The example given was Neogi. Original 5E text was 600 words and they described they were slavers and gave example of evil. The new 5E in Mords was less than half of the original, doesn't mention they are evil and states they have no concept of good or evil, turning one of the foils of Spelljammer into Vulcans. You might like that, and hey that's fine. I don't like the writer not being allowed to state that yes, Neogi are slavers and yes they do commit evil. The new writing from Multiverse reads like the writer is describing a vulcan, its just bad and frankly confusing to roleplay. I'm not keen on the stat block example, but a lot of the writing in Multi doesn't have much flavor, the statblock analogy fits more than it should for a D&D product.
I've seen this type of writing back in 2E when Lorraine ran the company into the ground and put her own moral values into the game, changing the lore to the point where it just didn't make a lot of sense.
What are you talking about? The new stat blocks have the following:
"Typically Lawful Evil"
"Because adult neogi have the power to control minds, they consider doing so to be entirely appropriate."
"They left their home world long ago to conquer and devour creatures in other realms. During this era, they dominated umber hulks and used them to build sleek, spidery ships capable of traversing the multiverse."
Sure, the description has far less lore in it than before, but what is left definitely indicates evil.
A lot of creatures can control minds, it doesn't make them evil. A lot of creatures devour other creatures (meat), it doesn't make them evil. The description leaves out that yes, they are slavers.
Meanwhile, this concise summary paragraph gives you all you need to know about their behaviors. They are bullies, slavers and will even enslave their own kind, They have no problem being poisoners and destroying someone's mind. The argument people make is, "just homebrew it". I don't pay WotC to have to write up themes and motivations for monsters. If I don't like what WotC wrote, I'll create my own. However, taking that content away to meet someone's moral in corporate, doesn't help the DM. And we've seen it again in 2E by Lorraine that drove a lot of customers away. We've done this before in the past and it wasn't good.
Neogi are hateful slavers that consider most other creatures, even weaker neogi, to be servants and prey. A neogi looks like an outsize spider with an eel’s neck and head. The creature can poison the body and the mind of its target, able to subjugate other beings that are otherwise physically superior.
A company changing their product is not censorship, it a company making changes to their product. They own it, they can do what they want with it. The government telling a company to change their product is censorship.
Not to be a Lorraine apologist, but there was a lot going on in the world when 2e was out beyond her personal beliefs. The changes were much more in response to the satanic panic and suburban parents scared by ginned up stories than anything to do with her. She made lots of bad choices, and really screwed the pooch with the whole Buck Rogers deal, but removing the words devils and demons was a business decision.
And as others have said lack of lore lets you make your own. Contrary to earlier statements, making your own lore has actually been the core of the game since the beginning. Gary and Co. we’re shocked that other people wanted to pay for a world to play in. They assumed everyone had the time and creativity to homebrew an entire multiverse just as they did.
I get that you’re not into that, and it certainly makes sense. But to assert that the game was founded around spoon feeding lore to everyone is simply wrong.
I never stated the game was founded on spoon feeding lore. The game was founded on rules and flavor text for the monsters and settings. Now D&D has always given you a baseline lore to work with. It gives you history and motivation for the monsters. What we are seeing is more removal of content that appears to be based on moralistic qualms, again similar to Lorraine putting her own moral values over sales and objections from her own staff. One would assume, the reasoning is corporate wants a broader market, which was Lorraine's reasoning. By time her tenure was over, she chased away a lot of people by putting out a product that wouldn't offend anyone. Essentially building a product for the lowest common denominator.
The rub is, D&D can give you lore, and if you don't like it, you can reject it and build your own. That being written, when you take away the existing lore, you are forcing people to create their own lore, which eats up their time. If a person is unemployed and living in the basement of their own home, I think that's a great approach, because they are time rich and cash poor. They don't have spend to buy the product, but plenty of time to do whatever they want for prep. These people can be useful as players or even a DM, but they don't have the funds to buy from WotC, they are known as minnows or dolphins depending on your sales definition. However, those of us employed and raising a family, we do not have said time. We are cash rich and time poor, and we are the people that makes a companies product profitable because we pay for convenience and ease of use, they are typically known as whales.
What Winninger &/or Corporate WotC has been doing is cutting detail and increasing DM prep time, for what appears to be moralistic qualms on what is acceptable to turn D&D into a lifestyle brand. Good luck with that one. Covid is done, people have their freedom again to socialize and do things other than stay indoors. It's a bold strategy Cotton to increase DM prep time to seem like a better person and appeal to a mass market. Maybe it'll work. I know my spend is greatly down, and after the Spelljammer 5E debacle, I can't see myself spending anything else with the current D&D Lead. I literally went to support to ask where was space combat, and it turns out they didn't include it. If it wasn't for Wildjammer, plans for next year campaign would either be shot or I'd have to spend 40 hours updating the rules to be something my party can use, because that's an ask for the next campaign.
I'll certainly say the current trend leaves me suspicious and even depressed about the likely design of sixth edition, let about any upcoming books. I never liked Dragonlance beyond tbe first 3 fiction books by Weiss and Hickman, so that was a non-starter from the get go. If Planescape should release, I doubt I'll buy it till a sale like Cyber Monday. And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
I'll certainly say the current trend leaves me suspicious and even depressed about the likely design of sixth edition, let about any upcoming books. I never liked Dragonlance beyond tbe first 3 fiction books by Weiss and Hickman, so that was a non-starter from the get go. If Planescape should release, I doubt I'll buy it till a sale like Cyber Monday. And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
If you liked Spelljammer, use this like to Wildjammer:
It's from Magehand press, and yes its free. I believe they released it BEFORE Spelljammer 5E was released so they couldn't sell it on DMsguild. They should really post it on the DMsguild now, its worth $25 to me and I'd like to pay them for it. This is what WotC should have released. Its streamlined, its got enough of the old to be relatable and if you want to pimp out your ship you can do it.
The thing is, why do I have to go to 3rd party to get content that's usable out of the box? Why do I have to invest a lot of time when I paid for a premium product and got an air burger. I mean the module is passable, the monster manual doesn't include all of the spelljammer bestiary and that's a rub but it has some of them and the rules section, the part we need, its not great.
I'll certainly say the current trend leaves me suspicious and even depressed about the likely design of sixth edition, let about any upcoming books. I never liked Dragonlance beyond tbe first 3 fiction books by Weiss and Hickman, so that was a non-starter from the get go. If Planescape should release, I doubt I'll buy it till a sale like Cyber Monday. And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
If you liked Spelljammer, use this like to Wildjammer. ...
Just to clarify, I liked old school Spelljammer. 5e is terrible. I'll check out the link for sure amd keep my eyes peeled for 3rd Party resources. Just wish it hadn't come to this.
I'll certainly say the current trend leaves me suspicious and even depressed about the likely design of sixth edition, let about any upcoming books. I never liked Dragonlance beyond tbe first 3 fiction books by Weiss and Hickman, so that was a non-starter from the get go. If Planescape should release, I doubt I'll buy it till a sale like Cyber Monday. And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
If you liked Spelljammer, use this like to Wildjammer. ...
Just to clarify, I liked old school Spelljammer. 5e is terrible. I'll check out the link for sure amd keep my eyes peeled for 3rd Party resources. Just wish it hadn't come to this.
Oh, Wildjammer its good. If you search for it you'll find the Reddit post from the creator with the dropbox link. The only thing I'll be changing is they don't have ship material type. I'm putting that in, and it will just give the ship resistance and vulnerability to certain attacks, that's all.
Here is an example of a role a player character can take as a ships crewmen, they got 4 or 5 totals role if I remember right, so that during shipboard combat, they have meaningful interactions rather than "I cast magic missile at the ship".
BOATSWAIN As the Boatswain (also called the 'bosun'), your job aboard a wildjammer includes maintaining and managing the wildjammer's hull, masts, sails, and rigging. You are also responsible for leading the crew in operating the sails and repairing the wildjammer. Your responsibilities include daily inspections of the wildjammer's hull, masts, sails, rigging, and crew. You provide daily reports to the Captain with the results of your inspection and to keep them up to date with ongoing maintenance and service needs of the wildjammer and crew. BOATSWAIN While in the Boatswain role, at the start of your turn, your wildjammer heals a number of bulwark points equal to half its maximum, rounded up. BRACE FOR IMPACT As an action, you ready the crew for an attack. Choose one 90º side of your ship. Until the start of your next turn, your ship has resistance to non-magical physical damage dealt to that side of the ship. FIX IT UP As an action, you can repair a ship weapon, module, or sail that has been disabled. Make a DC 15 Intelligence (Carpenter's Tools) check. On a success, it is repaired for 1 hull point and resumes functioning as normal. WORK THE SAILS As an action, you can command the crew to adjust your ship’s sails to change how it controls. You must change these one step at a time, such as from furled to coursesail, then course-sail to full-sail. Furled. Your ship loses 500 ft. speed, but gains 45º maneuverability to a maximum of 180º. Course-sail. Your ship moves at its standard speed and maneuverability. Full-sail. Your ship gains 500 ft. speed, but loses 45º maneuverability to a minimum of 0º. HURRY IT UP! As an action, you push the crew to work harder. Your ship's bulwark points are restored to full and any Gunner that takes the Open Fire action before the start of your next turn can make one additional attack. Once you use this action, you can't use it again for 1 minute. EXPERT BOATSWAIN When you take the Brace for Impact action, you choose a 180º side instead. HARD TURN As an action, you command the crew into a dangerous maneuver. The first time your ship moves before the start of your next turn, its maneuverability increases by 90º, up to a maximum of 360º. Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you complete a short or long rest. MASTER BOATSWAIN While in the Boatswain role, your wildjammer has a number of extra bulwark points equal to your proficiency bonus.
A lot of creatures can control minds, it doesn't make them evil.
Yes it does. Mind Control is inherently evil. It's more morally problematic than necromancy. You're taking away the bodily autonomy of other creatures, which probably aren't consenting. Mind control is inherently evil, and creatures that use it also are inherently evil.
A lot of creatures devour other creatures (meat), it doesn't make them evil.
I see you're not vegan, then ;)
This is up for debate and has been for awhile now. Quite a few people would say that eating meat while having available alternatives is, indeed, an evil act.
The description leaves out that yes, they are slavers.
Meanwhile, this concise summary paragraph gives you all you need to know about their behaviors. They are bullies, slavers and will even enslave their own kind, They have no problem being poisoners and destroying someone's mind. The argument people make is, "just homebrew it". I don't pay WotC to have to write up themes and motivations for monsters. If I don't like what WotC wrote, I'll create my own. However, taking that content away to meet someone's moral in corporate, doesn't help the DM. And we've seen it again in 2E by Lorraine that drove a lot of customers away. We've done this before in the past and it wasn't good.
Neogi are still (mostly) evil, okay. So your example is a bad one. They probably cut the rest of the lore because a) it's up to the individual DM on how to use it b) to leave room for the occasional non-evil Neogi that doesn't enslave people (just like there are the occasional good Mind Flayer or Beholder), and c) to make room for other monsters in a limited amount of pages for the book.
And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
5e is terrible.
I mean this in the most respectful manner... why are you here then? It seems you don't like 5e and have already decided you don't like 6e despite absolutely no plans to develop it yet, so why even hang out on 5e boards? It seems like your time might be much better spent in a forum on your preferred edition rather than just coming here to tear down the current one.
I feel like there's a looot of subtext in this thread. As third pointed out, Neogi are still described as being reprehensible. Likening "conquer and devour other creatures" to eating a hamburger is completely ignoring the connotation of those words in order to twist things to fit a predetermined conclusion. It also clearly describes them enslaving umber hulks, OP just seems to be upset they don't explicitly use the word "slavery." This is not censorship, it's just showing instead of telling. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do they need to tell you it's a duck?
What's all this about "censored"? Chainging things is not the same as censoring things.
You can read the descriptions for yourself.
Again, changing things is not censoring. But OK, they changed things and now they suck. Is that a fair summation of your qualms?
I gave one example where the new writing that made monster non-sensical. If you want to go the more literal route and not state that Multiverse censored content by definition, then go to the first chapter of Mord's or Volo's. All of that content was censored, i.e. removed from Multiverse.
Again, changing things isn't censoring. They didn't "remove" anything from the Multiverse since it was never there to begin with. No-one has censored anything in Mordenkainen's or Volo's. Those books still exist but they are different books than MoM. You do realize this, right?
And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
5e is terrible.
I mean this in the most respectful manner... why are you here then? It seems you don't like 5e and have already decided you don't like 6e despite absolutely no plans to develop it yet, so why even hang out on 5e boards? It seems like your time might be much better spent in a forum on your preferred edition rather than just coming here to tear down the current one.
I feel like there's a looot of subtext in this thread. As third pointed out, Neogi are still described as being reprehensible. Likening "conquer and devour other creatures" to eating a hamburger is completely ignoring the connotation of those words in order to twist things to fit a predetermined conclusion. It also clearly describes them enslaving umber hulks, OP just seems to be upset they don't explicitly use the word "slavery." This is not censorship, it's just showing instead of telling. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do they need to tell you it's a duck?
You can debate my ideas and disagree without doubt, but these forums allow for criticisms of product and even I believe Wizards themselves (without being obscene, obviously). Do *not* tell me where I can and cannot post, or otherwise imply such. If I believed that 5e was wholly terrible or that it was beyond salvation, I wouldn't be here. It should also be noted that I own every product on D&D Beyond, excepting two adventures and a dice set. Furthermore, don't judge me based on just one post or one thread.
And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
5e is terrible.
I mean this in the most respectful manner... why are you here then? It seems you don't like 5e and have already decided you don't like 6e despite absolutely no plans to develop it yet, so why even hang out on 5e boards? It seems like your time might be much better spent in a forum on your preferred edition rather than just coming here to tear down the current one.
I feel like there's a looot of subtext in this thread. As third pointed out, Neogi are still described as being reprehensible. Likening "conquer and devour other creatures" to eating a hamburger is completely ignoring the connotation of those words in order to twist things to fit a predetermined conclusion. It also clearly describes them enslaving umber hulks, OP just seems to be upset they don't explicitly use the word "slavery." This is not censorship, it's just showing instead of telling. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do they need to tell you it's a duck?
You do understand that WotC scrapes these boards for sentiment? In addition, with D&D Beyond being the property of WotC, they can now attribute spend with sentiment. Its very easy now for WotC to track negative sentiment towards a product line and then attribute spend to the people complaining. For instance, if everyone loving 5E having no ship board combat tend to have low spend but are a larger number but the people having the issues with spelljammer have a higher spend and are the DM"s running the games, well now it puts out the design philosophy of winninger into perspective. And the opposite could be quite true as well. The posting here can register as sentiment with corporate reporting and they can aggregate up the results to see if they are increasing or decreasing sales doing what they are doing. I know for me, Winninger caused an 82.936% decrease in spending towards WotC from 2019 $529 to 2020's $101.10. And at this point after how bad Spelljammer is, I will not be buying anything else from WotC as long as Winninger is the lead.
Two years ago was my last big spend towards WotC products/licensing, most going to Wizkids (WotC can't track that because I bought bricks and cases from miniature market and gamenerdz - use them for bricks at least two years ago cheapest around - $5 cheaper than minimarket) and D&D beyond I broke $2,500 in 2020, of that only $101.10 went to D&D itself. The rest was minis and third parties (Goodman Games and Kobold Press). In 2019 the game was still putting out good content and interesting lore I had $592.48 that year, not counting minis (probably $750) and I wasn't using 3rd party then because well WotC put out good content. Since Winningers work has come out, 2021 I spent $25.49 and now in 2022 I spent $67.98 on a game about space combat in D&D that doesn't offer space combat. It's objectively bad for people who played Spelljammer before and wanted to have shipborn combat.
It is what it is dude, you might like having no lore, less content, censored content because I guess you think its easier??? Meanwhile, those of us with a job and families to raise who DM, we need to have products ready to go out of the box, and Winninger isn't able to execute on that. Kobold Press and Goodman Games are. When a free fanfic book is better than the released Spelljammer 5E, there are problems.
I've done digital sales analytics for a life, and I hope that WotC has accurately segmented out its whales and minnows and are writing content for the whales. Because everything I've read show that most players come and go pretty fast for 5E, its not sticky. If the plan is to sell cupholders and player handbooks, maybe its a winning strategy. If this is over the leads moral values over sales, we'll end up like 2E did. D&D Beyond is a competitive advantage as is the api for integration. So there's that at least. But I've already lived through the rise and fall of D&D and its starting to look a lot like 2E all over again, not 4E, but 2E.
The inclusion of the world-building and lore sections for creatures is very useful for those people who don't have to time to build their own worlds, or for newer players who want to run things in the D&D default campaign world.
No-one has censored anything in Mordenkainen's or Volo's. Those books still exist but they are different books than MoM.
These books are only available for those who have already purchased them, for anybody else the lore is no longer easily accessible.
Yeah dude I know this, most people who play D&D know this as well. But for some reason there is a group of people going no more lore because it stifles their creativity? Well, anyone can cut the lore they don't want. The converse of that, now WotC expects us to just create lore out of rears? I mean don't get me wrong, now WotC can cut back on hiring writers, because well they don't really need that much now do they, how about give us the 33% lore removal discount if we have to write our own? However, expecting people to just spontaneously create lore or go to youtube to watch a video on a monster, when they just need a concise paragraph to roleplay the character (prime example read Neogi in legacy vs current, the first paragaph, wow new is bad) its not great value for the customer.
Yeah dude I know this, most people who play D&D know this as well. But for some reason there is a group of people going no more lore because it stifles their creativity?
I haven't seen anyone ever say "we shouldn't get any more lore in 5e". What I have seen is "Hey, we don't need as much lore as we had in previous editions because they went overboard and super in-depth to the extent that it was harmful to helping new DMs play the game, so can we scale it back a bit and make the base of the game setting-agnostic to support different worlds equally, like Eberron, Exandria, and Dark Sun?"
Look at Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. It came out last year and has quite a bit of new lore and worldbuilding.
Well, anyone can cut the lore they don't want.
Sure, but there is a point where there's so much lore that it's overwhelming to new players.
Also, no one needs to know about how pregnant drow get orgasms from their twin fetuses battling to the death in the womb. There is such a thing as "too much lore".
The converse of that, now WotC expects us to just create lore out of rears?
I mean, no. Take a look at Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. It gives a baseline for the lore about the First World and the behaviors for different types of Dragons but it gives tools to DMs in the form of tables to make Dragons unique to their campaigns/worlds.
I mean don't get me wrong, now WotC can cut back on hiring writers, because well they don't really need that much now do they, how about give us the 33% lore removal discount if we have to write our own? However, expecting people to just spontaneously create lore or go to youtube to watch a video on a monster, when they just need a concise paragraph to roleplay the character (prime example read Neogi in legacy vs current, the first paragaph, wow new is bad) its not great value for the customer.
First off, where did "WotC is cutting back on hiring writers" come from? They just published Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel which a) had a lot of new lore and b) hired a bunch of new writers for the book. They did something similar for Candlekeep Mysteries.
Second, they're expecting people to use their lore as a guideline to build off of. They don't need to explain the religion, culture, in-depth behaviors and personalities of every new monster they publish, they just give a light guideline for DMs to get inspired by and to pick and choose what they want to use.
And survey feedback has shown multiple times that most DMs run their campaigns in homebrew world and if they do play a pre-written adventure, they almost always change it a bit. They have survey feedback showing that lore doesn't need to be as in-depth as it was in previous editions. They just need to give enough to have a base for the DM and players to get inspired by and they can use the energy necessary to go more in-depth to give more options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You can debate my ideas and disagree without doubt, but these forums allow for criticisms of product and even I believe Wizards themselves (without being obscene, obviously). Do *not* tell me where I can and cannot post, or otherwise imply such.
They weren't. Scatterbraind was asking why you were posting on a 5e forum if you hate the game. They weren't trying to police the content of your posts, they were just asking why you were even here. If I went onto the forums of another hobby and started talking about how much I hated it, people from that site would be justified in asking me why I was even there.
If I believed that 5e was wholly terrible or that it was beyond salvation, I wouldn't be here.
There, you answered their question. No need to get so hostile about it.
It should also be noted that I own every product on D&D Beyond, excepting two adventures and a dice set. Furthermore, don't judge me based on just one post or one thread.
Another uncalled for personal attack. People aren't trying to attack you, they're trying to understand your viewpoint (which most of us seem to disagree with at the moment). There really is no need for this. And if that post is "I hate this game", it would be valid to ask for clarification from that person, without that clarification being seen as a personal attack or attempt to police your words.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The inclusion of the world-building and lore sections for creatures is very useful for those people who don't have to time to build their own worlds, or for newer players who want to run things in the D&D default campaign world.
No-one has censored anything in Mordenkainen's or Volo's. Those books still exist but they are different books than MoM.
These books are only available for those who have already purchased them, for anybody else the lore is no longer easily accessible.
Lots of books are unavailable, still doesn't mean that those books have been censored.
Personally, they are hurting their product by trying to filter their content. This is a fantasy based game where you have heroes and villains. To give it flavor for the heroes, then the evil must be as strong otherwise it loses its appeal.
Just glad that I have the majority of my original source books, filled with Lore, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A lot of creatures can control minds, it doesn't make them evil. A lot of creatures devour other creatures (meat), it doesn't make them evil. The description leaves out that yes, they are slavers.
Meanwhile, this concise summary paragraph gives you all you need to know about their behaviors. They are bullies, slavers and will even enslave their own kind, They have no problem being poisoners and destroying someone's mind. The argument people make is, "just homebrew it". I don't pay WotC to have to write up themes and motivations for monsters. If I don't like what WotC wrote, I'll create my own. However, taking that content away to meet someone's moral in corporate, doesn't help the DM. And we've seen it again in 2E by Lorraine that drove a lot of customers away. We've done this before in the past and it wasn't good.
A company changing their product is not censorship, it a company making changes to their product. They own it, they can do what they want with it. The government telling a company to change their product is censorship.
Not to be a Lorraine apologist, but there was a lot going on in the world when 2e was out beyond her personal beliefs. The changes were much more in response to the satanic panic and suburban parents scared by ginned up stories than anything to do with her. She made lots of bad choices, and really screwed the pooch with the whole Buck Rogers deal, but removing the words devils and demons was a business decision.
And as others have said lack of lore lets you make your own. Contrary to earlier statements, making your own lore has actually been the core of the game since the beginning. Gary and Co. we’re shocked that other people wanted to pay for a world to play in. They assumed everyone had the time and creativity to homebrew an entire multiverse just as they did.
I get that you’re not into that, and it certainly makes sense. But to assert that the game was founded around spoon feeding lore to everyone is simply wrong.
I never stated the game was founded on spoon feeding lore. The game was founded on rules and flavor text for the monsters and settings. Now D&D has always given you a baseline lore to work with. It gives you history and motivation for the monsters. What we are seeing is more removal of content that appears to be based on moralistic qualms, again similar to Lorraine putting her own moral values over sales and objections from her own staff. One would assume, the reasoning is corporate wants a broader market, which was Lorraine's reasoning. By time her tenure was over, she chased away a lot of people by putting out a product that wouldn't offend anyone. Essentially building a product for the lowest common denominator.
The rub is, D&D can give you lore, and if you don't like it, you can reject it and build your own. That being written, when you take away the existing lore, you are forcing people to create their own lore, which eats up their time. If a person is unemployed and living in the basement of their own home, I think that's a great approach, because they are time rich and cash poor. They don't have spend to buy the product, but plenty of time to do whatever they want for prep. These people can be useful as players or even a DM, but they don't have the funds to buy from WotC, they are known as minnows or dolphins depending on your sales definition. However, those of us employed and raising a family, we do not have said time. We are cash rich and time poor, and we are the people that makes a companies product profitable because we pay for convenience and ease of use, they are typically known as whales.
What Winninger &/or Corporate WotC has been doing is cutting detail and increasing DM prep time, for what appears to be moralistic qualms on what is acceptable to turn D&D into a lifestyle brand. Good luck with that one. Covid is done, people have their freedom again to socialize and do things other than stay indoors. It's a bold strategy Cotton to increase DM prep time to seem like a better person and appeal to a mass market. Maybe it'll work. I know my spend is greatly down, and after the Spelljammer 5E debacle, I can't see myself spending anything else with the current D&D Lead. I literally went to support to ask where was space combat, and it turns out they didn't include it. If it wasn't for Wildjammer, plans for next year campaign would either be shot or I'd have to spend 40 hours updating the rules to be something my party can use, because that's an ask for the next campaign.
I for one would appreciate more lore in their books like before. It was interesting, but ignorable if you wanted to be different.
I'll certainly say the current trend leaves me suspicious and even depressed about the likely design of sixth edition, let about any upcoming books. I never liked Dragonlance beyond tbe first 3 fiction books by Weiss and Hickman, so that was a non-starter from the get go. If Planescape should release, I doubt I'll buy it till a sale like Cyber Monday. And I will probably pass on 6e, praying it passes as quickly as 4th Edition did
If you liked Spelljammer, use this like to Wildjammer:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3c88jrhy1t7gyql/AACS63QaKFCCrBn_-cxRVHBda?dl=0
It's from Magehand press, and yes its free. I believe they released it BEFORE Spelljammer 5E was released so they couldn't sell it on DMsguild. They should really post it on the DMsguild now, its worth $25 to me and I'd like to pay them for it. This is what WotC should have released. Its streamlined, its got enough of the old to be relatable and if you want to pimp out your ship you can do it.
The thing is, why do I have to go to 3rd party to get content that's usable out of the box? Why do I have to invest a lot of time when I paid for a premium product and got an air burger. I mean the module is passable, the monster manual doesn't include all of the spelljammer bestiary and that's a rub but it has some of them and the rules section, the part we need, its not great.
Just to clarify, I liked old school Spelljammer. 5e is terrible. I'll check out the link for sure amd keep my eyes peeled for 3rd Party resources. Just wish it hadn't come to this.
Oh, Wildjammer its good. If you search for it you'll find the Reddit post from the creator with the dropbox link. The only thing I'll be changing is they don't have ship material type. I'm putting that in, and it will just give the ship resistance and vulnerability to certain attacks, that's all.
Here is an example of a role a player character can take as a ships crewmen, they got 4 or 5 totals role if I remember right, so that during shipboard combat, they have meaningful interactions rather than "I cast magic missile at the ship".
BOATSWAIN
As the Boatswain (also called the 'bosun'), your job
aboard a wildjammer includes maintaining and
managing the wildjammer's hull, masts, sails, and
rigging. You are also responsible for leading the crew
in operating the sails and repairing the wildjammer.
Your responsibilities include daily inspections of the
wildjammer's hull, masts, sails, rigging, and crew. You
provide daily reports to the Captain with the results of
your inspection and to keep them up to date with
ongoing maintenance and service needs of the
wildjammer and crew.
BOATSWAIN
While in the Boatswain role, at the start of your turn,
your wildjammer heals a number of bulwark points
equal to half its maximum, rounded up.
BRACE FOR IMPACT
As an action, you ready the crew for an attack. Choose
one 90º side of your ship. Until the start of your next
turn, your ship has resistance to non-magical physical
damage dealt to that side of the ship.
FIX IT UP
As an action, you can repair a ship weapon, module, or
sail that has been disabled. Make a DC 15 Intelligence
(Carpenter's Tools) check. On a success, it is repaired
for 1 hull point and resumes functioning as normal.
WORK THE SAILS
As an action, you can command the crew to adjust your
ship’s sails to change how it controls. You must change
these one step at a time, such as from furled to coursesail,
then course-sail to full-sail.
Furled. Your ship loses 500 ft. speed, but gains 45º
maneuverability to a maximum of 180º.
Course-sail. Your ship moves at its standard speed
and maneuverability.
Full-sail. Your ship gains 500 ft. speed, but loses 45º
maneuverability to a minimum of 0º.
HURRY IT UP!
As an action, you push the crew to work harder. Your
ship's bulwark points are restored to full and any
Gunner that takes the Open Fire action before the start
of your next turn can make one additional attack. Once
you use this action, you can't use it again for 1 minute.
EXPERT BOATSWAIN
When you take the Brace for Impact action, you choose
a 180º side instead.
HARD TURN
As an action, you command the crew into a dangerous
maneuver. The first time your ship moves before the
start of your next turn, its maneuverability increases
by 90º, up to a maximum of 360º.
Once you use this feature, you can't use it again
until you complete a short or long rest.
MASTER BOATSWAIN
While in the Boatswain role, your wildjammer has a
number of extra bulwark points equal to your
proficiency bonus.
Yes it does. Mind Control is inherently evil. It's more morally problematic than necromancy. You're taking away the bodily autonomy of other creatures, which probably aren't consenting. Mind control is inherently evil, and creatures that use it also are inherently evil.
I see you're not vegan, then ;)
This is up for debate and has been for awhile now. Quite a few people would say that eating meat while having available alternatives is, indeed, an evil act.
Neogi are still (mostly) evil, okay. So your example is a bad one. They probably cut the rest of the lore because a) it's up to the individual DM on how to use it b) to leave room for the occasional non-evil Neogi that doesn't enslave people (just like there are the occasional good Mind Flayer or Beholder), and c) to make room for other monsters in a limited amount of pages for the book.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean this in the most respectful manner... why are you here then? It seems you don't like 5e and have already decided you don't like 6e despite absolutely no plans to develop it yet, so why even hang out on 5e boards? It seems like your time might be much better spent in a forum on your preferred edition rather than just coming here to tear down the current one.
I feel like there's a looot of subtext in this thread. As third pointed out, Neogi are still described as being reprehensible. Likening "conquer and devour other creatures" to eating a hamburger is completely ignoring the connotation of those words in order to twist things to fit a predetermined conclusion. It also clearly describes them enslaving umber hulks, OP just seems to be upset they don't explicitly use the word "slavery." This is not censorship, it's just showing instead of telling. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do they need to tell you it's a duck?
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Again, changing things isn't censoring. They didn't "remove" anything from the Multiverse since it was never there to begin with. No-one has censored anything in Mordenkainen's or Volo's. Those books still exist but they are different books than MoM. You do realize this, right?
You can debate my ideas and disagree without doubt, but these forums allow for criticisms of product and even I believe Wizards themselves (without being obscene, obviously). Do *not* tell me where I can and cannot post, or otherwise imply such. If I believed that 5e was wholly terrible or that it was beyond salvation, I wouldn't be here. It should also be noted that I own every product on D&D Beyond, excepting two adventures and a dice set. Furthermore, don't judge me based on just one post or one thread.
A reminder that all users are expected to
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
You do understand that WotC scrapes these boards for sentiment? In addition, with D&D Beyond being the property of WotC, they can now attribute spend with sentiment. Its very easy now for WotC to track negative sentiment towards a product line and then attribute spend to the people complaining. For instance, if everyone loving 5E having no ship board combat tend to have low spend but are a larger number but the people having the issues with spelljammer have a higher spend and are the DM"s running the games, well now it puts out the design philosophy of winninger into perspective. And the opposite could be quite true as well. The posting here can register as sentiment with corporate reporting and they can aggregate up the results to see if they are increasing or decreasing sales doing what they are doing. I know for me, Winninger caused an 82.936% decrease in spending towards WotC from 2019 $529 to 2020's $101.10. And at this point after how bad Spelljammer is, I will not be buying anything else from WotC as long as Winninger is the lead.
Two years ago was my last big spend towards WotC products/licensing, most going to Wizkids (WotC can't track that because I bought bricks and cases from miniature market and gamenerdz - use them for bricks at least two years ago cheapest around - $5 cheaper than minimarket) and D&D beyond I broke $2,500 in 2020, of that only $101.10 went to D&D itself. The rest was minis and third parties (Goodman Games and Kobold Press). In 2019 the game was still putting out good content and interesting lore I had $592.48 that year, not counting minis (probably $750) and I wasn't using 3rd party then because well WotC put out good content. Since Winningers work has come out, 2021 I spent $25.49 and now in 2022 I spent $67.98 on a game about space combat in D&D that doesn't offer space combat. It's objectively bad for people who played Spelljammer before and wanted to have shipborn combat.
It is what it is dude, you might like having no lore, less content, censored content because I guess you think its easier??? Meanwhile, those of us with a job and families to raise who DM, we need to have products ready to go out of the box, and Winninger isn't able to execute on that. Kobold Press and Goodman Games are. When a free fanfic book is better than the released Spelljammer 5E, there are problems.
I've done digital sales analytics for a life, and I hope that WotC has accurately segmented out its whales and minnows and are writing content for the whales. Because everything I've read show that most players come and go pretty fast for 5E, its not sticky. If the plan is to sell cupholders and player handbooks, maybe its a winning strategy. If this is over the leads moral values over sales, we'll end up like 2E did. D&D Beyond is a competitive advantage as is the api for integration. So there's that at least. But I've already lived through the rise and fall of D&D and its starting to look a lot like 2E all over again, not 4E, but 2E.
The inclusion of the world-building and lore sections for creatures is very useful for those people who don't have to time to build their own worlds, or for newer players who want to run things in the D&D default campaign world.
These books are only available for those who have already purchased them, for anybody else the lore is no longer easily accessible.
Yeah dude I know this, most people who play D&D know this as well. But for some reason there is a group of people going no more lore because it stifles their creativity? Well, anyone can cut the lore they don't want. The converse of that, now WotC expects us to just create lore out of rears? I mean don't get me wrong, now WotC can cut back on hiring writers, because well they don't really need that much now do they, how about give us the 33% lore removal discount if we have to write our own? However, expecting people to just spontaneously create lore or go to youtube to watch a video on a monster, when they just need a concise paragraph to roleplay the character (prime example read Neogi in legacy vs current, the first paragaph, wow new is bad) its not great value for the customer.
I haven't seen anyone ever say "we shouldn't get any more lore in 5e". What I have seen is "Hey, we don't need as much lore as we had in previous editions because they went overboard and super in-depth to the extent that it was harmful to helping new DMs play the game, so can we scale it back a bit and make the base of the game setting-agnostic to support different worlds equally, like Eberron, Exandria, and Dark Sun?"
Look at Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. It came out last year and has quite a bit of new lore and worldbuilding.
Sure, but there is a point where there's so much lore that it's overwhelming to new players.
Also, no one needs to know about how pregnant drow get orgasms from their twin fetuses battling to the death in the womb. There is such a thing as "too much lore".
I mean, no. Take a look at Fizban's Treasury of Dragons. It gives a baseline for the lore about the First World and the behaviors for different types of Dragons but it gives tools to DMs in the form of tables to make Dragons unique to their campaigns/worlds.
First off, where did "WotC is cutting back on hiring writers" come from? They just published Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel which a) had a lot of new lore and b) hired a bunch of new writers for the book. They did something similar for Candlekeep Mysteries.
Second, they're expecting people to use their lore as a guideline to build off of. They don't need to explain the religion, culture, in-depth behaviors and personalities of every new monster they publish, they just give a light guideline for DMs to get inspired by and to pick and choose what they want to use.
And survey feedback has shown multiple times that most DMs run their campaigns in homebrew world and if they do play a pre-written adventure, they almost always change it a bit. They have survey feedback showing that lore doesn't need to be as in-depth as it was in previous editions. They just need to give enough to have a base for the DM and players to get inspired by and they can use the energy necessary to go more in-depth to give more options.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They weren't. Scatterbraind was asking why you were posting on a 5e forum if you hate the game. They weren't trying to police the content of your posts, they were just asking why you were even here. If I went onto the forums of another hobby and started talking about how much I hated it, people from that site would be justified in asking me why I was even there.
There, you answered their question. No need to get so hostile about it.
Another uncalled for personal attack. People aren't trying to attack you, they're trying to understand your viewpoint (which most of us seem to disagree with at the moment). There really is no need for this. And if that post is "I hate this game", it would be valid to ask for clarification from that person, without that clarification being seen as a personal attack or attempt to police your words.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Lots of books are unavailable, still doesn't mean that those books have been censored.
Again, nothing that you have mentioned so far has been censored.
Personally, they are hurting their product by trying to filter their content. This is a fantasy based game where you have heroes and villains. To give it flavor for the heroes, then the evil must be as strong otherwise it loses its appeal.
Just glad that I have the majority of my original source books, filled with Lore, etc.