The 3.5E upgrade came out to fix a lot of the problems with the original 3E version, 5E is more or less in good shape so not such a good comparison. Also a set of books was a lot cheaper back then or maybe I just had more disposable income :)
After inflation, I don't think it's a lot different from when 3.5e came out.
I guess we'll see when they release it, but if you effectively need a new full set of books to play it pretty much is a new edition regardless of if it's called 5.5E or 6E.
The 3.5E upgrade came out to fix a lot of the problems with the original 3E version, 5E is more or less in good shape so not such a good comparison. Also a set of books was a lot cheaper back then or maybe I just had more disposable income :)
After inflation, I don't think it's a lot different from when 3.5e came out.
I would also proffer that 5e has a lot of problems that need fixing - as far as editions go, 5e is very simplistic and players have very few real customisation options after choice of subclass at level 3 (particularly with martial users who do not even get spell selection). A change is very much needed to add a level of complexity to character creation which is sorely lacking in the present game.
Additionally, even as character choices are watered down, 5e is not exactly the most DM friendly system - monsters have long lists of spells DMs have to flip through and find (easy enough on Beyond—a nightmare in paper if you don’t have the spells memorised already). We’re already seeing streamlining monsters is one of their goals, reducing the burden on DMs and thus reducing one of the major barriers of entry for players, folks deciding not to DM because they think it would be too hard.
Honestly not a fan of the spellcasting streamlining; makes them much harder to customize for a given scenario, hurts the distinction between spellcasters and innate casters, and I can fix the tracking issues with a spiral notebook, set of index cards, and a few post-it flags.
The 3.5E upgrade came out to fix a lot of the problems with the original 3E version, 5E is more or less in good shape so not such a good comparison. Also a set of books was a lot cheaper back then or maybe I just had more disposable income :)
After inflation, I don't think it's a lot different from when 3.5e came out.
I would also proffer that 5e has a lot of problems that need fixing - as far as editions go, 5e is very simplistic and players have very few real customisation options after choice of subclass at level 3 (particularly with martial users who do not even get spell selection). A change is very much needed to add a level of complexity to character creation which is sorely lacking in the present game.
Additionally, even as character choices are watered down, 5e is not exactly the most DM friendly system - monsters have long lists of spells DMs have to flip through and find (easy enough on Beyond—a nightmare in paper if you don’t have the spells memorised already). We’re already seeing streamlining monsters is one of their goals, reducing the burden on DMs and thus reducing one of the major barriers of entry for players, folks deciding not to DM because they think it would be too hard.
Honestly not a fan of the spellcasting streamlining; makes them much harder to customize for a given scenario, hurts the distinction between spellcasters and innate casters, and I can fix the tracking issues with a spiral notebook, set of index cards, and a few post-it flags.
The issue, however, is that a DM experienced enough to do all that is also going to be experienced enough to homebrew something more complicated (or just choose to use legacy content, which is easy enough to find even if discontinued).
Lack of DMs due to the perceived complexity of running the game, however, is a problem that can’t really be solved under the more complex monsters - the very fact that you listed three supplemental items (notebooks, index cards, and post-it notes) just to track what monsters do is exactly the kind of thing that makes a potential DM decide “eh, I don’t want to deal with that.” And that’s been a common refrain for decades - too many players who want to try the game out, but they cannot get anyone to step up to the plate and DM.
I guess we'll see when they release it, but if you effectively need a new full set of books to play it pretty much is a new edition regardless of if it's called 5.5E or 6E.
Everything we've seen so far has been PHB content. I expect updates (probably similar to MotM) to the monster manual. I have no idea what they are likely to change in the DMG -- maybe encounter generation and some magic item stat blocks -- but I doubt either of them will be strictly necessary.
I mean, I’ve never run a table in my life and I thought of it, so experience itself doesn’t seem to be the core ingredient, and frankly I expect you should already be using all of those things as a DM. I appreciate the desire for accessibility, but universally dumbing down a core component just feels like an awful way to attempt it.
As a DM I prefer the MMotM version of the monsters, they are just a bit better balanced and constructed in my opinion. But all this is getting off topic. Maybe someone should start a thread for it.
...I have no idea what they are likely to change in the DMG -- maybe encounter generation and some magic item stat blocks -- but I doubt either of them will be strictly necessary.
I remember at one point Jeremy Crawford mentioned intorucing a "bastion" system for base building they're planning to playtest. I imagine something like that would probably fit pretty well in the DMG.
I watched the interview all the way through. Kyle handled it better, he said he’d seen the questions in advance so that helped avoid any disasters. After the OGL debacle the creative team seems to have more of a say which can’t be a bad thing. Said all the right things Corporatewise as you might expect. Little mention of the digital side and how monetisation might work. Seems it’s full speed ahead with OneDND, that’s a mistake IMHO (5E is mostly Ok). He said it was 5.5E, but really if you have to buy a new set of core books it’s a new edition, so be useful for someone to ask him that.
Publishing new core books is what they did for 3.5e.
Not to mention, it's the 50th anniversary of D&D, so it would be foolish not have new "anniversary edition" core rulebooks to capitalize on that regardless of whether they are updated or not (as well as the existing ones being a decade old). Regardless of how small or large the changes are, there were always going to be new core rulebooks in 2024. That's just publishing business and marketing 101.
Now whether or not someone hasto buy them is an entirely different question and is a combination of both how different they are as well as their own personal wants/needs. No one can answer for someone else whether they need the new ones or not.
I mean, I’ve never run a table in my life and I thought of it, so experience itself doesn’t seem to be the core ingredient, and frankly I expect you should already be using all of those things as a DM. I appreciate the desire for accessibility, but universally dumbing down a core component just feels like an awful way to attempt it.
It's not that they are complicated ideas to come up with... it's that it's a bunch of work.
As a player, I have to make decisions for one character -- who I know well because I've played that character every session.
As a DM, I have to make decisions for every monster and NPC -- who I really don't know as well because I'm not using them anywhere near as often.
Being a DM is inevitably going to be more work than being a player, but it shouldn't be many times more work. If I'm using a single spellcaster as a boss, the existing NPC stat blocks aren't really a problem, but what if I'm using multiple? In a recent encounter in a game I'm in, we were dealing with six stat blocks -- two basic mooks, one leader-type with a special attack with a recharge, and three different spellcasters with three different spell lists. Being forced to track all that stuff isn't really fair to the DM.
I watched the interview all the way through. Kyle handled it better, he said he’d seen the questions in advance so that helped avoid any disasters. After the OGL debacle the creative team seems to have more of a say which can’t be a bad thing. Said all the right things Corporatewise as you might expect. Little mention of the digital side and how monetisation might work. Seems it’s full speed ahead with OneDND, that’s a mistake IMHO (5E is mostly Ok). He said it was 5.5E, but really if you have to buy a new set of core books it’s a new edition, so be useful for someone to ask him that.
Publishing new core books is what they did for 3.5e.
Not to mention, it's the 50th anniversary of D&D, so it would be foolish not have new "anniversary edition" core rulebooks to capitalize on that regardless of whether they are updated or not (as well as the existing ones being a decade old). Regardless of how small or large the changes are, there were always going to be new core rulebooks in 2024. That's just publishing business and marketing 101.
Now whether or not you haveto buy them is an entirely different question and is a combination of both how different they are as well as your own personal wants/needs. No one can answer for someone else whether they need the new ones or not.
not to mention it does mean there is some question about how they will handle it on DDB, since it is now the home of D&D online.
Will they just be updated current stuff -- like they have with errata? Will they remove the earlier source books, or will the ones here be updated?
It strikes me as important because if this is the home of D&D on the web, then this is also where the VTT will be and all the rest of the stuff. Will they be supporting two versions of 5e?
Personally, I don't think those are huge gargantuan problem, as I suspect they will just update the existing online sets here on DDB. I also think that they can flip a coin and probably make it a "free-ish" update to tall of them, because they want to win back trust or whatever -- basically, in this case, all new books would still happen, but the question is will folks here have to purchase the updated material and thereby lose their older stuff (I mean, from a business standpoint, that isn't a terrible idea fiscally, but it is a really scary as crap idea from the user base perspective).
That will be interesting to watch how it is spun, and just how they handle it.
As for me, well, if I have to buy the books again, fine -- but I best hope I can afford them if they are all going to be 40 to 50 bucks out the door (and I wanna see 350 pages per if that's the case, lol)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Content Policy is coming and is going to be an ugly fight given some of the stuff I have seen recently (here on DDB, that is).
Why? He said that the policy would only apply to Wizards and that it would have no legal weight. So long as he honors that promise, what's there to complain about?
If WotC publishes something saying "this is what we think is racist/sexist/otherwise bigoted" the bigots that lurk on this site will lose their minds and "misinterpret it" in the absolute worst way in order to try and score internet points/help radicalize "normies".
I think you’re absolutely right. But if it were me, I’d still go with the WotC approach. I’d rather be damned for trying to do the right thing. Otherwise, you’re letting the trolls silence you.
Oh, I absolutely agree. WotC should post their standards for the sake of community feedback and transparency in light of recent controversial creations (cough, Hadozee, cough). I was just explaining that the "discussion" around it on this forum that will happen once they release it will be an absolute shitshow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Oh, I absolutely agree. WotC should post their standards for the sake of community feedback and transparency in light of recent controversial creations (cough, Hadozee, cough). I was just explaining that the "discussion" around it on this forum that will happen once they release it will be an absolute shitshow.
Oh, I absolutely agree. WotC should post their standards for the sake of community feedback and transparency in light of recent controversial creations (cough, Hadozee, cough). I was just explaining that the "discussion" around it on this forum that will happen once they release it will be an absolute shitshow.
So, business as usual for the past month or so.
Heh, much longer than the past month. At least since WotC's "Diversity and Dragons" post, probably from even earlier.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As for my moving the goalposts: I've not. I said at the beginning that I don't trust Brink. That I think he is trying to lie his way out of the disaster Wizards made for itself. To try to restore some goodwill with publishers Wizards' follies pushed away.
I gave you reasons enough why I don't trust the company and why I'm not about to trust any spokesperson for it.
You seem to be of the mind that Wizards can't be trusted but someone doing their dirty work for them is a shining example of honestly.
You're entitled to that view. But only as much as I am to mine.
The burden of proof is on you. If your position is "WotC/Kyle Brink is lying", it's up to you to prove it.
My position is malleable. If Kyle Brink does an interview in the future where he clearly says something proven to be completely false, or shows any signs of being untrustworthy, then I will have more sympathy for your position of "everything anyone in the company says to the public is false". Your position seems far less open minded or based on facts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
*the living embodiment of Woke stirs, snorts, lifts her head, and arches an eyebrow*
I do love how this thread devolved yet again into having to defend Wizards or condemn them away from the initial trend/focus of "oh, so this is what they are going to do, cool, cool".
summation:
Some people really don't like Wizards of the Coast. "They are horrible, evil, filthy people unworthy to wash the stains out of our underwear."
Some people like Wizards of the Coast. "They are innocent and pure and white light."
Some people are neutral about Wizards of the Coast. "they are all kinds of mottled black and white and, and, and, I don't have a clue what that color is, does anyone else see that one?"
And some people don't care about any of that. "Can we talk about Dungeons and Dragons now?"
This last would be me. If folks other than the ones who just want to come in and tell others how bad they are want to continue the back and forth, fine -- just let me know. I will get the hell out of the way.
for now, however, I will make use of the block list.
Edit: wow, blocked two folks and the whole thread dropped down to five pages.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
A 'minor nitpick' that a multi-billion dollar company takes the cheap option when smaller companies are prepared to pay to produce better physical books?
It might be for you.
I worked in the book industry for over fifteen years. And am a collector. I can tell the difference between a quality book and a tacky one.
Some of us expect more from a book that costs as much as Wizards charge for their books.
You needn't. But don't call it a 'minor nitpick' just to dismiss the point.
I'm not saying their books' binding is of high quality. I'm just saying that I've personally only had a problem with it once, and that it definitely isn't a sign that everyone that speaks for the company is constantly lying. It more looks like you have a grudge against them because your experience is that their book binding quality is bad, and you're pointing at that as a "look! Obviously Kyle Brink is lying! The company doesn't even pay to bind their books well!".
It's just a red herring and nonsensical point to bring up. Not evidence that Kyle is lying.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As for my moving the goalposts: I've not. I said at the beginning that I don't trust Brink. That I think he is trying to lie his way out of the disaster Wizards made for itself. To try to restore some goodwill with publishers Wizards' follies pushed away.
I gave you reasons enough why I don't trust the company and why I'm not about to trust any spokesperson for it.
You seem to be of the mind that Wizards can't be trusted but someone doing their dirty work for them is a shining example of honestly.
You're entitled to that view. But only as much as I am to mine.
The burden of proof is on you. If your position is "WotC/Kyle Brink is lying", it's up to you to prove it.
My position is malleable. If Kyle Brink does an interview in the future where he clearly says something proven to be completely false, or shows any signs of being untrustworthy, then I will have more sympathy for your position of "everything anyone in the company says to the public is false". Your position seems far less open minded or based on facts.
It isn't up to me to do anything.
Were it to be shown that he was lying, I'd have been right. Were there any way to show he hasn't been lying, I'd have the maturity and humility to admit I was wrong to have thought he has been lying.
Based on facts? You just tried telling me there is little to no difference in quality between books using proper stitching and those using glue. You can post all the praise for the content in Wizards' books that you like as this is purely subjective. But ...
Compare a book from Wizards' current inventory to a book like, say, The Book of Gaub from Lost Pages, Fungi of the Far Realms from the Melsonian Arts Council, Electric Bastionland, Magical Industrial Revolution, Silent Titans, The Nightmares Underneath and The Nameless Grimoire, the Hot Springs Island books, or any number of innovative game products, boxed sets among them, that are well produced or even those sold through sites like lulu, saddle-stitched cloth-bound books with dust jackets that they often are, and it is like comparing the menu at McDonald's to that of a gourmet burger joint.
There is nothing wrong with choosing one over the other. But the latter is objectively infinitely superior in terms of quality.
Right, you're taking the absolutely mature and reasonable point of demanding absolute proof that every word a spokesperson said is 100% true and feel justified in assuming they're lying until proven otherwise. Honestly, everyone here, myself included, really needs to just walk away for a few hours, or this is just gonna end up being another locked thread.
A 'minor nitpick' that a multi-billion dollar company takes the cheap option when smaller companies are prepared to pay to produce better physical books?
Yes. If binding does its job, it's good enough and those other companies are wasting money.
To talk about one of your examples, the Book of Gaub has a lilac on white cover and black and white interiors. Every D&D book has full-color covers and interiors. Your definition of superior is... unconventional. And cheap.
for now, however, I will make use of the block list.
Edit: wow, blocked two folks and the whole thread dropped down to five pages.
Indeed, recent threads have given me ample chance to set people to ignore, and without them the forum turns into a breath of fresh air. Without those who feel they are always right, have a claim to 'the truth', or those who dismiss entire groups based on post counts.... the toxicity drops by several scales.
So, back to the topic at hand:
I have finally managed to sit through the entire interview, and it's not bad! Not great either, but it's a step forward in quality and paints more of the vision that is actually forming within WotC. I have my fingers crossed that these statements are not just PR, but actually how WotC is going forward with the IP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I guess we'll see when they release it, but if you effectively need a new full set of books to play it pretty much is a new edition regardless of if it's called 5.5E or 6E.
Honestly not a fan of the spellcasting streamlining; makes them much harder to customize for a given scenario, hurts the distinction between spellcasters and innate casters, and I can fix the tracking issues with a spiral notebook, set of index cards, and a few post-it flags.
The issue, however, is that a DM experienced enough to do all that is also going to be experienced enough to homebrew something more complicated (or just choose to use legacy content, which is easy enough to find even if discontinued).
Lack of DMs due to the perceived complexity of running the game, however, is a problem that can’t really be solved under the more complex monsters - the very fact that you listed three supplemental items (notebooks, index cards, and post-it notes) just to track what monsters do is exactly the kind of thing that makes a potential DM decide “eh, I don’t want to deal with that.” And that’s been a common refrain for decades - too many players who want to try the game out, but they cannot get anyone to step up to the plate and DM.
Everything we've seen so far has been PHB content. I expect updates (probably similar to MotM) to the monster manual. I have no idea what they are likely to change in the DMG -- maybe encounter generation and some magic item stat blocks -- but I doubt either of them will be strictly necessary.
I mean, I’ve never run a table in my life and I thought of it, so experience itself doesn’t seem to be the core ingredient, and frankly I expect you should already be using all of those things as a DM. I appreciate the desire for accessibility, but universally dumbing down a core component just feels like an awful way to attempt it.
As a DM I prefer the MMotM version of the monsters, they are just a bit better balanced and constructed in my opinion. But all this is getting off topic. Maybe someone should start a thread for it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I remember at one point Jeremy Crawford mentioned intorucing a "bastion" system for base building they're planning to playtest. I imagine something like that would probably fit pretty well in the DMG.
Not to mention, it's the 50th anniversary of D&D, so it would be foolish not have new "anniversary edition" core rulebooks to capitalize on that regardless of whether they are updated or not (as well as the existing ones being a decade old). Regardless of how small or large the changes are, there were always going to be new core rulebooks in 2024. That's just publishing business and marketing 101.
Now whether or not someone has to buy them is an entirely different question and is a combination of both how different they are as well as their own personal wants/needs. No one can answer for someone else whether they need the new ones or not.
It's not that they are complicated ideas to come up with... it's that it's a bunch of work.
Being a DM is inevitably going to be more work than being a player, but it shouldn't be many times more work. If I'm using a single spellcaster as a boss, the existing NPC stat blocks aren't really a problem, but what if I'm using multiple? In a recent encounter in a game I'm in, we were dealing with six stat blocks -- two basic mooks, one leader-type with a special attack with a recharge, and three different spellcasters with three different spell lists. Being forced to track all that stuff isn't really fair to the DM.
not to mention it does mean there is some question about how they will handle it on DDB, since it is now the home of D&D online.
Will they just be updated current stuff -- like they have with errata? Will they remove the earlier source books, or will the ones here be updated?
It strikes me as important because if this is the home of D&D on the web, then this is also where the VTT will be and all the rest of the stuff. Will they be supporting two versions of 5e?
Personally, I don't think those are huge gargantuan problem, as I suspect they will just update the existing online sets here on DDB. I also think that they can flip a coin and probably make it a "free-ish" update to tall of them, because they want to win back trust or whatever -- basically, in this case, all new books would still happen, but the question is will folks here have to purchase the updated material and thereby lose their older stuff (I mean, from a business standpoint, that isn't a terrible idea fiscally, but it is a really scary as crap idea from the user base perspective).
That will be interesting to watch how it is spun, and just how they handle it.
As for me, well, if I have to buy the books again, fine -- but I best hope I can afford them if they are all going to be 40 to 50 bucks out the door (and I wanna see 350 pages per if that's the case, lol)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Oh, I absolutely agree. WotC should post their standards for the sake of community feedback and transparency in light of recent controversial creations (cough, Hadozee, cough). I was just explaining that the "discussion" around it on this forum that will happen once they release it will be an absolute shitshow.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So, business as usual for the past month or so.
Heh, much longer than the past month. At least since WotC's "Diversity and Dragons" post, probably from even earlier.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The burden of proof is on you. If your position is "WotC/Kyle Brink is lying", it's up to you to prove it.
My position is malleable. If Kyle Brink does an interview in the future where he clearly says something proven to be completely false, or shows any signs of being untrustworthy, then I will have more sympathy for your position of "everything anyone in the company says to the public is false". Your position seems far less open minded or based on facts.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
*the living embodiment of Woke stirs, snorts, lifts her head, and arches an eyebrow*
I do love how this thread devolved yet again into having to defend Wizards or condemn them away from the initial trend/focus of "oh, so this is what they are going to do, cool, cool".
summation:
Some people really don't like Wizards of the Coast. "They are horrible, evil, filthy people unworthy to wash the stains out of our underwear."
Some people like Wizards of the Coast. "They are innocent and pure and white light."
Some people are neutral about Wizards of the Coast. "they are all kinds of mottled black and white and, and, and, I don't have a clue what that color is, does anyone else see that one?"
And some people don't care about any of that. "Can we talk about Dungeons and Dragons now?"
This last would be me. If folks other than the ones who just want to come in and tell others how bad they are want to continue the back and forth, fine
-- just let me know. I will get the hell out of the way.for now, however, I will make use of the block list.
Edit: wow, blocked two folks and the whole thread dropped down to five pages.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'm not saying their books' binding is of high quality. I'm just saying that I've personally only had a problem with it once, and that it definitely isn't a sign that everyone that speaks for the company is constantly lying. It more looks like you have a grudge against them because your experience is that their book binding quality is bad, and you're pointing at that as a "look! Obviously Kyle Brink is lying! The company doesn't even pay to bind their books well!".
It's just a red herring and nonsensical point to bring up. Not evidence that Kyle is lying.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Right, you're taking the absolutely mature and reasonable point of demanding absolute proof that every word a spokesperson said is 100% true and feel justified in assuming they're lying until proven otherwise. Honestly, everyone here, myself included, really needs to just walk away for a few hours, or this is just gonna end up being another locked thread.
Yes. If binding does its job, it's good enough and those other companies are wasting money.
To talk about one of your examples, the Book of Gaub has a lilac on white cover and black and white interiors. Every D&D book has full-color covers and interiors. Your definition of superior is... unconventional. And cheap.
Indeed, recent threads have given me ample chance to set people to ignore, and without them the forum turns into a breath of fresh air. Without those who feel they are always right, have a claim to 'the truth', or those who dismiss entire groups based on post counts.... the toxicity drops by several scales.
So, back to the topic at hand:
I have finally managed to sit through the entire interview, and it's not bad! Not great either, but it's a step forward in quality and paints more of the vision that is actually forming within WotC. I have my fingers crossed that these statements are not just PR, but actually how WotC is going forward with the IP.