1e was not that complex or hard to understand. It was just very restrictive in a lot of ways. Strict limits on who could multiclass, how one could multiclass and strict level limits on races that could do so. No AoO's or held actions.
Even some classes were race restricted.
True.
But with every subsequent edition game mechanics were added, classes were introduced, subclasses expanded (18 sub-classes of Cleric....really?????), pretty sure spells were added, obviously many many more playable species were added. Things did get more complex, until 5e.
Some years ago I gave my nephew my AD&D PHB, DMG. MM I , MM II, Deities and Demi-Gods. I am reasonably certain that was pretty much the entire set. Today, there are a lot more source books that are canon, some of them with obviously conflicting rule sets. Much of the abomination that shall not be named is incompatible with the PHB, XGTE, and the DMG. And I am not talking about the Lineage nonsense. One book says "whatever cantrips you choose, that's pretty much it". The newest book says "ah don't worry, you don't like something, you can change it, next level, or next day".
It is logical that Hasbro is going to consolidate all this stuff in a set of canon. One that has two simple tenets: "simple appeals to the masses" and "none of our source material must have the potential to offend anyone on the planet, now, or 10 years in the future".
1e was not that complex or hard to understand. It was just very restrictive in a lot of ways. Strict limits on who could multiclass, how one could multiclass and strict level limits on races that could do so. No AoO's or held actions.
Even some classes were race restricted.
True.
But with every subsequent edition game mechanics were added, classes were introduced, subclasses expanded (18 sub-classes of Cleric....really?????), pretty sure spells were added, obviously many many more playable species were added. Things did get more complex, until 5e.
Some years ago I gave my nephew my AD&D PHB, DMG. MM I , MM II, Deities and Demi-Gods. I am reasonably certain that was pretty much the entire set. Today, there are a lot more source books that are canon, some of them with obviously conflicting rule sets. Much of the abomination that shall not be named is incompatible with the PHB, XGTE, and the DMG. And I am not talking about the Lineage nonsense. One book says "whatever cantrips you choose, that's pretty much it". The newest book says "ah don't worry, you don't like something, you can change it, next level, or next day".
It is logical that Hasbro is going to consolidate all this stuff in a set of canon. One that has two simple tenets: "simple appeals to the masses" and "none of our source material must have the potential to offend anyone on the planet, now, or 10 years in the future".
To be fair, the limit on cantrips bothers me a lot as completely artificial. These are supposedly the simplest of magics but they are treated more like innate powers. The intent (to give casters something to work with even when they run out of spell slots) gets in the way of the in world concept.
I am ambivalent about cantrips. Some are just fluff, some are simply lethal. I like the concept of them, but like all magic, I think that the ability to switch them up pretty much on a whim seems just wrong. I have no idea how they will be addressed in 6e. The only thing I am sure of is that 6e will be more than politically correct, and it will be the simplest version of D&D in a long long time. It will be pablum.
1e was not that complex or hard to understand. It was just very restrictive in a lot of ways. Strict limits on who could multiclass, how one could multiclass and strict level limits on races that could do so. No AoO's or held actions.
Even some classes were race restricted.
True.
But with every subsequent edition game mechanics were added, classes were introduced, subclasses expanded (18 sub-classes of Cleric....really?????), pretty sure spells were added, obviously many many more playable species were added. Things did get more complex, until 5e.
Some years ago I gave my nephew my AD&D PHB, DMG. MM I , MM II, Deities and Demi-Gods. I am reasonably certain that was pretty much the entire set. Today, there are a lot more source books that are canon, some of them with obviously conflicting rule sets. Much of the abomination that shall not be named is incompatible with the PHB, XGTE, and the DMG. And I am not talking about the Lineage nonsense. One book says "whatever cantrips you choose, that's pretty much it". The newest book says "ah don't worry, you don't like something, you can change it, next level, or next day".
It is logical that Hasbro is going to consolidate all this stuff in a set of canon. One that has two simple tenets: "simple appeals to the masses" and "none of our source material must have the potential to offend anyone on the planet, now, or 10 years in the future".
To be fair, the limit on cantrips bothers me a lot as completely artificial. These are supposedly the simplest of magics but they are treated more like innate powers. The intent (to give casters something to work with even when they run out of spell slots) gets in the way of the in world concept.
I am ambivalent about cantrips. Some are just fluff, some are simply lethal. I like the concept of them, but like all magic, I think that the ability to switch them up pretty much on a whim seems just wrong. I have no idea how they will be addressed in 6e. The only thing I am sure of is that 6e will be more than politically correct, and it will be the simplest version of D&D in a long long time. It will be pablum.
To borrow from Neil Gaiman, the term "politically correct" is just a fancy term for being respectful.
If you think being respectful is a problem, if you think it makes something worthless, then I strongly suggest you look in the mirror.
Vince, you forgot the AD&D Unearthed Arcana hardback. I should hope that makes it into 6th Edition, when it comes, in a form similar to what exists now on D&D Beyond.
1e was not that complex or hard to understand. It was just very restrictive in a lot of ways. Strict limits on who could multiclass, how one could multiclass and strict level limits on races that could do so. No AoO's or held actions.
Even some classes were race restricted.
True.
But with every subsequent edition game mechanics were added, classes were introduced, subclasses expanded (18 sub-classes of Cleric....really?????), pretty sure spells were added, obviously many many more playable species were added. Things did get more complex, until 5e.
Some years ago I gave my nephew my AD&D PHB, DMG. MM I , MM II, Deities and Demi-Gods. I am reasonably certain that was pretty much the entire set. Today, there are a lot more source books that are canon, some of them with obviously conflicting rule sets. Much of the abomination that shall not be named is incompatible with the PHB, XGTE, and the DMG. And I am not talking about the Lineage nonsense. One book says "whatever cantrips you choose, that's pretty much it". The newest book says "ah don't worry, you don't like something, you can change it, next level, or next day".
It is logical that Hasbro is going to consolidate all this stuff in a set of canon. One that has two simple tenets: "simple appeals to the masses" and "none of our source material must have the potential to offend anyone on the planet, now, or 10 years in the future".
To be fair, the limit on cantrips bothers me a lot as completely artificial. These are supposedly the simplest of magics but they are treated more like innate powers. The intent (to give casters something to work with even when they run out of spell slots) gets in the way of the in world concept.
I am ambivalent about cantrips. Some are just fluff, some are simply lethal. I like the concept of them, but like all magic, I think that the ability to switch them up pretty much on a whim seems just wrong. I have no idea how they will be addressed in 6e. The only thing I am sure of is that 6e will be more than politically correct, and it will be the simplest version of D&D in a long long time. It will be pablum.
To borrow from Neil Gaiman, the term "politically correct" is just a fancy term for being respectful.
If you think being respectful is a problem, if you think it makes something worthless, then I strongly suggest you look in the mirror.
The concept of "politically correct" destroys everything it touches. As soon as you limit yourself by thinking "If there is someone, even a single person, on the planet that will be offended by what I am about to do/say/type, then I will not do/say/type that thing.", then nothing is ever created, because there will always be someone offended by something. That is where it Hasbro, the owners of Mr. Potato Head, and D&D, are going. 6e will be an insipid mess, "safe" for a 6 year old to play.
As soon as you limit yourself by thinking "If there is someone, even a single person, on the planet that will be offended by what I am about to do/say/type, then I will not do/say/type that thing.", ...
Nobody does that. This is an absurd hypothetical.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Complex and challenging don't have to go hand in hand, and wanting a roleplaying game's system to be challenging apparently just for the sake of being challenging seems silly. There's plenty of room for challenge in D&D regardless of rules or mechanics.
When more features and game mechanics are added to a game, it becomes more complex. More complex = less people who want to play it.
The word "challenging" can be used in 2 contexts:
1. What happens in a game is hard. You can the simplest game mechanics in the world, and if a group of low level chars encounter a Dragon, it is going to more than "challenging" for the chars.
2. The game mechanics are challenging, and mastering those mechanics in and of itself gives gratification. That appeals to a small group, which clearly has the subset of "powergamers" within it. The casual player definitely is not in this group that enjoys the challenge of mastering a complex game.
Hasbro recognizes this fact, and is not going to cater the game to the minority that want a game with more features = more complex. It is one thing to add a ton of new species. It is another to build new game mechanics. Plus, how much of the stuff in the abomination that shall not be named make the game "harder", and how many make the game "easier"?
more features = more complex...
Such as making more magical items require attunement?
Complex and challenging don't have to go hand in hand, and wanting a roleplaying game's system to be challenging apparently just for the sake of being challenging seems silly. There's plenty of room for challenge in D&D regardless of rules or mechanics.
When more features and game mechanics are added to a game, it becomes more complex. More complex = less people who want to play it.
The word "challenging" can be used in 2 contexts:
1. What happens in a game is hard. You can the simplest game mechanics in the world, and if a group of low level chars encounter a Dragon, it is going to more than "challenging" for the chars.
2. The game mechanics are challenging, and mastering those mechanics in and of itself gives gratification. That appeals to a small group, which clearly has the subset of "powergamers" within it. The casual player definitely is not in this group that enjoys the challenge of mastering a complex game.
Hasbro recognizes this fact, and is not going to cater the game to the minority that want a game with more features = more complex. It is one thing to add a ton of new species. It is another to build new game mechanics. Plus, how much of the stuff in the abomination that shall not be named make the game "harder", and how many make the game "easier"?
more features = more complex...
Such as making more magical items require attunement?
[REDACTED] I LOVE more complex, and more difficult. Most do not, hence why Hasbro is making the game simpler and easier. The abomination that shall not be named is a big red flag of what 6e will be like.
Complex and challenging don't have to go hand in hand, and wanting a roleplaying game's system to be challenging apparently just for the sake of being challenging seems silly. There's plenty of room for challenge in D&D regardless of rules or mechanics.
When more features and game mechanics are added to a game, it becomes more complex. More complex = less people who want to play it.
The word "challenging" can be used in 2 contexts:
1. What happens in a game is hard. You can the simplest game mechanics in the world, and if a group of low level chars encounter a Dragon, it is going to more than "challenging" for the chars.
2. The game mechanics are challenging, and mastering those mechanics in and of itself gives gratification. That appeals to a small group, which clearly has the subset of "powergamers" within it. The casual player definitely is not in this group that enjoys the challenge of mastering a complex game.
Hasbro recognizes this fact, and is not going to cater the game to the minority that want a game with more features = more complex. It is one thing to add a ton of new species. It is another to build new game mechanics. Plus, how much of the stuff in the abomination that shall not be named make the game "harder", and how many make the game "easier"?
more features = more complex...
Such as making more magical items require attunement?
[REDACTED] I LOVE more complex, and more difficult. Most do not, hence why Hasbro is making the game simpler and easier. The abomination that shall not be named is a big red flag of what 6e will be like.
The melodrama is getting old, Vinny.
Pretty much everyone has some issue with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but it isn't that bad of a book. Ultimately, all it really does is exacerbate power creep. But that's to be expected after six years in publication. And you can rail against optional rules all you want, but they're just optional rules. A DM is free to ban feats, too, or impose the variant rule for encumbrance. I love encumbrance, personally, but most of my players groan about it and I'd rather everyone have a fun time than not.
There's nothing wrong with a game system that is simple to learn. It keeps the bar for entry low. It widens the player base. And a responsible company would want to bring in as many clientele as possible. Having said that, a game system that is simple to learn can still have complexity. There can be mechanical depth to be discovered and explored, and it can be a joy to do so.
Well, after wading through 10 pages of this discussion over the last two days I figured I’d throw my two cents into the ring. Although it is highly plausible that a 6th edition of this game could happen I do not see it as inevitable, at least within the next several years. I am basing this opinion on how they changed their approach to making the game from what they had done in past editions and the subsequent explosion they have had in popularity. From the two years of original playtesting and subsequent Unearthed Arcana articles to the slower 4-5 major hardcover book a year publishing schedule, they not only have included the community to a much higher degree than ever before but also have made it much more affordable to acquire the books you need. Every product also only requiring the core three books to use is another huge bonus to this edition’s survivability. Bloat isn’t such a huge problem if you can ignore every supplement you do not like, as some here have felt regarding Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything for example. They plan each book out one to two years ahead of time so they clearly have the long view in mind with every addition to the catalogue.
At most I see them publishing some sort of deluxe core 3 revision that incorporates the lessons they have learned along the way, and that most likely will coincide with the 10th/50th anniversary in 2024. Even if they do that, I believe it will not only be backwards compatible but also can be completely ignored if one wants to still use the original 5e core books. I am confident that the original core books will be forwards compatible with future supplements after that hypothetical revised edition too. The basic structure of the rules set can handle quite a lot of modular changes to it without drastic alterations. The options presented in both Xanathar’s Guide to Everything and Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, as well as the Dungeon Master’s Guide itself, are great examples of how it can be done. The fact that all of the material printed inside of a book like Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything is optional tells me that the designers did not intend for people to incorporate the rules in its entirety into their games. They fully expect a DM to take them apart and use only the bits that bring them joy and discard the rest. Even having feats and multiclassing explicitly optional in the Player’s Handbook itself gives the DM a lot of leeway in how they want to customize the game. The hardcover adventures themselves can be used piecemeal instead of run as-is. No matter what they publish in the future, none of it has to replace anything within the game unless you want it to. If a future 5.5e rules set makes ability score improvements untied to racial traits the norm, it is incredibly easy to reassign those traits as the DM sees fit if they feel it is important enough within their own campaign. I started playing D&D with my friends during our middle school years when 2e was just coming on the market. Among the group, we had quite a mixture of 1e, 2e, basic, and whatever else we got our hands on. None of us played by the rules as written since there were so many different rules that weren’t always compatible but that didn’t diminish our fun. We also cannibalized other RPGs with abandon for our home games. I look back especially fondly at the critical hit and injury tables from MERP. I still steal mechanics I like to this day. I have players roll Fate dice almost as much as I have them roll d20s. I’ve given players magic items that use the exploding die from Savage Worlds. I have had players use dice pools of d10s to determine degrees of success that I took from Vampire: The Masquerade. I have a lot of third party material that I mine for gold whenever I need inspiration too.
I skipped over 3e and 4e entirely due to the massive amount of books that were on the shelves. The D&D Next playtest pulled me back in and the more manageable release schedule has kept me playing. I know I am not the only one in that boat and all of us returning players as well as the huge numbers of new players young and old will be using this rules set for a long time. WotC would be incredibly foolish to toss out 5e for the sake of making a brand new game when they can just continually improve upon the current edition in a way that groups can use as they see fit.
Personally, I reminisce often about 3.5, wishing there were tools as well-developed as DnDBeyond for it. Code Monkey's software was pretty good... until they folded. Still, I will be the first one to admit that 5e has A LOT going for it. It is simple, streamlined, and very accessible to new players (my entire family plays because of this last point). The only that really bothers me is the lack of an Effective Character Level system for races like was in place for 3.5. I see new races becoming available and I believe there is a slow power creep happening (as with all games that last any length of time). To compensate for this slow power creep, other races are nerfed:
The rules for Drow just irritate me because they are supposed to be a major "baddy" ... the thing that goes "bump" in the night. But having them available as a starting race without the potency of their historical powers is unsatisfying.
A centaur that is a Medium creature simply because a Large creature would be too powerful as a level 1 character is ridiculous. As a centaur I should be able to have someone ride on my back without being encumbered.
etc.
It shouldn't be too hard to come up with an ECL system for 5e. Thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
I played a wemic barbarian in 3.5 and I was pretty overpowered for my party, so I toned it down a little. I refused to wear any armor as it was not in alignment with my tribe's philosophy and used only my claws for attacking most creatures. Large or Huge creatures might cause me to bust out shield and spear if needed.
Riding on me? Not gonna happen... Me being the packlion for the party? Uh uh... Now, I did cart out the party once after a near TPK, but that was a dire emergency.
They should only ask Dungeon Masters - we are the ones who have to contend with characters skills, traits and abilities - we are the ones who have to create the adventures - to keep stories interesting, encounters challenging, traps surprising, NPC's necessary, magic a secret, lands they adventure wondrous. Players play at guidelines given, but Dungeon Masters are always trying to manage everything else. "Rules" should be created from the Dungeon Masters' perspective.
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
WotC is going to go for what customers want rather than what DMs or players want. If players and/or DMs don't like the official rules, they stop being customers. And that's against WotC's interests.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would settle for being listened to at all...I do feel like player options are heavily prioritized and honestly I get it.... So many more players than DMs so it makes sense from a sales perspective.
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
D&D is a game for everyone to enjoy, be they player or DM. The DM is a player at the table and is just as entitled to enjoy the game as anyone else. That is why no single voice, DM or player should be listened to more than any other. If you feel the rules of D&D 'hamstring' you (I would advise against using the word 'crippled', it's quite ableist a term), then maybe you need a system that doesn't rely on rules quite so much? D&D is a game where the rules exist to enable the DM to do their job, not hinder them.
I'm not sure where you're getting the "find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual" comes from; you don't need to do initiative outside of a combat encounter and any caster trying to ritual cast in a fight is going to get thwacked and lose their concentration. And as for Darkvision, out of the 42 base races available, 21 races (or their subraces or variant races) have Darkvision, that's half and is actually probably lower once you start looking at variants and subraces (for example, dragonborn don't have darkvision, only their draconblood and ravenite variants do). But I'd be interested to know why you think having darkvision is a problem?
No no, not being literal, "ask Dungeon Masters" - that's not practical - what I'm saying is that the game designers need to game test their "rules" from a Dungeon Masters perspective. But enough said. Only Dungeon Masters can relate to my statement.
I would settle for being listened to at all...I do feel like player options are heavily prioritized and honestly I get it.... So many more players than DMs so it makes sense from a sales perspective.
They're doing a survey now. It's pretty time consuming to fill out, and I honestly don't know what they'll do with the info, but it's something. Other than things like surveys, playtests and to an extent social media WotC don't make themselves really available, and certainly the former two but also the latter tend to be one way streets: if WotC is paying attention to them, they rarely tell us what they picked up and what might get done with it.
Player options get prioritized because those are the things that people like to see homebrewed the least (for some very legitimate reasons too - those options tend to have the biggest impact if done badly). I'm by and large ok with that, though this edition's advice for DMs is not the best. If the DMG was better as an actual guide for DMs, that could make a big difference.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
True.
But with every subsequent edition game mechanics were added, classes were introduced, subclasses expanded (18 sub-classes of Cleric....really?????), pretty sure spells were added, obviously many many more playable species were added. Things did get more complex, until 5e.
Some years ago I gave my nephew my AD&D PHB, DMG. MM I , MM II, Deities and Demi-Gods. I am reasonably certain that was pretty much the entire set. Today, there are a lot more source books that are canon, some of them with obviously conflicting rule sets. Much of the abomination that shall not be named is incompatible with the PHB, XGTE, and the DMG. And I am not talking about the Lineage nonsense. One book says "whatever cantrips you choose, that's pretty much it". The newest book says "ah don't worry, you don't like something, you can change it, next level, or next day".
It is logical that Hasbro is going to consolidate all this stuff in a set of canon. One that has two simple tenets: "simple appeals to the masses" and "none of our source material must have the potential to offend anyone on the planet, now, or 10 years in the future".
I am ambivalent about cantrips. Some are just fluff, some are simply lethal. I like the concept of them, but like all magic, I think that the ability to switch them up pretty much on a whim seems just wrong. I have no idea how they will be addressed in 6e. The only thing I am sure of is that 6e will be more than politically correct, and it will be the simplest version of D&D in a long long time. It will be pablum.
To borrow from Neil Gaiman, the term "politically correct" is just a fancy term for being respectful.
If you think being respectful is a problem, if you think it makes something worthless, then I strongly suggest you look in the mirror.
Vince, you forgot the AD&D Unearthed Arcana hardback. I should hope that makes it into 6th Edition, when it comes, in a form similar to what exists now on D&D Beyond.
<Insert clever signature here>
The concept of "politically correct" destroys everything it touches. As soon as you limit yourself by thinking "If there is someone, even a single person, on the planet that will be offended by what I am about to do/say/type, then I will not do/say/type that thing.", then nothing is ever created, because there will always be someone offended by something. That is where it Hasbro, the owners of Mr. Potato Head, and D&D, are going. 6e will be an insipid mess, "safe" for a 6 year old to play.
Nobody does that. This is an absurd hypothetical.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
more features = more complex...
Such as making more magical items require attunement?
[REDACTED] I LOVE more complex, and more difficult. Most do not, hence why Hasbro is making the game simpler and easier. The abomination that shall not be named is a big red flag of what 6e will be like.
The melodrama is getting old, Vinny.
Pretty much everyone has some issue with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but it isn't that bad of a book. Ultimately, all it really does is exacerbate power creep. But that's to be expected after six years in publication. And you can rail against optional rules all you want, but they're just optional rules. A DM is free to ban feats, too, or impose the variant rule for encumbrance. I love encumbrance, personally, but most of my players groan about it and I'd rather everyone have a fun time than not.
There's nothing wrong with a game system that is simple to learn. It keeps the bar for entry low. It widens the player base. And a responsible company would want to bring in as many clientele as possible. Having said that, a game system that is simple to learn can still have complexity. There can be mechanical depth to be discovered and explored, and it can be a joy to do so.
Well, after wading through 10 pages of this discussion over the last two days I figured I’d throw my two cents into the ring. Although it is highly plausible that a 6th edition of this game could happen I do not see it as inevitable, at least within the next several years. I am basing this opinion on how they changed their approach to making the game from what they had done in past editions and the subsequent explosion they have had in popularity. From the two years of original playtesting and subsequent Unearthed Arcana articles to the slower 4-5 major hardcover book a year publishing schedule, they not only have included the community to a much higher degree than ever before but also have made it much more affordable to acquire the books you need. Every product also only requiring the core three books to use is another huge bonus to this edition’s survivability. Bloat isn’t such a huge problem if you can ignore every supplement you do not like, as some here have felt regarding Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything for example. They plan each book out one to two years ahead of time so they clearly have the long view in mind with every addition to the catalogue.
At most I see them publishing some sort of deluxe core 3 revision that incorporates the lessons they have learned along the way, and that most likely will coincide with the 10th/50th anniversary in 2024. Even if they do that, I believe it will not only be backwards compatible but also can be completely ignored if one wants to still use the original 5e core books. I am confident that the original core books will be forwards compatible with future supplements after that hypothetical revised edition too. The basic structure of the rules set can handle quite a lot of modular changes to it without drastic alterations. The options presented in both Xanathar’s Guide to Everything and Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, as well as the Dungeon Master’s Guide itself, are great examples of how it can be done.
The fact that all of the material printed inside of a book like Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything is optional tells me that the designers did not intend for people to incorporate the rules in its entirety into their games. They fully expect a DM to take them apart and use only the bits that bring them joy and discard the rest. Even having feats and multiclassing explicitly optional in the Player’s Handbook itself gives the DM a lot of leeway in how they want to customize the game. The hardcover adventures themselves can be used piecemeal instead of run as-is. No matter what they publish in the future, none of it has to replace anything within the game unless you want it to. If a future 5.5e rules set makes ability score improvements untied to racial traits the norm, it is incredibly easy to reassign those traits as the DM sees fit if they feel it is important enough within their own campaign.
I started playing D&D with my friends during our middle school years when 2e was just coming on the market. Among the group, we had quite a mixture of 1e, 2e, basic, and whatever else we got our hands on. None of us played by the rules as written since there were so many different rules that weren’t always compatible but that didn’t diminish our fun. We also cannibalized other RPGs with abandon for our home games. I look back especially fondly at the critical hit and injury tables from MERP. I still steal mechanics I like to this day. I have players roll Fate dice almost as much as I have them roll d20s. I’ve given players magic items that use the exploding die from Savage Worlds. I have had players use dice pools of d10s to determine degrees of success that I took from Vampire: The Masquerade. I have a lot of third party material that I mine for gold whenever I need inspiration too.
I skipped over 3e and 4e entirely due to the massive amount of books that were on the shelves. The D&D Next playtest pulled me back in and the more manageable release schedule has kept me playing. I know I am not the only one in that boat and all of us returning players as well as the huge numbers of new players young and old will be using this rules set for a long time. WotC would be incredibly foolish to toss out 5e for the sake of making a brand new game when they can just continually improve upon the current edition in a way that groups can use as they see fit.
Personally, I reminisce often about 3.5, wishing there were tools as well-developed as DnDBeyond for it. Code Monkey's software was pretty good... until they folded. Still, I will be the first one to admit that 5e has A LOT going for it. It is simple, streamlined, and very accessible to new players (my entire family plays because of this last point). The only that really bothers me is the lack of an Effective Character Level system for races like was in place for 3.5. I see new races becoming available and I believe there is a slow power creep happening (as with all games that last any length of time). To compensate for this slow power creep, other races are nerfed:
It shouldn't be too hard to come up with an ECL system for 5e. Thoughts?
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
I played a wemic barbarian in 3.5 and I was pretty overpowered for my party, so I toned it down a little. I refused to wear any armor as it was not in alignment with my tribe's philosophy and used only my claws for attacking most creatures. Large or Huge creatures might cause me to bust out shield and spear if needed.
Riding on me? Not gonna happen... Me being the packlion for the party? Uh uh... Now, I did cart out the party once after a near TPK, but that was a dire emergency.
5e is a good system that could benefit from improvements here and there. I don't think it necessitates a 6th edition, however.
But no, I'm not against a new edition.
They should only ask Dungeon Masters - we are the ones who have to contend with characters skills, traits and abilities - we are the ones who have to create the adventures - to keep stories interesting, encounters challenging, traps surprising, NPC's necessary, magic a secret, lands they adventure wondrous. Players play at guidelines given, but Dungeon Masters are always trying to manage everything else. "Rules" should be created from the Dungeon Masters' perspective.
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
WotC is going to go for what customers want rather than what DMs or players want. If players and/or DMs don't like the official rules, they stop being customers. And that's against WotC's interests.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I would settle for being listened to at all...I do feel like player options are heavily prioritized and honestly I get it.... So many more players than DMs so it makes sense from a sales perspective.
D&D is a game for everyone to enjoy, be they player or DM. The DM is a player at the table and is just as entitled to enjoy the game as anyone else. That is why no single voice, DM or player should be listened to more than any other. If you feel the rules of D&D 'hamstring' you (I would advise against using the word 'crippled', it's quite ableist a term), then maybe you need a system that doesn't rely on rules quite so much? D&D is a game where the rules exist to enable the DM to do their job, not hinder them.
I'm not sure where you're getting the "find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual" comes from; you don't need to do initiative outside of a combat encounter and any caster trying to ritual cast in a fight is going to get thwacked and lose their concentration. And as for Darkvision, out of the 42 base races available, 21 races (or their subraces or variant races) have Darkvision, that's half and is actually probably lower once you start looking at variants and subraces (for example, dragonborn don't have darkvision, only their draconblood and ravenite variants do). But I'd be interested to know why you think having darkvision is a problem?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
No no, not being literal, "ask Dungeon Masters" - that's not practical - what I'm saying is that the game designers need to game test their "rules" from a Dungeon Masters perspective. But enough said. Only Dungeon Masters can relate to my statement.
They're doing a survey now. It's pretty time consuming to fill out, and I honestly don't know what they'll do with the info, but it's something. Other than things like surveys, playtests and to an extent social media WotC don't make themselves really available, and certainly the former two but also the latter tend to be one way streets: if WotC is paying attention to them, they rarely tell us what they picked up and what might get done with it.
Player options get prioritized because those are the things that people like to see homebrewed the least (for some very legitimate reasons too - those options tend to have the biggest impact if done badly). I'm by and large ok with that, though this edition's advice for DMs is not the best. If the DMG was better as an actual guide for DMs, that could make a big difference.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].