5) And sold in 1 big book, finally breaking the 3-book curse! More cost effective for new players, DMs, and old players that want a one book reference to carry to their weekly game!
That would actually be the most anticonsumer format that I could think of. It's important to note that the bigger a book, the more expensive it is to bind. I'm not just talking materials which scale linearly, but how much it costs to put it together which scales faster. It will cost a lot more to have them in one volume rather than three. The cost of that monster volume will be much higher than what it does now. There's a good reason why hardbacks are generally around 300-500 pages, it's the best compromise between cost and length. All three are in that region now.
The other problem is that by putting them together, even without the oversll cost increase, you're creating a steeper barrier to entry. No one can just get the PHB and work their way up. That'd deter newcomers who rather than gambling $40 on the PHB would be forced to fork up well north of $100 on the chance that they like it.
Or, hear me out, they could stop requiring 3 books "to work up to" like almost every other game DOESN'T right now.
Almost all the other big players are "One and Ready" to play. The expectation of 3 books to play one game is old and antiquated. You also ignored my part where I said "Cut out a lot of the spells and monsters that people never use."
Cause that would drastically reduce the overall size.
The only other big name game that still requires at least 2 books to play is Pathfinder, and that is just keeping the monster manual separate (which again, if they dumped all the stuff that rarely gets used from monsters and spells, they'd have space for one book).
But whatever, keep insisting we need 3 $50 books instead of one $60-100 book, because tradition,and we have to include all the trap spells and lame monsters that never get used so new players can have the illusion of choice before they join tables that tell them what they need to play to actually be effective. In a hobby most often picked up by those of limited means and incomes.
Then WotC wonders why "ye old Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum" happens.
Sorry no just no, as a DM having it all in one single book would be a nightmare, having to flick between the page of the monster they are fighting right now, to a page to confirm a rule, to a page to confirm a magic item would be a nightmare. The 3 book model works really well, in reality only 2 of those books are necessary as a DM, and only 1 book as a player, the DMG has some useful stuff in it but also can be skipped.
The stuff you want cut out, the Spells you consider pointless, others on other tables use and enjoy. The monsters in the Monster Manual take up most of that whole book, would you cut a load of them out as well? This is possibly the worst idea I have heard. Yes other systems put everything in a single book, but they then have a load of other books adding to it.
But I will add, a version of what you want is already available. If you want a cheaper game for beginners, you can already get the starter set for free online, that includes a bunch of monsters for the DM and a basic version of the rules.
Or, hear me out, they could stop requiring 3 books "to work up to" like almost every other game DOESN'T right now.
I also play Star Trek Adventures. They went the one big manual route. I now have the Core Rule Book (basically the PHB and a shortened version of the MM and PHB). Recently, I've got three "Division supplements" that help develop what the three main character classes (if you will) can do and how to play them. I also got four "Quadrant Supplements" to develop the locations and add more "monsters" to play with. So I now have 8 books instead of three or four, and they're shared among players and GMs alike. Compared to the 3 in 5e, yeah I'm good. Besides players only need the PHB. The other two are really for DMs only and even then, not all DMs want them. If I were starting my collection now, I wouldn't bother with the MM, I never use it.
Almost all the other big players are "One and Ready" to play. The expectation of 3 books to play one game is old and antiquated.
See above.
You also ignored my part where I said "Cut out a lot of the spells and monsters that people never use."
I didn't. Either you think spells take up much more space than they do, or you're talking about getting rid of a lot of monsters, many of which are used.
Cause that would drastically reduce the overall size.
It really wouldn't, not if you want to include the ones that are used.
But whatever, keep insisting we need 3 $50 books instead of one $60-100 book,
You're joking. As I said, the binding is very expensive as you get to larger books. Let's say you want to annoy a third of the customer base and cut the MM in half (spells don't even take that many pages), that's reducing the size by a sixth. Even if we assumed that there were no increased costs due to binding, and pages are the bulk of the cost (they're not), that's still only an $20 saving.
But those assumptions aren't true. You either go for higher quality bindings, which will cost a bomb, far more than the $20 you saved by cutting out half the content of the MM, or you get complaints that over half the books you've sold didn't last a year before coming apart. You can't just increase book size like that.
You're proposing a format that would be more expensive, has less content and is less convenient than what we have now.(because you can split up the books and use what you need), while forcing the consumer to buy all three when the vast majority (what, 80%ish?) doesn't need anything other than the current PHB.
because tradition
Don't poison the well.
and we have to include all the trap spells and lame monsters that never get usedso new players can have the illusion of choice before they join tables that tell them what they need to play to actually be effective. In a hobby most often picked up by those of limited means and incomes.
So your solution is to force players to buy more content they don't use? Force them to buy half the MM despite not running encounters and the best part of the DMG despite not being DMs? Even as a DM, I wish I'd not bought those, but I accept that I made a mistake because it was my fault for not realising that cards are a much better solution than the MM and that the DMG is meh. Being forced to buy them and have them just get in the way would make me blame WotC. At least I could sell them on if I had the desire.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Or, hear me out, they could stop requiring 3 books "to work up to" like almost every other game DOESN'T right now.
Almost all the other big players are "One and Ready" to play. The expectation of 3 books to play one game is old and antiquated. You also ignored my part where I said "Cut out a lot of the spells and monsters that people never use."
Cause that would drastically reduce the overall size.
The only other big name game that still requires at least 2 books to play is Pathfinder, and that is just keeping the monster manual separate (which again, if they dumped all the stuff that rarely gets used from monsters and spells, they'd have space for one book).
But whatever, keep insisting we need 3 $50 books instead of one $60-100 book, because tradition,and we have to include all the trap spells and lame monsters that never get used so new players can have the illusion of choice before they join tables that tell them what they need to play to actually be effective. In a hobby most often picked up by those of limited means and incomes.
All that stuff is options. People like options. For many people, predefined options make their lives easier. This is particularly true for people who are new to the game. Yes, you can homebrew whatever creatures you need, but a new DM finds them useful. Yes, many of the spells are not the absolute best spells, but lots of them are interesting, flavorful, personailty-defining spells. Remove them and the characters get less interesting. Also, most people don't care about how to be maximally effective. They don't care that Ice Storm isn't as good as Fireball; their wizard is a frost wizard.
All the other "big players" (whoever you think they are) get around this by having fewer options, or by being more freeform, and thus putting more initial work on the players and GM. Or, of course, by having lots of options and more books.
This may be a weird one, but I want a handful of new armor/shield options including some with the special property.
For example, I think Spiked Armor should be added to the standard list of equipment and provide some sort of passive damage ability if you are wearing it. Maybe something along the lines of if a creature misses you with a melee attack you can use your reaction to deal X piercing damage to it. It just seems silly that you can wear armor with spikes on it but it has no additional function compared to other medium armor unless you play a specific subclass of a specific class (although Battleragers should still be the "best" at using it).
On that note, Id also like to see setting-agnostic reprints/revisions of the other SCAG subclasses that didnt make their way into Xanathar's or Tasha's in some way, shape, or form.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Thank you all, for being brutally shouted down on an opinion on a wishlist for a theoretical edition we know almost nothing about, I know I will never post here again, or give WotC more money when they demand I re-buy 3 books with it again.
Bye all. Enjoy your echo chamber. It's Gleemax all over again.
Thank you all, for being brutally shouted down on an opinion on a wishlist for a theoretical edition we know almost nothing about, I know I will never post here again, or give WotC more money when they demand I re-buy 3 books with it again.
Bye all. Enjoy your echo chamber. It's Gleemax all over again.
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not, perhaps, in best form to grind an axe against an opinion. However, this is a discussion board, and at least the first few comments were hoping to impart information to you that you might not have had. Pantagruel is not wrong; book binding for large-sized tomes can be an expensive and complex issue, and it takes a heavy toll on the durability of the book. It's one reason why 'Omnibus' editions of large series are often physically taller and wider than regular books - expanding print out and up is, by a certain book thickness, more economical than expanding depth. However, the height and width of D&D 5e sourcebooks (and many similar products) is standardized, so this isn't really an option for Wizards. A single Omnibus edition of the three core books would likely not cost significantly less than the three-book collection, if it indeed cost less at all, and many people find that the more modular arrangement of core rules is beneficial. Players have a Handbook, Dungeon Masters have a Guide, and neither needs to deal with the rules for the other.
That said, it has also been pointed out that the Basic Rules might be what you're looking for. The Basic Rules/System Reference Document is essentially D&D 5e Lite, with a much smaller variety of spells, monsters, and rules in order to strip out 'bloat' and allow players to try before they buy. As a DM, you are free to tell your players that if it isn't in the SRD, it isn't in your game. Many DMs do exactly that and use nothing but the SRD for their games, often without spending a single dime on D&D products outside dice. You may wish to look into the SRD and see if it meets your requirements.
That said, it has also been pointed out that the Basic Rules might be what you're looking for. The Basic Rules/System Reference Document is essentially D&D 5e Lite, with a much smaller variety of spells, monsters, and rules in order to strip out 'bloat' and allow players to try before they buy. As a DM, you are free to tell your players that if it isn't in the SRD, it isn't in your game. Many DMs do exactly that and use nothing but the SRD for their games, often without spending a single dime on D&D products outside dice. You may wish to look into the SRD and see if it meets your requirements.
It might be easier to tell tables this if it was in Print. Like I have asked for years. Just put it out there in softcover. For some reason for many players [Print = Official].
I feel all these people calling for 3 books either exclusively play online, or live in rather wealthy or at least comfortable middle class bubbles.
Cause I can tell you, all the public games I see at game stores in my neck of the woods doesn't have a single physical book unless I bring it (being that lone middle class guy). They all use less than legal sources and copies because people earning rural wages can't spring $150 for 3 books, then the $40 for a setting and still have money to drive to work.
I'm just saying, the next D&D might want to take clues from stuff like Savage Worlds and FATE. You don't need half the spells. You need a template and trappings. Same with critters. Fully stat out the unique classics, sure (Dragons, Flayers, Beholders, etc) but you don't need 8 versions of goblin.
But my opinion is clearly not welcome, so like I said, I'm out. Thank you for at least trying to see my point of view.
Your opinion is perfectly welcome, people are simply going to debate with it. Some of them will be blunt when they do so. Believe me, there's more than a few people raising their eyebrows right now at how polite and restrained I'm being in this particular discussion, I'm a rather well known forum firebrand most times. Regardless, the issue is not that your words are unwelcome. Rather, people simply disagree and wish to express that disagreement. Personally I find the three core book arrangement more beneficial than not, especially as DDB reduces the cost of book ownership by, genrerally, 40%. As you say, it is not print, but if a table is going to pick nits then they don't need to benefit from my services as DM or my contributions as player.
Wizards' monetization policy for D&D is not great, no. Unfortunately, it's also immensely successful, so I sincerely doubt we'll see sweeping changes to their moneization and marketing for the system going forward. Would it be stellar if they could unclench a little and be just a smidge less hostile to their own customer base? Absolutely! But historically that has not been an ask Wizards of the Coast is willing to consider, for any of their properties. If they weren't so bloody successful, maybe they'd change, but alas. Vote with our wallets, I suppose.
There's also the case that, as a player familiar with Savage Worlds' and GURPS' magic systems as well as a few other of the more generic, pagecount-lite systems out there, I tend to find them to be shallow, boring, and deeply unengaging next to D&D 5e's. Having half a dozen or so extremely basic spells that are just surface-level reflavored with various trappings makes for 'magic' characters that do not really feel magical at all. It semi-works for Street-level hero games and characters with supernatural powers, but it leaves me wanting significantly more from someone who's supposed to be a powerful weaver of the arcane.
That opinion certainly isn't universal, but I imagine it's common enough among D&D players to be significant. D&D's spell library is not only one of its signature brand identifiers, but also one of its greatest strengths as a TTRPG system. The sheer diversity of different spells one can make use of is one of the few places in 5e where the designers did not assume its players were all complete drooling morons unable to understand human language and allowed us to make decisions. Eschewing that library in favor of a more Genesys-style template-and-trapping system would be a very significant downgrade for me. Building a unique, flavorfull spell portfolio is one of my favorite ways to make a character pop in 5e.
I could see a better basic starter set. Something with more. Just more. And less. Just the core old school 5 races. Just the core old school 5 classes no sub classes. And yes limited spells because of this. Limited equipment. Limited monsters with limited write ups. And two sets of dice, player and DM with a DM screen to hide his roles.
There are some spells that I miss from old editions and some spells could use a little work.
Better magic creation spells and rules. For all magic classes.
Better descriptions of the pantheons and the gods in them.
And yes maybe a supplement book or so adding in other cultures than the standard European middle ages. But I can see why they have not yet. Some few people still follow the ancient gods of those cultures and no one wants to upset them. But..... If you think about it Druids still exist and practice their religion/belief.
They have the cash to hire someone from those areas to create the content or at least help.
All those other cultures would ad in a bunch of content from locations to magic to equipment.
Better bonuses for those those wizards who want to specialize in one school.
Sorry no just no, as a DM having it all in one single book would be a nightmare, having to flick between the page of the monster they are fighting right now, to a page to confirm a rule, to a page to confirm a magic item would be a nightmare. The 3 book model works really well, in reality only 2 of those books are necessary as a DM, and only 1 book as a player, the DMG has some useful stuff in it but also can be skipped.
The stuff you want cut out, the Spells you consider pointless, others on other tables use and enjoy. The monsters in the Monster Manual take up most of that whole book, would you cut a load of them out as well? This is possibly the worst idea I have heard. Yes other systems put everything in a single book, but they then have a load of other books adding to it.
But I will add, a version of what you want is already available. If you want a cheaper game for beginners, you can already get the starter set for free online, that includes a bunch of monsters for the DM and a basic version of the rules.
I also play Star Trek Adventures. They went the one big manual route. I now have the Core Rule Book (basically the PHB and a shortened version of the MM and PHB). Recently, I've got three "Division supplements" that help develop what the three main character classes (if you will) can do and how to play them. I also got four "Quadrant Supplements" to develop the locations and add more "monsters" to play with. So I now have 8 books instead of three or four, and they're shared among players and GMs alike. Compared to the 3 in 5e, yeah I'm good. Besides players only need the PHB. The other two are really for DMs only and even then, not all DMs want them. If I were starting my collection now, I wouldn't bother with the MM, I never use it.
See above.
I didn't. Either you think spells take up much more space than they do, or you're talking about getting rid of a lot of monsters, many of which are used.
It really wouldn't, not if you want to include the ones that are used.
You're joking. As I said, the binding is very expensive as you get to larger books. Let's say you want to annoy a third of the customer base and cut the MM in half (spells don't even take that many pages), that's reducing the size by a sixth. Even if we assumed that there were no increased costs due to binding, and pages are the bulk of the cost (they're not), that's still only an $20 saving.
But those assumptions aren't true. You either go for higher quality bindings, which will cost a bomb, far more than the $20 you saved by cutting out half the content of the MM, or you get complaints that over half the books you've sold didn't last a year before coming apart. You can't just increase book size like that.
You're proposing a format that would be more expensive, has less content and is less convenient than what we have now.(because you can split up the books and use what you need), while forcing the consumer to buy all three when the vast majority (what, 80%ish?) doesn't need anything other than the current PHB.
Don't poison the well.
So your solution is to force players to buy more content they don't use? Force them to buy half the MM despite not running encounters and the best part of the DMG despite not being DMs? Even as a DM, I wish I'd not bought those, but I accept that I made a mistake because it was my fault for not realising that cards are a much better solution than the MM and that the DMG is meh. Being forced to buy them and have them just get in the way would make me blame WotC. At least I could sell them on if I had the desire.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
All that stuff is options. People like options. For many people, predefined options make their lives easier. This is particularly true for people who are new to the game. Yes, you can homebrew whatever creatures you need, but a new DM finds them useful. Yes, many of the spells are not the absolute best spells, but lots of them are interesting, flavorful, personailty-defining spells. Remove them and the characters get less interesting. Also, most people don't care about how to be maximally effective. They don't care that Ice Storm isn't as good as Fireball; their wizard is a frost wizard.
All the other "big players" (whoever you think they are) get around this by having fewer options, or by being more freeform, and thus putting more initial work on the players and GM. Or, of course, by having lots of options and more books.
This may be a weird one, but I want a handful of new armor/shield options including some with the special property.
For example, I think Spiked Armor should be added to the standard list of equipment and provide some sort of passive damage ability if you are wearing it. Maybe something along the lines of if a creature misses you with a melee attack you can use your reaction to deal X piercing damage to it. It just seems silly that you can wear armor with spikes on it but it has no additional function compared to other medium armor unless you play a specific subclass of a specific class (although Battleragers should still be the "best" at using it).
On that note, Id also like to see setting-agnostic reprints/revisions of the other SCAG subclasses that didnt make their way into Xanathar's or Tasha's in some way, shape, or form.
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Thank you all, for being brutally shouted down on an opinion on a wishlist for a theoretical edition we know almost nothing about, I know I will never post here again, or give WotC more money when they demand I re-buy 3 books with it again.
Bye all. Enjoy your echo chamber. It's Gleemax all over again.
I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not, perhaps, in best form to grind an axe against an opinion. However, this is a discussion board, and at least the first few comments were hoping to impart information to you that you might not have had. Pantagruel is not wrong; book binding for large-sized tomes can be an expensive and complex issue, and it takes a heavy toll on the durability of the book. It's one reason why 'Omnibus' editions of large series are often physically taller and wider than regular books - expanding print out and up is, by a certain book thickness, more economical than expanding depth. However, the height and width of D&D 5e sourcebooks (and many similar products) is standardized, so this isn't really an option for Wizards. A single Omnibus edition of the three core books would likely not cost significantly less than the three-book collection, if it indeed cost less at all, and many people find that the more modular arrangement of core rules is beneficial. Players have a Handbook, Dungeon Masters have a Guide, and neither needs to deal with the rules for the other.
That said, it has also been pointed out that the Basic Rules might be what you're looking for. The Basic Rules/System Reference Document is essentially D&D 5e Lite, with a much smaller variety of spells, monsters, and rules in order to strip out 'bloat' and allow players to try before they buy. As a DM, you are free to tell your players that if it isn't in the SRD, it isn't in your game. Many DMs do exactly that and use nothing but the SRD for their games, often without spending a single dime on D&D products outside dice. You may wish to look into the SRD and see if it meets your requirements.
Please do not contact or message me.
It might be easier to tell tables this if it was in Print. Like I have asked for years. Just put it out there in softcover. For some reason for many players [Print = Official].
I feel all these people calling for 3 books either exclusively play online, or live in rather wealthy or at least comfortable middle class bubbles.
Cause I can tell you, all the public games I see at game stores in my neck of the woods doesn't have a single physical book unless I bring it (being that lone middle class guy). They all use less than legal sources and copies because people earning rural wages can't spring $150 for 3 books, then the $40 for a setting and still have money to drive to work.
I'm just saying, the next D&D might want to take clues from stuff like Savage Worlds and FATE. You don't need half the spells. You need a template and trappings. Same with critters. Fully stat out the unique classics, sure (Dragons, Flayers, Beholders, etc) but you don't need 8 versions of goblin.
But my opinion is clearly not welcome, so like I said, I'm out. Thank you for at least trying to see my point of view.
Your opinion is perfectly welcome, people are simply going to debate with it. Some of them will be blunt when they do so. Believe me, there's more than a few people raising their eyebrows right now at how polite and restrained I'm being in this particular discussion, I'm a rather well known forum firebrand most times. Regardless, the issue is not that your words are unwelcome. Rather, people simply disagree and wish to express that disagreement. Personally I find the three core book arrangement more beneficial than not, especially as DDB reduces the cost of book ownership by, genrerally, 40%. As you say, it is not print, but if a table is going to pick nits then they don't need to benefit from my services as DM or my contributions as player.
Wizards' monetization policy for D&D is not great, no. Unfortunately, it's also immensely successful, so I sincerely doubt we'll see sweeping changes to their moneization and marketing for the system going forward. Would it be stellar if they could unclench a little and be just a smidge less hostile to their own customer base? Absolutely! But historically that has not been an ask Wizards of the Coast is willing to consider, for any of their properties. If they weren't so bloody successful, maybe they'd change, but alas. Vote with our wallets, I suppose.
There's also the case that, as a player familiar with Savage Worlds' and GURPS' magic systems as well as a few other of the more generic, pagecount-lite systems out there, I tend to find them to be shallow, boring, and deeply unengaging next to D&D 5e's. Having half a dozen or so extremely basic spells that are just surface-level reflavored with various trappings makes for 'magic' characters that do not really feel magical at all. It semi-works for Street-level hero games and characters with supernatural powers, but it leaves me wanting significantly more from someone who's supposed to be a powerful weaver of the arcane.
That opinion certainly isn't universal, but I imagine it's common enough among D&D players to be significant. D&D's spell library is not only one of its signature brand identifiers, but also one of its greatest strengths as a TTRPG system. The sheer diversity of different spells one can make use of is one of the few places in 5e where the designers did not assume its players were all complete drooling morons unable to understand human language and allowed us to make decisions. Eschewing that library in favor of a more Genesys-style template-and-trapping system would be a very significant downgrade for me. Building a unique, flavorfull spell portfolio is one of my favorite ways to make a character pop in 5e.
Please do not contact or message me.
I could see a better basic starter set. Something with more. Just more. And less. Just the core old school 5 races. Just the core old school 5 classes no sub classes. And yes limited spells because of this. Limited equipment. Limited monsters with limited write ups. And two sets of dice, player and DM with a DM screen to hide his roles.
There are some spells that I miss from old editions and some spells could use a little work.
Better magic creation spells and rules. For all magic classes.
Better descriptions of the pantheons and the gods in them.
And yes maybe a supplement book or so adding in other cultures than the standard European middle ages. But I can see why they have not yet. Some few people still follow the ancient gods of those cultures and no one wants to upset them. But..... If you think about it Druids still exist and practice their religion/belief.
They have the cash to hire someone from those areas to create the content or at least help.
All those other cultures would ad in a bunch of content from locations to magic to equipment.
Better bonuses for those those wizards who want to specialize in one school.