just don't see the appeal of Lego character movies, but I know your right, I apologize.



The core two Lego movies are the best exploration of Platonism in film history, I kid you not.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Parmandur said:


> The core two Lego movies are the best exploration of Platonism in film history, I kid you not.



 WTF explain.


----------



## BookTenTiger

Parmandur said:


> The core two Lego movies are the best exploration of Platonism in film history, I kid you not.



Are the Lego creations the shadows on the wall in the cave?


----------



## Parmandur

BookTenTiger said:


> Are the Lego creations the shadows on the wall in the cave?



Without getting into spoilers, yes.


----------



## Parmandur

Henadic Theologian said:


> WTF explain.



I highly recommend watching the movie: really explaining this would require spoiling the plot, which is excellent. But seriously,  Platonism at it's finest, considwring both metaphysical and ethical implications.


----------



## whimsychris123

Forgive me if I'm repeating here, but has anyone mentioned that the creature on the cover of Master of the Multiplanes is the same as the creature on the cover of the 1e Manual of the Planes?


----------



## Henadic Theologian

BookTenTiger said:


> Are the Lego creations the shadows on the wall in the cave?




 I understand now.


----------



## Parmandur

Henadic Theologian said:


> I understand now.



It's pretty involved, it's not a casual bit.


----------



## TheZigZagist

Lidgar said:


> So … 5.5 edition? 6th edition? AD&D 5e? Just curious how they will brand it.



50th Anniversary or Golden Anniversary Edition maybe?


----------



## Demetrios1453

whimsychris123 said:


> Forgive me if I'm repeating here, but has anyone mentioned that the creature on the cover of Master of the Multiplanes is the same as the creature on the cover of the 1e Manual of the Planes?



Yep, noticed that homage immediately. It makes sense as the Astral Dreadnought is featured in MToF and will very likely (due to it being on the cover) be updated in MPMotM


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Demetrios1453 said:


> Yep, noticed that homage immediately. It makes sense as the Astral Dreadnought is featured in MToF and will very likely (due to it being on the cover) be updated in MPMotM



Side note: I used modified Astral Dreadnought stats in my Eberron campaign to represent the Dreaming Dark, Il'Lashtavar, the leader of the evil Quori. It's a giant alien worm with crab-claws and a magical eyeball. It fits pretty freaking well thematically with how Quori are depicted in art.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Bolares said:


> Or watch it with @AcererakTriple6!



I feel like I should be angry, but I'm not. That's a pretty good joke. Nice job.


----------



## darjr

First time I ran an AD my players kinda paniced. Untill one of them started to "fly" and the others realized it was t he Astral. Then 3D shenanigans began!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> It can certainly tell you what percentage of characters made on DnD Beyond are of each class or race or whatever really well.
> 
> It can't necessarily tell you what is played in DnD in general though without additional evidence that either those using DnD Beyond are the vast majority of all DnD players or are very similar to those not using it.



There isn’t any reason to think there is any difference between ddb users and D&D players in general. A sampling of thousands absolutely a useful sample size. 


Cadence said:


> And I'm not sure how it would be corrected for what folks would play if they had access to everything.



Very easily? They just remove all characters that are made without access to any paid content. 


Cadence said:


> And, does DnD Beyond actually keep track of if the characters are used as PCs as compared to just made for fun and discarded or made for NPCs?



Yes.


----------



## vecna00

Faolyn said:


> Elven subraces.



I really don't think subraces are going to count towards that number. I have zero evidence to back that up, but I think that would be really unnecessary padding.


----------



## overgeeked

vecna00 said:


> I really don't think subraces are going to count towards that number. I have zero evidence to back that up, but I think that would be really unnecessary padding.



How much of a book can be reprinted material before it counts as padding?


----------



## vecna00

Blue said:


> Did that include the new ones from Witchlight?  Fizban's may also have redone Dragonborn if they kept the UA.



I did count the Witchlight races, but I've treated the redone Dragonborn as subraces under the Dragonborn race.


----------



## vecna00

overgeeked said:


> How much of a book can be reprinted material before it counts as padding?



Realistically, all of it could be padding for a book with no new information. Off the top of my head, there are 19 subraces that I can think of from non-PHB books. Those 26 races become 45. I have a feeling they're not going to include some subraces and ignore others just to make 30.


----------



## lingual

Faolyn said:


> Having seen neither, I would guess it's because LEGO appeals to adults but Playmobil is only for little kids.



Playmobil was very shoddy compared to the Lego movie.  I have kids.  Saw both.  No comparison.  Like comparing LOTR to Beastmaster.


----------



## lingual

Scribe said:


> I mean, I cannot see this as being a productive use of our time to go down, but in no way whatsoever is popularity a marker on quality to me.
> 
> It could be cost efficiency.
> It could be brand recognition.
> It COULD be quality.
> It could be simply snowballing hype.
> 
> Are the transformers movies actually good? Or do they simply make money?



The target audience of the Transformers movies is kids.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

lingual said:


> The target audience of the Transformers movies is kids.




Ugh I wish. Plenty of adults like those movies.

I think the appeal is stuff explodes?


----------



## vecna00

Urriak Uruk said:


> Ugh I wish. Plenty of adults like those movies.
> 
> I think the appeal is stuff explodes?



Sometimes that's all you really need!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

nvm


----------



## HaroldTheHobbit

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I've found that the people that enjoy those films are typically . . . and I'm not sure how to put this non-offensively, but the people who don't care if their entertainment is high quality or _intelligent_. Basically the male version of people who non-ironically enjoy the Twilight films.
> 
> I like explosions as much as the next guy, but in my book, they're absolutely no substitute for good writing or plot.



I feel privileged being able to enjoy both high and low culture. It all depend on mood and energy. As to movies, sometimes I want Peter Greenway or Tarkovsky, sometimes I want popcorn and Transformers style explosions.

What I don't enjoy is cultural snobbism and people judging others from their cultural consumption.


----------



## Bolares

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Side note: I used modified Astral Dreadnought stats in my Eberron campaign to represent the Dreaming Dark, Il'Lashtavar, the leader of the evil Quori. It's a giant alien worm with crab-claws and a magical eyeball. It fits pretty freaking well thematically with how Quori are depicted in art.



That's a great idea! I might steal it.


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> There isn’t any reason to think there is any difference between ddb users and D&D players in general. A sampling of thousands absolutely a useful sample size.




Ready access to a computer vs. not and playing with a DM who encourages it vs. not wouldn't possibly be associated with different levels of knowledge as to what's out there, years of experience playing, or different playstyles?

Increased sample size decreases variability, not bias.  (You can take as big of a sample of _____ news channel watchers as you want.  Doesn't make your results apply to the country as a whole very well).

It feels like they'd also want to adjust for how many different characters each player had (it feels like those who play in lots of campaigns regularly could be different than those who don't)








doctorbadwolf said:


> Very easily? They just remove all characters that are made without access to any paid content.



The content is purchased a la carte, and often by the DM.  So how much paid content do you want them to have access to before counting it.

In any case, this ties back into the above.  You've now restricted your sample to players on DnD Beyond who buy at least a certain amount of paid content. This would make your sample even more different from the population of all players.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Yes.



I haven't seen that said anywhere.  Do you have a favorite link to one of the stat dumps that says they screen things out?  Or would this necessarily leave out any character used in one shots where they didn't do they die rolling on beyond, for example?

EDIT:  Next post has an answer to this one.


----------



## Nikosandros

Cadence said:


> I haven't seen that said anywhere.  Do you have a favorite link to one of the stat dumps that says they screen things out?  Or would this necessarily leave out any character used in one shots where they didn't do they die rolling on beyond, for example?



Back when Adam Bradford was still at DDB, he talked quite often about how they counted as active, characters that were frequently updated, for example, by changing current HPs. I was somewhat perplexed by the criteria, since - before the pandemic - in my two campaigns, the character were only updated once a level since the players were using printed sheets.


----------



## Neonchameleon

EllisEthel said:


> I’m an old fart who thinks 5e wandered into blandsville of blandness land. They keep smoothing any rough edges off to the point where it’s hard to get a grip on the game. It’s become the Lego Movie of roleplaying games...everything is awesome.



"When everyone is super then no one will be" is a literal supervillain line. And if you think that the Lego movie is blandsville then that's to do with you not the Lego movie.


LuisCarlos17f said:


> Why  was LEGO a blockbuster but Playmobil movie a bomb?



The Lego movie was almost _Toy Story_ level good. As well as it being well written, it matters that it's about toys and, more importantly, it matters that the toys are lego in specific rather than any other type of toy. It's thematically strong and coherent in a way few films are right down to taking a side in a philosophical question that's more clearly made by Lego than anything else - and it's a story that's practically perfect in that if you changed anything else it wouldn't work so well. Spoilers for how below.



Spoiler




There's the boy and his dad and the dad's incarnation in the lego/toy world leading to real world character development that could have been any toy line - but needed to be toys or games.
There's the Chosen One thing that couldn't have landed quite as effectively with most toy lines because Legos are fundamentally interchangeable but that doesn't prevent you having either a favourite or a piece that you need _right now_ and nothing else fits. Chosen One narratives also happen in the Toy Story universe - but they are very different because they are based on collector's editions and boxed sets because those are different types of toy to lego.
Most importantly and at a metaphysical level there are two ways to play with Lego. You make what's on the box and that's what you do - or you have a great big bucket of lego that you store together and grab things from. The superweapon of the bad guy is 'The Kragle' which is quite literally a tube of Krazy Glue. And _nothing_ is further to the "you make what the box says" than gluing your Lego together so they can't come apart.




By contrast the Playmobil movie was about appropriate for a movie trying to sell cheap knock-off toys. Instead of being about Lego and the ways people play with Lego and about a child playing with their toys and their relationship with other people the Playmobil movie just Isikai'd its protagonists into a dimension full of animated toys and played as a long toy commercial.


Scribe said:


> Are the transformers movies actually good? Or do they simply make money?



If the first Transformers film had been equal to the sum of its parts it would have been a great movie - but instead it's a movie with a lot of great parts.

The first Transformers movie has a solid story (other than the McGuffin of the glasses), two strong lead parts, decent comedy, and Michael Bay who is a director who is awesome at music-video length shots and, importantly, at shooting action sequences in a way that sells awe. It's less than the sum of its parts because Michael Bay shoots for the sequence more than the film as a whole - and because Mikaela (Megan Fox's character) is awesome and very well written in the script, but the camera basically pervs over her rather than supports who she can be.

But crucially no one shoots action scenes like Michael Bay. He's not a great storyteller but he's the best there is at shooting massive chaotic action set pieces that feel overwhelming. And either giant robots or giant monsters are exactly what massive chaotic setpieces need to be turned up to 11. So although I'd argue that the first (modern) Transformers film isn't great and the rest (other than Bumblebee) aren't even good if what you want is to watch something giant, awesome, and overwhelming then the Transformers are the best films at _that_ that have ever been made. Instead of being across the board good they take one popular thing and do it exceptionally well.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Nothing about the race's features connects them to their Genie parent, they're just elemental in nature. (Genies get Darkvision, Flight, and other features that the Genasi don't get, while Genasi get abilities and spells that none of the Genies get.)



Weirdly, I prefer them to be more generally elemental, rather than genie specific. Like how pathfinder treats them. There is a huge amount of genie themes I don't like, so don't want to have to strip all that off every time I want an elemental character.


----------



## OB1

I'm wondering if MotM means that Volos and Mordenkanins monster books will not see any more reprints, and if so, how that may relate to the 50AE.

If the goal is to refresh the Core rules primarily as a shift in the way new players are introduced to the game, I'd guess we see 50AE released as a limited edition 'collectors' set at the same time they stop printing the old version of the Core, then sometime later in 2024 or 2025 they start printing those new versions of the Core under their regular titles of PHB, MM and DMG.


----------



## Aldarc

Scribe said:


> Are the transformers movies actually good? Or do they simply make money?



I don't think that they'll have the lasting impact on people's childhoods (and subsequent therapy) the way that _Transformers the Movie_ did. 



Spoiler



It wasn't Prime's death that hurt the worst, it was watching my favorite character die in the opening parts.





(And then watching him die again in Transformers: Animated and again in Transformers Cyberverse.)


----------



## EllisEthel

Right... The Lego Movie! Is a good, fun film. I liked it 

My point was that D&D 5th Edition has become a game where everybody is awesome....in life, adversity builds character and the same might be said about roleplaying games like D&D. If everybody is awesome then there is less room for character development and the game becomes less interesting.

YMMV


----------



## lingual

HaroldTheHobbit said:


> I feel privileged being able to enjoy both high and low culture. It all depend on mood and energy. As to movies, sometimes I want Peter Greenway or Tarkovsky, sometimes I want popcorn and Transformers style explosions.
> 
> What I don't enjoy is cultural snobbism and people judging others from their cultural consumption.



Yes!  Sometimes I have cravings for Del Taco.  (No offense to Del Taco).


----------



## lingual

I'll be a jerk here and proclaim that nothing Michael Bay does is "good".   Can still enjoy it though.  And Marvel movies are "cinema".


----------



## Bolares

EllisEthel said:


> Right... The Lego Movie! Is a good, fun film. I liked it
> 
> My point was that D&D 5th Edition has become a game where everybody is awesome....in life, adversity builds character and the same might be said about roleplaying games like D&D. If everybody is awesome then there is less room for character development and the game becomes less interesting.
> 
> YMMV



So... player characters shouldn't be awesome?


----------



## Neonchameleon

EllisEthel said:


> Right... The Lego Movie! Is a good, fun film. I liked it
> 
> My point was that D&D 5th Edition has become a game where everybody is awesome....in life, adversity builds character and the same might be said about roleplaying games like D&D. If everybody is awesome then there is less room for character development and the game becomes less interesting.
> 
> YMMV



What do you mean "has become a game where everybody is awesome?" Right from oD&D player characters have been awesome at level 1. The fighting man was more powerful than your ordinary warrior. The magic user could cast spells. And the cleric got divine power at level 2. D&D has always been a power fantasy about princes of the universe, fighting for survival against the darkest power. And who are inherently going to get ridiculously powerful. Adversity has always been provided by either overwhelming numbers or larger than life bad guys.

If I want to start off as an actual peasant and at risk of serious injury I break out something like WFRP; it is not and has never been something that D&D focused on.


----------



## Remathilis

EllisEthel said:


> Right... The Lego Movie! Is a good, fun film. I liked it
> 
> My point was that D&D 5th Edition has become a game where everybody is awesome....in life, adversity builds character and the same might be said about roleplaying games like D&D. If everybody is awesome then there is less room for character development and the game becomes less interesting.
> 
> YMMV



As I once said in a different thread...



Remathilis said:


> If your PC isn't trying to kill giant rats with a rusty dagger and then dying of disease 1d6 hours later, are you REALLY playing D&D?


----------



## Chronos96

> Spelljammer would also be pretty low on that priority list because historically it didn't sell. Boo is not a SPelljammer character, he is a Baldur's Gate, thus FR, character so it more strongly hints at FR than Spelljammer. Boo never appeared in a SPelljammer product, post-dating Spelljammer byt a handful of years. So a Spelljammer may appear in an adventure with Minsc & Boo as characters the PC's encounter, fulfilling the cameo.
> 
> Planescape, more than SPelljammer, is a certainty, in the vein of Ravenloft. Most likely as a book on Sigil with the core planes as examples and rules on making new planes of existence. That seems to be the model with something like this that they are going to explore.



Even with all that I would still say Spelljammer is more likely to release first than Planescape. The reason being all of the planes not counting fringe planes like the plane of lighting are already in 5e's cosmology along with the Shadowfell, Feywild, and inner and outer planes. That was the whole appeal of going to different planes, sure they can reintroduce sigil but it's not really needed. People can make their own multiversal hub, not that I don't think it won't happen but if I had to make a list in terms of the likelihood of being published

Spelljammer 
Darksun
5E FR  full campaign setting 
Planescape/Dragonlance
Greyhawk


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> Ready access to a computer vs. not and playing with a DM who encourages it vs. not wouldn't possibly be associated with different levels of knowledge as to what's out there, years of experience playing, or different playstyles?



Not enough so to cast any serious doubt on the data, no. 


Cadence said:


> Increased sample size decreases variability, not bias.  (You can take as big of a sample of _____ news channel watchers as you want.  Doesn't make your results apply to the country as a whole very well).
> 
> It feels like they'd also want to adjust for how many different characters each player had (it feels like those who play in lots of campaigns regularly could be different than those who don't)






Cadence said:


> The content is purchased a la carte, and often by the DM.  So how much paid content do you want them to have access to before counting it.
> 
> In any case, this ties back into the above.  You've now restricted your sample to players on DnD Beyond who buy at least a certain amount of paid content. This would make your sample even more different from the population of all players.



Not really, because within a campaign, content can be shared, so it’s not “users who have spent money on the game” but rather “users who have spent money or who are in a campaign where someone has spent money on content”.  

so unless you can make a compelling argument that people who want to use ddb are different in playstyle from people who don’t, rather than play styles being varied in the same ways amongst ddb users as amongst VVT users and amongst non digital tool users, there is no reason to doubt the data provided as largely representative.  

Especially since wizards has often backed up the specific thing in question, ie that the majority of players don’t take feats (and if they do it’s late in a campaign), don’t choose options for optimization value, and tend to choose the classic and simple options over more complex stuff.


----------



## EllisEthel

Bolares said:


> So... player characters shouldn't be awesome?



I prefer that there should be dynamic unpredictable changes over time to characters and a struggle through adversity, battling to overcome their limitations...the key being....they should have proper limitations and flaws.


----------



## Neonchameleon

doctorbadwolf said:


> Especially since wizards has often backed up the specific thing in question, ie that the majority of players don’t take feats (and if they do it’s late in a campaign), don’t choose options for optimization value, and tend to choose the classic and simple options over more complex stuff.



This is in part because feats have been designed to fail. If your primary stat is below 20 then increasing your primary stat by means of an ASI is _always _a competitive choice and can be treated as the default even by people who like feats. Ignoring (a) variant humans, (b) fighters, and (c) rogues if you are using the Standard Array you're likely to have a 16 in your primary stat. Which means that most people and most classes regardless of optimization approach take feats at levels 4 and 8. And have the first chance of a feat therefore at level 12. And 90% of campaigns end by level 10.

Feats simply get outcompeted unless they are _exactly_ what you want until late in most campaigns.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Neonchameleon said:


> This is in part because feats have been designed to fail. If your primary stat is below 20 then increasing your primary stat by means of an ASI is _always _a competitive choice and can be treated as the default even by people who like feats. Ignoring (a) variant humans, (b) fighters, and (c) rogues if you are using the Standard Array you're likely to have a 16 in your primary stat. Which means that most people and most classes regardless of optimization approach take feats at levels 4 and 8. And have the first chance of a feat therefore at level 12. And 90% of campaigns end by level 10.
> 
> Feats simply get outcompeted unless they are _exactly_ what you want until late in most campaigns.



I doubt that is the case for most players. They just don’t want to go through the feat list and choose one when they can just increase a stat and move on.


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not enough so to cast any serious doubt on the data, no.




<insert something on some kind of cognitive bias or another>



doctorbadwolf said:


> Not really, because within a campaign, content can be shared, so it’s not “users who have spent money on the game” but rather “users who have spent money or who are in a campaign where someone has spent money on content”.




In MtG, for example, isn't the common WotC statement that the vast majority of paper players don't play in groups composed of whales and don't do tons of stuff online or even play a recognized format?  Thus something like using EDHrec to tell about what's actually widely used or popular across all players shouldn't necessarily be taken as representative of the majority of EDH players.  

Has WotC reported how many D&D Beyond users there are? 



doctorbadwolf said:


> so unless you can make a compelling argument that people who want to use ddb are different in playstyle from people who don’t, rather than play styles being varied in the same ways amongst ddb users as amongst VVT users and amongst non digital tool users, there is no reason to doubt the data provided as largely representative.




It feels like the burden for arguing that a non-randomly chosen sample is representative of a population is on the person making the argument, not the person doubting it in polling or medicine or whatnot.  Why is it different with DnD?

<insert Dewey wins graphic again,  the differences in heart attack or drug efficacy symptoms between men and women, and similar things>


doctorbadwolf said:


> Especially since wizards has often backed up the specific thing in question, ie that the majority of players don’t take feats (and if they do it’s late in a campaign), don’t choose options for optimization value, and tend to choose the classic and simple options over more complex stuff.



It feels like arguing X <<< 50% in the non-random sample is also true in the population, is a lot easier to swallow than trying to argue that the X ~ 2%  <  Y ~4%  < Z ~8%  differences in class popularity for the non-random sample also holds in the entire population.


----------



## lingual

I don't think the Dewey thing applies to DnDBeyond statistics.

Any argument that DnDBeyond is generally representative of the player base also freely acknowledges that it is not a perfect representation with no margin for error.


----------



## Cadence

lingual said:


> Any argument that DnDBeyond is generally representative of the player base also freely acknowledges that it is not a perfect representation with no margin for error.




Margin of error and bias get at two different things though.  Assuming the numbers WotC reports for classes and races are simply a tally of all "active" DnD Beyond characters, then there is no margin of error for measuring what was "actively" most used on DnD Beyond when the snapshot was taken.  But that wouldn't mean the numbers could tell us what would be most popular if all the DnD Beyond players had full access to everything.  

To go more broadly to all DnD players (not just on DnD Beyond), the lack of margin of error on the DnD Beyond stats wouldn't help deal with the potential differences between the players that use DnD Beyond and those that didn't.    I assume the differences between those two aren't nearly as big as, say, those between in person voters and mail in voters, for example, but I'm not sure why they couldn't easily be a few percentage points.  

So, from the early 2019 WotC post on popularity, I probably wouldn't argue if someone wanted to claim that human+variant human were more more popular among all DnD players than anything else, and cited their combined DnD beyond 22.8% vs. 11.2% for the second place High Elf + Wood Elf combined.  But the difference between Dragonborn at 7.2% and Mountain Dwarf+Hill Dwarf at 6.6% seems small enough that a bit of misalignment between those who use DnD beyond and DnD players could easily switch the conclusion and have them not even particularly close.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Cadence said:


> <insert something on some kind of cognitive bias or another>



LOL sure. Definitely the person you disagree with that has the bias, not you.


Cadence said:


> In MtG, for example, isn't the common WotC statement that the vast majority of paper players don't play in groups composed of whales and don't do tons of stuff online or even play a recognized format?  Thus something like using EDHrec to tell about what's actually widely used or popular across all players shouldn't necessarily be taken as representative of the majority of EDH players.
> 
> Has WotC reported how many D&D Beyond users there are?



Wotc doesn't know how many DDB players there are. You'd need to go to fandom for that information, the company that owns DDB. 

We have two separate sources of information telling us what is common and what is uncommon amongst dnd players, and both have much more information available to them than you or I do.


Cadence said:


> It feels like the burden for arguing that a non-randomly chosen sample is representative of a population is on the person making the argument, not the person doubting it in polling or medicine or whatnot.  Why is it different with DnD?



If feels like? I'm not sure what to do with that, honestly. 

You seem to have a strong desire to discount data that disagrees with your perception, even though both of the two companies with access to large amounts of player data agree on the results.



Cadence said:


> But that wouldn't mean the numbers could tell us what would be most popular if all the DnD Beyond players had full access to everything.



Sure it does. If you have a group of a few hundred thousand, and take thousands with a slight different circumstance to see the effect of that circumstance on the larger group, you have useful data about what the larger group would look like if they all had the same circumstance as the sample group. 

You seem to want to argue against some idea of this data being definitive and beyond doubt, but that isn't what anyone is saying. It's indicative and useful, which is all survey data can ever be without the sample size being equal to the whole, which never happens.


Cadence said:


> To go more broadly to all DnD players (not just on DnD Beyond), the lack of margin of error on the DnD Beyond stats wouldn't help deal with the potential differences between the players that use DnD Beyond and those that didn't.    I assume the differences between those two aren't nearly as big as, say, those between in person voters and mail in voters, for example, but I'm not sure why they couldn't easily be a few percentage points.



A few percentage points wouldn't change the rankings of most popular subclasses. It certainly wouldn't change which is at the top, which is at the top by a decent margin. It absolutely wouldn't erase the fact that Wizards, which is a wholly separate company, agrees that the data supports the fact that Champion Fighters are very much the most popular class, standard human is the most popular race option, and the simplest and most classic forms of each class are the most played forms of each class.


Cadence said:


> So, from the early 2019 WotC post on popularity, I probably wouldn't argue if someone wanted to claim that human+variant human were more more popular among all DnD players than anything else, and cited their combined DnD beyond 22.8% vs. 11.2% for the second place High Elf + Wood Elf combined.  But the difference between Dragonborn at 7.2% and Mountain Dwarf+Hill Dwarf at 6.6% seems small enough that a bit of misalignment between those who use DnD beyond and DnD players could easily switch the conclusion and have them not even particularly close.



And yet, we also have the earlier DnD Beyond (which again, is separate from Wizards of The Coast) data which also put Dragonborn in roughly the same place, so we can easily and safely conclude that Dragonborn are in the top ten of popularity, but that nothing challenges the standard human for popularity except perhaps variant human. 

Since wotc has also said repeatedly and with complete confidence that standard human is the most played race option by a significant margin, and we can observe from their behavior and the art they use that Dragonborn are quite popular in spite of being disappointing mechanically, and online discussion in places not known for being home to a lot of optimization talk seems to run in the same direction, it really seems like personal bias is the only reason to doubt that data.


----------



## Bolares

EllisEthel said:


> I prefer that there should be dynamic unpredictable changes over time to characters and a struggle through adversity, battling to overcome their limitations...the key being....they should have proper limitations and flaws.



well, sure. I just don't get how 5e doesn't allow this to happen.


----------



## Charlaquin

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Yeah, Kenku are pretty bad. They're also extremely annoying. I'd personally prefer if they weren't a race at all, or if they have to be a race, have them be Kenku that still have their voices and wings.



I love Kenku


----------



## Bolares

Charlaquin said:


> I love Kenku



Seconded


----------



## overgeeked

Bolares said:


> well, sure. I just don't get how 5e doesn't allow this to happen.



Monsters are undertuned, PCs are overtuned, PC hit points are high and fully regenerate after a long rest, PC damage is high, monster hit points are low, monster damage is low, spells and spell slots are given out like candy, PCs can cast multiple spells in a round, and death is elusive unless the DM really wants a character dead. Skills are plentiful, expertise is easy to get, and skill DCs are low. There are basically no limitations PCs have to deal with short of the DM using house rules or variant rules. 5E is power fantasy superheroes with chainmail replacing spandex. To do anything approaching challenging, the DM has to throw 6-8 deadly encounters at the PCs a day, somehow prevent a long rest, and do it all again the next day...then somewhere near the end of the second day the PCs will be sweating. That’s where they’re challenged.


----------



## Charlaquin

lingual said:


> The target audience of the Transformers movies is kids.



I’m pretty sure the target audience is “people who like Transformers” which is mostly 80s kids, who are now in their 30s and 40s.


----------



## RoughCoronet0

Charlaquin said:


> I love Kenku



So do I.


----------



## Zaukrie

I hope they eventually fix the highest level demons and devils and fey. A mid-level Drow can beat them up. They have almost no powers....humorously, they don't even carry magic weapons, so they can't even hurt each other all that well. There is simplification, then there is stuff like this.


----------



## Bolares

overgeeked said:


> Monsters are undertuned, PCs are overtuned, PC hit points are high and fully regenerate after a long rest, PC damage is high, monster hit points are low, monster damage is low, spells and spell slots are given out like candy, PCs can cast multiple spells in a round, and death is elusive unless the DM really wants a character dead. Skills are plentiful, expertise is easy to get, and skill DCs are low. There are basically no limitations PCs have to deal with short of the DM using house rules or variant rules. 5E is power fantasy superheroes with chainmail replacing spandex. To do anything approaching challenging, the DM has to throw 6-8 deadly encounters at the PCs a day, somehow prevent a long rest, and do it all again the next day...then somewhere near the end of the second day the PCs will be sweating. That’s where they’re challenged.



well, that is not my experience at all...


----------



## Charlaquin

Zaukrie said:


> humorously, they don't even carry magic weapons, so they can't even hurt each other all that well.



That explains why the blood war has gone on so long!


----------



## Cadence

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure it does. If you have a group of a few hundred thousand, and take thousands with a slight different circumstance to see the effect of that circumstance on the larger group, you have useful data about what the larger group would look like if they all had the same circumstance as the sample group.




That depends on how similar the two groups beyond that circumstance.  If you did a standard experimental thing and randomly picked who was going to be in the smaller group, then the smaller group would be very useful for telling you about how the bigger one would react to that circumstance.   Outside an experiment, there are a bunch of things you could do to help match folks to see what the effect was, and get good results assuming you didn't miss anything big in doing so.  If there is self-selection bias to get in to the smaller group and the reason for selecting is related to the outcome, then your extrapolation could be really bad.   Are those who choose to spend $$$ getting the full access more likely to play a lot and be bored of the bog-standard races/classes, have more practice in min/maxing, and be more likely to play in non-standard settings?  If so, then the choices they make could differ a lot from what you'd get by giving the other players full access. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> You seem to want to argue against some idea of this data being definitive and beyond doubt, but that isn't what anyone is saying. It's indicative and useful, which is all survey data can ever be without the sample size being equal to the whole, which never happens.




There's a lot of space between indicative and being definitive.  And there are plenty of surveys where the sample sizes are large enough to make the margins of errors much smaller than the observed differences.



doctorbadwolf said:


> A few percentage points wouldn't change the rankings of most popular subclasses. It certainly wouldn't change which is at the top, which is at the top by a decent margin.




Which you quoted me saying similarly in the case of races. For the ones that only differ by a few percentage points I'm not sure why the rankings couldn't change quite a bit.  From the 2019 numbers the difference from combined humans to combined elves is 11.6%.  The difference for Dragonborn being number 4 or being number 11 is only 4.1%.



doctorbadwolf said:


> it really seems like personal bias is the only reason to doubt that data.




I'm just arguing that from a statistical/data methodology point of view that some of the things you've said about how to read data don't seem generally sound.  But you be you.


----------



## HammerMan

overgeeked said:


> Monsters are undertuned, PCs are overtuned, PC hit points are high and fully regenerate after a long rest, PC damage is high, monster hit points are low, monster damage is low, spells and spell slots are given out like candy, PCs can cast multiple spells in a round, and death is elusive unless the DM really wants a character dead. Skills are plentiful, expertise is easy to get, and skill DCs are low. There are basically no limitations PCs have to deal with short of the DM using house rules or variant rules. 5E is power fantasy superheroes with chainmail replacing spandex. To do anything approaching challenging, the DM has to throw 6-8 deadly encounters at the PCs a day, somehow prevent a long rest, and do it all again the next day...then somewhere near the end of the second day the PCs will be sweating. That’s where they’re challenged.



switching up rest cycles helps but I agree


----------



## J.Quondam

Charlaquin said:


> That explains why the blood war has gone on so long!



Yeah, they should probably consider renaming it The Bruise War at some point.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

doctorbadwolf said:


> I doubt that is the case for most players. They just don’t want to go through the feat list and choose one when they can just increase a stat and move on.




 I think feats are heavily disincentized by making you choose between feats and ASI. It's one of the biggest mistakes of the edition IMHO.


----------



## EllisEthel

Bolares said:


> well, sure. I just don't get how 5e doesn't allow this to happen.



Because...of reasons lol  

The characters are too powerful and don’t stay in their respective lanes anymore...every class is awesome at just about everything with Wizards with higher attack bonuses than Fighters and every class wizpopadoodling spells left right and centre... every race/species/ancestry (whatever they are currently calling them) is flawless with no negatives. Like I said....everybody is awesome....and that to me...is boring. Groups full of Mary Sue, fantasy superheroes...


----------



## Marandahir

Remember that they want this to stand without cross referencing Volo’s Guide to Monsters or Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes but not Xanathar’s or Tasha’s (the two books they’re packing it with) nor the Core Rules. It’s quite likely that they’ll publish a separate book with all the variant lineages for the core rules’ lineage options, maybe even cram them into the 2024 PHB, with the idea that this book will stand aside the remastered Core Rules that come out two years later.

Here’s the list of potentials:
01. Aasimar
02. Aarakocra
03. Genasi
04. Goliath
05. Firbolg
06. Kenku
07. Lizardfolk
08. Tabaxi
09. Triton
10. Bugbear
11. Goblin
12. Hobgoblin
13. Kobold
14. Orc
15. Yuan-ti
16. Tortle
17. Grung
18. Gith
19. Changeling*
20. Kalashtar*
21. Shifter
22. Warforged
23. Centaur
24. Loxodon
25. Minotaur
26. Vedalken*
27. Simic Hybrid*
28. Locathah
29. Verdan*
30. Leonin
31. Dhampir
32. Hexblood
33. Reborn
34. Fairy
35. Harengon
36. Owlin

Clearly, 6 of these lineages aren’t going to make it. And I’ve put 5 asterisks above - 5 lineages that don’t really exist outside of their respective campaign settings. For example, 4e showed us what Warforged and Shifters are like in Nerath and the Realms, so they could be reprinted here, but Kalashtar and Changelings are really specific to Eberron. Verdan are a very specific Goblinoid from Acquisitions, Incorporated campaigns. Vedalken and Simic Hybrids are very much exclusive to Ravnica, save for a few Planeswalkers in other MtG worlds (though I’ve argued in the past that Vedalken are at least highly applicable to represent people the Chiss from Star Wars or the Vulcans from Star Trek).

As for Leonin, Loxodons, and Owlins, these are MtG people but are very popular to represent types of characters on other worlds. And they also appear in other MtG worlds. So they’re not counted out. 

What’s the last one I’d have to cut? I guess it if came down to it they’d cut Warforged, even though those have established stories in FR and Nerath, only because they haven’t established their presence in 5e Realmslore, just 4e. And Nerath is relegated to a few sidelong glances here and there and a “sample pantheon” in the DMG.

****edited to reflect Gith and what that means for the count.


----------



## Remathilis

Marandahir said:


> Remember that they want this to stand without cross referencing Volo’s Guide to Monsters or Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes but not Xanathar’s or Tasha’s (the two books they’re packing it with) nor the Core Rules. It’s quite likely that they’ll publish a separate book with all the variant lineages for the core rules’ lineage options, maybe even cram them into the 2024 PHB, with the idea that this book will stand aside the remastered Core Rules that come out two years later.
> 
> Here’s the list of potentials:
> 01. Aasimar
> 02. Aarakocra
> 03. Genasi
> 04. Goliath
> 05. Firbolg
> 06. Kenku
> 07. Lizardfolk
> 08. Tabaxi
> 09. Triton
> 10. Bugbear
> 11. Goblin
> 12. Hobgoblin
> 13. Kobold
> 14. Orc
> 15. Yuan-ti
> 16. Tortle
> 17. Grung
> 18. Changeling*
> 19. Kalashtar*
> 20. Shifter
> 21. Warforged
> 22. Centaur
> 23. Loxodon
> 24. Minotaur
> 25. Vedalken*
> 26. Simic Hybrid*
> 27. Locathah
> 28. Verdan*
> 29. Leonin
> 30. Dhampir
> 31. Hexblood
> 32. Reborn
> 33. Fairy
> 34. Harengon
> 35. Owlin
> 
> Clearly, 5 of these lineages aren’t going to make it. And I’ve put 5 asterisks above - 5 lineages that don’t really exist outside of their respective campaign settings. For example, 4e showed us what Warforged and Shifters are like in Nerath and the Realms, so they could be reprinted here, but Kalashtar and Changelings are really specific to Eberron. Verdan are a very specific Goblinoid from Acquisitions, Incorporated campaigns. Vedalken and Simic Hybrids are very much exclusive to Ravnica, save for a few Planeswalkers in other MtG worlds (though I’ve argued in the past that Vedalken are at least highly applicable to represent people the Chiss from Star Wars or the Vulcans from Star Trek).
> 
> As for Leonin and Owlins, these are MtG people but are very popular to represent types of characters on other worlds. So they’re not counted out.



Two issues with your train of thought:

They used the term setting agnostic when describing these races. That means, they could appear in Faerun, Oerth, Eberron or other D&D worlds with minimal fuss. So a race like Warforged isn't agnostic as it's story is tightly tied to Eberron. Similarly, I still feel WotC doesn't want to cross the streams too much for MtG races, so I don't expect any race that didn't already have a D&D version before will appear. 

Also, I completely believe several subraces will be redone as separate races, inflating the count. Snirfneblin and duergar could easily be redone as a full race sharing patent race traits but but using the subrace system, and the four genasi and two gith races shared nothing in common but ASI and languages anyway (both of which are flexible post Tasha), so making them separate is trivial.


----------



## Marandahir

doctorbadwolf said:


> I've never encountered this before. What about the Samurai is culturally insensitive?



It was a cultural stereotype of the Japanese Knightly class as if it was a specific thing and not just another Battle Master, Champion, Paladin, etc.

By making it its own thing it makes it seem like all Japanese-inspired Fighters “have to be” Samurai. Its part of the same problems that the game has to grapple with regarding the Monk.

How do we make the classes big hat and inclusive without creating pigeonholed culturally insensitive subclasses while also capturing important tropes that are more prominent in genres like Anime, Jidai Geki, Wuxia, martial arts films, etc?

I think we do them by making more generic subclass names that are applicable but not pigeonholed. It’s why we have Assassins and Way of Shadow Monks, but no Ninja. It’s why we have Harengon and Pallid Elves but not Soratami.


----------



## Scribe

Marandahir said:


> Here’s the list of potentials:
> 01. Aasimar
> 02. Aarakocra
> 03. Genasi
> 04. Goliath
> 05. Firbolg
> 06. Kenku
> 07. Lizardfolk
> 08. Tabaxi
> 09. Triton
> 10. Bugbear
> 11. Goblin
> 12. Hobgoblin
> 13. Kobold
> 14. Orc
> 15. Yuan-ti
> 16. Tortle
> 17. Grung
> 18. Changeling*
> 19. Kalashtar*
> 20. Shifter
> 21. Warforged
> 22. Centaur
> 23. Loxodon
> 24. Minotaur
> 25. Vedalken*
> 26. Simic Hybrid*
> 27. Locathah
> 28. Verdan*
> 29. Leonin
> 30. Dhampir
> 31. Hexblood
> 32. Reborn
> 33. Fairy
> 34. Harengon
> 35. Owlin




Isnt this including the Core as well? To bring them up to the new format? If it does, and it includes subraces, you can easily remove a large number of the setting/MTG specific ones.


----------



## Marandahir

Scribe said:


> Isnt this including the Core as well? To bring them up to the new format? If it does, and it includes subraces, you can easily remove a large number of the setting/MTG specific ones.



No, in the announcement video, they said specifically that the lineages that will appear in “Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse” will be the lineages that aren’t in the PHB. Their wording did not suggest that lineage variations like Eladrin or Svirfneblin or Feral Tiefling would be in this book - just the wholescale new lineages that do not use any features from the core rulebook.

And they in the same breath said it wouldn’t be lineages that are specific to a given campaign setting but rather the ones you could find throughout various parts of the multiverse. So something like Kalashtar, Verdan, or Simic Hybrid are really excluded - and I’d argue the other 2 exclusions are probably Vedalken and Changelings.


----------



## Scribe

I find myself looking forward to this book less and less then.


----------



## Helldritch

Scribe said:


> I find myself looking forward to this book less and less then.



Count me in on that sentiment too.
I already own each book... twice. I don't need a third copy to get one book.


----------



## TheSword

EllisEthel said:


> Because...of reasons lol
> 
> The characters are too powerful and don’t stay in their respective lanes anymore...every class is awesome at just about everything with Wizards with higher attack bonuses than Fighters and every class wizpopadoodling spells left right and centre... every race/species/ancestry (whatever they are currently calling them) is flawless with no negatives. Like I said....everybody is awesome....and that to me...is boring. Groups full of Mary Sue, fantasy superheroes...



You do get that players and DMs get to make those choices. You don’t have to make wizard who’s better at fighting than a fighter, you don’t have to pick subclasses that grant spells. They’re options but hardly compulsory.

If you don’t like that way of playing 5e, stick to rolling your d6’s and don’t pick options that don’t fit your style of play. Just because you don’t like these things, doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t be allowed them.


----------



## Bolares

Scribe said:


> I find myself looking forward to this book less and less then.



Yeah, from what you've been saying, I don't know you will like the direction D&D is going...


----------



## Scribe

Helldritch said:


> Count me in on that sentiment too.
> I already own each book... twice. I don't need a third copy to get one book.



Yeah, I could justify it for a one stop shop for Monsters and PC options, but if it's not even that? I don't care for Tasha's and I have the rest.

A lot of money just for 1 book of updated monsters and an incomplete list of PC races...


----------



## Marandahir

Remathilis said:


> Two issues with your train of thought:
> 
> They used the term setting agnostic when describing these races. That means, they could appear in Faerun, Oerth, Eberron or other D&D worlds with minimal fuss. So a race like Warforged isn't agnostic as it's story is tightly tied to Eberron. Similarly, I still feel WotC doesn't want to cross the streams too much for MtG races, so I don't expect any race that didn't already have a D&D version before will appear.
> 
> Also, I completely believe several subraces will be redone as separate races, inflating the count. Snirfneblin and duergar could easily be redone as a full race sharing patent race traits but but using the subrace system, and the four genasi and two gith races shared nothing in common but ASI and languages anyway (both of which are flexible post Tasha), so making them separate is trivial.



Warforged are critical to Eberron, but not exclusive. They have story roles in Nerath and the Realms and not as Eberronian Planeswalkers. Check out the back issues of Dragon Magazine and the 4E Monster Manuals.

I DID however, miss Gith in my count above, so at least one other lineage is getting the cut. Unsure which, though if I had to go cutting it would be Leonin (thematic overlap with Tabaxi, though they’re also in Mirrordin), Warforged (as you said), or Loxodons (very much a MtG people, though again, they’re also from Mirrordin if we ever get Mirrordin/New Phyrexia).

And again, from the language of the video, it really doesn’t sound like sublineages are making it in. They experimented with reprinting the core lineage mechanics of Gnomes for the Svirfneblin back in 2015’s Elemental Evil Player Companion and it just led to a host of confusion. Are these Gnomes? They’re certainly called Deep Gnomes in the text. WotC want to reduce confusion. They’re not going to count sublineages.


----------



## Marandahir

Helldritch said:


> Count me in on that sentiment too.
> I already own each book... twice. I don't need a third copy to get one book.



The content might be reprints but they’ll be erratad and rebalanced, like we saw in the previews they gave in the video announcement. I don’t know if they plan to release errata stat blocks for all these updates. Probably not.


----------



## Zaukrie

Some rule books feel almost necessary.....some don't. This sounds like, if you own the rest of them (esp. on DnDBeyond), it is a one you don't need all that much. The updated monsters might be interesting.....but I'll 100% have to see this one before deciding.


----------



## Scribe

Bolares said:


> Yeah, from what you've been saying, I don't know you will like the direction D&D is going...



Oh I don't, but I've got solutions for most of it.

I'm certainly not going to buy another incomplete book though, when I own 3 (xanathar, volo, MToF) and actively don't want Tasha's. 

If the new Monster book isn't even complete? Annoying.


----------



## Dragonsbane

overgeeked said:


> Monsters are undertuned, PCs are overtuned, PC hit points are high and fully regenerate after a long rest, PC damage is high, monster hit points are low, monster damage is low, spells and spell slots are given out like candy, PCs can cast multiple spells in a round, and death is elusive unless the DM really wants a character dead. Skills are plentiful, expertise is easy to get, and skill DCs are low. There are basically no limitations PCs have to deal with short of the DM using house rules or variant rules. 5E is power fantasy superheroes with chainmail replacing spandex. To do anything approaching challenging, the DM has to throw 6-8 deadly encounters at the PCs a day, somehow prevent a long rest, and do it all again the next day...then somewhere near the end of the second day the PCs will be sweating. That’s where they’re challenged.



OMG praise!


----------



## Cadence

Scribe said:


> I find myself looking forward to this book less and less then.




I'm actually ok with this book since I only have copies of the main three (and I wish it was already on DnD beyond before I bought a bunch of random race sections ad-hoc).  

My son on the other hand has all of the various books and so I'm not sure this will be one for him.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Marandahir said:


> Warforged are critical to Eberron, but not exclusive. They have story roles in Nerath and the Realms and not as Eberronian Planeswalkers. Check out the back issues of Dragon Magazine and the 4E Monster Manuals.
> 
> I DID however, miss Gith in my count above, so at least one other lineage is getting the cut. Unsure which, though if I had to go cutting it would be Leonin (thematic overlap with Tabaxi, though they’re also in Mirrordin), Warforged (as you said), or Loxodons (very much a MtG people, though again, they’re also from Mirrordin if we ever get Mirrordin/New Phyrexia).
> 
> And again, from the language of the video, it really doesn’t sound like sublineages are making it in. They experimented with reprinting the core lineage mechanics of Gnomes for the Svirfneblin back in 2015’s Elemental Evil Player Companion and it just led to a host of confusion. Are these Gnomes? They’re certainly called Deep Gnomes in the text. WotC want to reduce confusion. They’re not going to count sublineages.



There are a group of elephant people in the Forgotten Realms called loxo which were playable in previous editions, and they weren't particularly different from loxodon, so the latter do have some multi-word possibilities...


----------



## Marandahir

Demetrios1453 said:


> There are a group of elephant people in the Forgotten Realms called loxo which were playable in previous editions, and they weren't particularly different from loxodon, so the latter do have some multi-word possibilities...



Great.

So that really leaves us with a 31* lineages that are multiworld and no clear answer of which one to cut.

*I say 31 though I maybe have been a bit too harsh on Changeling in comparison to Warforged. In any case, Shifters are very much multiworld, just specially focused on in Eberron. I guess the cut will likely be Warforged, which is a shame for all the Warforged of the Realms and Nerath out there…

it could also mean they intend to do another Eberron book or a companion book of CS-specific peoples…


----------



## Remathilis

Demetrios1453 said:


> There are a group of elephant people in the Forgotten Realms called loxo which were playable in previous editions, and they weren't particularly different from loxodon, so the latter do have some multi-word possibilities...



Well, except for the fact they were large sized and had two trunks, of course.


----------



## Demetrios1453

Remathilis said:


> Well, except for the fact they were large sized and had two trunks, of course.



And now we have a sub-race!

(Honestly, if it came down to loxodon or warforged, I, and presumably the design team, would choose the warforged. I've had plenty of players wanting to play warforged outside of Eberron, but the same can't be said of elephant people)


----------



## Filthy Lucre

God, I *pray* it will be at least a little bit crunchier than 5e as currently is. If 5e could just have a three action economy it would win me over again and away from PF2e.


----------



## overgeeked

Filthy Lucre said:


> God, I *pray* it will be at least a little bit crunchier than 5e as currently is. If 5e could just have a three action economy it would win me over again and away from PF2e.



5E is crunchier than PF2 in that regard. 5E has a *four* action economy. That's one more than PF2, so 5E wins, right?


----------



## Helldritch

Marandahir said:


> The content might be reprints but they’ll be erratad and rebalanced, like we saw in the previews they gave in the video announcement. I don’t know if they plan to release errata stat blocks for all these updates. Probably not.



What errata? There were errata? Boy, how much errata justify a full reprint???? And of two books!!!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> I love Kenku



I've just found them o-so annoying in my games. I'm glad that someone likes them so that they can make use of them in their games, but I've never liked them, as it takes a really experienced roleplayer to run them in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table want to strangle them.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I've just found them o-so annoying in my games. I'm glad that someone likes them so that they can make use of them in their games, but I've never liked them, as it takes a really experienced roleplayer to run them in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table want to strangle them.




I've only run Kenku a couple of times, but it's always gone well. I just play it straight and try not to be annoying. Players recognize a kenku so can feed them lines so the kenku can respond. It works out fine, and it's a little fun to have a roleplaying puzzle to get information out of a kenku merchant or something.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Charlaquin said:


> I love Kenku




 Horribly designed, everything is a ribbon ability, the Mimic thing is a horrible retcon as far as I can tell, and as has been mentioned annoying at a table to some. They should fix the Kenku, get rid of the can't talk thing, only Mimic , the mimic thing was a failed experiment that wrecked a beloved race, and do something cool with Kenku instead.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Remathilis said:


> Well, except for the fact they were large sized and had two trunks, of course.




 The Loxodons have the playable version of large size like Centuars do, that trait that allows them to carry more without messing up dungeon delving for taking up too many squares. They are large without being LARGE. They Loxo would still be the same and the two trunk thing is more fluff for the trunk trait then something that needs to be mechanical.


----------



## Charlaquin

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I've just found them o-so annoying in my games. I'm glad that someone likes them so that they can make use of them in their games, but I've never liked them, as it takes a really experienced roleplayer to run them in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table want to strangle them.



I just follow the advice in the book and use “my character makes the sound of X to communicate Y.” No need to try to imitate other players or create an IRL communication obstacle. The inability to speak except through mimicry is cool flavor, but it shouldn’t become an annoyance or a barrier to gameplay.


----------



## Helldritch

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I've just found them o-so annoying in my games. I'm glad that someone likes them so that they can make use of them in their games, but I've never liked them, as it takes a really experienced roleplayer to run them in a way that doesn't make everyone at the table want to strangle them.



You prefer kender players?


----------



## Scribe

Helldritch said:


> You prefer kender players?



Listen, I grew up with Tasslehoff, and I'll be damned if I must accept this continued slander towards good Kender folk. He just found it ok! I dont know what 'it' is, but he found it!


----------



## Charlaquin

Henadic Theologian said:


> Horribly designed, everything is a ribbon ability, the Mimic thing is a horrible retcon as far as I can tell, and as has been mentioned annoying at a table to some. They should fix the Kenku, get rid of the can't take, only Mimic thing as a failed experiment that wrecked a beloved race, and do something cool with Kenku instead.



Nah, the mimicry is what makes them interesting. Otherwise they’re just bird people that can’t fly. I wouldn’t mind them getting some more mechanical oomph, but don’t get rid of their main selling point!


----------



## Helldritch

Scribe said:


> Listen, I grew up with Tasslehoff, and I'll be damned if I must accept this continued slander towards good Kender folk. He just found it ok! I dont know what 'it' is, but he found it!



You probably missed the posts where I defend Kenders with all my heart. I love them, but here on the forum they're almost a meme.  

Never had any problems with Kender players.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Charlaquin said:


> Nah, the mimicry is what makes them interesting. Otherwise they’re just bird people that can’t fly. I wouldn’t mind them getting some more mechanical oomph, but don’t get rid of their main selling point!




 You can keep the Mimic thing as long as they get rid of the can't talk things, by raw it makes them useless as spellcasters.


----------



## Helldritch

Charlaquin said:


> Nah, the mimicry is what makes them interesting. Otherwise they’re just bird people that can’t fly. I wouldn’t mind them getting some more mechanical oomph, but don’t get rid of their main selling point!



Before covid, I saw a young DM using a tablet on which there were different sound. Whenever a Kenku would "speak" he would simply push a sound. What he could do with that program was impressive. He had about a hundred or so words tied to sound and he would simply type the words and the sound would play. I was impressed.


----------



## Charlaquin

Helldritch said:


> Before covid, I saw a young DM using a tablet on which there were different sound. Whenever a Kenku would "speak" he would simply push a sound. What he could do with that program was impressive. He had about a hundred or so words tied to sound and he would simply type the words and the sound would play. I was impressed.



That’s neat! As long as he could communicate effectively I would have no problem with that.


----------



## Charlaquin

Henadic Theologian said:


> You can keep the Mimic thing as long as they get rid of the can't talk things,



Not being able to talk except through mimicry is the interesting part.


Henadic Theologian said:


> by raw it makes them useless as spellcasters.



There’s no reason they can’t mimic the sound of the somatic components. We handwave everything else about casters learning spells, we can handwave kenku hearing the necessary sounds to piece together the somatic components of their spells.


----------



## Helldritch

Charlaquin said:


> That’s neat! As long as he could communicate effectively I would have no problem with that.



It was more or less precise depending on the subjects but it was working great for his group. I would have taken his little program but it was in Apple... and I am not into Apple...


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Helldritch said:


> You prefer kender players?



Never had any. Nor have I had kender _characters_.


----------



## EllisEthel

TheSword said:


> You do get that players and DMs get to make those choices. You don’t have to make wizard who’s better at fighting than a fighter, you don’t have to pick subclasses that grant spells. They’re options but hardly compulsory.
> 
> If you don’t like that way of playing 5e, stick to rolling your d6’s and don’t pick options that don’t fit your style of play. Just because you don’t like these things, doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t be allowed them



Yes I get that.

I would however, like players to have a more dynamic, exciting game from the start...before options come into play.

I don’t think the core of 5th Edition is so very far away from getting it right but I think they made some design choices that diluted the game and made it less interesting and fun.


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

I like how they're using Magic card art for the monsters in Monsters of the Multiverse.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Marandahir said:


> It was a cultural stereotype of the Japanese Knightly class as if it was a specific thing and not just another Battle Master, Champion, Paladin, etc.
> 
> By making it its own thing it makes it seem like all Japanese-inspired Fighters “have to be” Samurai. Its part of the same problems that the game has to grapple with regarding the Monk.
> 
> How do we make the classes big hat and inclusive without creating pigeonholed culturally insensitive subclasses while also capturing important tropes that are more prominent in genres like Anime, Jidai Geki, Wuxia, martial arts films, etc?
> 
> I think we do them by making more generic subclass names that are applicable but not pigeonholed. It’s why we have Assassins and Way of Shadow Monks, but no Ninja. It’s why we have Harengon and Pallid Elves but not Soratami.



That seems like a stretch, to me.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Marandahir said:


> It was a cultural stereotype of the Japanese Knightly class as if it was a specific thing and not just another Battle Master, Champion, Paladin, etc.
> 
> By making it its own thing it makes it seem like all Japanese-inspired Fighters “have to be” Samurai. Its part of the same problems that the game has to grapple with regarding the Monk.
> 
> How do we make the classes big hat and inclusive without creating pigeonholed culturally insensitive subclasses while also capturing important tropes that are more prominent in genres like Anime, Jidai Geki, Wuxia, martial arts films, etc?
> 
> I think we do them by making more generic subclass names that are applicable but not pigeonholed. It’s why we have Assassins and Way of Shadow Monks, but no Ninja. It’s why we have Harengon and Pallid Elves but not Soratami.




 Your really over thinking it. I think an Elven Samurai which has the same sort of skill set, but with Elvish cultural styles and aesthetic instead of Asian inspired could be really cool.


----------



## Marandahir

Henadic Theologian said:


> Your really over thinking it. I think an Elven Samurai which has the same sort of skill set, but with Elvish cultural styles and aesthetic instead of Asian inspired could be really cool.




Hey, in my home setting Elves are Japanese-inspired too. I think that's a relatively common interpretation. 

But the point is you don't pigeonhole. It's not overthinking when it's a common complaint from the AAPI community that the Samurai subclass was a very bad idea. It was broadly panned.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to make Samurai in D&D. It means that the idea of a specific Fighter subclass that's called Samurai, or a specific Rogue subclass called Ninja, these are HORRIBLE ideas.


----------



## Scribe

Jeremy E Grenemyer said:


> I like how they're using Magic card art for the monsters in Monsters of the Multiverse.



I'm a huge fan of MTG art, but...and I hate to say it...

Reused Monsters, Reused Content, and Reused MTG card art??


----------



## Marandahir

Helldritch said:


> What errata? There were errata? Boy, how much errata justify a full reprint???? And of two books!!!




About half of the 5e D&D books have some form of official errata. The errata is not necessary to enjoy the books but if you want to understand the changing intent of the designers, or in some cases better wording of the original intent, you should download the errata or buy the reprinting of the material.

Volo's was errata'd yes, twice - in 2017 and 2020. The 2020 errata includes the changes made to Orcs in Eberron & Widemount, and to Tritons in Theros, alongside a bunch of other tweaks. 

Curse of Strahd was errata'd in 2020 and the book with the errata worked in was what made it into Curse of Strahd Revamped.

You can find all the links to the current Errata documents in the most recent release of Sage Advice.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

overgeeked said:


> 5E is crunchier than PF2 in that regard. 5E has a *four* action economy. That's one more than PF2, so 5E wins, right?



I'm gunna assume you're joking.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Marandahir said:


> Hey, in my home setting Elves are Japanese-inspired too. I think that's a relatively common interpretation.
> 
> But the point is you don't pigeonhole. It's not overthinking when it's a common complaint from the AAPI community that the Samurai subclass was a very bad idea. It was broadly panned.
> 
> This doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to make Samurai in D&D. It means that the idea of a specific Fighter subclass that's called Samurai, or a specific Rogue subclass called Ninja, these are HORRIBLE ideas.




 No you misunderstood my idea, a Elven Samurai who NOT inspired by Japanese culture beyond the basic skill set of a Samurai, like their aesthetic is more elvish and even celtic then Japanese, but with simular skills to Japanese Samurai. Maybe the Elf only started calling themselves a Samurai because that us what the Shou he met kept calling him.


----------



## Faolyn

Filthy Lucre said:


> I'm gunna assume you're joking.



Actions, bonus actions, reactions, legendary actions, and free actions.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

Faolyn said:


> Actions, bonus actions, reactions, legendary actions, and free actions.



Three actions in one turn*. Do you know know how PF2e actions work?
In case not, PF2e action economy is that everything gets three actions on its turn, a reaction, and free actions also exist. Doing just about anything is at least one action, so problems I have with 5e go away. I.e.: knocking enemies down/tripping isn't so worthless.


----------



## Shardstone

overgeeked said:


> 5E is crunchier than PF2 in that regard. 5E has a *four* action economy. That's one more than PF2, so 5E wins, right?



This just shows you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Marandahir

Henadic Theologian said:


> No you misunderstood my idea, a Elven Samurai who NOT inspired by Japanese culture beyond the basic skill set of a Samurai, like their aesthetic is more elvish and even celtic then Japanese, but with simular skills to Japanese Samurai. Maybe the Elf only started calling themselves a Samurai because that us what the Shou he met kept calling him.




That sounds like appropriation and pigeonholing the concept of a Samurai into these very narrow tropes of kiai shouts etc. At best, you're playing The Last Samurai.

Why not just have the subclass be something that can encapsulate samurai or other noble knightly orders and use a term that doesn't reflect a single real world culture? 

As I said above, just calling what is now the "Samurai" a Battle Master and giving the maneuvers to all Fighters as an option would do wonders to resolve this issue. There's a reason that Ninja, Wu Jen, and Shugenja don't appear in 5e D&D, despite having appeared in past editions in various forms dating back all the way to Oriental Adventurers. There's a reason we don't have an Oriental Adventures book for 5e. There's a reason we don't have a Kara-Tur or Kamigawa book. These are all white guy's appropriations and amalgamations of various Asian cultures, to great detriment. There's a reason that Monk continues to get blowback for even existing as a class.

You can still do that trope of a non-Japanese person becoming a Samurai without WotC enshrining it in the rules. Why can't a Champion or Battle Master or Cavalier or Banneret or Psi Warrior be Samurai? Why do we need a specific "Samurai" subclass? These are legitimate issues the game hasn't grappled with because they rushed a concept by "rule of cool" without giving fair consideration to the hurtful consequences.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for Wuxia or Martial Arts film or Samurai film or Tale of Genji / Romance of the Three Kingdoms courtly politics in D&D. There most definitely is. The point is that it has to be led with respect and inclusiveness without exoticism of the source material. The Samurai subclass is an exoticism. And it should be led best foot forward by empowering AAPI game creators and letting them tell the stories they want to bring to life.


----------



## Scribe

I really dislike that Samurai is a subclass. Like dislike it a ton.


----------



## overgeeked

Shardstone said:


> This just shows you don't know what you're talking about.



Or it's a joke over a silly metric to decide which game to play.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

overgeeked said:


> Or it's a joke over a silly metric to decide which game to play.



Question begging. It's not a silly metric since it's a function of complexity/tactical options. I obviously don't think it's a silly metric.


----------



## Faolyn

Filthy Lucre said:


> Three actions in one turn*. Do you know know how PF2e actions work?
> In case not, PF2e action economy is that everything gets three actions on its turn, a reaction, and free actions also exist. Doing just about anything is at least one action, so problems I have with 5e go away. I.e.: knocking enemies down/tripping isn't so worthless.



Yeah, I've seen that. It's one of the things I actually like about PF2.


----------



## darjr

Charlaquin said:


> I just follow the advice in the book and use “my character makes the sound of X to communicate Y.” No need to try to imitate other players or create an IRL communication obstacle. The inability to speak except through mimicry is cool flavor, but it shouldn’t become an annoyance or a barrier to gameplay.



Yea, that sounds like a player problem.


----------



## Helldritch

Marandahir said:


> About half of the 5e D&D books have some form of official errata. The errata is not necessary to enjoy the books but if you want to understand the changing intent of the designers, or in some cases better wording of the original intent, you should download the errata or buy the reprinting of the material.
> 
> Volo's was errata'd yes, twice - in 2017 and 2020. The 2020 errata includes the changes made to Orcs in Eberron & Widemount, and to Tritons in Theros, alongside a bunch of other tweaks.
> 
> Curse of Strahd was errata'd in 2020 and the book with the errata worked in was what made it into Curse of Strahd Revamped.
> 
> You can find all the links to the current Errata documents in the most recent release of Sage Advice.



The thing where they say I can not have a punchadin in my games? No thank you. SA isn't for me. But thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## darjr




----------



## Remathilis

Marandahir said:


> That sounds like appropriation and pigeonholing the concept of a Samurai into these very narrow tropes of kiai shouts etc. At best, you're playing The Last Samurai.
> 
> Why not just have the subclass be something that can encapsulate samurai or other noble knightly orders and use a term that doesn't reflect a single real world culture?
> 
> As I said above, just calling what is now the "Samurai" a Battle Master and giving the maneuvers to all Fighters as an option would do wonders to resolve this issue. There's a reason that Ninja, Wu Jen, and Shugenja don't appear in 5e D&D, despite having appeared in past editions in various forms dating back all the way to Oriental Adventurers. There's a reason we don't have an Oriental Adventures book for 5e. There's a reason we don't have a Kara-Tur or Kamigawa book. These are all white guy's appropriations and amalgamations of various Asian cultures, to great detriment. There's a reason that Monk continues to get blowback for even existing as a class.
> 
> You can still do that trope of a non-Japanese person becoming a Samurai without WotC enshrining it in the rules. Why can't a Champion or Battle Master or Cavalier or Banneret or Psi Warrior be Samurai? Why do we need a specific "Samurai" subclass? These are legitimate issues the game hasn't grappled with because they rushed a concept by "rule of cool" without giving fair consideration to the hurtful consequences.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't a place for Wuxia or Martial Arts film or Samurai film or Tale of Genji / Romance of the Three Kingdoms courtly politics in D&D. There most definitely is. The point is that it has to be led with respect and inclusiveness without exoticism of the source material. The Samurai subclass is an exoticism. And it should be led best foot forward by empowering AAPI game creators and letting them tell the stories they want to bring to life.



To be honest, you're fighting the flaw of a class based system. Classes and subclasses evoke fantasy tropes that are sometimes rooted in specific cultures. There is no way to attack samurai as insensitive but defend druid, monk, bard, cavalier, paladin, witch, berserker, etc. You either need to accept a certain level of pigeonholing or go to a classless system.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

overgeeked said:


> Monsters are undertuned, PCs are overtuned, PC hit points are high and fully regenerate after a long rest, PC damage is high, monster hit points are low, monster damage is low, spells and spell slots are given out like candy, PCs can cast multiple spells in a round, and death is elusive unless the DM really wants a character dead. Skills are plentiful, expertise is easy to get, and skill DCs are low. There are basically no limitations PCs have to deal with short of the DM using house rules or variant rules. 5E is power fantasy superheroes with chainmail replacing spandex. To do anything approaching challenging, the DM has to throw 6-8 deadly encounters at the PCs a day, somehow prevent a long rest, and do it all again the next day...then somewhere near the end of the second day the PCs will be sweating. That’s where they’re challenged.



This is so far from my experience with 5e…it’s just wild.  

Perhaps your group is significantly optimization focused?  

I lack any “anti-optimizers” in my group, but also any real “power gamers”, and I’ve no issue challenging them with 1-3 encounters per day and some exploration and social challenges.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

EllisEthel said:


> Right... The Lego Movie! Is a good, fun film. I liked it
> 
> My point was that D&D 5th Edition has become a game where everybody is awesome....in life, adversity builds character and the same might be said about roleplaying games like D&D. If everybody is awesome then there is less room for character development and the game becomes less interesting.
> 
> YMMV



Okay. This is basically the same argument as "failure is more interesting than success", you saying that powerful characters makes the game less interesting and somehow ruins roleplay. 

This is wrong, because of one major reason: "failure is more interesting success" is wrong. The real, correct phrase is "Overcoming failure is more interesting than effortless success". Being flawed isn't what makes you interesting, it's overcoming those flaws that does. Being less powerful doesn't make you a better character and certainly doesn't make the game more interesting, it just makes you fail at what you try to do more often. 

"If everyone is awesome", everyone is awesome. When everyone is super, everyone is super. Everyone having something doesn't suddenly make them not have that thing. Syndrome was wrong, as are you. This sounds a lot like "those dang participation trophies, sheltering our children from failure!!! _shakes fist at cloud_", and they're equally nonsensical. Your characters should be capable. They're adventurers. If they're not capable, they're likely to die, and stop being adventurers _due to them being dead_. Which is more interesting: being dead and not being able to go on adventures because of it or being alive and going on adventures and beating your enemies? The former could be cool in a game that focuses on the Afterlife, but the latter is more interesting 9 times out of 10. You need to be capable in order to be interesting and have interesting adventures, because otherwise you're not going to be an adventurer for very long. 

Now, I'm not saying that players should never fail. I'm a strong believer of players having to learn a lesson every now and then if they get over their heads (try to kill a god/demigod at level 7, offend random people for no reason, murder hobos, etc). The PCs should absolutely be tested and not get too confident of their own abilities, because that can lead to their deaths just as swiftly as incapability can in a campaign. I've thrown obviously unbalanced encounters at my players' characters time and time again to make sure they know that they can get in over their heads. I've let my players' characters die or be kidnapped, I've let them fail at parts of the main plot without that ending the campaign, I've had their magic items destroyed or taken away, their abilities nullified by enemies or the environment, and so on. You can have effective and compotent PCs and still challenge them and have them fail. And you know what makes the characters and the campaign even more interesting when this happens? Them overcoming the failures. Not them failing, not them losing power, not them sucking, but them overcoming the hurdles in front of them and surviving, and becoming better characters because of it. Adversity doesn't build character, overcoming adversity does. Dying doesn't make your characters more interesting or better at roleplay, surviving and learning from it does. There are plenty of people, fictional or real, that have a ton of adversity, but aren't any more interesting than anyone else. 

Character development happens because of failure, but the failure isn't the thing that makes them more interesting. Powerful characters don't get in the way of roleplay, and being a weaker character (such as a wizard with a d4 hit die, or having a lower AC, or rolling your ability scores 3d6 in order, or any other example from previous editions of players having weaker characters) doesn't mean that you're any better or more interesting than anyone else's character. 

Everything (and everyone) is awesome, and characters can all be super-powerful heroes without somehow being worse characters. Overcoming adversity is what makes you interesting, not the failure itself.


----------



## Scribe

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Being flawed isn't what makes you interesting, it's overcoming those flaws that does.




Exactly, bring back those -2 modifiers so we have flaws to overcome.


----------



## darjr

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is so far from my experience with 5e…it’s just wild.
> 
> Perhaps your group is significantly optimization focused?
> 
> I lack any “anti-optimizers” in my group, but also any real “power gamers”, and I’ve no issue challenging them with 1-3 encounters per day and some exploration and social challenges.



There does seem to be two main groups. Those that see PCs stomping everything and those that just don’t. I think it’s something worth diving into in detail. Cause I heard both sides from people I trust.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> From the players’ side, there’s really no noticeable difference. Monster wiggles its fingers and mutters some gibberish and a supernatural effect happens - doesn’t matter if the monster spent an Xth level spell slot to do it, or what spells they had prepared, cause that’s all stuff you’ll never see as a player. That’s all DM-facing stuff, and as DM, I don’t really care if it “feels like a spellcaster” to me. That’d be like Oz making sure the buttons and levers behind the curtain “looked magical.”



Well, I almost always approach things from the DM side, and whether or not things "feel right" is very much an issue for me.  So, agree to disagree.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, I almost always approach things from the DM side, and whether or not things "feel right" is very much an issue for me.  So, agree to disagree.



Fair enough, I suppose.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

darjr said:


> There does seem to be two main groups. Those that see PCs stomping everything and those that just don’t. I think it’s something worth diving into in detail. Cause I heard both sides from people I trust.



Yeah absolutely. I’d love to know why some folks are experiencing that.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Marandahir said:


> About half of the 5e D&D books have some form of official errata. The errata is not necessary to enjoy the books but if you want to understand the changing intent of the designers, or in some cases better wording of the original intent, you should download the errata or buy the reprinting of the material.
> 
> Volo's was errata'd yes, twice - in 2017 and 2020. The 2020 errata includes the changes made to Orcs in Eberron & Widemount, and to Tritons in Theros, alongside a bunch of other tweaks.
> 
> Curse of Strahd was errata'd in 2020 and the book with the errata worked in was what made it into Curse of Strahd Revamped.
> 
> You can find all the links to the current Errata documents in the most recent release of Sage Advice.



I've always hated referring to stuff like the recent Volo's and Curse of Strahd as errata.  That makes it sound like they were actually correcting mistakes unintentionally left in the text, as opposed to changing their minds about what they wrote previously (for whatever reason) and trying to retcon their own work so people forget WotC ever thought differently than they have since 2020.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> I've always hated referring to stuff like the recent Volo's and Curse of Strahd as errata.  That makes it sound like they were actually correcting mistakes unintentionally left in the text, as opposed to changing their minds about what they wrote previously (for whatever reason) and trying to retcon their own work so people forget WotC ever thought differently than they have since 2020.



The removal of the wall of the faithless is particularly...odd in this regard, but it is what it is.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Marandahir said:


> That sounds like appropriation and pigeonholing the concept of a Samurai into these very narrow tropes of kiai shouts etc. At best, you're playing The Last Samurai.
> 
> Why not just have the subclass be something that can encapsulate samurai or other noble knightly orders and use a term that doesn't reflect a single real world culture?
> 
> As I said above, just calling what is now the "Samurai" a Battle Master and giving the maneuvers to all Fighters as an option would do wonders to resolve this issue. There's a reason that Ninja, Wu Jen, and Shugenja don't appear in 5e D&D, despite having appeared in past editions in various forms dating back all the way to Oriental Adventurers. There's a reason we don't have an Oriental Adventures book for 5e. There's a reason we don't have a Kara-Tur or Kamigawa book. These are all white guy's appropriations and amalgamations of various Asian cultures, to great detriment. There's a reason that Monk continues to get blowback for even existing as a class.
> 
> You can still do that trope of a non-Japanese person becoming a Samurai without WotC enshrining it in the rules. Why can't a Champion or Battle Master or Cavalier or Banneret or Psi Warrior be Samurai? Why do we need a specific "Samurai" subclass? These are legitimate issues the game hasn't grappled with because they rushed a concept by "rule of cool" without giving fair consideration to the hurtful consequences.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't a place for Wuxia or Martial Arts film or Samurai film or Tale of Genji / Romance of the Three Kingdoms courtly politics in D&D. There most definitely is. The point is that it has to be led with respect and inclusiveness without exoticism of the source material. The Samurai subclass is an exoticism. And it should be led best foot forward by empowering AAPI game creators and letting them tell the stories they want to bring to life.



Is this really a huge issue?  We have to rewrite and/or demonize large portions of fiction and popular culture?  How is someone not born of a culture supposed to write about it?  Or talk about it, for that matter?  I really dont see how this philosophy doesnt stifle creativity by telling people they dont have the right to tell certain stories.


----------



## FrogReaver

Micah Sweet said:


> Is this really a huge issue?  We have to rewrite and/or demonize large portions of fiction and popular culture?  How is someone not born of a culture supposed to write about it?  Or talk about it, for that matter?  I really dont see how this philosophy doesnt stifle creativity by telling people they dont have the right to tell certain stories.



Welp this thread just went nuclear.


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> How is someone not born of a culture supposed to write about it? Or talk about it, for that matter?



Through a cultural/sensitivity consultant. That's the only acceptable answer today, other than...not writing/talking about it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

FrogReaver said:


> Welp this thread just went nuclear.



I'm sorry.  I dont mean it that way, I just feel sometimes like there's a concerted effort out there to make people ashamed of what they enjoy, because the past is bad now.  I'll back off.


----------



## Scribe




----------



## FrogReaver

Scribe said:


> Through a cultural/sensitivity consultant. That's the only acceptable answer today, other than...not writing/talking about it.



And that's a literal minefield.  What if your cultural/sensitivity consultant misses something.  Or what if their cultural heritage becomes criticized as not 'whatever' enough.  Seriously, the only safe bet is to not write/talk about such things.


----------



## Scribe

FrogReaver said:


> And that's a literal minefield.  What if your cultural/sensitivity consultant misses something.  Or what if their cultural heritage becomes criticized as not 'whatever' enough.  Seriously, the only safe bet is to not write/talk about such things.



I think that if companies make an effort, people will acknowledge that. I believe in MTG the new Kamigawa set had cultural consultants. The alternative is...write about nothing, create nothing, that has any ties whatsoever in any way, to someone's culture unless you dont care about the flames that will be directed towards you.

Such is life as a professional creative now.


----------



## Micah Sweet

FrogReaver said:


> And that's a literal minefield.  What if your cultural/sensitivity consultant misses something.  Or what if their cultural heritage becomes criticized as not 'whatever' enough.  Seriously, the only safe bet is to not write/talk about such things.



Which leads right back to this concept stifling creativity.  People are being encouraged to "stay in their lane".


----------



## Faolyn

Scribe said:


> Exactly, bring back those -2 modifiers so we have flaws to overcome.



Those aren't flaws, those are hindrances that say an entire _race _is bad at something. -2 penalties are also boring things to overcome. Yeah, you could end up as a powerful fighter even if your race has a -2 Strength, but that's kind of dull. It's something that gets written about as "despite being a gnome, Blobblenoze was good with a greatsword." Which sounds pandering at _best. _It's far more interesting to overcome individual disability, ineptitude, or negative personality trait. 

Also, since a -2 is really just a -1 penalty, it's such a minor flaw that it's almost meaningless. When real world humans first developed powered flight, that was awesome because humans can't fly. If humans were capable of flight but just weren't _quite _as good as birds were, inventing the airplane wouldn't actually feel all that special. 

If there's going to be a stat penalty, it should be -4 to a stat because a potential -2 to the die roll is actually interesting, and it should be based on the player's choice, not on the race. Let the player decide what they're really bad at. Or it should be a literal inability. Humans can't fly on their own, even with magic. They can be carried by a flying creature or ride a magic carpet, but casting _fly _on a human won't work. Stuff like that.


----------



## Scribe

Dont worry @Faolyn, negative mods will never come back into D&D. You dont have to worry about it, it was a good natured poke for something I enjoy that is gone. 

(Your wish is my command however, Halflings get a -4 in my next iteration...)


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FrogReaver said:


> And that's a literal minefield.  What if your cultural/sensitivity consultant misses something.  Or what if their cultural heritage becomes criticized as not 'whatever' enough.  Seriously, the only safe bet is to not write/talk about such things.



Not really. People tell diverse stories all the time without any crapstorm.  

Also, you seem to be seeing things like artists or companies getting some crap online, and conflating that with…actual negative consequences. But…Wizards has been “raked over the coals” how many times? Literally nothing has ever come of it, other than Wizards apologizing and making some kind of change (often a token, bare minimum, lip-service, change, though not always) somewhere to accommodate the criticism.  

There is no minefield. There’s just a world where criticism from marginalized people actually reaches the ears of the mainstream.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah absolutely. I’d love to know why some folks are experiencing that.



My guess would be that it’s more of a communication issue than a significant disparity in play experience. Two different groups could have exactly the same encounter, and one group might describe it as a tough fight while the other describes it as a cakewalk. Not even because either had a much easier or harder time, but because they had different expectations going into it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> My guess would be that it’s more of a communication issue than a significant disparity in play experience. Two different groups could have exactly the same encounter, and one group might describe it as a tough fight while the other describes it as a cakewalk. Not even because either had a much easier or harder time, but because they had different expectations going into it.



It’s hard to explain “how often do PCs come close to death, how often do they die, how often do they face opposition that worries them” etc as a perception/expectation difference.  

There is definitely a significant play experience difference. Which should be no surprise. 5e is intentionally a _very_ heterogeneous game.


----------



## Charlaquin

FrogReaver said:


> And that's a literal minefield.  What if your cultural/sensitivity consultant misses something.  Or what if their cultural heritage becomes criticized as not 'whatever' enough.  Seriously, the only safe bet is to not write/talk about such things.



That’s not a safe bet at all, because then your work will lack diversity in representation.

No work is beyond reproach. There is always room for critique and always will be. But critique doesn’t equal condemnation. You do your best, and you try to take constructive criticism to heart so hopefully your next attempt is better. That’s always how art has worked, it’s just that there’s been a shift in what’s valued, and what deserves criticism.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s hard to explain “how often do PCs come close to death, how often do they die, how often do they face opposition that worries them” etc as a perception/expectation difference.
> 
> There is definitely a significant play experience difference. Which should be no surprise. 5e is intentionally a _very_ heterogeneous game.



I don’t doubt there’s a disparity of experience, but I think there’s also a disparity of expectations that plays a bigger role than it gets credit for.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t doubt there’s a disparity of experience, but I think there’s also a disparity of expectations that plays a bigger role than it gets credit for.



Fair enough. I think the expectation aspect is there, but I don’t think it’s a large portion of what’s happening.


----------



## Micah Sweet

doctorbadwolf said:


> Fair enough. I think the expectation aspect is there, but I don’t think it’s a large portion of what’s happening.



I always think of Critical Role.  Those players are rarely actually challenged in combat, but they always act like the situation is really dangerous.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Micah Sweet said:


> I always think of Critical Role.  Those players are rarely actually challenged in combat, but they always act like the situation is really dangerous.



They drop pretty often, including having to be revivified.  

What do you consider a challenge, if not a fight where they have to regularly choose between offense and saving/restoring an ally’s life, and only avoid dying permanently by making other sacrifices and working together and playing smart?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> I'm desperately hoping that the genasi get a revamp to bring them in line with aasimar/tiefling.



I really hope any revamp doesn’t try to make the genasi more like _anything_. Being influenced by things from other planes isn’t a unifying feature. There is no reason for genasi to resemble tieflings or aasimar. 


Remathilis said:


> guess it's just weird that every bard that isn't a PC just happens to have the exact same suite of powers from now on...



They don’t, though. The Bard NPC is an example, and nothing more. 


Neonchameleon said:


> But a big part of the reason the Psion had fans was the mechanical hack part of it that meant that you didn't have to faff with Vancian casting. That's gone. And the Aberrant Mind has just about everything you'd expect from a Psion only with a couple more tentacles.



This is a big assumption. 

And the Aberrant Mind’s “tentacles” are hardly an insignificant part of the subclass.

A better psionic sorcerer would be one focused strongly on expanded meta magic, and with at-will telepathy and telekinesis. 

I won’t be surprised either way, new psionic a UA or no new psionic options ever.


----------



## rgoodbb

Charlaquin said:


> I love Kenku



With garlic, mushrooms and a white wine sauce!


----------



## EllisEthel

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Okay. This is basically the same argument as "failure is more interesting than success", you saying that powerful characters makes the game less interesting and somehow ruins roleplay.
> 
> This is wrong, because of one major reason: "failure is more interesting success" is wrong. The real, correct phrase is "Overcoming failure is more interesting than effortless success". Being flawed isn't what makes you interesting, it's overcoming those flaws that does. Being less powerful doesn't make you a better character and certainly doesn't make the game more interesting, it just makes you fail at what you try to do more often.
> 
> "If everyone is awesome", everyone is awesome. When everyone is super, everyone is super. Everyone having something doesn't suddenly make them not have that thing. Syndrome was wrong, as are you. This sounds a lot like "those dang participation trophies, sheltering our children from failure!!! _shakes fist at cloud_", and they're equally nonsensical. Your characters should be capable. They're adventurers. If they're not capable, they're likely to die, and stop being adventurers _due to them being dead_. Which is more interesting: being dead and not being able to go on adventures because of it or being alive and going on adventures and beating your enemies? The former could be cool in a game that focuses on the Afterlife, but the latter is more interesting 9 times out of 10. You need to be capable in order to be interesting and have interesting adventures, because otherwise you're not going to be an adventurer for very long.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that players should never fail. I'm a strong believer of players having to learn a lesson every now and then if they get over their heads (try to kill a god/demigod at level 7, offend random people for no reason, murder hobos, etc). The PCs should absolutely be tested and not get too confident of their own abilities, because that can lead to their deaths just as swiftly as incapability can in a campaign. I've thrown obviously unbalanced encounters at my players' characters time and time again to make sure they know that they can get in over their heads. I've let my players' characters die or be kidnapped, I've let them fail at parts of the main plot without that ending the campaign, I've had their magic items destroyed or taken away, their abilities nullified by enemies or the environment, and so on. You can have effective and compotent PCs and still challenge them and have them fail. And you know what makes the characters and the campaign even more interesting when this happens? Them overcoming the failures. Not them failing, not them losing power, not them sucking, but them overcoming the hurdles in front of them and surviving, and becoming better characters because of it. Adversity doesn't build character, overcoming adversity does. Dying doesn't make your characters more interesting or better at roleplay, surviving and learning from it does. There are plenty of people, fictional or real, that have a ton of adversity, but aren't any more interesting than anyone else.
> 
> Character development happens because of failure, but the failure isn't the thing that makes them more interesting. Powerful characters don't get in the way of roleplay, and being a weaker character (such as a wizard with a d4 hit die, or having a lower AC, or rolling your ability scores 3d6 in order, or any other example from previous editions of players having weaker characters) doesn't mean that you're any better or more interesting than anyone else's character.
> 
> Everything (and everyone) is awesome, and characters can all be super-powerful heroes without somehow being worse characters. Overcoming adversity is what makes you interesting, not the failure itself.



Blimey...

It’s about dynamic range. You are correct...overcoming adversity is one of the keys to unlocking fun games. It’s about risk and reward too. D&D is also a class based game of teamwork with different skill sets working together to overcome the problems they face. I think some of that has been lost in an attempt to make ‘everyone awesome’.

As I mentioned dynamic range....In musical terms...5th Edition has compressed the dynamic range and made it safer and more compatible with poor quality speakers and made it appear to have a higher volume level to begin with...all the instruments sounding similar to each other. Like modern music....which for me...isn’t as much fun as the older stuff. Performances are perfected, auto-tuned, quantised and buffed up to a stunning shine....but they are less interesting because they lack the flaws which made them sound more organic and human...same with 5e.

I get that you really like it, I just think it has room for improvement.

I’ve made my point and I’m done. If you want to have the last word, go for it.

Have a good day and happy gaming


----------



## TheSword

Marandahir said:


> That sounds like appropriation and pigeonholing the concept of a Samurai into these very narrow tropes of kiai shouts etc. At best, you're playing The Last Samurai.
> 
> Why not just have the subclass be something that can encapsulate samurai or other noble knightly orders and use a term that doesn't reflect a single real world culture?
> 
> As I said above, just calling what is now the "Samurai" a Battle Master and giving the maneuvers to all Fighters as an option would do wonders to resolve this issue. There's a reason that Ninja, Wu Jen, and Shugenja don't appear in 5e D&D, despite having appeared in past editions in various forms dating back all the way to Oriental Adventurers. There's a reason we don't have an Oriental Adventures book for 5e. There's a reason we don't have a Kara-Tur or Kamigawa book. These are all white guy's appropriations and amalgamations of various Asian cultures, to great detriment. There's a reason that Monk continues to get blowback for even existing as a class.
> 
> You can still do that trope of a non-Japanese person becoming a Samurai without WotC enshrining it in the rules. Why can't a Champion or Battle Master or Cavalier or Banneret or Psi Warrior be Samurai? Why do we need a specific "Samurai" subclass? These are legitimate issues the game hasn't grappled with because they rushed a concept by "rule of cool" without giving fair consideration to the hurtful consequences.
> 
> I'm not saying there isn't a place for Wuxia or Martial Arts film or Samurai film or Tale of Genji / Romance of the Three Kingdoms courtly politics in D&D. There most definitely is. The point is that it has to be led with respect and inclusiveness without exoticism of the source material. The Samurai subclass is an exoticism. And it should be led best foot forward by empowering AAPI game creators and letting them tell the stories they want to bring to life.



Of course it really isn’t as simple as that. Cultural appropriation is a complicated subject and covers a large range of issues. Many of which are totally benign and even to be encouraged.

What you’re criticizing is cultural mis-appropriation. Where such ideas a misleading or dishonest. 30 years of large Japanese video game companies exporting the ideas of ninja and samurai to the western world has subsumed such ideas into the culture of every teenager that grew up with a play station.

If you actually look at 5e’s handling of the samurai subclass they have removed all the honour-to-the-point-of-self-destruction from the class, along with the caste system, the need to follow a lord, expectations over weapon use, codes of ethics, alignment restrictions, gender bias etc. The 5e subclass really isn’t exotic at all.

What is left is an educated fighter with a strong will. I’m struggling to see what the issue with that kind of subclass, as depicted in the 5e system. I would also see no issue with a rogue subclass that had a small amount of shadow magic and proficiency with additional tools, if it didn’t come with the expectation that they were the lowest of the low to be slain on sight. The 5e samurai can represent several different fighter tropes.

There is a world of difference between 5e’s treatment of samurai the 1e oriental adventures books. They are fundamentally different approaches.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EllisEthel said:


> Blimey...
> 
> It’s about dynamic range. You are correct...overcoming adversity is one of the keys to unlocking fun games. It’s about risk and reward too. D&D is also a class based game of teamwork with different skill sets working together to overcome the problems they face. I think some of that has been lost in an attempt to make ‘everyone awesome’.
> 
> As I mentioned dynamic range....In musical terms...5th Edition has compressed the dynamic range and made it safer and more compatible with poor quality speakers and made it appear to have a higher volume level to begin with...all the instruments sounding similar to each other. Like modern music....which for me...isn’t as much fun as the older stuff. Performances are perfected, auto-tuned, quantised and buffed up to a stunning shine....but they are less interesting because they lack the flaws which made them sound more organic and human...same with 5e.
> 
> I get that you really like it, I just think it has room for improvement.
> 
> I’ve made my point and I’m done. If you want to have the last word, go for it.
> 
> Have a good day and happy gaming



Huh. Part of my enjoyment of 5e is exactly that it is less polished and more open.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Marandahir said:


> It's not overthinking when it's a common complaint from the AAPI community that the Samurai subclass was a very bad idea. It was broadly panned.



I have literally never seen anyone complain about it before, here or anywhere else.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

doctorbadwolf said:


> I have literally never seen anyone complain about it before, here or anywhere else.




I don't care much, but it is from a naming perspective pretty silly... Samurai is essentially just a Japanese word for Knight. They're largely the same thing, in different countries. Nobles who wear armor.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Urriak Uruk said:


> I don't care much, but it is from a naming perspective pretty silly... Samurai is essentially just a Japanese word for Knight. They're largely the same thing, in different countries. Nobles who wear armor.



I think the similarity is overplayed, andthe significance of “different countries(cultures)” underplayed.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think the similarity is overplayed, andthe significance of “different countries(cultures)” underplayed.




Obviously their different cultures and countries, and other differences, but a samurai really is a "Japanese Knight," and a knight really is a "European Samurai." Doesn't make much sense that they behave mechanically different.


----------



## Scribe

doctorbadwolf said:


> I have literally never seen anyone complain about it before, here or anywhere else.



Really? I've seen complaints here about Samurai.

My issue is, its simply way too tied to a specific nation's history.

"Knight"? You can apply that to many countries.
"Paladin"? Same thing. Its escaped its original definition.

Same with Bard.

Monk? Especially D&D Monk? That's at least transferable to several nationalities, histories, and cultures (depending how far back one goes).

Samurai, is from one place, and one place only in the greater 'consciousness', and thats Japan.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Urriak Uruk said:


> Obviously their different cultures and countries, and other differences, but a samurai really is a "Japanese Knight," and a knight really is a "European Samurai." Doesn't make much sense that they behave mechanically different.



But they really aren’t. They’re different. If you called the Samurai subclass “Knight” I’d be confused, while the Cavalier makes sense for the European Knight, but would be odd for the classic Samurai. Both get some extra social graces, but their mechanics reflect different priorities and tactics, and different cultural expectation of the classic iteration of the concept.  

Like, go watch any Japanese movie about Samurai, and…there is a lot more difference between them and European knights than there is between English and Spanish Knights. It makes sense to make them different.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Scribe said:


> Really? I've seen complaints here about Samurai.
> 
> My issue is, its simply way too tied to a specific nation's history.
> 
> "Knight"? You can apply that to many countries.
> "Paladin"? Same thing. Its escaped its original definition.
> 
> Same with Bard.
> 
> Monk? Especially D&D Monk? That's at least transferable to several nationalities, histories, and cultures (depending how far back one goes).
> 
> Samurai, is from one place, and one place only in the greater 'consciousness', and thats Japan.



Okay, why is that a problem? Some subclass concepts are more specific than others. This is a feature.


----------



## Scribe

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay, why is that a problem? Some subclass concepts are more specific than others. This is a feature.



I simply don't think it's needed. My issue, nothing more.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Scribe said:


> The removal of the wall of the faithless is particularly...odd in this regard, but it is what it is.




 I think it's foretelling some thing that Drizzt will do in the current trilogy to end the wall.


----------



## Scribe

Henadic Theologian said:


> I think it's foretelling some thing that Drizzt will do in the current trilogy to end the wall.



lol, jumping the gun a bit much then dont you think? Its been removed for quite some time.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Scribe said:


> lol, jumping the gun a bit much then dont you think? Its been removed for quite some time.




 Not that long before the trilogy actually.


----------



## TheSword

Scribe said:


> I simply don't think it's needed. My issue, nothing more.



Something being unique is a reason to include it, not remove it. That said, It’s an archetype: educated knight who fights on foot with a strong will. You could use it for a samurai, knight of the round table or a poet soldier.

Don't get hung up on the name. I’ve seen monks played as boxers, brawlers, and spies. They don’t need to play up to eastern exotica.

The troublesome elements raised by Asians Represent were removed as far as I can see.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

doctorbadwolf said:


> But they really aren’t. They’re different. If you called the Samurai subclass “Knight” I’d be confused, while the Cavalier makes sense for the European Knight, but would be odd for the classic Samurai. Both get some extra social graces, but their mechanics reflect different priorities and tactics, and different cultural expectation of the classic iteration of the concept.
> 
> Like, go watch any Japanese movie about Samurai, and…there is a lot more difference between them and European knights than there is between English and Spanish Knights. It makes sense to make them different.




Yeah, I don't agree. Mechanically, the abilities of the Samurai subclass fit a knight pretty well. The Cavalier mechanics don't fit a samurai, but it would fit a _mounted _samurai. Even the names of abilities fit fine. 

Anyway, I agree with others here that the term "samurai" is too niche and tied to one specific real-world country.

I've talked about this enough, especially as how this is far off-topic of the thread.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yeah, I don't agree. Mechanically, the abilities of the Samurai subclass fit a knight pretty well. The Cavalier mechanics don't fit a samurai, but it would fit a _mounted _samurai. Even the names of abilities fit fine.
> 
> Anyway, I agree with others here that the term "samurai" is too niche and tied to one specific real-world country.
> 
> I've talked about this enough, especially as how this is far off-topic of the thread.



The specificity isn’t a bug.  

As for the Cavalier fitting a mounted Samurai…where is the mounted archery, just for a start. What in the subclass speaks to the cultural expectations in Japan of a Samurai warrior?


----------



## Urriak Uruk

doctorbadwolf said:


> The specificity isn’t a bug.
> 
> As for the Cavalier fitting a mounted Samurai…where is the mounted archery, just for a start. What in the subclass speaks to the cultural expectations in Japan of a Samurai warrior?




Yo, you're just proving here how specificity is a bug here. If I make a knight in Eberron, no one is going to be confused. If I make a samurai, everyone's going to look at me and say, "What? Which nation here has samurai? That's a Japanese warrior!" The subclass is too tied to a specific real-world culture (which translate badly to fictional settings) to give it its niche... but if we _remove _that cultural stuff, it's just a knight!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

TheSword said:


> They don’t need to play up to eastern exotica.



Except, that's literally built into the mechanics of the game. Monks can run up walls and on water, one of their main mechanics is named "Ki", their fists are magical, they stop being affected by aging, can literally astral project and turn invisible and get resistance to all damage (except force) by using their ki points. 

The Monk class, although I wish it was more open to fit pugilist and spy characters, is very much filled with "eastern exotica". I'm absolutely fine with those roles being playable in D&D 5e, I think they're awesome and would play them in a heartbeat, but the class is so dependent on real world stereotypes that I find it a bit cringy, just like I think that it's a bad idea to have the Paladin or Barbarian classes as reliant on their source material as they were in previous editions. 

IMO, the same applies to the Samurai. Why can't there be Paladin Samurai, Monk Samurai, or even a Barbarian or Ranger Samurai? Why does it have to be a subclass, instead of just, you know, a theme that characters can choose? We don't have a subclass for Aztec Eagle and Jaguar Knights, or an Amazonian Warrior, or a Greek Hoplite, or a Roman Legionnaire, but have one for the Japanese Samurai? All of these roles can be played by just flavoring your martial character as those, taking fighting styles, weapons, and feats that mirror how they fought historically, and roleplay them in a manner similar to the historical culture they came from. They don't need subclasses, because opening up the door for subclasses for them could get arduous and potentially problematic really fast. It's just much easier to file them under "reflavor, roleplay and make fitting character decisions to that style" instead of "this real-world-culture-specific warrior needs a subclass, and the others don't get them, because _reasons_". 

That's why I don't like having classes or subclasses so specifically dependent on real world cultures. It creates issues, and there's just a way easier way of doing it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> As for the Cavalier fitting a mounted Samurai…where is the mounted archery, just for a start.



They can pick up a bow while mounted . . . and use that bow while mounted. That's where the mounted archery is. They can even use the Archery Fighting Style and Sharpshooter feat while doing so!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yo, you're just proving here how specificity is a bug here. If I make a knight in Eberron, no one is going to be confused. If I make a samurai, everyone's going to look at me and say, "What? Which nation here has samurai? That's a Japanese warrior!" The subclass is too tied to a specific real-world culture (which translate badly to fictional settings) to give it its niche... but if we _remove _that cultural stuff, it's just a knight!



Wait, you think pre-industrial Japanese culture translates poorly to fictional settings? What on Earth!?  

That aside, it’s pretty easy to use the Samurai in Eberron. I’ve seen it done as a Hobgoblin born to martial leadership, I’ve seen it as a dueling master seeking glory from a small nation in Sarlona who was secretly on a mission against the Inspired, and as a Cyran refugee who was a member of a particular martial order of the Silver Flame.    

Obviously in FR there are places that literally just have Samurai, and in a homebrew you can easily build a culture that has a similar dynamic and philosophy of a given period of the history of Japanese Samurai.  

But having a subclass that is a specific Order is fine. There isn’t a reason to not do that, and Samurai isn’t the only one. Hell it isn’t the only fighter archetype that belongs a single nation! The Purple Dragon Knight is specific to one nation in on setting, but people have no problem translating it outside of that context. It would be weird to make it a base class, but a subclass? Pretty normal fare. The only difference is Samurai is not from the same RL culture as most of the PHB.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Except, that's literally built into the mechanics of the game. Monks can run up walls and on water, one of their main mechanics is named "Ki", their fists are magical, they stop being affected by aging, can literally astral project and turn invisible and get resistance to all damage (except force) by using their ki points.
> 
> The Monk class, although I wish it was more open to fit pugilist and spy characters, is very much filled with "eastern exotica".



A bit, though making it more mundane would be a terrible solution. Better to lean into the esoteric/mystic nature of the archetype with a more broad selection of Ki powers, and rename the class and the “ki” feature.  



AcererakTriple6 said:


> IMO, the same applies to the Samurai. Why can't there be Paladin Samurai, Monk Samurai, or even a Barbarian or Ranger Samurai?



You can. Go ahead. You can also use the Samurai to make a noble Spanish inspired duelist if you want. The presence of the Samurai subclass doesn’t interfere at all with you making a Paladin Samurai.  

I mean, surely you don’t think that we can’t have Fighter Swashbucklers just because Rogue has a subclass bearing that name?


AcererakTriple6 said:


> That's why I don't like having classes or subclasses so specifically dependent on real world cultures. It creates issues, and there's just a way easier way of doing it.



What issues, though? That some folks might not like the lack of symmetry or grid filling that comes with only some RL specific orders/titles having an archetype in the game built to model them? I have a hard time imagining a complaint I’d care less about, as a designer.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

doctorbadwolf said:


> A bit, though making it more mundane would be a terrible solution. Better to lean into the esoteric/mystic nature of the archetype with a more broad selection of Ki powers, and rename the class and the “ki” feature.



Sure, but you can also lean into the esoteric nature of the class without having to base it so much after East Asian exotica. "Esoteric" doesn't always mean "East Asian themed". You could have an Esoteric Pugilist, that is just a wrestler/boxer that punches people magically. There's no reason why that has to automatically be based off of East Asian Monks. It can obviously fulfill that theme, and like I said before, I love that D&D can support a diverse array of playstyles and characters, but I don't think it's good class design to have one of the core classes of the game be so heavily based off of a real world culture. I don't like it with Paladins, Barbarians, or Druids, and I don't like it with Monks. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> You can. Go ahead. You can also use the Samurai to make a noble Spanish inspired duelist if you want. The presence of the Samurai subclass doesn’t interfere at all with you making a Paladin Samurai.



. . . It makes it less of a Samurai than the Samurai subclass. There's an Order of the Stick comic precisely about this. If there's an archetype named something and you call yourself that thing, it will make people confused and you'll be perceived as less of that thing than the person of that archetype.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, surely you don’t think that we can’t have Fighter Swashbucklers just because Rogue has a subclass bearing that name?



Swashbuckling is a much larger and less specific theme than a Samurai, which is a very specific real world culture's type of warrior. This is a false equivalency. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> What issues, though? That some folks might not like the lack of symmetry or grid filling that comes with only some RL specific orders/titles having an archetype in the game built to model them? I have a hard time imagining a complaint I’d care less about, as a designer.



It's not about "grid filling". It's about "why are we treating these types of real world culture's specialized warriors differently?" IMHO, they should all be treated the same; just being a specific way you play your character. If one is a subclass and another is just reflavoring, they're not being treated in the same way, and this causes issues and questions about why it is the way it is. It's favoritism and nonsensical design. I like design, worldbuilding, and homebrewing that makes sense.


----------



## Remathilis

Urriak Uruk said:


> Yo, you're just proving here how specificity is a bug here. If I make a knight in Eberron, no one is going to be confused. If I make a samurai, everyone's going to look at me and say, "What? Which nation here has samurai? That's a Japanese warrior!" The subclass is too tied to a specific real-world culture (which translate badly to fictional settings) to give it its niche... but if we _remove _that cultural stuff, it's just a knight!



Dhakaan. Keith Baker said the (3.5) version of samurai and ninja fit well with proud martial traditions of the ancient goblinoids. Hobgoblin samurai and goblin ninjas were great ways to show incorporate the classic tropes of both without a need for an exoticized Asia analog.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Sure, but you can also lean into the esoteric nature of the class without having to base it so much after East Asian exotica.



Sure. That was literally my point. I don’t really see how a esoteric pugilist has any traction, but whatever, go for it. Just don’t turn the class into a mundane martial artist. There literally isn’t any reason to not just use the fighter for that. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> It makes it less of a Samurai than the Samurai subclass. There's an Order of the Stick comic precisely about this. If there's an archetype named something and you call yourself that thing, it will make people confused and you'll be perceived as less of that thing than the person of that archetype.



No. That is complete nonsense. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> It's favoritism and nonsensical design



It isn’t either of those, at all. It’s just an artifact of the fact that not every single thing that is cool in the world can gets it’s own subclass. At least, not within what 6 books.


----------



## Remathilis

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It's not about "grid filling". It's about "why are we treating these types of real world culture's specialized warriors differently?" IMHO, they should all be treated the same; just being a specific way you play your character. If one is a subclass and another is just reflavoring, they're not being treated in the same way, and this causes issues and questions about why it is the way it is. It's favoritism and nonsensical design. I like design, worldbuilding, and homebrewing that makes sense.




Why do we treat Norse berserkers and Arthurian holy knights as specialized warriors? Why are ancient Celtic holy men singled out as a separate class when all other religions fit under a different class? Why are there three separate spellcaster classes when thier names are synonyms for one another? 

Because: reasons.


----------



## Umbran

doctorbadwolf said:


> No. That is complete nonsense.




*Mod Note:*
You know, in another thread, someone just used pretty much this exact line on you, and you declared you weren't going to engage.  So... maybe you will want to reconsider using it yourself.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Remathilis said:


> Why do we treat Norse berserkers and Arthurian holy knights as specialized warriors? Why are ancient Celtic holy men singled out as a separate class when all other religions fit under a different class? Why are there three separate spellcaster classes when thier names are synonyms for one another?
> 
> Because: reasons.



But they're not treated that way anymore. D&D's Barbarian, Paladin, and Druid classes have expanded well beyond their origin. Monks really haven't. A Paladin doesn't have to be an Arthurian knight anymore, Barbarians have expanded a ton from their nordic berserker roots (the "Berserker" subclass doesn't have any Norse-specific mechanics), and Druids are now basically just a "shaman" subclass. There are lore reasons for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards being different classes and being different mechanically. 

How real world archetypes are and should be treated in the game is a good discussion to be had. Not one to be dismissed by whataboutisms and ignored.


----------



## Remathilis

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Sure, but you can also lean into the esoteric nature of the class without having to base it so much after East Asian exotica. "Esoteric" doesn't always mean "East Asian themed". You could have an Esoteric Pugilist, that is just a wrestler/boxer that punches people magically. There's no reason why that has to automatically be based off of East Asian Monks.




Name one monk subclass that isn't based on some Asian form of martial arts. There is a Shaolin open hand monk, a shadow ninja, an element-bender, a drunken master, a sun monk that fings hadokens, and a kensi weapon master. I guess the Mercy monk is supposed to have some sort of plague doctor thing going on, but it's only supported in the art.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Remathilis said:


> Name one monk subclass that isn't based on some Asian form of martial arts. There is a Shaolin open hand monk, a shadow ninja, an element-bender, a drunken master, a sun monk that fings hadokens, and a kensi weapon master. I guess the Mercy monk is supposed to have some sort of plague doctor thing going on, but it's only supported in the art.



. . . Are you trying to rebut my post here? You're kind-of proving it. The 5e monk is heavily reliant on Asian archetypes/stereotypes. That's kinda my problem with it. The paladin isn't only an Arthurian Knight in Shining Armor anymore, the Barbarian isn't only a Nordic Berserker, and the Druid isn't only a Celtic Priest, but the Monk, more-or-less, is still just an Asian Martial Artist. That's exactly my issue with it and the Samurai. The other classes expanded, and while they still include their historical niche, they also include a vast swathe of other themes (Oath of Conquest/Watchers/Heroism Paladins, Circle of Spores/Wildfire/Stars Druids, Path of the Beast/Zealot/Totem Warrior Barbarian). 

Do you not see the issue there?


----------



## Marandahir

Remathilis said:


> Name one monk subclass that isn't based on some Asian form of martial arts. There is a Shaolin open hand monk, a shadow ninja, an element-bender, a drunken master, a sun monk that fings hadokens, and a kensi weapon master. I guess the Mercy monk is supposed to have some sort of plague doctor thing going on, but it's only supported in the art.




It's in the mechanics of the Way of Mercy too. 

Way of the Iron Embrace, Way of the Desert Wind, Way of the Cobalt Soul, Way of the Astral Self, Way of the Long Death, Way of the Ascendant Dragon, all these builds fit Monks that aren't particularly Orientalist tropes. 

But the Monk class itself is particularly orientalist cliches in its core class mechanics, which is an issue. 

Again, I have no issue with Wuxia being a genre of play in the game. The problem is complicated, but the simplest solution is not not use the minefield name. 

And we've seen WotC avoid names to prevent confusion in other cases: they made Critical Role change their Draconian Dragonborns into Draconblood Dragonborns so as not to confuse with Draconians from Dragonlance. They haven't released a Templar subclass or feat or background of any kind, because Templar has a VERY SPECIFIC meaning in Dark Sun. 

Samurai is being used here to represent kitchen sink Oriental Adventures warriors when it's very specifically a warrior caste from Japan. 

Paladin and Druid and Bard don't have the same cultural currency outside of their RPG counterparts that Samurai and Ninja etc do. Sure, Paladins were the predecessors of the duchies and counts of France, the 12 legendary companions of Charlemagne. And yes, as an amateur Celtic cultural scholar, I'm well aware of the real world meanings of Druids and Bards. But if people aren't thinking of nature mage RPG character for Druids, they're otherwise thinking people in white cloaks with sun symbols performing human sacrifice at Stonehenge, which is ALSO fanciful. And likewise, the idea of Bards have been taken over by collective cultural ideas to represent musicians and poets, travelling minstrels etc. These latter two are also concepts that defy national borders - we've got Bards and Druids in history from Spain to Ireland to as far away as the Black Sea and Turkey - wherever there were Celtic-speaking peoples. So these are concepts that are really pan-European. While Samurai are very specific to just one country, Japan. To apply them more broadly is a form of cultural appropriation that we really shouldn't be doing.


----------



## Remathilis

AcererakTriple6 said:


> How real world archetypes are and should be treated in the game is a good discussion to be had. Not one to be dismissed by whataboutisms and ignored.




I think it's fair that if we are reexamining if a sub/class that has a certain cultural name or trope is harmful to that culture, ALL of them should be on the table. Druids and paladins have evolved past their cultural past? Then perhaps it's time to rename or reexamine those classes. Neither of those terms, to the best of my knowledge, has lost its cultural origin like "barbarian" or "assassin" has. Maybe it's time to rename and reinvent bards, druids, monks, samurai, paladins, cavalier, kensi, warlocks, and other class names with cultural baggage.


----------



## Marandahir

Remathilis said:


> I think it's fair that if we are reexamining if a sub/class that has a certain cultural name or trope is harmful to that culture, ALL of them should be on the table. Druids and paladins have evolved past their cultural past? Then perhaps it's time to rename or reexamine those classes. Neither of those terms, to the best of my knowledge, has lost its cultural origin like "barbarian" or "assassin" has. Maybe it's time to rename and reinvent bards, druids, monks, samurai, paladins, cavalier, kensi, warlocks, and other class names with cultural baggage.




Maybe! I do think that Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Cavalier, and Warlock are terms that have adopted other meanings over time. Kensei and Samurai are very specific terms that really shouldn't have been used in the game, though. 

And Barbarian is actually one of the worse offenders; it's still a derogatory term that doesn't at all describe what the class does or is. I'm sure that more than a few Imaziɣen would find this class name offensive to this day, similar to how the Romany have found Vistani as extremely offensive depictions.

This does not mean we don't include fantasy approximations of real world cultures or in other ways celebrate those cultures. Vistani don't have to go away. Barbarians don't have to go away. Heck, Kara-Tur doesn't have to stop existing in the Realms. It's the WAY these tropes are utilised, that we don't reduce them down to stereotypes, that we LISTEN to the concerns of the people who come from said cultures, that we put their stories front and center rather than forcing orientalist fantasy cliches written by old white men into the spotlight to capitalize on the fandoms of Japanophiles (admittedly, including yours truly). 

I won't deny that I have copies of the 1e and 3e Oriental Adventures. These books are horribly offensive and were wrong then and are wrong now. But there IS a draw to the fiction and genre, and when I was young and stupid I thought these books could help me capture some of that flavour I enjoyed. And at our home games you have the space to explore tropes and cliches that you may find fun while others might find it offensive. That's for YOUR table to figure out what you all feel comfortable with. 

MY issue is rather with publicly sanctioned culturally-insensitive stereotypes published in books, making it seem like if you want to play a Samurai character, you have to BE as Samurai Fighter. Or if you use the Samurai Fighter subclass, then you're automatically a Japanese noble-warrior, not a Dhakaani Hobgoblin or Elvish Blademaster, complete with all the anime puns and Weeaboo-Weeaboo shaming and snickering.  

And as I said before, I have little issue with the Samurai subclass mechanics. My solution as originally posed - that seemingly derailed the thread, I'm sorry everyone - was that if we move Maneuvers into a dial that all Fighters can access without a feat or fighting style, and no longer have two Fighter subclasses are are completely generic but with completely different mechanics, then the name Battle Master can be moved over to take on the Samurai subclass features. It doesn't need to be called a Knight. Battle Master captures the idea that Samurai is trying to talk about, too, without pigeonholing into a single culture.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Remathilis said:


> I think it's fair that if we are reexamining if a sub/class that has a certain cultural name or trope is harmful to that culture,



Who ever said "harmful to that culture"? Certainly not me. I just think that it's bad design to have such a big disparity between classes for how they and their historical roots are treated. 


Remathilis said:


> ALL of them should be on the table.



I never said that any of them are above scrutiny. I think that anything in D&D that has the potential to be harmful towards a culture or people should be scrutinized and sensitively designed. Just because we're talking about one thing (Monks and Samurai and their ties to their inspiration from East Asian Martial Artists), doesn't mean that we're ignoring other things. 


Remathilis said:


> Druids and paladins have evolved past their cultural past? Then perhaps it's time to rename or reexamine those classes. Neither of those terms, to the best of my knowledge, has lost its cultural origin like "barbarian" or "assassin" has.



Fine. Rename the Druid to "Shaman" if that's better (I don't know if it is, just giving a suggestion). Rename the Paladin to "Knight" or "Oathsworn" or something like that. I honestly don't care. These are just red herrings to distract away from the topic of discussion. Who cares? If the names are too tied to their European ancestry for the modern class, change the name. 


Remathilis said:


> Maybe it's time to rename and reinvent bards, druids, monks, samurai, paladins, cavalier, kensi, warlocks, and other class names with cultural baggage.



Again, this is a red herring. Either discuss the thing we're discussing, or don't. Just don't try to distract from it with whataboutisms and other red herrings.


----------



## Marandahir

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Who ever said "harmful to that culture"? Certainly not me. I just think that it's bad design to have such a big disparity between classes for how they and their historical roots are treated.
> 
> I never said that any of them are above scrutiny. I think that anything in D&D that has the potential to be harmful towards a culture or people should be scrutinized and sensitively designed. Just because we're talking about one thing (Monks and Samurai and their ties to their inspiration from East Asian Martial Artists), doesn't mean that we're ignoring other things.
> 
> Fine. Rename the Druid to "Shaman" if that's better (I don't know if it is, just giving a suggestion). Rename the Paladin to "Knight" or "Oathsworn" or something like that. I honestly don't care. These are just red herrings to distract away from the topic of discussion. Who cares? If the names are too tied to their European ancestry for the modern class, change the name.
> 
> Again, this is a red herring. Either discuss the thing we're discussing, or don't. Just don't try to distract from it with whataboutisms and other red herrings.




I think Shaman is more offensive and appropriating than Druid is, but what do I know. I agree that this is a red herring.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

This is a nonsense debate.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Marandahir said:


> I think Shaman is more offensive and appropriating than Druid is, but what do I know. I agree that this is a red herring.



It's less specific, culturally, than "Druid", which was my reasoning behind suggesting it. However, I'm definitely not an expert, and was just giving a suggestion.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

Nvm


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It's less specific, culturally, than "Druid", which was my reasoning behind suggesting it. However, I'm definitely not an expert, and was just giving a suggestion.



The very broad usage of Shaman can be argued to be a wild misappropriation of a much more culturally specific term than Druid, FWIW.


----------



## Marandahir

Filthy Lucre said:


> Lol, what? This is a demonstrably false statement.




It really depends on a lot of factors we don't really have full answers to. Is Shaman a Tungusic word or is it ultimately from Sanskrit? Are we talking about what the word Shaman has become in the English language (a hodgepodge catch all for priests and holy people that are not from one of the imperial cultures we study in World History)? Or are we talking about specific Tungusic holy people from whence the term entered the language? 

Are we saying Druid in the very specific, Brittano-Gaulo-Belgic sense that Julius Caesar wrote about them, or are we talking about the priestly class across Celtic cultures? Or are we talking about nature priest animal skin-changers? Because those are very much a modern invention, but very much part of the word's identity now. 

I'd argue that Shaman is a more problematic term because it's a word used in modern day English to denigrate and otherise sacred traditions of cultures the English speaker knows little about, whether they be from Siberia or South America or sub-Saharan Africa or Australia or among the first nations of North America, etc. Meanwhile, Druid has particular meaning in the cultural heritage of the remaining Celtic nations of Britain, Eire, Cymru, Alba, Kernow, Breizh, and Galiza, but is not used to refer to modern-day religious practitioners as the religion was replaced by Christianity centuries ago. The term IS used by Neo-Pagan and Neo-Druidic societies like OBOD, but these groups are similarly creating new definitions for these terms that have little if any continuity with the original Bards, Wates, and Druids of Ancient Celtic religious and scholarly life.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

For me, discussions of hyper nuanced political correctness/sensitivity don't enhance my D&D experience. As long as the monks aren't buck teethed/squinting and the shamans don't have bone nose piercings I'm good.


----------



## Faolyn

I'm not really sure that D&D druids are or should count as shamans. According to Wikipedia:



> The English historian Ronald Hutton noted that by the dawn of the 21st century, there were four separate definitions of the term which appeared to be in use:
> 
> The first of these uses the term to refer to "anybody who contacts a spirit world while in an altered state of consciousness."
> The second definition limits the term to refer to those who contact a spirit world while in an altered state of consciousness at the behest of others.
> The third definition attempts to distinguish shamans from other magico-religious specialists who are believed to contact spirits, such as "mediums", "witch doctors", "spiritual healers" or "prophets," by claiming that shamans undertake some particular technique not used by the others. (Problematically, scholars advocating the third view have failed to agree on what the defining technique should be.)
> The fourth definition identified by Hutton uses "shamanism" to refer to the indigenous religions of Siberia and neighboring parts of Asia.[21] According to the Golomt Center for Shamanic Studies, a Mongolian organisation of shamans, the Evenk word _shaman_ would more accurately be translated as "priest".[22]



Whereas the D&D druid focuses very firmly on animals, plants, and the elements. They aren't focused on spirits and don't even get _speak with dead_ or _etherealness_, two spells kinda necessary to contact a spirit world while in _any _state of consciousness. The Wikipedia page also goes on to list a bunch of typical shaman abilities, all of which are firmly in the D&D cleric wheelhouse:



> There are many variations of shamanism throughout the world, but several common beliefs are shared by all forms of shamanism. Common beliefs identified by Eliade (1972)[27] are the following:
> 
> Spirits exist and they play important roles both in individual lives and in human society
> The shaman can communicate with the spirit world
> Spirits can be benevolent or malevolent
> The shaman can treat sickness caused by malevolent spirits
> The shaman can employ trances inducing techniques to incite visionary ecstasy and go on vision quests
> The shaman's spirit can leave the body to enter the supernatural world to search for answers
> The shaman evokes animal images as spirit guides, omens, and message-bearers
> The shaman can perform other varied forms of divination, scry, throw bones or runes, and sometimes foretell of future events
> As Alice Kehoe[4] notes, Eliade's conceptualization of shamans produces a universalist image of indigenous cultures, which perpetuates notions of the dead (or dying) Indian[43] as well as the noble savage.[44]



What really needs to be done here is (a) shamans need to be seen as a type of cleric, (b) the DM and player need to flavor some of the shaman's cleric spells as animal-spirit-guides or as happening during a vision quest, and (c) more illnesses in D&D need to be caused by demons and evil spirits. And (d) there need to be more drugs in D&D.


----------



## overgeeked

Since this whole sub- sub- sub-tangent of cultural classes and subclasses clearly isn’t going to die, maybe move it to its own thread?


----------



## Charlaquin

Filthy Lucre said:


> For me, discussions of hyper nuanced political correctness/sensitivity don't enhance my D&D experience. As long as the monks aren't buck teethed/squinting and the shamans don't have bone nose piercings I'm good.



I’m glad to hear you’re good. Kindly be good without getting in the middle of a discussion between people who do care about the subject quite a lot.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Faolyn said:


> I'm not really sure that D&D druids are or should count as shamans. According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> Whereas the D&D druid focuses very firmly on animals, plants, and the elements. They aren't focused on spirits and don't even get _speak with dead_ or _etherealness_, two spells kinda necessary to contact a spirit world while in _any _state of consciousness. The Wikipedia page also goes on to list a bunch of typical shaman abilities, all of which are firmly in the D&D cleric wheelhouse:
> 
> 
> What really needs to be done here is (a) shamans need to be seen as a type of cleric, (b) the DM and player need to flavor some of the shaman's cleric spells as animal-spirit-guides or as happening during a vision quest, and (c) more illnesses in D&D need to be caused by demons and evil spirits. And (d) there need to be more drugs in D&D.



I mean, there is the Circle of Wildfire that summons a Wildfire Spirit, and a Circle of the Shepherd that summons spirit animal totems, and the Circle of Dreams' connection with the Feywild could be seen as a "connection with the spirit world" (as "spirit world" isn't very well defined, at least in D&D terms).


----------



## Filthy Lucre

If anything, we need more regressive and more culturally-referenced classes.


----------



## Dire Bare

darjr said:


>



Makes me think of Bumblebee from the Transformers movies. He can only communicate using snippets of radio broadcasts, re-mixed.


----------



## Dire Bare

doctorbadwolf said:


> I have literally never seen anyone complain about it before, here or anywhere else.



Really?!?! It's been discussed on these boards before.

I'd suggest listening to some AAPI (Asian and Pacific Islander) gamers, if you're a podcast listener, the "Asians Represent" podcast is pretty enlightening on how Asian Diaspora (Asian-American, Asian-Canadian) gamers view such "harmless" stereotypes and exoticization of Asian cultural tropes. Of course, not all AAPI gamers look at things the same way, and they sometimes look at things differently than Asian gamers do (gamers actually born, raised, still living in Asia) . . . . but complaints about the Monk and Samurai classes in D&D are pretty common.

EDIT: I just remembered a concept from the BECMI D&D setting, Red Steel (or Savage Coast) . . . there was an option called the "honorbound" which attempted to blend the knight, paladin, and samurai into one player option. It doesn't have the zing of "knight" or "samurai", but I think I prefer it to both.


----------



## squibbles

Marandahir said:


> I think Shaman is more offensive and appropriating than Druid is, but what do I know. I agree that this is a red herring.



I was about to disagree with you by citing some shamanism definitions and the Wikipedia article, which treat the term shaman as a broad category, i.e. "Shamanism is a religion which is based on the belief that the world is controlled by good and evil spirits, and that these spirits can be directed by people with special powers."

That sounds like a reasonable brush to paint the Druid class with, while tolerating the overlap that it might also be a reasonable brush to paint some cleric characters with (but that's not a lot different from the redundancy of the words wizard, sorcerer, and warlock).

But I then went on to read section 1.3 of the Wikipedia article, "Criticisms of the term", which suggests that the word Shaman is a tad contentious. So, eh... that name change doesn't seem like it would be a grand improvement.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Dire Bare said:


> Really?!?! It's been discussed on these boards before.
> 
> I'd suggest listening to some AAPI (Asian and Pacific Islander) gamers, if you're a podcast listener, the "Asians Represent" podcast is pretty enlightening on how Asian Diaspora (Asian-American, Asian-Canadian) gamers view such "harmless" stereotypes and exoticization of Asian cultural tropes. Of course, not all AAPI gamers look at things the same way, and they sometimes look at things differently than Asian gamers do (gamers actually born, raised, still living in Asia) . . . . but complaints about the Monk and Samurai classes in D&D are pretty common.



I have listened, though, and I’ve seen plenty of discussion about the Monk, but not the Samurai. I mean there is a ton of traffic online, so it’s not exactly hard to miss something, but yeah this discussion is the first I can recall anyone claiming the samurai is problematic. Other complaints, sure, lots of times, but not that one.


----------



## Dire Bare

doctorbadwolf said:


> I have listened, though, and I’ve seen plenty of discussion about the Monk, but not the Samurai. I mean there is a ton of traffic online, so it’s not exactly hard to miss something, but yeah this discussion is the first I can recall anyone claiming the samurai is problematic. Other complaints, sure, lots of times, but not that one.



You seem to be implying that since you haven't encountered it before . . . . only a few truly find it problematic, and we don't really need to worry about it. I hope I'm misunderstanding.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Dire Bare said:


> You seem to be implying that since you haven't encountered it before . . . . only a few truly find it problematic, and we don't really need to worry about it. I hope I'm misunderstanding.



Not at all. I brought up not having heard it before to encourage an explanation, and to point out that it isn’t as black and white and ”accepted fact” as the poster I was replying to tried to make it seem.


----------



## Dire Bare

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not at all. I brought up not having heard it before to encourage an explanation, and to point out that it isn’t as black and white and ”accepted fact” as the poster I was replying to tried to make it seem.



Good. I'm usually in tune with your posts, but you came across as dismissive of the idea to me. Glad I did misinterpret.

Asian-Americans are, of course, hardly a monolith all living the same experience. Some think having the samurai as a discrete option is a great idea, others find it extremely problematic, others don't even register it as an issue. Asian-Asians come from a completely different lived experience.

But increasingly, more and more voices are asking folks to recognize the institutional bias Western culture has to orientalize (exoticize) Asian tropes like the monk or samurai. It's a difficult and fraught discussion, and too many Western gamers would rather dismiss the issue, which of course, is part of the problem.

Terms like knight, paladin, and ranger are equally culturally specific to Europe . . . . but D&D is a game that springs from European myth, folklore, and literature. How we incorporate elements from other cultural regions deserves more mindfulness than the community has traditionally given in the past.

And . . . . I'll step down from my soapbox now.


----------



## squibbles

Also, regarding the samurai sub-tangent from which the shaman sub-sub-tangent branched--more Wikipedia:

In Japanese, they are usually referred to as _*bushi*_ (武士, [bɯ.ɕi]), meaning 'warrior', or _*buke*_ (武家), meaning 'military family'. According to translator William Scott Wilson: "In Chinese, the character 侍 was originally a verb meaning 'to wait upon', 'accompany persons' in the upper ranks of society, and this is also true of the original term in Japanese, _saburau_. In both countries the terms were nominalized to mean 'those who serve in close attendance to the nobility', the Japanese term _saburai_ being the nominal form of the verb."​
So, it's worth keeping in mind that, while there is a vast amount of culture packed into the term, samurai are _straightforwardly _warriors who are attached to an important person's retinue.

I don't think the subclass is remotely needed, or even a good addition to the game, but it also doesn't do that much violence to what samurai basically are.

Expecting more cultural specificity to be in the subclass is, on one hand, kind of wierd--why demand that the warrior tradition of one nation be represented in ethnographically authentic whole, when no other nations' are--but, on the other hand, kind of necessary. After all, why would you name the subclass samurai if you didn't intend to meaningfully represent that specific tradition?

There are multiple reasonable points of view here, I think.

---edit---

Seems like the first point on this tangent was pretty reasonable to begin with:


Marandahir said:


> It was a cultural stereotype of the Japanese Knightly class as if it was a specific thing and not just another Battle Master, Champion, Paladin, etc.
> 
> By making it its own thing it makes it seem like all Japanese-inspired Fighters “have to be” Samurai. Its part of the same problems that the game has to grapple with regarding the Monk.
> 
> How do we make the classes big hat and inclusive without creating pigeonholed culturally insensitive subclasses while also capturing important tropes that are more prominent in genres like Anime, Jidai Geki, Wuxia, martial arts films, etc?
> 
> I think we do them by making more generic subclass names that are applicable but not pigeonholed. It’s why we have Assassins and Way of Shadow Monks, but no Ninja. It’s why we have Harengon and Pallid Elves but not Soratami.



I basically agree with all of that... and probably should have read more than the first 5 and last 5 pages of the thread.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

squibbles said:


> Also, regarding the samurai sub-tangent from which the shaman sub-sub-tangent branched--more Wikipedia:
> 
> In Japanese, they are usually referred to as _*bushi*_ (武士, [bɯ.ɕi]), meaning 'warrior', or _*buke*_ (武家), meaning 'military family'. According to translator William Scott Wilson: "In Chinese, the character 侍 was originally a verb meaning 'to wait upon', 'accompany persons' in the upper ranks of society, and this is also true of the original term in Japanese, _saburau_. In both countries the terms were nominalized to mean 'those who serve in close attendance to the nobility', the Japanese term _saburai_ being the nominal form of the verb."​
> So, it's worth keeping in mind that, while there is a vast amount of culture packed into the term, samurai are _straightforwardly _warriors who are attached to an important person's retinue.
> 
> I don't think the subclass is remotely needed, or even a good addition to the game, but it also doesn't do that much violence to what samurai basically are.
> 
> Expecting more cultural specificity to be in the subclass is, on one hand, kind of wierd--why demand that the warrior tradition of one nation be represented in ethnographically authentic whole, when no other nations' are--but, on the other hand, kind of necessary. After all, why would you name the subclass samurai if you didn't intend to meaningfully represent that specific tradition?
> 
> There are multiple reasonable points of view here, I think.



If you solved this problem by saying "Ok, D&D is specifically only going to represent European myth/fantasy" you'd then catch flak for NOT including other cultures. Exclude them -> You're racist; Include them -> you're racist.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Filthy Lucre said:


> If you solved this problem by saying "Ok, D&D is specifically only going to represent European myth/fantasy" you'd then catch flak for NOT including other cultures. Exclude them -> You're racist; Include them -> you're racist.



No. Just plain, no. 

If you don't include them, you're being exclusionary and short-sighted on what the fantasy genre at large can contain. If you do include them, and do so in an offensive or problematic way, you're also called out. If you include them in a manner that is respectful and representative of the culture you're including (likely by using Sensitivity Readers and Cultural Consultants), that's good.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

AcererakTriple6 said:


> No. Just plain, no.
> 
> If you don't include them, you're being exclusionary and short-sighted on what the fantasy genre at large can contain. If you do include them, and do so in an offensive or problematic way, you're also called out. If you include them in a manner that is respectful and representative of the culture you're including (likely by using Sensitivity Readers and Cultural Consultants), that's good.



In our current culture, you'll never win the "please everyone" battle since people have a vested interest in being offended. It's a waste of effort. People say "be respectful" but they never really give explicit/actionable/objective methods of achieving that.

ALSO... I don't believe that "exclusionary" is always bad in every incident. If it is, do you consider Motherlands to be exclusionary? Are you saying that every game has to cater to every conceivable ethnicity? sexuality? political orientation? This entire argument is so ham-fisted.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Filthy Lucre said:


> In our current culture, you'll never win the "please everyone" battle since people have a vested interest in being offended. It's a waste of effort. People say "be respectful" but they never really give explicit/actionable/objective methods of achieving that.



Ah. You're whining about "cancel culture" nonsense? I'm done with this argument, then.


----------



## Filthy Lucre

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Ah. You're whining about "cancel culture" nonsense? I'm done with this argument, then.



I'll mark that down as a win since you've decided to demonstrate my point.


----------



## Azzy

doctorbadwolf said:


> The specificity isn’t a bug.
> 
> As for the Cavalier fitting a mounted Samurai…where is the mounted archery, just for a start. What in the subclass speaks to the cultural expectations in Japan of a Samurai warrior?



It depends on what era the samurai is from—the primary weapon of the mounted samurai early on (from the late Heian period onwards) was the bow, but closer to the Sengoku era, lances/spears (yari) became more prevalent during the Muromachi period. For what it's worth.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> I’m glad to hear you’re good. Kindly be good without getting in the middle of a discussion between people who do care about the subject quite a lot.



I care about the topic quite a bit.  I also feel these concerns are leading to a dearth of fiction, where only certain people are allowed to tell certain stories, and you're a monster if you're not ashamed of your childhood favorites.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> I care about the topic quite a bit.  I also feel these concerns are leading to a dearth of fiction, where only certain people are allowed to tell certain stories, and you're a monster if you're not ashamed of your childhood favorites.



And I wasn’t addressing you. If you feel strongly about the subject, by all means, say your piece on it; that’s how discussions happen. But that’s not what Filthy Lucre was doing. They came in to proudly announce how little they care about what was being discussed, which is… just kinda pointless?


----------



## Scribe

Micah Sweet said:


> ..and you're a monster if you're not ashamed of your childhood favorites.



I wouldnt go so far.

There are plenty of things that have not aged well, if we go back to re-read or watch those old movies we may have enjoyed when we were younger.

It doesnt mean we need to be ashamed about it, only that sometimes things change and what was once acceptable, is no longer seen in the same way.

Sometimes these things are good, sometimes its an overreaction that leads to readjustment, I still have good memories regarding original Star Wars, Dragonlance, and LotR experiences, and D&D as well, even if there are things people will say are wrong about them today.


----------



## squibbles

Filthy Lucre said:


> If you solved this problem by saying "Ok, D&D is specifically only going to represent European myth/fantasy" you'd then catch flak for NOT including other cultures. Exclude them -> You're racist; Include them -> you're racist.



D&D isn't really European fantasy, it borrows broadly and has lots of weird conventions built in; its earliest iterations incorporate creatures of myth from all over, and the sword and sorcery, science fantasy, and wild west frontier influences are a lot more American than mythic European. Its a melange that lots of things from lots of different national contexts already fit in. So, imo, there's no need to assert that first premise.

To your second premise, I'm not convinced that anyone is asking for D&D to include class or subclass options for specific warrior traditions (or mystical or mythic or whatever) as a means of representation, that's usually more about artwork or setting fluff. Calls for samurai or shaman to be in the game are usually in the vein of: "they're cool", "I liked them in edition ABC", or "I like XYZ fantasy mileiu, give me mechanics to play it please"--at least as far as I can tell.

Also, I amended the post which you quoted with the answer @Marandahir gave earlier in the thread--I think it's a good one. Writing subclasses with broad themes, that fit a range of concepts which are not _obviously specifically _European, is probably enough that it lets people play what they want.

And to your conclusion, its easy to feel like a lot of harsh and uncharitable criticisms are being made of D&D and other media, and like things are being demanded instead of requested. That's fair, the 21st century is contentious. But, you know, being harsh and uncharitable in return only raises the temperature in the room, and no one is persuaded.


----------



## squibbles

Micah Sweet said:


> I care about the topic quite a bit.  I also feel these concerns are leading to a dearth of fiction, where only certain people are allowed to tell certain stories, and you're a monster if you're not ashamed of your childhood favorites.



I'm not even close to finishing everything that's in Appendix N yet... there's just so much fiction to read.

But I agree with you in principle, people should get to write what they want to write and enjoy what they want to enjoy without being pilloried--though it would be best if they didn't do so uncritically.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I suggest to keep the concept or archetype of shaman for a future class with a different game subsystem, for example the reboot of the pact binder, or the incarnum totemist. The martial adepts (Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords) should return, and they are perfect for settings with a wuxia touch, and not only Kara-Tur or Kamigawa.

I imagine the swashbuckler class like a light-armor martial adept (class with (ki) martial maneuvers). 

Shaman, cavalier/knight, gladiator, samurai and ninja should be classes, not only subclasses, or at least the Athasian gladiator should be an "archetype", a fighter with an optional list of class features.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Filthy Lucre said:


> In our current culture, you'll never win the "please everyone" battle since people have a vested interest in being offended. It's a waste of effort. People say "be respectful" but they never really give explicit/actionable/objective methods of achieving that.
> 
> ALSO... I don't believe that "exclusionary" is always bad in every incident. If it is, do you consider Motherlands to be exclusionary? Are you saying that every game has to cater to every conceivable ethnicity? sexuality? political orientation? This entire argument is so ham-fisted.



*Mod Note:*

For this and other anti-inclusive posts in this thread, Filthy Lucre has earned a warning point and a threadban.

Don‘t emulate this behavior.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Micah Sweet said:


> I care about the topic quite a bit.  I also feel these concerns are leading to a dearth of fiction, where only certain people are allowed to tell certain stories, and you're a monster if you're not ashamed of your childhood favorites.



*Mod Note:*

Traveling further down Filthy Lucre’s chosen path will be rewarded with similar reactions from the moderation staff.  Consider this before continuing to post in this thread.


----------



## Remathilis

Dire Bare said:


> Terms like knight, paladin, and ranger are equally culturally specific to Europe . . . . but D&D is a game that springs from European myth, folklore, and literature. How we incorporate elements from other cultural regions deserves more mindfulness than the community has traditionally given in the past.




Maybe that's the problem: D&D is too European. 

D&D subclasses are a hodge podge generic names (path of the beast, circle of the moon) and specific (assassin, necromancer). A few generic names (way of shadow, college of war) suggest historical concepts (ninja, skalds) but aren't tied to just that one culture. It doesn't seem odd for either of those subclasses to exist in other cultures, save for the oddness of thier base calls l class (monk, bard) existing.

An ideal solution, if we're serious about removing offensive stereotypes in class naming, would be to use that descriptive method of naming classes and subs rather than using classical names. That would mean at the very least changing some sub names (samurai to oathbound for example), with perhaps reworking of the druid, monk paladin and bard to make them work for multiple different types of characters less tied to a certain cultural archetype. 

Then, you could have a duelist rogue or an oathsworn fighter without the cultural baggage of a swashbuckler or samurai baked in.


----------



## Marandahir

Micah Sweet said:


> I care about the topic quite a bit.  I also feel these concerns are leading to a dearth of fiction, where only certain people are allowed to tell certain stories, and you're a monster if you're not ashamed of your childhood favorites.




I’m sorry if I gave that impression with my comments above. Male-identifying authors can write female characters, and vice versa. LGBTQ authors can write straight cisgendered characters. Japanese authors can write European ones and White-Americans can write Subsaharan African mythological tales, too.

There are many examples of sensitive nuanced stories written by people without personal experience of the subject matter. And Fantasy itself is a genre that embraces this because much of the subject matter is inherently unknowable.

But there’s also a LOT of insensitive stories written from outsider perspectives, and they often dominate perceptions of their subject matter in the eyes of the target audience, especially when these stories are written by people with cultural, racial, gender, sexual, or economic privilege within the society of the target audience.

D&D has long occupied the latter in what material is published officially by WotC, by virtue of the brand originating at tables of white male American gamers. That doesn’t mean they haven’t made strives to be more inclusive and celebratory! 5e is the most inclusive and celebratory edition yet. But the work never ends. There’s always more we can do.

I started this subthread because I believe that a revision of 5e in 2024 is an optimal chance to bring the values now espoused in books like Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything into the core rulebooks. WotC have said as much that that’s what they want to do. I also think they have a chance to go a step farther. By the time we get to 2024, it’ll have been more than 4 years since writing on Tasha and Curse of Strahd Revamped completed. A lot can happen in those years. A lot has happened, already.

I suggested that “Samurai” could become a core rules option but under a new name, to both allow continuity of character concept and tweaking of the Fighter to be more like what the designers have said they wish it was in hindsight. I recognise that the republishing of Xanathar’s Guide in next year’s gift set makes that less likely, but I still think it’s worthwhile.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Dire Bare said:


> Good. I'm usually in tune with your posts, but you came across as dismissive of the idea to me. Glad I did misinterpret.
> 
> Asian-Americans are, of course, hardly a monolith all living the same experience. Some think having the samurai as a discrete option is a great idea, others find it extremely problematic, others don't even register it as an issue. Asian-Asians come from a completely different lived experience.
> 
> But increasingly, more and more voices are asking folks to recognize the institutional bias Western culture has to orientalize (exoticize) Asian tropes like the monk or samurai. It's a difficult and fraught discussion, and too many Western gamers would rather dismiss the issue, which of course, is part of the problem.
> 
> Terms like knight, paladin, and ranger are equally culturally specific to Europe . . . . but D&D is a game that springs from European myth, folklore, and literature. How we incorporate elements from other cultural regions deserves more mindfulness than the community has traditionally given in the past.
> 
> And . . . . I'll step down from my soapbox now.



I agree with most of this. For sure. Fact is, D&D needs more diverse creators on the primary team. 


Remathilis said:


> Maybe that's the problem: D&D is too European.
> 
> D&D subclasses are a hodge podge generic names (path of the beast, circle of the moon) and specific (assassin, necromancer). A few generic names (way of shadow, college of war) suggest historical concepts (ninja, skalds) but aren't tied to just that one culture. It doesn't seem odd for either of those subclasses to exist in other cultures, save for the oddness of thier base calls l class (monk, bard) existing.
> 
> An ideal solution, if we're serious about removing offensive stereotypes in class naming, would be to use that descriptive method of naming classes and subs rather than using classical names. That would mean at the very least changing some sub names (samurai to oathbound for example), with perhaps reworking of the druid, monk paladin and bard to make them work for multiple different types of characters less tied to a certain cultural archetype.
> 
> Then, you could have a duelist rogue or an oathsworn fighter without the cultural baggage of a swashbuckler or samurai baked in.



I really think that cultural baggage should be embraced, not shied away from. It is worth the effort to do so with care and intentionality.

I do think the Monk is a bad name unless the class were to consume the cleric, and basically become a different class. If the class should stay fundamentally a “warrior powered by discipline and esoteric/mystical wisdom” then it should drop its hyper-focus on unarmed and Unarmored combat, and get a name change, and broaden out its cultural inspiration quite a bit. 

Mystic, esoteric, warrior orders, are a damn near universal thing. Every region of the world has them. The East Asian Shoalin, Sohei, Samurai bushi absolutely, but also the various Muslim Dervish orders (_carefully_, bc western fantasy has not been careful here in the past, and hasn’t done well as a result. Saladin Ahmed has a great treatment of a dervish order in his novels), the Irish Fianna, and many others I don’t know enough about to speak on. Hell, even the Hermetic Alchemy inspired sword masters of the Renaissance, especially Thibault and the Spanish Circle, fit here.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Azzy said:


> It depends on what era the samurai is from—the primary weapon of the mounted samurai early on (from the late Heian period onwards) was the bow, but closer to the Sengoku era, lances/spears (yari) became more prevalent during the Muromachi period. For what it's worth.



Absolutely, but I’d definitely want some sort of archery benefit to represent that Samurai regardless, because it is a major thing Samurai are famous for, and a thing that is different from European knights.


----------



## Vael

Remathilis said:


> Maybe that's the problem: D&D is too European.
> 
> Then, you could have a duelist rogue or an oathsworn fighter without the cultural baggage of a swashbuckler or samurai baked in.




The problem with removing some of the cultural roots is the end result feels like white-washing them.

Monk, for example, is a challenge. I get the Orientalism of it. But if you call it the "Martial Artist" or "Pugilist" or "MMA fighter", you end up a different feel.

As it is, I've seen years of people saying the Monk is too "Anime" for their Mideval Fantasy and I read that loud and clear.


----------



## Remathilis

Vael said:


> The problem with removing some of the cultural roots is the end result feels like white-washing them.
> 
> Monk, for example, is a challenge. I get the Orientalism of it. But if you call it the "Martial Artist" or "Pugilist" or "MMA fighter", you end up a different feel.
> 
> As it is, I've seen years of people saying the Monk is too "Anime" for their Mideval Fantasy and I read that loud and clear.



Then you've created the no win scenario. Samurai is too culturally specific, but removing its cultural origin is white washing. If you don't include it, your excluding other voices, but if you do, you're exoticizing them. And if everything is included, you've created a kitchen sink world with Vistani samurai gunslingers riding dinosaurs. 

I get there isn't consensus, but at this point I'm starting to feel it's like the Supreme Court definition of porn: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.


----------



## Aldarc

Vael said:


> The problem with removing some of the cultural roots is the end result feels like white-washing them.
> 
> Monk, for example, is a challenge. I get the Orientalism of it. But if you call it the "Martial Artist" or "Pugilist" or "MMA fighter", you end up a different feel.
> 
> As it is, I've seen years of people saying the Monk is too "Anime" for their Mideval Fantasy and I read that loud and clear.



I'm a fan of how both Monte Cook's _Arcana Evolved_ and Kevin Crawford's _Worlds Without Number _handled the "monk." WWN called them Vowed. AE called them Oathsworn (drawing more inspiration from the Haruchai from _Thomas Covenant_), and as one might imagine, their powers didn't come from Ki but from their dedication to their oaths. I am partial to the idea of centering Monks more around oaths and vows rather than "ki."


----------



## Vael

Remathilis said:


> Then you've created the no win scenario. Samurai is too culturally specific, but removing its cultural origin is white washing. If you don't include it, your excluding other voices, but if you do, you're exoticizing them. And if everything is included, you've created a kitchen sink world with Vistani samurai gunslingers riding dinosaurs.
> 
> I get there isn't consensus, but at this point I'm starting to feel it's like the Supreme Court definition of porn: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.



To be honest, I like Kitchen Sinks, I like big tents and I cannot lie. Every tavern is the Mos Eisley Cantina, every party a ramshackle array of creature types.


----------



## Gradine

Micah Sweet said:


> I care about the topic quite a bit.  I also feel these concerns are leading to a dearth of fiction, where only certain people are allowed to tell certain stories, *and you're a monster if you're not ashamed of your childhood favorites.*



I actually have an answer to this particular bit.

When my partner was a college RA, she would host these events called "Dissecting Disney", where she'd gather a bunch of a students, watch a classic Disney flick, and then host a discussion afterward of some of the Accidental Aesops they might teach. For instance, one of our best friends is native, and was in elementary school when _Pocahontas _came out. The other kids at her school who watched it took to chasing her around the playground singing "Savages! Savages! Barely even human!" which is an actual part of a song from that movie. Sure, it was sung by the bad guys, but those kids clearly missed that particular bit of nuance.

Anyway, a student once asked my partner why she hated Disney movies, and she responded "I don't; I love these movies! I can't wait to show them to my children! But also, I want to be prepared to have a conversation with them so they walk away with, for instance, healthy expectations about relationships."

She'd probably look back with embarrassment over all that, honestly, but I'll be damned if we haven't watched those films with our daughter and have those conversations, and it's gone quite well.

One of my favorite films/plays is Arsenic and Old Lace; for a product of the 40's it remains absolutely an hilarious black comedy. It also has the occasional racist joke, and its handling of mental health is... well, troubling to say the least. Literally every Harrison Ford hero of my childhood had a mild disdain for the concepts of "consent" _at the best of times_ but that doesn't mean I spit upon Indiana Jones or Star Wars or Blade Runner and anyone who claims to still like them.

This is something that people, on both sides honestly, often miss. You can be critical of the things you like, and you can still like (even love!) the things you are critical of.

Hell, I still love D&D after all this time, and I mean, did you even read _Tomb of Annihilation? _Woof.


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Remathilis said:


> Dhakaan. Keith Baker said the (3.5) version of samurai and ninja fit well with proud martial traditions of the ancient goblinoids. Hobgoblin samurai and goblin ninjas were great ways to show incorporate the classic tropes of both without a need for an exoticized Asia analog.




Great, let's have our Japanese analogue be hobgoblins. That's not problematic at all!


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Gradine said:


> Hell, I still love D&D after all this time, and I mean, did you even read _Tomb of Annihilation? _Woof.



And that's one of the newer adventures. If Tomb of Annihilation has so much problematic language, I can't even imagine how worse it was 30-40 years ago. I've seen some of the stuff from previous editions that was just plain gross, but I doubt I've seen all of it or even the majority of it. 

I love Tomb of Annihilation, just like older players can love their older adventures, but being aware of their issues is a good thing, not "being ashamed of your childhood favorites".


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Urriak Uruk said:


> Great, let's have our Japanese analogue be hobgoblins. That's not problematic at all!



I believe @Doug McCrae discussed this in a previous thread, comparing it to the racist Tokio monster from American WWII propaganda. (At least in Eberron the Hobgoblins aren't actually evil. It's still problematic, but it's far worse in some other worlds.)


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> Then, you could have a duelist rogue or an oathsworn fighter without the cultural baggage of a swashbuckler or samurai baked in.



What cultural baggage does the name swashbuckler carry? It’s literally a descriptive name for one who swashes bucklers.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Charlaquin said:


> swashes bucklers



Or is is someone that buckles swashes? I can't remember 
(I believe Xanathar said something along these lines in XGtE.)


----------



## Charlaquin

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Or is is someone that buckles swashes? I can't remember
> (I believe Xanathar said something along these lines in XGtE.)



It’s so hard to resist the urge to answer this as if it’s a serious question, even though I know it isn’t


----------



## ad_hoc

(I've taken the quote out as the writer was thread banned. I'm replying to the idea that we can't have stories about other cultures as we'll be labelled 'racist'.)

Or they could just hire writers from those cultures to represent themselves.

It's really very easy to be inclusive.


----------



## Gradine

So the issue at play here is "cultural appropriation" versus "cultural appreciation", and it boils down to giving credit where credit is due, and not exploiting the history and culture of another without a modicum of input and compensation in the process. This is where sensitivity readers come in, mind you.

The problem isn't the presence of Samurai or Ninja or Monks; the problem is they very often _obviously _do not come with any kind of input from the peoples whose cultures are being presented, often stereotypically. 

The issue isn't that Stephanie can't write about native americans in her books; the issue is that she probably should have consulted with a few of them before presenting a real-life actual tribe as a bunch of werewolves. One of the issues. Many, _many _issues (I mean, you want to talk about healthy relationships...) There's so much to unpack there.

I'm getting off track.

Consult the appropriate folks; that's all you gotta do, seriously. And not just "someone Asian"; find someone Japanese to work with you on your Samurai and Ninja, for instance.

*Especially *have them work with your artists, holy forking shirtballs


----------



## Remathilis

Urriak Uruk said:


> Great, let's have our Japanese analogue be hobgoblins. That's not problematic at all!



You got that backwards. The Dhakaan are a fleshed out culture in Eberron already, mixing in elements of several martial and industrial cultures that fell to cataclysm long ago. Keith suggested that the best place to put the samurai class, with it's focus on martial honor, was in Dhakaan. He did NOT say Dhakanni are Japanese. Much like how the valenar elves borrow elements of Arabic culture or drow have elements of subsaharan Africa, Dhakaan borrows parts of the samurai culture and uses it. Eberron also has a picture of an orc in a conical hat on stillts collecting rice, but orcs are not Chinese in Eberron either.

But it's helping prove my point though: if cultural names cannot be divorced from their native culture, then those names need to go. If the image of a Indian paladin, a Zulu samurai, an Inuit bard or a Aztec monk is hard to accept, then those classes need revising so that they ARE generic enough to make that work.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> What cultural baggage does the name swashbuckler carry? It’s literally a descriptive name for one who swashes bucklers.



I mean, the typical swashbuckler tends to fit the image of post-Medieval European warrior, from about y the Renniasance though to the early modern era, classically Musketeers to Caribbean pirates. Not a great fit for, say, Feudal Japan or Hellenistic Greece. It's not offensive (not all baggage is) but it is certainly grounded in a specific place and time.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Gradine said:


> So the issue at play here is "cultural appropriation" versus "cultural appreciation", and it boils down to giving credit where credit is due, and not exploiting the history and culture of another without a modicum of input and compensation in the process. This is where sensitivity readers come in, mind you.
> 
> The problem isn't the presence of Samurai or Ninja or Monks; the problem is they very often _obviously _do not come with any kind of input from the peoples whose cultures are being presented, often stereotypically.
> 
> The issue isn't that Stephanie can't write about native americans in her books; the issue is that she probably should have consulted with a few of them before presenting a real-life actual tribe as a bunch of werewolves. One of the issues. Many, _many _issues (I mean, you want to talk about healthy relationships...) There's so much to unpack there.
> 
> I'm getting off track.
> 
> Consult the appropriate folks; that's all you gotta do, seriously. And not just "someone Asian"; find someone Japanese to work with you on your Samurai and Ninja, for instance.
> 
> *Especially *have them work with your artists, holy forking shirtballs



This. Qft. 


Remathilis said:


> You got that backwards. The Dhakaan are a fleshed out culture in Eberron already, mixing in elements of several martial and industrial cultures that fell to cataclysm long ago. Keith suggested that the best place to put the samurai class, with it's focus on martial honor, was in Dhakaan. He did NOT say Dhakanni are Japanese. Much like how the valenar elves borrow elements of Arabic culture or drow have elements of subsaharan Africa, Dhakaan borrows parts of the samurai culture and uses it. Eberron also has a picture of an orc in a conical hat on stillts collecting rice, but orcs are not Chinese in Eberron either.
> 
> But it's helping prove my point though: if cultural names cannot be divorced from their native culture, then those names need to go. If the image of a Indian paladin, a Zulu samurai, an Inuit bard or a Aztec monk is hard to accept, then those classes need revising so that they ARE generic enough to make that work.



No, they don’t need to go. Because they aren’t broadly hard to accept, they’re just hard to accept for some people. The game should not lose cultural inspiration and make itself bland because some people go cross eyed when they see a Irish Celtic Fianna inspired swashbuckler. 


Remathilis said:


> I mean, the typical swashbuckler tends to fit the image of post-Medieval European warrior, from about y the Renniasance though to the early modern era, classically Musketeers to Caribbean pirates. Not a great fit for, say, Feudal Japan or Hellenistic Greece. It's not offensive (not all baggage is) but it is certainly grounded in a specific place and time.



And that grounding is a _very _good and useful thing.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> I mean, the typical swashbuckler tends to fit the image of post-Medieval European warrior, from about y the Renniasance though to the early modern era, classically Musketeers to Caribbean pirates. Not a great fit for, say, Feudal Japan or Hellenistic Greece. It's not offensive (not all baggage is) but it is certainly grounded in a specific place and time.



I’d also include Medieval English characters like Robin Hood. Sounds like a pretty broad range of places and times to me. And while the term is evocative of those places and times, I think it’s perfectly appropriate as a generic term for flashy, acrobatic fencing.


----------



## Faolyn

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I mean, there is the Circle of Wildfire that summons a Wildfire Spirit, and a Circle of the Shepherd that summons spirit animal totems, and the Circle of Dreams' connection with the Feywild could be seen as a "connection with the spirit world" (as "spirit world" isn't very well defined, at least in D&D terms).



Yeah, but that's summoning spirits to fight for you. It's not quite the same thing.


----------



## Faolyn

Remathilis said:


> I mean, the typical swashbuckler tends to fit the image of post-Medieval European warrior, from about y the Renniasance though to the early modern era, classically Musketeers to Caribbean pirates. Not a great fit for, say, Feudal Japan or Hellenistic Greece. It's not offensive (not all baggage is) but it is certainly grounded in a specific place and time.



But, well, that's the name. I'm playing a swashbuckler rogue, but she's really just a duelist, complete with scar on her cheek. I can easily see an individual from Feudal Japan or Hellenistic Greece (or a fantasy culture with similar feel) who specializes in the kind of quick feints and fast movement that make up the swashbuckler archetype, even if they never set foot on a boat.

Way back when the samurai archetype was introduced, I remember seeing someone on reddit say that nobody would have any problem with it if it had just been called the retainer. Someone else (you?) said that they should be called knight-poets.

But anyway. I'm find with renaming things, if there's too much cultural baggage associated with the current name.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Faolyn said:


> But, well, that's the name. I'm playing a swashbuckler rogue, but she's really just a duelist, complete with scar on her cheek. I can easily see an individual from Feudal Japan or Hellenistic Greece (or a fantasy culture with similar feel) who specializes in the kind of quick feints and fast movement that make up the swashbuckler archetype, even if they never set foot on a boat.
> 
> Way back when the samurai archetype was introduced, I remember seeing someone on reddit say that nobody would have any problem with it if it had just been called the retainer. Someone else (you?) said that they should be called knight-poets.
> 
> But anyway. I'm find with renaming things, if there's too much cultural baggage associated with the current name.



Swashbuckler Rogue makes a great master of single combat with devastating careful strikes, and/or Iaido.  

From level 9 on, you can play a frustrating, infuriating, lethal blade master, in the style of Miyamoto Musashi. Make the enemy super angry, they rush you in a rage, you calmly cut them down.


----------



## Tallifer

As the world becomes more of a global village, we should embrace and share and blend our various cultures using imagination, versatility and the rule of gonzo rather than fence them off and keep their gates.


----------



## Xeviat

Charlaquin said:


> I get why, but I hate everything being long rest based. The problem, in my estimation, is short rests taking an hour. Often, if you can get one hour undisturbed, you can get eight. Rather than being an hour and expecting two of them per day, they really should have stuck with 4e’s 5-minute short rest, expected after every encounter. I tried to stress this back during the playtest, but since you can heal on a short rest, 5 minutes was considered too short - too close to the _verboten_ “martial healing.” Sigh



The "solution" I came to in my games was reducing the short rest to 15 minutes, but limiting players to 3 short rests per day. It really helped with pacing, since my "game days" tend to be 3 deadly fights up to 6 medium fights and I try to fit in room for 1 to 3 short rests.


----------



## Charlaquin

Xeviat said:


> The "solution" I came to in my games was reducing the short rest to 15 minutes, but limiting players to 3 short rests per day. It really helped with pacing, since my "game days" tend to be 3 deadly fights up to 6 medium fights and I try to fit in room for 1 to 3 short rests.



Limiting the number of short rests you can benefit from in a day seems to be a pretty popular solution. Personally, I don’t like it, but then, I’ve never had a problem balancing encounter days with 1-hour short rests, so


----------



## overgeeked

Tallifer said:


> As the world becomes more of a global village, we should embrace and share and blend our various cultures using imagination, versatility and the rule of gonzo rather than fence them off and keep their gates.



That’s how it was in the old days, but un/intentionally racist in places. If we can drop the racism but keep the gonzo grab-bag of world cultures, I’m in.


----------



## overgeeked

Xeviat said:


> The "solution" I came to in my games was reducing the short rest to 15 minutes, but limiting players to 3 short rests per day. It really helped with pacing, since my "game days" tend to be 3 deadly fights up to 6 medium fights and I try to fit in room for 1 to 3 short rests.



How do you find “deadly” fights? When I’ve used them the PCs just blow through them. They might have a scary moment and one or two PCs might drop, but they win handily. To do anything approaching a deadly encounter I typically have to double the listed XP budget. The PCs still win, but it’s more tense and takes more resources.


----------



## Malmuria

Xeviat said:


> The "solution" I came to in my games was reducing the short rest to 15 minutes, but limiting players to 3 short rests per day. It really helped with pacing, since my "game days" tend to be 3 deadly fights up to 6 medium fights and I try to fit in room for 1 to 3 short rests.



Do you make an effort at associating this to the fiction or does that not matter?  Is there any in-fiction reason it is 15 min, and not 5min, or that you can only take 3 per day?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Limiting the number of short rests you can benefit from in a day seems to be a pretty popular solution. Personally, I don’t like it, but then, I’ve never had a problem balancing encounter days with 1-hour short rests, so



I would love to read a play report from your game. I genuinely cannot imagine running 6+ encounter days with several short rests, when just logistically. How long are your sessions? How frequent are sessions of a given campaign?


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I would love to read a play report from your game. I genuinely cannot imagine running 6+ encounter days with several short rests, when just logistically. How long are your sessions? How frequent are sessions of a given campaign?



6 encounters is a long day at my table, for sure. 3-5 is probably average. We usually play about 4 hour sessions, and most combats are usually quite short. Maybe 10-20 minutes on average? Climactic combats are of course longer, probably like 20-40 minutes.


----------



## Malmuria

Charlaquin said:


> 6 encounters is a long day at my table, for sure. 3-5 is probably average. We usually play about 4 hour sessions, and most combats are usually quite short. Maybe 10-20 minutes on average? Climactic combats are of course longer, probably like 20-40 minutes.



Do you use a grid/VTT for each encounter?


----------



## Charlaquin

Malmuria said:


> Do you use a grid/VTT for each encounter?



I keep a wet erase battle mat on the table and I’ll sketch out some walls or throw down a few pieces of scatter terrain if the encounter is complex enough to merit it. Climactic fights get more elaborate treatment if I have the time to set up for them. Very simple encounters get run without a visual aid. I started working on some UDT a while back, but it’s hard to find the time to finish it.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

doctorbadwolf said:


> I would love to read a play report from your game. I genuinely cannot imagine running 6+ encounter days with several short rests, when just logistically. How long are your sessions? How frequent are sessions of a given campaign?




I would tie Short Rests to meals (similar to how Long Rests are loosely tied to sleep). There's really no benefit from eating extra meals in a day... well, not good benefits.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FitzTheRuke said:


> I would tie Short Rests to meals (similar to how Long Rests are loosely tied to sleep). There's really no benefit from eating extra meals in a day... well, not good benefits.



I wouldn't, but I can see the appeal. Whenever i think of short rests, I think of fighting practice and wars in the SCA. A sparring match is very tiring, if you're going hard, but it only takes a couple minutes to recover. You don't get 100% of what you used up back, though, until you really rest. But you get enough back that it can take a couple hours of fighting for 5-10 minutes and then resting for a few minutes in a loop to get completely exhausted. If you pace yourself, you can fight, walk, party, dance, and otherwise exert yourself, all day, zonk out for a solid 8, and do it again the next day, but you still won't get 100% back until you take a day off _and_ get a solid sleep. (unless you're a kid, obviously)

Which is why I like short short rests, and want something longer than a long rest, that requires safety and at least basic comfort, that is required to get fully back to actual 100%.


----------



## ad_hoc

FitzTheRuke said:


> I would tie Short Rests to meals (similar to how Long Rests are loosely tied to sleep). There's really no benefit from eating extra meals in a day... well, not good benefits.


----------



## pogre

Games Workshop takes quite a bit of heat for not previewing their products very much and just releasing them. After wading through a lot of the comments in this thread - I can see why they use that approach. 

I actually think WOTC is making a mistake hinting at things three years out, but it is their baby.


----------



## overgeeked

pogre said:


> Games Workshop takes quite a bit of heat for not previewing their products very much and just releasing them. After wading through a lot of the comments in this thread - I can see why they use that approach.
> 
> I actually think WOTC is making a mistake hinting at things three years out, but it is their baby.



I’m assuming it’s because they have to. They mention that there will be a ramp up in the surveys about core book stuff. There’s no way that wouldn’t immediately lead to rumors of a new edition (which is exactly what happened with the recent class survey). Better to keep the players informed to stop them from panicking and potentially not buying product (because some will think it’ll be useless with the new edition).


----------



## FitzTheRuke

doctorbadwolf said:


> I wouldn't, but I can see the appeal. Whenever i think of short rests, I think of fighting practice and wars in the SCA. A sparring match is very tiring, if you're going hard, but it only takes a couple minutes to recover. You don't get 100% of what you used up back, though, until you really rest. But you get enough back that it can take a couple hours of fighting for 5-10 minutes and then resting for a few minutes in a loop to get completely exhausted. If you pace yourself, you can fight, walk, party, dance, and otherwise exert yourself, all day, zonk out for a solid 8, and do it again the next day, but you still won't get 100% back until you take a day off _and_ get a solid sleep. (unless you're a kid, obviously)
> 
> Which is why I like short short rests, and want something longer than a long rest, that requires safety and at least basic comfort, that is required to get fully back to actual 100%.



I meant if you need a narrative excuse to limit the number of them. 

I agree with you regarding my preferred mechanic for them. I also like the idea of a longer long rest. I'd call it a "sabbatical" or somesuch. This is where you'd truly recover from injuries (personally I wouldn't mind a simple injury system. HP loss does not appear to reflect injury in any meaningful way). 

Level-Up's Havens do some of this heavy lifting.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I guess WotC wants to sell a "soft" crunch for the new players, and the "hardcore" ones will buy other titles, but also D&D for the modules and the lore. And the main strategy is focused into the digital market, and not only the videogames.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I had thought that when Tyranny of Dragons was released as a single volume hardcover, that Horde of the Dragon Queen and Rise of Tiamat would then go out of print. But the opposite seems to have happened. Tyranny appears to have had a limited release while HotDQ and RoT are still readily available. (I may be wrong about this - it might just be a local warehouse stock phenomenon).

I wonder if that will happen with Monsters of the Multiverse. Will it _replace_ Volo's and Tome of Foes, or will all three stay in print, or will MPMotM come and go? Time will tell.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

FitzTheRuke said:


> I meant if you need a narrative excuse to limit the number of them.



Ah okay, that makes sense. 


FitzTheRuke said:


> I agree with you regarding my preferred mechanic for them. I also like the idea of a longer long rest. I'd call it a "sabbatical" or somesuch. This is where you'd truly recover from injuries (personally I wouldn't mind a simple injury system. HP loss does not appear to reflect injury in any meaningful way).



Absolutely. 


FitzTheRuke said:


> Level-Up's Havens do some of this heavy lifting.



Yeah, while I’m not that into LU, Havens are a good idea.


----------



## Xeviat

Malmuria said:


> Do you make an effort at associating this to the fiction or does that not matter?  Is there any in-fiction reason it is 15 min, and not 5min, or that you can only take 3 per day?



Because a legally mandated rest break in the US is 10 minutes, and most of my union jobs have been cool and pushed that to 15. 5 doesn't feel long enough to really rest.


----------



## Xeviat

overgeeked said:


> How do you find “deadly” fights? When I’ve used them the PCs just blow through them. They might have a scary moment and one or two PCs might drop, but they win handily. To do anything approaching a deadly encounter I typically have to double the listed XP budget. The PCs still win, but it’s more tense and takes more resources.



Deadly is hard to balance when it's only one creature. I just accept that deadly doesn't kill and it's my baseline normal with a short rest after.


----------



## Xeviat

FitzTheRuke said:


> I meant if you need a narrative excuse to limit the number of them.
> 
> I agree with you regarding my preferred mechanic for them. I also like the idea of a longer long rest. I'd call it a "sabbatical" or somesuch. This is where you'd truly recover from injuries (personally I wouldn't mind a simple injury system. HP loss does not appear to reflect injury in any meaningful way).
> 
> Level-Up's Havens do some of this heavy lifting.



My narrative excuse to limit them per day is meals. Resting comes with eating and over eating isn't going to make you rest extra.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Xeviat said:


> My narrative excuse to limit them per day is meals. Resting comes with eating and over eating isn't going to make you rest extra.



Exactly!


----------



## Greg K

Marandahir said:


> Or are we talking about specific Tungusic holy people from whence the term entered the language?



This is not how I had seen it being used- at least not in the anthropology courses that I took or the textbooks that we used. There was no exclusitivity.  There are Native American peoples whose religious practitoners are classified under Priest not Shaman. There also Western religious practitioners/leaders that fall under Shaman (Faith Healers)



Marandahir said:


> Or are we talking about specific Tungusic holy people from whence the term entered the language?



This is where my instructors (including one that grew up within the Navajo Nation) made it clear to distinguish whether we were doing general classification or referencing a specific culture's practitioner.


----------



## overgeeked

Xeviat said:


> Deadly is hard to balance when it's only one creature. I just accept that deadly doesn't kill and it's my baseline normal with a short rest after.



Is it about the action economy? Simply giving a single creature more attacks is easy enough to do.


----------



## Mercador

Sorry, late to the party, I did miss this post. I don't have any of these books so I guess the gift set could be a good idea, any idea of the Canadian price ? 199$ CDN I guess? Why there's snapshots with Volo's ? Thanks!


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Mercador said:


> Sorry, late to the party, I did miss this post. I don't have any of these books so I guess the gift set could be a good idea, any idea of the Canadian price ? 199$ CDN I guess? Why there's snapshots with Volo's ? Thanks!



Based purely on MSRP and exchange, it'll be $220, but I'm sure many stores will set it at $199.99 to make it (at least appear to be) under $200. I probably will. 

They are using the example of Volo's to show how the monster stat-blocks have changed. These monsters are updated reprints from Volo's and Mordenkanen's. (And possibly a few other sources).


----------



## Mercador

FitzTheRuke said:


> Based purely on MSRP and exchange, it'll be $220, but I'm sure many stores will set it at $199.99 to make it (at least appear to be) under $200. I probably will.
> 
> They are using the example of Volo's to show how the monster stat-blocks have changed. These monsters are updated reprints from Volo's and Mordenkanen's. (And possibly a few other sources).



Thanks, I purchased the collector set at 200$ so I would expect the same price as well. I don't know why, I don't need those books, but I would love to have them... So I guess I'll purchase them and they'll gather dust as the collector set I've already have. Damn you Wizards


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Now that you've made me look at it, I started to wonder why it was $170 USD for 3 x $50 USD books, but checking it out it comes with a $20 USD DMs Screen too (and the slipcase) so it's not a price-hike (which I worried about for a moment). 

Though didn't they say that there would be a price-hike next year? Right after announcing record profits?


----------



## overgeeked

FitzTheRuke said:


> Now that you've made me look at it, I started to wonder why it was $170 USD for 3 x $50 USD books, but checking it out it comes with a $20 USD DMs Screen too (and the slipcase) so it's not a price-hike (which I worried about for a moment).
> 
> Though didn't they say that there would be a price-hike next year? Right after announcing record profits?



Yep. Their costs are going up and they have to maintain those record profits so we get to pay more.


----------



## ad_hoc

Mercador said:


> Sorry, late to the party, I did miss this post. I don't have any of these books so I guess the gift set could be a good idea, any idea of the Canadian price ? 199$ CDN I guess? Why there's snapshots with Volo's ? Thanks!




Where do you shop?

The typical price that I pay for hobby game stuff is the USD MSRP.

So if something is $150 USD MSRP I pay $150 CAD.

Sometimes it can be a bit less depending on store and product.


----------



## reelo

Vael said:


> To be honest, I like Kitchen Sinks, I like big tents and I cannot lie. Every tavern is the Mos Eisley Cantina, every party a ramshackle array of creature types.



I don't. But then again, I prefer fantasy to be a little more grounded in reality. And if there is (fantasy) racism and segregation, then it is precisely in order to explore difficult subject matters in a _not-real_ environment.







Tallifer said:


> As the world becomes more of a global village, we should embrace and share and blend our various cultures using imagination, versatility and the rule of gonzo rather than fence them off and keep their gates.



Gonzo can be fun. As can be historical fantasy. It's all a matter of taste and none is more (or less) valod than the other.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

ad_hoc said:


> Where do you shop?
> 
> The typical price that I pay for hobby game stuff is the USD MSRP.
> 
> So if something is $150 USD MSRP I pay $150 CAD.
> 
> Sometimes it can be a bit less depending on store and product.




Wow. Lucky you - that's like getting 30% off all the time! Do you live somewhere where stores have low overhead?


----------



## Xeviat

overgeeked said:


> Is it about the action economy? Simply giving a single creature more attacks is easy enough to do.



It's about PC damage numbers being really high and monster HP not being very high to match. This is exacerbated when the players feel like it's a big scary fight, because they're apt to nova and then chew something down in one round.

A fighter action surging and dumping a few superiority dice, a caster using their highest level spells, a paladin smiting on multiple hits... solos go down fast.


----------



## ad_hoc

FitzTheRuke said:


> Wow. Lucky you - that's like getting 30% off all the time! Do you live somewhere where stores have low overhead?




I live in Toronto.

We have Meeplemart, 401 Games, and Legends Warehouse who all have this kind of pricing.

Legends Warehouse has free shipping across Canada. And then there is Amazon which is good for some products like the main books but terrible for others like minis.


----------



## Mercador

ad_hoc said:


> Where do you shop?
> 
> The typical price that I pay for hobby game stuff is the USD MSRP.
> 
> So if something is $150 USD MSRP I pay $150 CAD.
> 
> Sometimes it can be a bit less depending on store and product.



At a local game shop (quite big actually), Imaginaire. At Amazon, it's generally lower than msrp but I prefer support my local store (moreover I can have alt covers).


----------



## ad_hoc

Mercador said:


> At a local game shop (quite big actually), Imaginaire. At Amazon, it's generally lower than msrp but I prefer support my local store (moreover I can have alt covers).




I just checked out their store. Their prices are very expensive. 

$65 for a book, $25 for an icons booster.

If people are buying it I guess it works for them.

Legends Warehouse has the alt cover books for $52 CAD and they ship for free on orders over $150.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

ad_hoc said:


> I just checked out their store. Their prices are very expensive.
> 
> $65 for a book, $25 for an icons booster.
> 
> If people are buying it I guess it works for them.
> 
> Legends Warehouse has the alt cover books for $52 CAD and they ship for free on orders over $150.



Yeah we don't set the MSRP. Unfortunately, us smaller FLGS seem to be the only stores that have to abide by them. Amazon marks books up by only like $5 above cost, but they sell them in the hundreds of thousands of units. If I marked a D&D book up by only $5, it would barely cover the income of the clerk who's ringing it in.


----------



## Tallifer

reelo said:


> Gonzo can be fun. As can be historical fantasy. It's all a matter of taste and none is more (or less) valid than the other.



As an historian I try to hint at as much of history as I can when I run or play, but I fear that Wizards of the Coast has to steer clear of most historical facts to avoid offense and provide fun for a wider audience. (First edition Pendragon took the opposite tack.)


----------



## Mercador

ad_hoc said:


> I just checked out their store. Their prices are very expensive.
> 
> $65 for a book, $25 for an icons booster.
> 
> If people are buying it I guess it works for them.
> 
> Legends Warehouse has the alt cover books for $52 CAD and they ship for free on orders over $150.



I really like them so I pay the FLGS tax nonetheless. On a plus side, the book I purchase is in perfect state, that I cannot say when I got a book from Amazon (or any shipping that is). For a collection book (or book set in that case _cough_), I want them pristine.


----------



## ad_hoc

Mercador said:


> I really like them so I pay the FLGS tax nonetheless. On a plus side, the book I purchase is in perfect state, that I cannot say when I got a book from Amazon (or any shipping that is). For a collection book (or book set in that case _cough_), I want them pristine.




I guess your answer then as to the Canadian price is: 'it varies'.


----------



## Mercador

ad_hoc said:


> I guess your answer then as to the Canadian price is: 'it varies'.



Yeah... well, generally, WotC show their prices in CAD as well so I'm a bit surprised there's no indication of it right now on that book, the new design of the website doesn't show CAD prices anymore.


----------



## Mercador

Yeah, it's really more expensive, the box set is 134$ CAD on Amazon...






						Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebooks Gift Set (Special Foil Covers Edition with Slipcase, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, DM Screen): Wizards RPG Team: 0630509759064: Books - Amazon.ca
					

Dungeons & Dragons Core Rulebooks Gift Set (Special Foil Covers Edition with Slipcase, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual, DM Screen): Wizards RPG Team: 0630509759064: Books - Amazon.ca



					www.amazon.ca


----------



## Micah Sweet

Tallifer said:


> As an historian I try to hint at as much of history as I can when I run or play, but I fear that Wizards of the Coast has to steer clear of most historical facts to avoid offense and provide fun for a wider audience. (First edition Pendragon took the opposite tack.)



Yeah, it's a real shame.  Whenever I teach history nowadays I find it can be difficult to convey the value of the past to modern eyes, as from their perspective everyone was so completely awful to each other even quite recently that it makes it hard for them to focus on anything else.  The modern emphasis on diversity and cultural respect is a very, very recent phenomenon historically.


----------



## Mercador

Funny that we are several historians...


----------



## dave2008

Xeviat said:


> It's about PC damage numbers being really high and monster HP not being very high to match. This is exacerbated when the players feel like it's a big scary fight, because they're apt to nova and then chew something down in one round.
> 
> A fighter action surging and dumping a few superiority dice, a caster using their highest level spells, a paladin smiting on multiple hits... solos go down fast.



Isn't this the exact type of situation that Mythic monsters are set up for?


----------



## Jaeger

pogre said:


> Games Workshop takes quite a bit of heat for not previewing their products very much and just releasing them. After wading through a lot of the comments in this thread - I can see why they use that approach.
> 
> I actually think WOTC is making a mistake hinting at things three years out, but it is their baby.




WotC said in their video that they were going to do a new round of surveys on how to make the 50th ‘not-edition’ better.

I would take this to mean that they will eventually do a  playtest of some kind at least a year ahead of the 2024 release.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Mercador said:


> Funny that we are several historians...



That's the thing, really. WotC have to design a game for players who are _not_ historians - and indeed who are not old enough to have observed changing attitudes first hand.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Paul Farquhar said:


> That's the thing, really. WotC have to design a game for players who are _not_ historians - and indeed who are not old enough to have observed changing attitudes first hand.



Well, they dont have to do this...but they've certainly chosen to do so.


----------



## Mercador

I think it's a good example of "woke-washing"...


----------



## Urriak Uruk

Mercador said:


> I think it's a good example of "woke-washing"...




Why, WHY do threads always get to this point?

I should make a mathematical equation to calculate how quickly a thread gets to this same thing...


----------



## overgeeked

Urriak Uruk said:


> Why, WHY do threads always get to this point?
> 
> I should make a mathematical equation to calculate how quickly a thread gets to this same thing...



Because in any sufficiently large group there will inevitably be “that guy”. It’s also a favorite trick of some groups to pretend to be fans of geek things and insert themselves into geek communities in an attempt to split and politicize. A nerd corollary to Godwin’s Law.


----------



## Umbran

Mercador said:


> I think it's a good example of "woke-washing"...




*Mod Note:*
And, with that, you're done in the thread.


----------



## Xeviat

dave2008 said:


> Isn't this the exact type of situation that Mythic monsters are set up for?



Yes, and that took many years for 5E to implement.


----------



## dave2008

Xeviat said:


> Yes, and that took many years for 5E to implement.



Why is that relevant now?


----------



## ad_hoc

overgeeked said:


> Because in any sufficiently large group there will inevitably be “that guy”. It’s also a favorite trick of some groups to pretend to be fans of geek things and insert themselves into geek communities in an attempt to split and politicize. A nerd corollary to Godwin’s Law.




That may be true, but these people have been around for a long time in D&D. 

All the more reason that it is so important for the game to be actively inclusive and anti-bigotry. And I think it's working. A big part of 5e's appeal is literally that it is welcoming to people.

(And thankfully it isn't nearly as bad as something other geek subcultures like video games.)


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Micah Sweet said:


> Well, they dont have to do this...but they've certainly chosen to do so.



Companies have a moral obligation to maximise profits and show a good return for their investors. So morally, they have to do so.


----------



## Scribe

Paul Farquhar said:


> Companies have a moral obligation to maximise profits and show a good return for their investors. So morally, they have to do so.



It's not a moral obligation. Fiscal responsibility, perhaps.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Scribe said:


> It's not a moral obligation. Fiscal responsibility, perhaps.



This.  Also, by that argument, no company should take any action or offer any product that is not the most popular option.  Not everything should be decided by popular opinion.


----------



## overgeeked

Paul Farquhar said:


> Companies...moral...



LOL.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

overgeeked said:


> LOL.



If I invest my hard earned cash in a company I expect them to make a profit with it, not give it away.

I get sick and tiered of this unthoughtout illogical unsupported anti-capitalist nonsense.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Paul Farquhar said:


> If I invest my hard earned cash in a company I expect them to make a profit with it, not give it away.
> 
> I get sick and tiered of this unthoughtout illogical unsupported anti-capitalist nonsense.



*Mod Note:*

This position, while valid, could have been expressed in a less inflammatory way,  Incendiary rhetoric can be as much of an issue for the moderation staff as incendiary positions.

Please, _think_ before posting.


----------



## overgeeked

Paul Farquhar said:


> If I invest my hard earned cash in a company I expect them to make a profit with it, not give it away.
> 
> I get sick and tiered of this unthoughtout illogical unsupported anti-capitalist nonsense.



The rest of us are tired of having to pay for the basic necessities of life in a world that’s dying because of capitalism.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

overgeeked said:


> The rest of us are tired of having to pay for the basic necessities of life in a world that’s dying because of capitalism.



So, D&D is a basic necessity?

You can't do anything to help poor people if you don't have any money.


----------



## Jaeger

overgeeked said:


> The rest of us are tired of having to pay for the basic necessities of life in a world that’s dying because of capitalism.




The many sins laid at the feet of "capitalism" are universal human failings, that are just as present, and in some cases even more so, in every other alternative economic system.

Corporations are not moral as they are financial creatures created by government legislation allowing them to exist as legal entities, separate and distinct from their owners. Shielding the owners from many consequences of 'corporate actions'. Thus repeatedly enabling behavior that would otherwise be checked by normal legal, and market forces.


What this all has to do with _"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)_

I have no idea... But I will say that The 50AE version of 5e D&D will be a full on 5.5+ edition.

Balancing out the all the small changes they want to incorporate back into the core books will result in an inevitable cascade effect forcing them to follow through on a full revision.

It will visually look like the same game, but the devil will be in many details...

They will totally get away with this because unlike 3.0's 3 year run, 5e will have been the longest running WotC edition when 2024 rolls around.

They will absolutely refuse to call it a new edition, revision, or 5.x anything. Ever.

They 50th celebration of D&D will give them a lot of cover in the form of general good will, and positive press for the D&D brand.

The special 50AE D&D not-edition could not have the ground better laid with sugary sweetness to help the people pretend that it isn't totally a 5.5 revised edition with a smile.

Of course it doesn't exactly hurt the cause that after ten years many of the revisions they will make is stuff that a lot of people incorporate or house rule in their home games anyway; even if they say that they see no need for a "new edition of D&D".

But that's just, like, my opinion man.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Jaeger said:


> Of course it doesn't exactly hurt the cause that after ten years many of the revisions they will make is stuff that a lot of people incorporate or house rule in their home games anyway; even if they say that they see no need for a "new edition of D&D".




You are right. It's what every edition (or half-edition) has been: Incorporating how "everyone" (which is, of course, never _everyone_) is already doing it, or at least, would like to do it. (That and a few untested ideas that look great on paper but will inevitably lead to the next next edition when they don't pan out as planned. Oh! And not quite going far enough with the good ideas. That'll happen too.)


----------



## ad_hoc

Jaeger said:


> The many sins laid at the feet of "capitalism" are universal human failings, that are just as present, and in some cases even more so, in every other alternative economic system.
> 
> Corporations are not moral as they are financial creatures created by government legislation allowing them to exist as legal entities, separate and distinct from their owners. Shielding the owners from many consequences of 'corporate actions'. Thus repeatedly enabling behavior that would otherwise be checked by normal legal, and market forces.
> 
> 
> What this all has to do with _"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)_
> 
> I have no idea... But I will say that The 50AE version of 5e D&D will be a full on 5.5+ edition.
> 
> Balancing out the all the small changes they want to incorporate back into the core books will result in an inevitable cascade effect forcing them to follow through on a full revision.
> 
> It will visually look like the same game, but the devil will be in many details...
> 
> They will totally get away with this because unlike 3.0's 3 year run, 5e will have been the longest running WotC edition when 2024 rolls around.
> 
> They will absolutely refuse to call it a new edition, revision, or 5.x anything. Ever.
> 
> They 50th celebration of D&D will give them a lot of cover in the form of general good will, and positive press for the D&D brand.
> 
> The special 50AE D&D not-edition could not have the ground better laid with sugary sweetness to help the people pretend that it isn't totally a 5.5 revised edition with a smile.
> 
> Of course it doesn't exactly hurt the cause that after ten years many of the revisions they will make is stuff that a lot of people incorporate or house rule in their home games anyway; even if they say that they see no need for a "new edition of D&D".
> 
> But that's just, like, my opinion man.




I don't think it is going to happen like that.

They are reprinting xanathars and Tasha's which means 5.5 needs to be compatible with those.


----------



## TheSword

Jaeger said:


> The many sins laid at the feet of "capitalism" are universal human failings, that are just as present, and in some cases even more so, in every other alternative economic system.
> 
> Corporations are not moral as they are financial creatures created by government legislation allowing them to exist as legal entities, separate and distinct from their owners. Shielding the owners from many consequences of 'corporate actions'. Thus repeatedly enabling behavior that would otherwise be checked by normal legal, and market forces.
> 
> 
> What this all has to do with _"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)_
> 
> I have no idea... But I will say that The 50AE version of 5e D&D will be a full on 5.5+ edition.
> 
> Balancing out the all the small changes they want to incorporate back into the core books will result in an inevitable cascade effect forcing them to follow through on a full revision.
> 
> It will visually look like the same game, but the devil will be in many details...
> 
> They will totally get away with this because unlike 3.0's 3 year run, 5e will have been the longest running WotC edition when 2024 rolls around.
> 
> They will absolutely refuse to call it a new edition, revision, or 5.x anything. Ever.
> 
> They 50th celebration of D&D will give them a lot of cover in the form of general good will, and positive press for the D&D brand.
> 
> The special 50AE D&D not-edition could not have the ground better laid with sugary sweetness to help the people pretend that it isn't totally a 5.5 revised edition with a smile.
> 
> Of course it doesn't exactly hurt the cause that after ten years many of the revisions they will make is stuff that a lot of people incorporate or house rule in their home games anyway; even if they say that they see no need for a "new edition of D&D".
> 
> But that's just, like, my opinion man.



When you say ‘full revision’ it makes it sound like 3.5 was a major overhaul when it was dozens of very small changes. It was a tinkering with the 3e rules. Changes to a few spells, a few class abilities, damage reduction, and a new stat block for monsters. You could run the two versions side by side and almost not notice.

In essence a lot like the minor changes put forth in Tasha’sCoE.

Im pretty sure ‘Totally Revised 5.5 Edition’ is an oxymoron. If it was totally revised it would be a 6th edition.


----------



## Jaeger

ad_hoc said:


> I don't think it is going to happen like that.
> 
> They are reprinting xanathars and Tasha's which means 5.5 needs to be compatible with those.




A _gift_ set with 2024 still two years out.

The many changes they are integrating will mandate a certain level of revision that they will have to follow through on irregardless of initial intentions.

I have no doubt that it will be called "Compatible" as WotC will define it in 2024...




TheSword said:


> When you say ‘full revision’ it makes it sound like 3.5 was a major overhaul when it was dozens of very small changes.




By "full revision" we need to change our mindset as to what that means for D&D going forward. We will not see the paradigm jumps we saw with 2e to 3e, or 3e to 4e. From 5e onwards we will see a series of revisions in the scope of 3.0 to 3.5, and AD&D to AD&D2e.

_"dozens of very small changes." _had a cascade effect even with 3.5. Which is why 3.0 was left in the dust after a few years by the majority of the player base. Yet WotC considered 3.5 to be _"Fully Compatible"_ with 3.0 upon 3.5's release.

IMHO WotC D&D will progress from one "not-edition" to another going forward using the same underlying 5e mechanics.

Much like how Chaosium has done Seven "editions" of  CoC.


----------



## overgeeked

Jaeger said:


> Much like how Chaosium has done 7 "editions" of CoC.



From what they're saying, it will be far closer to one of Chaosium's CoC edition changes than what we're used to with D&D. The biggest jump in CoC was from 6E to 7E, but even that was minor compared to most D&D edition changes.


----------



## ad_hoc

Jaeger said:


> A _gift_ set with 2024 still two years out.
> 
> The many changes they are integrating will mandate a certain level of revision that they will have to follow through on irregardless of initial intentions.
> 
> I have no doubt that it will be called "Compatible" as WotC will define it in 2024...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "full revision" we need to change our mindset as to what that means for D&D going forward. We will not see the paradigm jumps we saw with 2e to 3e, or 3e to 4e. From 5e onwards we will see a series of revisions in the scope of 3.0 to 3.5, and AD&D to AD&D2e.
> 
> _"dozens of very small changes." _had a cascade effect even with 3.5. Which is why 3.0 was left in the dust after a few years by the majority of the player base. Yet WotC considered 3.5 to be _"Fully Compatible"_ with 3.0 upon 3.5's release.
> 
> IMHO WotC D&D will progress from one "not-edition" to another going forward using the same underlying 5e mechanics.
> 
> Much like how Chaosium has done Seven "editions" of  CoC.




It's in a gift set with a revised monster manual II after they announced they were updating the game in 2024.

That is the same as saying that Xanathar's and Tasha's will be compatible with 5.5e but Volo's and Mordenkainen's is not.

Otherwise it's a nasty thing to do.


----------



## TheSword

Jaeger said:


> A _gift_ set with 2024 still two years out.
> 
> The many changes they are integrating will mandate a certain level of revision that they will have to follow through on irregardless of initial intentions.
> 
> I have no doubt that it will be called "Compatible" as WotC will define it in 2024...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "full revision" we need to change our mindset as to what that means for D&D going forward. We will not see the paradigm jumps we saw with 2e to 3e, or 3e to 4e. From 5e onwards we will see a series of revisions in the scope of 3.0 to 3.5, and AD&D to AD&D2e.
> 
> _"dozens of very small changes." _had a cascade effect even with 3.5. Which is why 3.0 was left in the dust after a few years by the majority of the player base. Yet WotC considered 3.5 to be _"Fully Compatible"_ with 3.0 upon 3.5's release.
> 
> IMHO WotC D&D will progress from one "not-edition" to another going forward using the same underlying 5e mechanics.
> 
> Much like how Chaosium has done Seven "editions" of  CoC.



3.5 was fully compatible with 3e. You could play a 3e character alongside a 3e character of the same class and have almost no noticeable difference. I doubt very much whether a shift was even debated by most groups, it was a non-event. So I think left in the dust is a strong phrase. We carried on using 3e books and adventures right the way through.

I mean what are we taking about here for 5e? Tashas flexible origins? A few class ability variants? What are we actually looking at that makes 5e even superficially different?

New options are not revised rules. Liking the new options so much you want to include them in your core books doesn’t even make them revised rules. I seriously suggest people manage their expectations.


----------



## Jaeger

overgeeked said:


> rom what they're saying, it will be far closer to one of Chaosium's CoC edition changes than what we're used to with D&D. The biggest jump in CoC was from 6E to 7E, but even that was minor compared to most D&D edition changes.




That seems to be what they are selling with their PR.

But it is PR. We will see in 2024.




ad_hoc said:


> Otherwise it's a nasty thing to do.




It wouldn't be on purpose, I'm sure that they believe everything that they are saying right now.




TheSword said:


> *You could play a 3e character alongside a 3.5e character of the same class and have almost no noticeable difference. *I doubt very much whether a shift was even debated by most groups, it was a non-event. So I think left in the dust is a strong phrase. We carried on using 3e books and adventures right the way through.




Yet many disagreed. There was much angst and gnashing of teeth over 3.5.




TheSword said:


> New options are not revised rules. Liking the new options so much you want to include them in your core books doesn’t even make them revised rules.* I seriously suggest people manage their expectations.*




I agree.




FitzTheRuke said:


> You are right. *It's what every edition (or half-edition) has been:* Incorporating how "everyone" (which is, of course, never _everyone_) is already doing it, or at least, would like to do it. (That and a few untested ideas that look great on paper but will inevitably lead to the next next edition when they don't pan out as planned. Oh! And not quite going far enough with the good ideas. That'll happen too.)




We have WotC's history to see how similar situations were done in the past.

So based on past experience; we have every reason to take anything WotC says through its in house PR "interviews" with a grain of salt, until we have the 50AE D&D 'not-edition' in hand.

2024 will tell the final tale.

But:


Morrus said:


> *50th Anniversary in 2024*
> They've begun work on new versions of the core rulebooks. Recent surveys tie into that. They're still making plans, *but expect more surveys.* More will be said next year.




The "more surveys" might give more insight...


----------



## TheSword

Jaeger said:


> That seems to be what they are selling with their PR.
> 
> But it is PR. We will see in 2024.
> 
> We have WotC's history to see how similar situations were done in the past.
> 
> So based on past experience; we have every reason to take anything WotC says through its in house PR "interviews" with a grain of salt, until we have the 50AE D&D 'not-edition' in hand.
> 
> 2024 will tell the final tale.
> 
> But:
> 
> The "more surveys" might give more insight...



We could base our assumption of the anniversary books on the rules that they have said will be in them… small adjustments to take into account the options in Tasha and to a lesser extent Xanathar. Plus whatever equivalents they release between now and then.

Does it have to be any more complicated than that? Let’s be honest, WOC have been innovating and tinkering with the rules monthly since inception through Unearthed Arcana and we’ve had an insight into the rules through designer blogs and their responses to UA. They’ve reached out to customers for feedback more than any other edition. I just don’t see where the surprises are coming from.


----------



## Jaeger

TheSword said:


> *We could base our assumption of the anniversary books on *the rules that they have said will be in them… small adjustments to take into account the options in Tasha and to a lesser extent Xanathar. Plus whatever equivalents they release between now and then.





TheSword said:


> ...  *I just don’t see where the surprises are coming from.*




There is this:


Morrus said:


> *50th Anniversary in 2024*
> They've begun work on new versions of the core rulebooks. *Recent surveys tie into that.*




The recent surveys asked a LOT of questions about Classes, Class abilities, and Subclasses.

And they are going to do more surveys.



Morrus said:


> but *expect more surveys*. More will be said next year.




Because:


TheSword said:


> *They’ve reached out to customers for feedback *more than any other edition




So they are not going to act on the info gleaned from the surveys asking about Classes, Class abilities, and Subclasses?

Why wouldn't they use the information from the past and upcoming surveys to keep:


TheSword said:


> *innovating and tinkering with the rules*




If the next few surveys WotC puts out have nothing to do with Classes, Class abilities, or Subclasses...

Then I'm wrong. I'll have to eat crow. I'll get over it.

But if next years surveys do have lots of questions about Classes, Class abilities, or Subclasses.

Then:


TheSword said:


> *I seriously suggest people manage their expectations.*


----------



## Xeviat

dave2008 said:


> Why is that relevant now?



Because not every legendary monster people might want to use has been redesigned as a mythic monster?


----------



## dave2008

Xeviat said:


> Because not every legendary monster people might want to use has been redesigned as a mythic monster?



Right, but it is supper easy yo make any Legendary Monster a mythic.  You don't even need to do the complex part of giving it mythic actions.  Just regen and recharge at 0 - done!


----------



## the Jester

I'm curious about the reorganization of the monster books into a more truly alphabetical format. I'm not sure whether this has been addressed yet, but- well- how far does it go? 

What I mean is, glabrezu now goes under G. I assume that hill giant will now go under H- it seems to be a fairly equivalent case. Same with things like polar bear under P. I think we can even assume that something like a giant bat will go under G based on the organization of the existing monster books. But then we get into some other ones that are less clear. 

Does young red dragon go under Y, or under R? (I assume not D.) If we have giant ants and there are giant soldier ants and giant worker ants, are those under different entries or both under giant ant? It seems like in some cases, splitting stat blocks apart might not make as much sense as it does in others.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

the Jester said:


> I'm curious about the reorganization of the monster books into a more truly alphabetical format. I'm not sure whether this has been addressed yet, but- well- how far does it go?
> 
> What I mean is, glabrezu now goes under G. I assume that hill giant will now go under H- it seems to be a fairly equivalent case. Same with things like polar bear under P. I think we can even assume that something like a giant bat will go under G based on the organization of the existing monster books. But then we get into some other ones that are less clear.
> 
> Does young red dragon go under Y, or under R? (I assume not D.) If we have giant ants and there are giant soldier ants and giant worker ants, are those under different entries or both under giant ant? It seems like in some cases, splitting stat blocks apart might not make as much sense as it does in others.



I guess I understand putting Glabrezu under G, but if they put Giant Ant under G it will drive me nuts. Probably the best thing to do is to decide on "primary" and "secondary" adjectives. If you're not gonna put all the dragons under "d" then it's GOT to be "R" for Red Dragon, not "Y" for "Young" Red Dragon.

I expect that whatever they do, I will disagree with _some_ aspect of it. But I'll live with it. Whatever.


----------



## Nefermandias

More likely:

Giant, Hill
Dragon, Green (young)
Demon, Glabrezu


----------



## the Jester

Nefermandias said:


> More likely:
> 
> Giant, Hill
> Dragon, Green (young)
> Demon, Glabrezu



No, they used the glabrezu as an example. It will now be under G.


----------



## Nefermandias

the Jester said:


> No, they used the glabrezu as an example. It will now be under G.



True.
I hope they go back with that decision.


----------



## Omand

@the Jester It is the question.  Unfortunately, we just do not have enough information.

The video uses the Glabrezu example, but beyond that we have no idea about all of the possible corner cases you and others have set out.

Cheers


----------



## the Jester

Actually, there's a clue in WBtWL- under the campestri heading, it has both "campestri" and "swarm of campestris". And I think Fizban's will tell us how dragons will be organized- I suspect under e.g. R for red dragon they will have the various age categories.

But time will tell.


----------



## Demetrios1453

the Jester said:


> Actually, there's a clue in WBtWL- under the campestri heading, it has both "campestri" and "swarm of campestris". And I think Fizban's will tell us how dragons will be organized- I suspect under e.g. R for red dragon they will have the various age categories.
> 
> But time will tell.



We've already aeen the Table of Contents for Fizban's, and the age categories for the various dragons are all together under the main type: i.e. "Ancient Crystal Dragon" is under "C", not "A".


----------



## FrogReaver

Xeviat said:


> It's about PC damage numbers being really high and monster HP not being very high to match. This is exacerbated when the players feel like it's a big scary fight, because they're apt to nova and then chew something down in one round.
> 
> A fighter action surging and dumping a few superiority dice, a caster using their highest level spells, a paladin smiting on multiple hits... solos go down fast.



Yep.  The Nova damage numbers a party can output is absurd - even at lower levels.  As an example.  A GWF+GWM+Lucky+Hex+Precision+Trip Attack Fighter 6/Warlock 1 can output over 100 Damage on an average Nova round where he dumps all his short rest resources.


----------



## FrogReaver

Paul Farquhar said:


> If I invest my hard earned cash in a company I expect them to make a profit with it, not give it away.
> 
> I get sick and tiered of this unthoughtout illogical unsupported anti-capitalist nonsense.



I frankly don't care what the company does with the cash as long as they continue to make products I like and aren't actively going out and using it for 'evil' or things aligned against my self interests.


----------



## Micah Sweet

FrogReaver said:


> I frankly don't care what the company does with the cash as long as they continue to make products I like and aren't actively going out and using it for 'evil' or things aligned against my self interests.



Yeah, I dont get why anyone would care that money they spend on a company's product goes to profit for that company.  What difference would that make?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Paul Farquhar said:


> Companies have a moral obligation to maximise profits and show a good return for their investors. So morally, they have to do so.



All actors in a society have a moral obligation to not actively harm the society. No one has a moral obligation to get rich or make others rich. Investment is gambling.  
If a company is maximizing profit beyond what is needed to make a profit, by means that are sketchy or unethical, then they are behaving unethically. Being a corporation doest release them from basic ethical obligation to the community. 


Paul Farquhar said:


> So, D&D is a basic necessity?
> 
> You can't do anything to help poor people if you don't have any money.



Hey maybe you could not make very very politically charged, very controversial, declarative statements that aren’t even related to the thread topic, that replying to properly would require breaking forum rules?  
Like, there are other places where you can complain about how the youth don’t love an exploitive economic system that is largely failing them hard enough. 


Micah Sweet said:


> Yeah, I dont get why anyone would care that money they spend on a company's product goes to profit for that company.  What difference would that make?



Generally that isn’t the thing people are unhappy about. The mindset that companies have no obligation to behave ethically with regard to the community is very bad for a society. It’s upsetting when one feels that a company is juicing the community for more than a product is actually worth or more than they need to change to make a profit. Making a profit is good, greedily raking in more and more in order to give executives bigger bonuses is not.  

Which, tbh I don’t even think is what is happening with Wizards. I don’t really get why folks are acting like Wizards is behaving badly, right now.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

doctorbadwolf said:


> All actors in a society have a moral obligation to not actively harm the society.



Agreed.


doctorbadwolf said:


> No one has a moral obligation to get rich or make others rich.



Those people with the wherewithal have a moral obligation to generate wealth, because without wealth the is no way to help those who don't have that ability.

"Getting rich" only occurs when wealth is hoarded, rather than invested or used to help others.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Investment is gambling.



Investment is risking what you have in order to generate wealth, which can then be used to help others. It is morally reprehensible to hoard wealth rather than invest it.

The vast majority of investment in companies like Hasbro comes from the savings and pensions of ordinary people, not the super-rich.


doctorbadwolf said:


> If a company is maximizing profit beyond what is needed to make a profit, by means that are sketchy or unethical, then they are behaving unethically. Being a corporation doest release them from basic ethical obligation to the community.



It's the role of society to ensure that corporations behave ethically. It's currently not doing a good job of that, but that's not WotC's fault. If you come up with any evidence that WotC are behaving unethically then I am happy to criticise.

But round here, "unethical" seams to mean "doesn't give me free stuff" or "doesn't cater to my personal preferences".


doctorbadwolf said:


> Hey maybe you could not make very very politically charged, very controversial, declarative statements that aren’t even related to the thread topic, that replying to properly would require breaking forum rules?



I was _responding _to a very politically charged, very controversial, declarative statement.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Like, there are other places where you can complain about how the youth don’t love an exploitive economic system that is largely failing them hard enough.



I completely agree with this. But outlawing profit and making everyone equally poor isn't going to help anyone.

Redistribution of wealth is great. But you need something to redistribute first.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Which, tbh I don’t even think is what is happening with Wizards. I don’t really get why folks are acting like Wizards is behaving badly, right now.



I absolutely agree with this. It was the base assumption that WotC are behaving unethically by catering to profitable markets that angered me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Paul Farquhar said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Those people with the wherewithal have a moral obligation to generate wealth, because without wealth the is no way to help those who don't have that ability.



This is a twisted logic born out of being raised to view everything through a lense that supports laise faire capitalism and a culture that refuses to hold corporations and the wealthy accountable.


Paul Farquhar said:


> "Getting rich" only occurs when wealth is hoarded, rather than invested or used to help others.



If we accept this at face value, it still means that the extremely wealthy are inherently unethical. More wealth would be generated by them paying more taxes and those extra taxes being given to the working class so that they have more resources and are able to do more than just survive. In fact, paying a sub-living wage when capable of making a profit while paying more is inherently unethical (I would say inherently immoral) because it stifles the most effective means of promoting the common good in a capitalist economy, which is spending and investment by the masses. Further, companies that monopolise markets are worse for communities than small locally owned business that must compete with others like themselves, and the common good is better served by increasing the number of small business owners rather than the number of wage workers. A wage above the bare minimum to barely survive is required for the masses to be able to achieve those goals.


Paul Farquhar said:


> Investment is risking what you have in order to generate wealth, which can then be used to help others. It is morally reprehensible to hoard wealth rather than invest it.



This is a twisting of what is being discussed. Yes it is morally reprehensible for the wealthy to hoard their wealth. High level investment is, however, very often a form of wealth hoarding, and promotes monopolization. That wealth would be further from being hoarded by being taxed and distributed.


Paul Farquhar said:


> The vast majority of investment in companies like Hasbro comes from the savings and pensions of ordinary people, not the super-rich.



Citation needed, but also


Paul Farquhar said:


> It's the role of society to ensure that corporations behave ethically.



Only partly. The bulk of the responsibility of ethical behavior is on the individual or group acting in a given situation. That certain countries do not hold wealthy individuals and corporations accountable does not remove the responsibility for their own actions from those individuals and corporations.


Paul Farquhar said:


> It's currently not doing a good job of that, but that's not WotC's fault. If you come up with any evidence that WotC are behaving unethically then I am happy to criticise.



I literally have explicitly said, perhaps in the same post you're quoting, that I don't think Wizards is especially relevant to the discussion of corporate ethics. Please only reply to things I've said when replying to me.


Paul Farquhar said:


> But round here, "unethical" seams to mean "doesn't give me free stuff" or "doesn't cater to my personal preferences".






Paul Farquhar said:


> I was _responding _to a very politically charged, very controversial, declarative statement.



No, you weren't. At worst, you were responding to a misguided aiming of fairly uncontroversial arguements at a target that probably isn't guilty of any unethical behavior (in this context). You responded as if capitalism was under threat and need you to defend it!


Paul Farquhar said:


> I completely agree with this. But outlawing profit and making everyone equally poor isn't going to help anyone.



Show me who suggest doing so, and where. There are better uses of hay than making straw men to throw rocks at and pretend you're defending the village, I promise.


Paul Farquhar said:


> Redistribution of wealth is great. But you need something to redistribute first.



Okay?


Paul Farquhar said:


> I absolutely agree with this. It was the base assumption that WotC are behaving unethically by catering to profitable markets that angered me.



If that is the case, you _wildly _misdirected that anger.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I'm a businessman, and as a businessman, I believe that _now_ is not the time for WotC to raise the MSRP on their books. (I don't think enough of the audience can handle it). In particular after announcing record profits. (Bad optics). Doesn't make me anti-capitalist.

(Though I absolutely AM anti xxxtreme capitalist, which seems to me to be a growing problem in the world).


----------



## Paul Farquhar

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is a twisted logic born out of being raised to view everything through a lense that supports laise faire capitalism and a culture that refuses to hold corporations and the wealthy accountable.



I'm not a laise faire capitalist, I'm a socialist who understands socialism has no chance of being adopted while it spouts illogical anti-wealth rhetoric that alienates a significant portion the population.


doctorbadwolf said:


> If we accept this at face value, it still means that the extremely wealthy are inherently unethical.



Assuming they aren't putting their wealth to use helping the poor, absolutely. But that's not a reason to bash WotC for seeking to make a profit.


doctorbadwolf said:


> More wealth would be generated by them paying more taxes and those extra taxes being given to the working class so that they have more resources and are able to do more than just survive.



That's an overly simplistic interpretation. Over-simplification of issues that have no simple answers is a characteristic of both the political left and the political right. Neither hammering the wealthy with 99% taxes, or a laise faire "trickle down" approach work. It's not trendy, fashionable, or simple, but only a middle approach that encourages wealth generation _and _redistributes a portion of that wealth is going to benefit the poorest in society.

Anyway, it's society that sets (and enforces - or fails to) taxes. If WotC are evading their taxes then I agree that is unethical. If WotC are seeking to cater to the most profitable markets instead of making the stuff I want, that is entirely ethical.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

FitzTheRuke said:


> (Though I absolutely AM anti xxxtreme capitalist, which seems to me to be a growing problem in the world).



Hmm, in the UK at least, the political Right appears to be turning it's back on capitalism, in favour of petty nationalism, that is very anti-capitalist in character.


----------



## FrogReaver

Paul Farquhar said:


> Hmm, in the UK at least, the political Right appears to be turning it's back on capitalism, in favour of petty nationalism, that is very anti-capitalist in character.



One can very much support capitalism within your nation while finding it unfair on a global scale due to having no say over the governmental policies, taxes, regulations, and subsidies of other nations.


----------



## Morrus

You folks seem to be confused about where you are. Why are you discussing politics? Here's a refresher on the rules, if you've forgotten them:

Terms and rules


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Paul Farquhar said:


> I'm not a laise faire capitalist, I'm a socialist who understands socialism has no chance of being adopted while it spouts illogical anti-wealth rhetoric that alienates a significant portion the population.
> 
> Assuming they aren't putting their wealth to use helping the poor, absolutely. But that's not a reason to bash WotC for seeking to make a profit.
> 
> That's an overly simplistic interpretation. Over-simplification of issues that have no simple answers is a characteristic of both the political left and the political right. Neither hammering the wealthy with 99% taxes, or a laise faire "trickle down" approach work. It's not trendy, fashionable, or simple, but only a middle approach that encourages wealth generation _and _redistributes a portion of that wealth is going to benefit the poorest in society.
> 
> Anyway, it's society that sets (and enforces - or fails to) taxes. If WotC are evading their taxes then I agree that is unethical. If WotC are seeking to cater to the most profitable markets instead of making the stuff I want, that is entirely ethical.



I don’t know how else to tell you to either show me where I accused Wizards of any of that or stop replying to me as if I had.  

As for the economic stuff, we aren’t actually that far apart then, but you seem prone to wildly exaggerating what someone has said into the most extreme possible statement that kinda looks like what they said, so I won’t discuss it any further.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Yeah, sounds like we're in agreement.


----------



## dmgorgon

Lidgar said:


> So … 5.5 edition? 6th edition? AD&D 5e? Just curious how they will brand it.



Lol, I doubt there will be anything advanced about it


----------

