They blundered during 3e and lost a lot of players to Pathfinder, and 4e saw backlash relatively early that drove a very different development structure for 5e.
Third edition was by no means perfect, but Pathfinder wasn't released until about a year into 4th. A massive chunk of Pathfinder's success was due to players not wanting to switch to 4th and going with the (really well produced and supported) continuation of 3rd instead, not 3rd ed blunders.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They blundered during 3e and lost a lot of players to Pathfinder, and 4e saw backlash relatively early that drove a very different development structure for 5e.
Third edition was by no means perfect, but Pathfinder wasn't released until about a year into 4th. A massive chunk of Pathfinder's success was due to players not wanting to switch to 4th and going with the (really well produced and supported) continuation of 3rd instead, not 3rd ed blunders.
Right, and most of the traction pathfinder gained was in the prelude to 5th when 4th was announced as being "Done". When 5th officially dropped after the DND Next playtest, it trounced Pathfinder.
They blundered during 3e and lost a lot of players to Pathfinder, and 4e saw backlash relatively early that drove a very different development structure for 5e.
Third edition was by no means perfect, but Pathfinder wasn't released until about a year into 4th. A massive chunk of Pathfinder's success was due to players not wanting to switch to 4th and going with the (really well produced and supported) continuation of 3rd instead, not 3rd ed blunders.
Right, and most of the traction pathfinder gained was in the prelude to 5th when 4th was announced as being "Done". When 5th officially dropped after the DND Next playtest, it trounced Pathfinder.
My point was that 3E's flaws didn't lead to losing players to Pathfinder, 3E's success did.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
They blundered during 3e and lost a lot of players to Pathfinder, and 4e saw backlash relatively early that drove a very different development structure for 5e.
Third edition was by no means perfect, but Pathfinder wasn't released until about a year into 4th. A massive chunk of Pathfinder's success was due to players not wanting to switch to 4th and going with the (really well produced and supported) continuation of 3rd instead, not 3rd ed blunders.
Right, and most of the traction pathfinder gained was in the prelude to 5th when 4th was announced as being "Done". When 5th officially dropped after the DND Next playtest, it trounced Pathfinder.
My point was that 3E's flaws didn't lead to losing players to Pathfinder, 3E's success did.
I really wonder what kind of schism this radical move towards wokeness will cause in the D&D player base, and ultimately future sales. It comes down to numbers for me:
1. How large is the current player base?
2. How big is the untapped player base aka all these woke high school and university age kids that have never considered playing D&D, or were turned off by its inherent science over feelings theme (yes, that is there no matter how many say otherwise)?
3. How much of the current player base will be totally outraged by this massive shift in the theme of D&D, and will quit playing?
If the untapped market is large enough and can be captured and that portion is bigger than #3, then yes, the shift will be successful. But questions 2 and 3 are unanswered. The market will decide. Not a very vocal few on a website, or a tiny bunch of decision-makers of the same ideological bent inside WOTC.
Bottom line, decision-makers for games like Grand Theft Auto will not be having this conversation.
It is also important to keep in mind that the number of people that comment on these forums is extremely small and in no way a good metric for the opinions of the D&D fan base as a whole. The DNDBeyond team would have a much clearer picture than us just off of sales data and possibly character creation data as to the popularity of Tasha's, but it is very unlikely that information would be shared with us.
I remember the switch from 1e to 2nd and many of the players I knew then grumbled and complained, but moved on to 2nd edition. Same with the change from 2nd to 3rd. When it came to 4e, Pathfinder was there to catch the player base that didn't want to switch. Without another company making a 5e equivalent I am sure that more people would eventually move to 5.5 or 6 than would stay behind. Of course it would also depend on what popular streamers do as well.
I really wonder what kind of schism this radical move towards wokeness will cause in the D&D player base, and ultimately future sales.
The ultimate irony is that this kind of divisive, hyperbolic, alarmist attitude is even more trendy in these modern times than any "wokeness" movement.
It's a slight change to character creation that absolutely does not prevent the "traditional" options and is far more realistic for any campaign where every race doesn't live in a rigid ethnostate. It's just not different enough on its own to justify a new edition and nothing else jumps out as a clear driver for an overhaul of the game.
I really wonder what kind of schism this radical move towards wokeness will cause in the D&D player base, and ultimately future sales.
The ultimate irony is that this kind of divisive, hyperbolic, alarmist attitude is even more trendy in these modern times than any "wokeness" movement.
It's a slight change to character creation that absolutely does not prevent the "traditional" options and is far more realistic for any campaign where every race doesn't live in a rigid ethnostate. It's just not different enough on its own to justify a new edition and nothing else jumps out as a clear driver for an overhaul of the game.
Are we talking about ASIs only, or also the whole culture thing? Because if the latter, that seems potentially fairly significant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I really wonder what kind of schism this radical move towards wokeness will cause in the D&D player base, and ultimately future sales.
The ultimate irony is that this kind of divisive, hyperbolic, alarmist attitude is even more trendy in these modern times than any "wokeness" movement.
It's a slight change to character creation that absolutely does not prevent the "traditional" options and is far more realistic for any campaign where every race doesn't live in a rigid ethnostate. It's just not different enough on its own to justify a new edition and nothing else jumps out as a clear driver for an overhaul of the game.
Tasha's rules were supposed to be a "slight change", and "optional"...until there weren't. Read that greyed section in the newest UA. That spells out explicitly that the classic rules are no longer considered canon and the new stuff is mandatory.
I really wonder what kind of schism this radical move towards wokeness will cause in the D&D player base, and ultimately future sales.
The ultimate irony is that this kind of divisive, hyperbolic, alarmist attitude is even more trendy in these modern times than any "wokeness" movement.
It's a slight change to character creation that absolutely does not prevent the "traditional" options and is far more realistic for any campaign where every race doesn't live in a rigid ethnostate. It's just not different enough on its own to justify a new edition and nothing else jumps out as a clear driver for an overhaul of the game.
Tasha's rules were supposed to be a "slight change", and "optional"...until there weren't. Read that greyed section in the newest UA. That spells out explicitly that the classic rules are no longer considered canon and the new stuff is mandatory.
Maybe you should read that text? What it explicitly spells out is that any future races released will follow the rules. Not that past races cannot be used, or that the old rules are no longer canon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I really wonder what kind of schism this radical move towards wokeness will cause in the D&D player base, and ultimately future sales.
The ultimate irony is that this kind of divisive, hyperbolic, alarmist attitude is even more trendy in these modern times than any "wokeness" movement.
It's a slight change to character creation that absolutely does not prevent the "traditional" options and is far more realistic for any campaign where every race doesn't live in a rigid ethnostate. It's just not different enough on its own to justify a new edition and nothing else jumps out as a clear driver for an overhaul of the game.
Tasha's rules were supposed to be a "slight change", and "optional"...until there weren't. Read that greyed section in the newest UA. That spells out explicitly that the classic rules are no longer considered canon and the new stuff is mandatory.
Maybe you should read that text? What it explicitly spells out is that any future races released will follow the rules. Not that past races cannot be used, or that the old rules are no longer canon.
Ummm...no, that is not what it says. It says: "Following in that book’s footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage."
That means that ALL races in ALL future publications are impacted by this new stuff.
Tasha's rules were supposed to be a "slight change", and "optional"...until there weren't. Read that greyed section in the newest UA. That spells out explicitly that the classic rules are no longer considered canon and the new stuff is mandatory.
Maybe you should read that text? What it explicitly spells out is that any future races released will follow the rules. Not that past races cannot be used, or that the old rules are no longer canon.
Ummm...no, that is not what it says. It says: "Following in that book’s footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage."
That means that ALL races in ALL future publications are impacted by this new stuff.
Operative word future. It does not say that you can't build a character using the old rules, or that any old character is invalid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
You are now moving the goalposts. When the next reprint (not officially an edition) is available from the printers, are you seriously going to say that WOTC is going to say in that PHB: "oh, just like Flanking, these classic rules of char creation are fully optional"?
Nice try. Because this new format extends so far into backgrounds and feats that many new builds will be broken using the old feats and backgrounds, and conversely, many old builds will be incompatible with new feats and backgrounds. There is zero chance WOTC will support both.
Because this new format extends so far into backgrounds and feats that many new builds will be broken using the old feats and backgrounds, and conversely, many old builds will be incompatible with new feats and backgrounds.
It does nothing of the sort. The UA in question says nothing at all about feats, backgrounds, skills, etc. It's just a new framework for building new lineages. One that hasn't even been fully described yet (obvious, given that it's essentially in playtest).
You are now moving the goalposts. When the next reprint (not officially an edition) is available from the printers, are you seriously going to say that WOTC is going to say in that PHB: "oh, just like Flanking, these classic rules of char creation are fully optional"?
Nice try. Because this new format extends so far into backgrounds and feats that many new builds will be broken using the old feats and backgrounds, and conversely, many old builds will be incompatible with new feats and backgrounds. There is zero chance WOTC will support both.
I'm not moving the goalposts. My initial goal was to prove that the old rules are still usable. I believe I proved that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Nice try. Because this new format extends so far into backgrounds and feats that many new builds will be broken using the old feats and backgrounds, and conversely, many old builds will be incompatible with new feats and backgrounds. There is zero chance WOTC will support both.
This is also incorrect. This doesn't mean anything for backgrounds, and only effects racial feats. The new feats (in Tasha's I presume?) don't have any effect on race, and aren't any different than if you used the old system.
Nice try. Because this new format extends so far into backgrounds and feats that many new builds will be broken using the old feats and backgrounds, and conversely, many old builds will be incompatible with new feats and backgrounds. There is zero chance WOTC will support both.
This is also incorrect. This doesn't mean anything for backgrounds, and only effects racial feats. The new feats (in Tasha's I presume?) don't have any effect on race, and aren't any different than if you used the old system.
I have the feeling that they need a way to allow players the ability to use the old races with these new lineages. Like if you create a character that is a goliath you get the large frame and resistance to cold, then you pick your lineage that grants your ASI's/skills/whatnot.
Honestly if there was a PH2, in addition to fixing up some old classes/subclasses with more variant rules, I'd like to see a few new classes make it in.
It's happened in the PH2s for prior editions so I'd like to see a repeat of it here, but just to a lesser extent.
Nice try. Because this new format extends so far into backgrounds and feats that many new builds will be broken using the old feats and backgrounds, and conversely, many old builds will be incompatible with new feats and backgrounds. There is zero chance WOTC will support both.
This is also incorrect. This doesn't mean anything for backgrounds, and only effects racial feats. The new feats (in Tasha's I presume?) don't have any effect on race, and aren't any different than if you used the old system.
I have the feeling that they need a way to allow players the ability to use the old races with these new lineages. Like if you create a character that is a goliath you get the large frame and resistance to cold, then you pick your lineage that grants your ASI's/skills/whatnot.
I would also like that, but it could be difficult to do. The Damphir in particular has tons of beneficial features, and stacking those atop a standard race might be too powerful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Yep it would be great if that was the case, and would work if it's built from the ground up like in Pathfinder. But 5e's races aren't setup to have an additional lineage stacked on top.
If races were reworked to function like that, it could apply to more than just the new gothic ones. Aasimar, tieflings, genasi, warforged. Could have tons of options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Third edition was by no means perfect, but Pathfinder wasn't released until about a year into 4th. A massive chunk of Pathfinder's success was due to players not wanting to switch to 4th and going with the (really well produced and supported) continuation of 3rd instead, not 3rd ed blunders.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Right, and most of the traction pathfinder gained was in the prelude to 5th when 4th was announced as being "Done". When 5th officially dropped after the DND Next playtest, it trounced Pathfinder.
My point was that 3E's flaws didn't lead to losing players to Pathfinder, 3E's success did.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I really wonder what kind of schism this radical move towards wokeness will cause in the D&D player base, and ultimately future sales. It comes down to numbers for me:
1. How large is the current player base?
2. How big is the untapped player base aka all these woke high school and university age kids that have never considered playing D&D, or were turned off by its inherent science over feelings theme (yes, that is there no matter how many say otherwise)?
3. How much of the current player base will be totally outraged by this massive shift in the theme of D&D, and will quit playing?
If the untapped market is large enough and can be captured and that portion is bigger than #3, then yes, the shift will be successful. But questions 2 and 3 are unanswered. The market will decide. Not a very vocal few on a website, or a tiny bunch of decision-makers of the same ideological bent inside WOTC.
Bottom line, decision-makers for games like Grand Theft Auto will not be having this conversation.
It is also important to keep in mind that the number of people that comment on these forums is extremely small and in no way a good metric for the opinions of the D&D fan base as a whole. The DNDBeyond team would have a much clearer picture than us just off of sales data and possibly character creation data as to the popularity of Tasha's, but it is very unlikely that information would be shared with us.
I remember the switch from 1e to 2nd and many of the players I knew then grumbled and complained, but moved on to 2nd edition. Same with the change from 2nd to 3rd. When it came to 4e, Pathfinder was there to catch the player base that didn't want to switch. Without another company making a 5e equivalent I am sure that more people would eventually move to 5.5 or 6 than would stay behind. Of course it would also depend on what popular streamers do as well.
Long story short, we will have to wait and see.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
What? D&D has never been remotely close to to scientifically accurate.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The ultimate irony is that this kind of divisive, hyperbolic, alarmist attitude is even more trendy in these modern times than any "wokeness" movement.
It's a slight change to character creation that absolutely does not prevent the "traditional" options and is far more realistic for any campaign where every race doesn't live in a rigid ethnostate. It's just not different enough on its own to justify a new edition and nothing else jumps out as a clear driver for an overhaul of the game.
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
Are we talking about ASIs only, or also the whole culture thing? Because if the latter, that seems potentially fairly significant.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Tasha's rules were supposed to be a "slight change", and "optional"...until there weren't. Read that greyed section in the newest UA. That spells out explicitly that the classic rules are no longer considered canon and the new stuff is mandatory.
Maybe you should read that text? What it explicitly spells out is that any future races released will follow the rules. Not that past races cannot be used, or that the old rules are no longer canon.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Ummm...no, that is not what it says. It says: "Following in that book’s footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage."
That means that ALL races in ALL future publications are impacted by this new stuff.
Operative word future. It does not say that you can't build a character using the old rules, or that any old character is invalid.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
You are now moving the goalposts. When the next reprint (not officially an edition) is available from the printers, are you seriously going to say that WOTC is going to say in that PHB: "oh, just like Flanking, these classic rules of char creation are fully optional"?
Nice try. Because this new format extends so far into backgrounds and feats that many new builds will be broken using the old feats and backgrounds, and conversely, many old builds will be incompatible with new feats and backgrounds. There is zero chance WOTC will support both.
It does nothing of the sort. The UA in question says nothing at all about feats, backgrounds, skills, etc. It's just a new framework for building new lineages. One that hasn't even been fully described yet (obvious, given that it's essentially in playtest).
I'm not moving the goalposts. My initial goal was to prove that the old rules are still usable. I believe I proved that.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
This is also incorrect. This doesn't mean anything for backgrounds, and only effects racial feats. The new feats (in Tasha's I presume?) don't have any effect on race, and aren't any different than if you used the old system.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I have the feeling that they need a way to allow players the ability to use the old races with these new lineages. Like if you create a character that is a goliath you get the large frame and resistance to cold, then you pick your lineage that grants your ASI's/skills/whatnot.
Honestly if there was a PH2, in addition to fixing up some old classes/subclasses with more variant rules, I'd like to see a few new classes make it in.
It's happened in the PH2s for prior editions so I'd like to see a repeat of it here, but just to a lesser extent.
I would also like that, but it could be difficult to do. The Damphir in particular has tons of beneficial features, and stacking those atop a standard race might be too powerful.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Yep it would be great if that was the case, and would work if it's built from the ground up like in Pathfinder. But 5e's races aren't setup to have an additional lineage stacked on top.
If races were reworked to function like that, it could apply to more than just the new gothic ones. Aasimar, tieflings, genasi, warforged. Could have tons of options.