Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
"Dnd is trending downwards"
It's almost like a LOT of things that got a spike in popularity during the pandemic are still doing that, & it has nothing to do with fandoms, WotC, or the edition wars.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I think the downtrend is due to some of WOTC's more greed focused choices than anything else. Having played both 5.0 for a lot of years, and now 5.5, while there's some stuff about 5.5 that I dislike, in general it's an upgrade to 5.0.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Stranger Things seasons had more of a spike in popularity for D&D than even Critical Role... and now Stranger Things is over.
The Dungeon Masters live play may help or hinder, but in terms of outreach to new players, it's probably not the best avenue. But new players have never played anything to compare 5.5 to. And old players can and do continue to play the version they prefer (or move up to 5.5).
The D&D franchise is going through a reorganisation. I'd say if anything, the mistakes of the OGL and then walking back 6E have taught them lessons, and they've responded by putting new people who are excited about the brand, into positions of control. That's usually a sign of a good thing, not bad. Dan Ayoub is a big D&D fan. Brian Perry and Zac Cohn are big D&D fans, and they're moving an 'old guard' who ended their tenure with the 2024 ruleset release, to start with fresh ideas.
So if you blame WOTC for a "bad 2024 release", those people in leadership all moved on. And a new fresh group of D&D enthusiasts took over. They've started slow, but the recent changes to content delivery, bigger acceptance of 3rd party publishers, and all the improvements to things like Maps, actually make me more convinced we're on an upward trajectory.
The only big thing left to see is how they handle a campaign path.
If I've learned ANYTHING, it's that you can't satisfy the criticism, drama, ranting & commentary industrial complex.
& that's why corporations tend to ignore such until the stock price wobbles too far.
& it isn't wobbling enough to worry about edition wars.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I disagree.
The modern 5e audience is very narratively focused and they are not influenced by Critical Role and Stranger Things in the way people think they are; These things worked to get new people into the game, but it has no impact on people already playing. People bought 5.5 in droves, because there was already a built in audiance and the assumption was that this was just a subtle re-print of the same game, but its not. It has many similarities, but its where it differs is in the most important parts of what made D&D 5e successful. Modern players are looking to the system to create a narrative/story-focused game that is D&D centric with a close link to the fantasy of their character, and it was something that was sort of built into 5e and was effectively removed from 5.5. The changes are subtle, but things like the Personality Trait System, the Background structure, the removal of species/race traits ... All of these things has made D&D even more generic fantasy than before and took it further away from the D&D ethos. When you make a 5.5 character, you're making a build, as you would in World of Warcraft, not a character and when your done, you don't have a D&D character you have a generic fantasy character. There are no "character" choices in D&D anymore nor are there any D&D-centric choices anymore. It's all just stat/bonuses/ability selections in a generic fantasy game.
It was the same problem 4th edition had, and what is happening with 5.5, is exactly the same thing that happened during the 4e era. They lost their link to the D&D ethos with this version of the game and it's slowly degrading the audience's interest in it.
Wizards of the Coast continually fails to connect with and understand their audience; they still think the future of D&D is digital, despite multiple VTT disasters over the last two editions. People don't want to play D&D online, they sometimes have to, which was especially true during the pandemic but the reality is that the whole point of D&D is that its a narrative game played in person and despite all claims D&D is not a "generic" fantasy, it has its own quirks and culture and the further you get away from that, the fewer people are interested in getting the game to the table.
The downtrend has to do exclusively with the 5.5 game design and nothing else. It's not a good representation of the 5e system or of D&D. Its very 5e like and its very D&D like, but so was 4th edition.
I predict that before the end of 2028, they will be talking 6th edition and the marketing pitch will be "A return to classic D&D" or a "return to the table", or both, and things along that line. WotC continually fails to understand that D&D is a very specific thing. It's not a game, it's a culture, but the game has to synchronize with that culture as a mechanic; it does not work the other way around. You can't alter the D&D culture with the game design; it's been tried, it has never succeeded, and it never will. Expectation is not negotiable. It's this lesson that WotC keeps having to learn over and over again.
They weren't labeled as such by publisher, but accalimed by players & DMs from what i've read.
Do you really think people are no longer role playing because they took out the “here’s a drop down menu with four options for your personality”? Very few people used that anyway which is why I suspect the traits system was dropped. Similarly no one is giving up on writing an interesting backstory because orcs no longer get a bonus to strength. You’re declaring that 5.5 takes away role playing and story telling because it got rid of things that were directly getting in the way of the freedom to create a character you wanted to play and were forcing you into certain decisions because the mechanics only supported those decisions. In 5e if you wanted to play a melee character you were heavily incentivised to choose an orc or a dwarf because of the racial bonuses, similarly elves leant themselves to Dex based range builds and gnomes to being wizards. If you wanted to play a gnome barbarian because it matched the story you had in mind you were deliberately choosing to play a slightly broken character. 5.5 got rid of that and as a result threw open the gates to actually create a character that supports the story you want to tell
Not exactly what I'm saying, but you're kind of close.
D&D has an identity and it's built into the ethos and culture of the game, it's based on something tangible and believable. It definitely is "less free" to have restrictions or sub-optimal choices because of it, but restrictions and sub-optimal choices is what makes a game interesting, unique, and specific. In 5.5 just like in 4e, they threw this core concept of D&D out the window. once again, it doesn't matter what species you choose or what background you pick; it's an irrelevant/meaningless choice and has no impact on the game at all. You can be a Gnome Barbarian with 18 strength, or you can be an Orc with 18 strength; it literally doesn't matter, for all intents and purposes, they are the same thing in 5.5e. The difference is effectively a "skin", aka, an aesthetic.
It ignores all lore, fantasy or established setting elements about what a Gnome is in the D&D ethos.
And yes, the result is that people stop role-playing Gnomes. They are just role-playing "characters". Without an identity that is relevant to the game, when a choice is mostly irrelevant to the game and the mechanics don't reflect your choices at all, any decision you make during character creation doesn't matter. You're no longer creating characters, you're generating them. Even that in of itself isn't really the problem, but as the choices have nothing driving them within the scope of setting, theme or a recognizable fantasy, a Gnome is just a sort of "generic fantasy person".
The issue too isn't any individual infraction of disconnection from the D&D ethos, but its the combination of them that washes out any personality from the game. In 5e Personality Traits don't matter, bacgkrounds don't matter, race/species doesn't matter and arguably, the only relevant choice is your class and even that is a stretch, the difference between a Wizard or a Sorcerer is barely noticeable and the reality is that more than 80% of the classes "cast spells" or have "magic like" abilities.
The reality is that during character creation, choices don't really matter at all.. and the thing you have to realize is that what drives creative ventures in a fantasy RPG, are the settings, the lore the ... fantasy. When you strip all of that away and make it all "generic blobs" that creative energy evaporates.
In 5e if you wanted to play a melee character you were heavily incentivised to choose an orc or a dwarf because of the racial bonuses, similarly elves leant themselves to Dex based range builds and gnomes to being wizards.
EXACTLY! That is D&D.. Dwarves and Orcs made better fighters... Gnomes were crappy ones, it's an element of D&D ethos. Its how you know your playing D&D and not some other fantasy game.
When you ask a D&D player "what is a gnome", the answer shouldn't be "anything you want"... There is an answer, it's very specific, it's detailed and that answer matters.
To offer an analogy for simplicity's sake. What Wizards of the Coast did was walk into an Italian Resturant and changed it into a fusion buffet. Im not saying there is anything wrong with fusion buffet, I love fusion buffet, but I came for Italian food... and you're not serving it anymore.
That’s an incredibly old school view of character role playing, here’s the character you’ve rolled up and that’s what you’re playing, so not surprised to hear it from you but to me that sounds like a game actively working against you role playing. You can’t create the character you want, you have to play the character the mechanics support, you can’t play a gnome barbarian or an orc wizard because those races don’t play those classes. It’s funny that you see the extra freedom as generating characters rather than creating them because to me it’s the exact opposite, having to play exactly what supports the mechanics is generating characters whilst being able to choose anything that matches the story you want to tell is creating them
Close but not quite right. See I'm not saying you can't be a Gnome Barbarian, nor asking for a restriction, I'm saying that within the scope of the fantasy, that is unusual. There is a story there and I'm curious to know what it is, and whatever it is, it's not the norm. This is because D&D has an ethos, a culture, its a tangible, real thing that exists and is defined. That oddity is very old school, but within that construct is the premise that, a Gnome Barbarian, isn't going to be as good of a warrior as a Orc Barbarian in the context of the game mechanic. A reflection of that fantasy oddity. Im not asking for a restriction, but Im asking for recognition within the context of the mechanics of that fact that you made a choice, an unusual one that has drawbacks and potentially unique benefits. Its a decision in the character creation process that has impact on how that character will function mechanically.
What you want is that mechanically, a Gnome Barbarian is as good as a Orc Barbarian... That isn't about a narrative story, it's not about role-playing, it's about mechanical builds without consequences or effect. It has nothing to do with you wanting to role-play a Gnome Barbarian and everything to do with you wanting a character that can bash heads and be mechanically as good as any other Barbarian. You want it to be mathematically fair, not narratively relevant.
It's a disingenuous argument to claim that old school D&D is about "refusing" narrative play, this isn't even about old school D&D, its just about D&D. D&D is about creativity within the construct of a defined fantasy. Gnomes, are smaller, weaker... they don't make good fighters.. but some become fighters anyway.. That's a cool construction; it's a meaningful choice within the game, it has value as a narrative. It has nothing to do with the restriction of creativity to make Gnomes less effective warriors mathematically, and being less effective mathematically doesn't restrict role-playing, it actually supports it because Gnomes are in fact.. weaker and smaller. The mechanic should reflect that. You should feel the impact of that choice while you play.
You're trying to make a narrative argument, but your actual argument is that you want to "build" mechanical characters without consequences or drawbacks for your choices. That is the philosophy 5.5 went for and the result is that Gnomes don't actually exist. They are a skin; there is no value or benefit to choosing it, nor any drawbacks. They are mechanically irrelevant; it's basically just an aesthetic choice and an undefined one at that.
If you think homogenization is fun, by all means, enjoy yourself. Some people ARE actually from a different time, when differences could be appreciated by some.
There is literally nothing stopping you from still playing the game the way you always have.
pronouns: he/she/they
I mix and match 5 and 5.5e, taking some rules and not others. It seems to work just fine.
Hiya! You can call me Link. Here’s a bit about me:
Roomba Knight, Architect of the Cataclysm, Foxy Lunar Archpriest. Dubbed The Fluffy Bowman by Golden. He/They
Theatre Kid, Ravenclaw, bookworm, DM, Lego fanatic, flautist, mythology nerd, pedantic about spelling. I also love foxes, cats, otters, and red pandas!
I love Korean Mythology. If you want to ask me about something, send me a PM!
Èist ri Arirang aig BTS!But that sort of species determinism doesn’t even work for the official settings, never mind home brew ones. What about Eberron where barbarians are more likely to be Halflings than anything else whilst orcs are wise Druids? Lore should be tied to a setting, not to species, because as soon as you change the settings those restrictions you’re so fond of stop making sense. The 5.5 solution of tying stat boosts to background isn’t perfect, they needed a lot more backgrounds in the PHB if they were going to do that, but from a story telling and backstory point of view it makes a lot more sense that an elf who spent their life as a soldier would be stronger than an orc who spent their life as a librarian and is far more applicable to a wider range of settings
I'm not persuaded by arguments in favor of forcing character builds to adhere to species-based stereotypes. That's not really core to D&D. What's core to D&D is playing exceptional characters. Several editions point out that even a level 1 character stands out from the average person in these fantasy worlds. It never made any sense to tell players their character have amazing capabilities beyond the average people around them, but they'll still always be penalized for being a certain species. Similarly, I'm not impressed by the "they took away roleplaying because now anybody can be anything" argument because having more options doesn't track with the assertion that it's harder to roleplay.
This all fits neatly under "it's bad because it's too different from what I'm familiar with." Which means it can be safely ignored.
I hate that last chain of logic (the familiar part). It keeps you contained within what you know, and doesn’t let you try new things. You should be able to step outside your comfort zone once in a while if you want to.
Hiya! You can call me Link. Here’s a bit about me:
Roomba Knight, Architect of the Cataclysm, Foxy Lunar Archpriest. Dubbed The Fluffy Bowman by Golden. He/They
Theatre Kid, Ravenclaw, bookworm, DM, Lego fanatic, flautist, mythology nerd, pedantic about spelling. I also love foxes, cats, otters, and red pandas!
I love Korean Mythology. If you want to ask me about something, send me a PM!
Èist ri Arirang aig BTS!Actually, using the online character sheet says otherwise unless one wants to re-invent the D&D world back into an earlier time.
This argument actually highlights the point. Why was it so important to strip differences in the 1st place? People could always done this themselves as well? Somewhat hypocritical I would say.
Not really.. It's bad because it doesn't adhere to the source material. Character creation in D&D has always been about meaningful choices, that is the core premise of the game. 5.5 removed that entiretly. There are no meaningful choices when it comes to choosing backgrounds or Species.. These things no longer matter.
Its not about forcing builds, its about forcing benefits and drawbacks to your choices.
10 years from now, the norm might be to make Zombie Paladins. Some of you are already there but, I'm willing to bet most are not. If the majority truly believes in the shifts taking place or grows up with it, that's what will become the norm. The rest will adapt or get left behind. Are either wrong in their opinions? I would say, they are not.
I agree. Although, you don’t have to get left behind. You can strike out on your own. You don’t have to follow the norm.
Hiya! You can call me Link. Here’s a bit about me:
Roomba Knight, Architect of the Cataclysm, Foxy Lunar Archpriest. Dubbed The Fluffy Bowman by Golden. He/They
Theatre Kid, Ravenclaw, bookworm, DM, Lego fanatic, flautist, mythology nerd, pedantic about spelling. I also love foxes, cats, otters, and red pandas!
I love Korean Mythology. If you want to ask me about something, send me a PM!
Èist ri Arirang aig BTS!