And look at what they did, even with Tasha: just a few options. Again, coupled with the facts that the ranger was still a very popular class before that and had as many guides as the others, and added to the fact that it's only one component of a huge game, I hardly think that this qualifies the overall game as "broken and needing fixing".
I don't really see anyone claiming the overall game is broken and needs to be fixed. I see quite few people who are dissatisfied with specific, usually fairly small, things they want improved, but that's not the same thing. I see Tasha's being touted as D&D 5.5 - that's hardly a rewrite of the PHB, or even of the fundamentals of the game.
And this is why I showed you the page on this site, the aesthetics have not officially changed one bit, you just have options if you are concerned about specific topics.
As an aside, the floating racial bonuses have been implemented in the character generator. I'd say that means the aesthetics have been changed.
As an option, exactly like rolling using a standard array or a 27-points buy. And there are so many options on this game, ever since the publication of 5e that to harp specifically on this one is actually a bit sad.
What now, options don't count? That seems odd, since they're official rules that have presumably been playtested and then deliberately released as part of the general ruleset. All of which is technically optional anyway.
And the reason this one gets brought up more than others is that WotC have announced they'll be proceeding with it as standard practice from now on.
No, it gets brought up more than others for two reasons, and two reasons only, one because it's "in the air these days" to be seen to be politically correct about these kind of subjects (although it's absurd for fantasy species and even more because it does not even begin to touch the problem of fantasy species and racism as this applies only to PCs and not their races), and the other one because powergamers have jumped on the thing like flies on you know what. Nothing more. But not one ounce of change on the races themselves, which are totally untouched and stay the official core.
Most of the people bringing it up, myself included, are not in favour of floating ability bonuses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Generally I agree that 5e as a whole does not need a "fix" but I certainly think elements of it needed it.
Ranger features were pretty underwhelming to the majority of engaged players for 5e (hence the survey results) and they were the only class to receive such an elaborate overhaul in their "options".
In fact most other class features were additions rather than alternative features. I hope we get data on how many people use the Tasha's "options" for ranger vs the PHB version. I know that wont be the greatest measurement of engagement simply because not everyone who uses DnD Beyond has all the books.
I suspect the new "options" will likely increase ranger's foothold in the total percentages but only time will tell.
And look at what they did, even with Tasha: just a few options. Again, coupled with the facts that the ranger was still a very popular class before that and had as many guides as the others, and added to the fact that it's only one component of a huge game, I hardly think that this qualifies the overall game as "broken and needing fixing".
I don't really see anyone claiming the overall game is broken and needs to be fixed. I see quite few people who are dissatisfied with specific, usually fairly small, things they want improved, but that's not the same thing. I see Tasha's being touted as D&D 5.5 - that's hardly a rewrite of the PHB, or even of the fundamentals of the game.
There are a lot of ideas put forth in the past 10 hours, but I will respond to this one: Yes or no, will the next reprint of the PHB contain the both the classic 5e format of creating chars and the radically different format found in the abomination that shall not be named? If the answer is no, then it is indeed a fundamental shift in the game to a new edition.
And look at what they did, even with Tasha: just a few options. Again, coupled with the facts that the ranger was still a very popular class before that and had as many guides as the others, and added to the fact that it's only one component of a huge game, I hardly think that this qualifies the overall game as "broken and needing fixing".
I don't really see anyone claiming the overall game is broken and needs to be fixed.
Well, maybe we just don't have the same perception, but again when I see threads with titles like "How to "Fix" D&D 5e", I don't think I'm far off the mark. And again, nothing wrong about people wanting to make their own game and advertise it, just that a bit of respect and humility might be in order.
I see quite few people who are dissatisfied with specific, usually fairly small, things they want improved, but that's not the same thing.
And I completely agree with this, I have never claimed the game is perfect. I, for one, do not like the way magic is treated "offhandedly" by the SAC, but the problem is that improving this would mean tagging all effects in the classes and monsters with something akin to the old Extraordinary/Supernatural/Spell-like classification, which is a general overlay and hard to do. Same with the fact that you can't ready actions out of combat, which we have had to houserule because when you play a mostly social/exploration game, it's a bit discouraging that anticipating and preparing for fight does not in the end give you anything RAW.
So we have improvements for our table because the game wisely allows this, but as we globally play within the design intent (collaborative game with friends to tell stories, fast and streamlined system, etc.), we really don't need much.
I see Tasha's being touted as D&D 5.5 - that's hardly a rewrite of the PHB, or even of the fundamentals of the game.
None of the core mechanics have changed, just a few options here and there. People who say it is 5.5 have clearly no idea what they are talking about.
No, it gets brought up more than others for two reasons, and two reasons only, one because it's "in the air these days" to be seen to be politically correct about these kind of subjects (although it's absurd for fantasy species and even more because it does not even begin to touch the problem of fantasy species and racism as this applies only to PCs and not their races), and the other one because powergamers have jumped on the thing like flies on you know what. Nothing more. But not one ounce of change on the races themselves, which are totally untouched and stay the official core.
Most of the people bringing it up, myself included, are not in favour of floating ability bonuses.
Cool then, but if you listen to some people who want to surf on the above wave, it's a fundamental change of the system and D&D has been changed forever, and all of that is official, despite the fact that every UA including that one starts with "They aren’t officially part of the game". It's a bit sad actually.
Lyxen, to your last comment. These fundamental changes ARE now official, thanks to that grey box in the new UA. It was a stealth, cowardly move by WOTC, but is is in black and white, or black and grey. I will quote the key parts:
"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."
"Finally, going forward, the term “race” in D&D refers only to the suite of game features used by player characters."
WOTC does not have the guts to come out with a broad announcement and say "we are caving to the woke minority", but that is precisely what happened.This is indeed the most fundamental shift possible in the game, as the character is the nucleus of the atom of the molecule of the whole of the game. It is a power-gamer's fantasy, just like rolling 4d6 is. Not all power-gamers are woke, but there is no doubt that all power-gamers will abuse these changes, just like they abuse rolling 4d6.
There are a lot of ideas put forth in the past 10 hours, but I will respond to this one: Yes or no, will the next reprint of the PHB contain the both the classic 5e format of creating chars and the radically different format found in the abomination that shall not be named? If the answer is no, then it is indeed a fundamental shift in the game to a new edition.
I think you are almost guaranteed to see the concept of races with fixed features as being a thing of the past, the next edition of D&D, if history of D&D is any indication, this will be the new method of handling races in the next edition. In fact I would predict that they will take it even further and say that races will be removed from the game almost entirely as a mechanical construct. In the next edition "race" will be a fluff piece where you can be any race you want with character creation unchanged as a result. The race of the character will not be a mechanical thing, but merely a fluff thing and they will do the same thing with backgrounds and skills where your background is a fluff piece and skills will have no relation to class, you will simply pick the skills you want during character with no connection to any other choices you have made.
Generally I agree that 5e as a whole does not need a "fix" but I certainly think elements of it needed it.
No one disagrees with you. This mantra that we must stop people from claiming 5e is broken is an imagined thing, its just a strawmen exercise. Wherever discussions take place about how to fix D&D 5e take place it is always specific to some key mechanics, classes or whatever. Again you kind of have to read between the lines, because many of the complaints about people "demanding the whole game be changed" are an exaggeration as no one is actually doing that all part of an attempt to force the idea that the game is perfect and anyone who changes it should be made to feel stupid. Its classic old school gatekeeping, but in a new politically correct environment. Its a very subtle, very clever manipulation argument guys like Lyxen are making but its an unfortunate aspect of the D&D community that there are always going to be gatekeepers who try to force their vision of the game to your table which is what this is all about. His basic argument is that the game is perfect, if you change it, you are are welcome to of course as long as we acknowledge that what you are doing is unnecessary and ruins the game. They want an admission and validation that their way of playing is the right way. Classic edition goal tending.
D&D 5e is not broken, none of the editions are broken, but they all have their flaws including 5e that require attention and the discussions about how to fix those elements are as legitimate as they have always been. This is an objective fact, not an opinion.
And I will continue to "gate-keep" and "force my vision of the game" at my table. The abomination that shall not be named is not used at my table, and when the re-printed PHB comes out, new players will be in for a surprise when I hand them my hard copy and say, "This is what you will use when playing at my table." They can be considered "House Rules", just like no one rolls 4d6.
I play rangers and sorcerers in 5E because I like playing rangers and sorcerers. That doesn't mean I think these classes are designed well. They're not, IMO. I probably wouldn't play them if I thought they were terrible - I don't - but my playing them should definitely not be construed as an endorsement. They are (and were from the release of 5E) not good, but not so bad as to be unacceptable either. What gets played is not an absolute indicator of quality.
Generally I agree that 5e as a whole does not need a "fix" but I certainly think elements of it needed it.
The fact is that, despite the fact that we have at least had one ranger in absolutely every campaign that we have run under 5e and in our three current campaign, we have one ranger in each, and actually Avernus has two (although one has 3 levels of rogue in the mix), it's been one of the most played classes in our groups, without needing any game-wide fix.
This is why I don't think 5e needs any game-wide fixes. It's either local things to each table (which the game absolutely caters for) or global changes requested by people who do not understand or like the game design which is unrealistic high fantasy. If you want to run a gritty game, 5e in particular but in reality all versions of D&D are really poor simulators, I completely agree with this. But it's not a fix that is needed here, globally.
Ranger features were pretty underwhelming to the majority of engaged players for 5e (hence the survey results) and they were the only class to receive such an elaborate overhaul in their "options".
I honestly have not looked in detail, but I did not find that the changes were that overwhelming compared to, for example, the fighter, the cleric, the monk or the sorcerer.
In fact most other class features were additions rather than alternative features.
I really got the impression that they were replacement as for the other classes.
I hope we get data on how many people use the Tasha's "options" for ranger vs the PHB version. I know that wont be the greatest measurement of engagement simply because not everyone who uses DnD Beyond has all the books.
I suspect the new "options" will likely increase ranger's foothold in the total percentages but only time will tell.
We shall see, but the usage of rangers in our groups is already very high, see above.
1. Sure for you and your group it may be "popular" but you do not represent the majority of players of the edition. They spoke a while back and decided that the ranger features were the worst in the game. They made options for you to replace them after several attempts at it.
2. They were indeed overwhelming as they replaced all features from 1st level to 10th level completely. That is generally an "overhaul" of the class in total as 90% of games only last to 10th level.
3. No the additions made to monks, fighters, etc... were that....additions. They do not replace any core features like the ranger "options" do. The ranger variants completely replace several core features of the class.
I play rangers and sorcerers in 5E because I like playing rangers and sorcerers. That doesn't mean I think these classes are designed well. They're not, IMO. I probably wouldn't play them if I thought they were terrible - I don't - but my playing them should definitely not be construed as an endorsement. They are (and were from the release of 5E) not good, but not so bad as to be unacceptable either. What gets played is not an absolute indicator of quality.
This is a fair point. Druid from my own example proves this. It is a very enjoyable and mostly (moon druid aside) well designed class. (I love moon druid and its crazy brokenness in T1 btw)
Also anecdotal information when it comes to system wide changes is not a great indicator of overall satisfaction. Vince and company may not like the new books but WotC obviously has their marketing information telling them that players do indeed like it...and they are the ones buying books.
Lyxen saying we do not need "fixes" is also going to fall on deaf ears for WotC because selling books is a goldmine for them apparently.
"I can say purely from a tabletop space, one of the things we found was that the ranger character class, in tabletop players really felt the first couple of levels, they weren’t really making choices that they felt were having a real impact on gameplay... One of the things we learned is that we had some assumptions about how exploration would play out in the game back when we were developing 5th edition—we thought, “Oh, we’ll give the rangers some of these toys to play with because exploration is part of the game.” And we’ve just found that either a lot of DMs don’t use a lot of the sub-systems that those spoke to, or they weren’t really coming up on a level of play at the table that was actually impactful to the narrative.
The ranger, for instance: Oh, I’m gonna pick desert as my favored terrain. We can’t get lost in the desert. Which sounds great—I wouldn’t want to get lost in the desert. But when you’re playing a tabletop role-playing game, it basically means, “OK, you’ve crossed the desert, you’re done.” It’s not really giving the ranger a chance to shine. So we’re looking at maybe play-testing this summer some new options that complement what’s there without overriding it. One of the hard things about working in tabletop is you can’t patch a physical book—unless you’re willing to break into everyone’s house and paste in new things."
This is in 2018. He is speaking about the desire of the players of this edition for alternative features as a high percentage of players complain about it.
Read the entire first page but this part in particular:
"In this case, we felt that a few factors combined to push for a change. Many players want to play rangers, but few were happy with the class, which held its place at the bottom of class power rankings by a significant margin. The class’s individual features also filled the top-ten list of lowest-rated individual character features."
So yes...a lot of people did not like how ranger worked with the system and they have been working for a long time with a lot of feedback on how to make it better.
Also anecdotal information when it comes to system wide changes is not a great indicator of overall satisfaction. Vince and company may not like the new books but WotC obviously has their marketing information telling them that players do indeed like it...and they are the ones buying books.
Lyxen saying we do not need "fixes" is also going to fall on deaf ears for WotC because selling books is a goldmine for them apparently.
Of course it is, but still see how few of them they are ?
So likely this trend will continue as they increase the amount of content they produce for the edition.
Content is not the same thing as rules, and even that does not mean rule change. There have been absolutely zero core rule changes since publication, few options added, and more importantly, what is coming out in 2021 are settings book, which is not the same thing at all. I absolutely welcome settings book.
Tashas had a lot of rules changes (optional but still changes) and Xanathars had a LOT of rules changes albeit minor ones (Falling, Sleeping, Material components and spells).
So you are just not correct in that at all.....
And they haven't announced all the books for 2021 and certainly haven't discussed 2022 so I am eager to hear how you are certain we won't see more Xanthars and Tasha's in the next few years?
I agree with you...the last time anything related to the OP was mentioned was at least 2 pages ago. Maybe its time to return to the original topic, or let this thread die.
I agree with you...the last time anything related to the OP was mentioned was at least 2 pages ago. Maybe its time to return to the original topic, or let this thread die.
It is typical with any controversial thread. I have made my point about power-gamers not accepting 4d6 rolls until the dice gods smile on them. I know I am right, with decades of experience. Then there are some that try to defend an indefensible position.And ultimately, we see the positions that are flavoured by real life intrude into the conversation, much has real life has intruded into this fantasy game, trying to destroy its soul. Just wait until I craft my next thead, which I have been holding off on. This thread will be locked, soon enough.
" To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus"
Before it was unclear at best what a material component did for spellcasting....can you hide the component? If it is a staff and I use sutble spell will the person I am casting on notice?
This changed how Subtle Spell worked in a MAJOR way as now if you have a material component for a spell it is now 100% clear that is is noticeable.
Sleeping in Armor:
Sleeping in light armor has no adverse effect on the wearer, but sleeping in medium or heavy armor makes it difficult to recover fully during a long rest.
When you finish a long rest during which you slept in medium or heavy armor, you regain only one quarter of your spent Hit Dice (minimum of one die). If you have any levels of exhaustion, the rest doesn’t reduce your exhaustion level.
This changed from before as sleeping armor was not addressed and paladins could sleep in plate with no effects. Now a paladin must choose between the penalties above or potentially be awoken without their armor in dangerous situations.
Falling and Flying creatures
Before it was not clear what happened if a flying creature had its speed reduced to 0 or if was knocked prone (as if by the Tripping attack from a battlemaster).
This affects not only flying creatures but flying PCs as well in a major way....you are now going to fall if an effect knocks you prone while airborne.
I mean these have big impacts on builds and play styles. They are clarifying or adding to core rules.
I hate giving this thread further oxygen, but the word y'all are looking for is "expansion." Xanathar's and Tasha's and whatever else have made rules expansions. And they did so because the publisher saw a market desire for them. They made money off of them.
I hate giving this thread further oxygen, but the word y'all are looking for is "expansion." Xanathar's and Tasha's and whatever else have made rules expansions. And they did so because the publisher saw a market desire for them. They made money off of them.
Ill concede to that....it's more of an expansion of rules than full on replacements but they did have several rule "expansions" that did change play for a lot of builds.
I hate giving this thread further oxygen, but the word y'all are looking for is "expansion." Xanathar's and Tasha's and whatever else have made rules expansions. And they did so because the publisher saw a market desire for them. They made money off of them.
XGTE was an expansion, as it added a ton of stuff, and clarified a number of other issues (someone mentioned Falling). The abomination that shall not be named was part expansion, (new spells, new subclasses). That part was OK. Some of that stuff might even find its way to my table (sorry Twilight Cleric, not you). But then it took a hard left turn and entire sections were dedicated to rewriting core rules. That is not expansion, but a new edition, replacing established game mechanics.
Adding a GPS system to my car is an expansion. Moving the steering wheel to the other side of the car is not an expansion.
" To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus"
Before it was unclear at best what a material component did for spellcasting....can you hide the component? If it is a staff and I use sutble spell will the person I am casting on notice?
This changed how Subtle Spell worked in a MAJOR way as now if you have a material component for a spell it is now 100% clear that is is noticeable.
It was not a change at all. What did change ? It was absolutely obvious from the PH which states : "Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures." and "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
So it was obviously visible, where exactly is the change ? And with a name like "subtle spell", it was obvious what the feat did. So it was at best a precision, but it changed absolutely nothing.
Sleeping in Armor:
Sleeping in light armor has no adverse effect on the wearer, but sleeping in medium or heavy armor makes it difficult to recover fully during a long rest.
When you finish a long rest during which you slept in medium or heavy armor, you regain only one quarter of your spent Hit Dice (minimum of one die). If you have any levels of exhaustion, the rest doesn’t reduce your exhaustion level.
This changed from before as sleeping armor was not addressed and paladins could sleep in plate with no effects. Now a paladin must choose between the penalties above or potentially be awoken without their armor in dangerous situations.
And you call this a rule change ? Especially when the section starts with "The chapter opens with optional rules".
Falling and Flying creatures
Before it was not clear what happened if a flying creature had its speed reduced to 0 or if was knocked prone (as if by the Tripping attack from a battlemaster).
This affects not only flying creatures but flying PCs as well in a major way....you are now going to fall if an effect knocks you prone while airborne.
I mean these have big impacts on builds and play styles. They are clarifying or adding to core rules.
Yes, clarification and optional additions (remember that the section begins with "The chapter opens with optional rules"), no core rule changes.
They clarify core rules but we are splitting hairs.
They yes your focus is out.... But do they notice you are casting a spell without the V/S components? Not idea and was DM fiat.
Now we know the intent was that the focus alone makes it very clear you are casting a spell. This means that subtle spell will not work for any spell with M components.
This was absolutely not clear before this book and it's highlighted in the book for that very reason.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't really see anyone claiming the overall game is broken and needs to be fixed. I see quite few people who are dissatisfied with specific, usually fairly small, things they want improved, but that's not the same thing. I see Tasha's being touted as D&D 5.5 - that's hardly a rewrite of the PHB, or even of the fundamentals of the game.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Most of the people bringing it up, myself included, are not in favour of floating ability bonuses.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Generally I agree that 5e as a whole does not need a "fix" but I certainly think elements of it needed it.
Ranger features were pretty underwhelming to the majority of engaged players for 5e (hence the survey results) and they were the only class to receive such an elaborate overhaul in their "options".
In fact most other class features were additions rather than alternative features. I hope we get data on how many people use the Tasha's "options" for ranger vs the PHB version. I know that wont be the greatest measurement of engagement simply because not everyone who uses DnD Beyond has all the books.
I suspect the new "options" will likely increase ranger's foothold in the total percentages but only time will tell.
There are a lot of ideas put forth in the past 10 hours, but I will respond to this one: Yes or no, will the next reprint of the PHB contain the both the classic 5e format of creating chars and the radically different format found in the abomination that shall not be named? If the answer is no, then it is indeed a fundamental shift in the game to a new edition.
Lyxen, to your last comment. These fundamental changes ARE now official, thanks to that grey box in the new UA. It was a stealth, cowardly move by WOTC, but is is in black and white, or black and grey. I will quote the key parts:
"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."
"Finally, going forward, the term “race” in D&D refers only to the suite of game features used by player characters."
WOTC does not have the guts to come out with a broad announcement and say "we are caving to the woke minority", but that is precisely what happened.This is indeed the most fundamental shift possible in the game, as the character is the nucleus of the atom of the molecule of the whole of the game. It is a power-gamer's fantasy, just like rolling 4d6 is. Not all power-gamers are woke, but there is no doubt that all power-gamers will abuse these changes, just like they abuse rolling 4d6.
And I will continue to "gate-keep" and "force my vision of the game" at my table. The abomination that shall not be named is not used at my table, and when the re-printed PHB comes out, new players will be in for a surprise when I hand them my hard copy and say, "This is what you will use when playing at my table." They can be considered "House Rules", just like no one rolls 4d6.
I play rangers and sorcerers in 5E because I like playing rangers and sorcerers. That doesn't mean I think these classes are designed well. They're not, IMO. I probably wouldn't play them if I thought they were terrible - I don't - but my playing them should definitely not be construed as an endorsement. They are (and were from the release of 5E) not good, but not so bad as to be unacceptable either. What gets played is not an absolute indicator of quality.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1. Sure for you and your group it may be "popular" but you do not represent the majority of players of the edition. They spoke a while back and decided that the ranger features were the worst in the game. They made options for you to replace them after several attempts at it.
2. They were indeed overwhelming as they replaced all features from 1st level to 10th level completely. That is generally an "overhaul" of the class in total as 90% of games only last to 10th level.
3. No the additions made to monks, fighters, etc... were that....additions. They do not replace any core features like the ranger "options" do. The ranger variants completely replace several core features of the class.
This is a fair point. Druid from my own example proves this. It is a very enjoyable and mostly (moon druid aside) well designed class. (I love moon druid and its crazy brokenness in T1 btw)
Also anecdotal information when it comes to system wide changes is not a great indicator of overall satisfaction. Vince and company may not like the new books but WotC obviously has their marketing information telling them that players do indeed like it...and they are the ones buying books.
Lyxen saying we do not need "fixes" is also going to fall on deaf ears for WotC because selling books is a goldmine for them apparently.
In fact they have stated they are going to up production of books: https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-more-product-releases-2021/
So likely this trend will continue as they increase the amount of content they produce for the edition.
Quote from Mearls:
"I can say purely from a tabletop space, one of the things we found was that the ranger character class, in tabletop players really felt the first couple of levels, they weren’t really making choices that they felt were having a real impact on gameplay... One of the things we learned is that we had some assumptions about how exploration would play out in the game back when we were developing 5th edition—we thought, “Oh, we’ll give the rangers some of these toys to play with because exploration is part of the game.” And we’ve just found that either a lot of DMs don’t use a lot of the sub-systems that those spoke to, or they weren’t really coming up on a level of play at the table that was actually impactful to the narrative.
The ranger, for instance: Oh, I’m gonna pick desert as my favored terrain. We can’t get lost in the desert. Which sounds great—I wouldn’t want to get lost in the desert. But when you’re playing a tabletop role-playing game, it basically means, “OK, you’ve crossed the desert, you’re done.” It’s not really giving the ranger a chance to shine. So we’re looking at maybe play-testing this summer some new options that complement what’s there without overriding it. One of the hard things about working in tabletop is you can’t patch a physical book—unless you’re willing to break into everyone’s house and paste in new things."
This is in 2018. He is speaking about the desire of the players of this edition for alternative features as a high percentage of players complain about it.
And in the Revised Ranger:
https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/UA_RevisedRanger.pdf
Read the entire first page but this part in particular:
"In this case, we felt that a few factors combined to push for a change. Many players want to play rangers, but few were happy with the class, which held its place at the bottom of class power rankings by a significant margin. The class’s individual features also filled the top-ten list of lowest-rated individual character features."
So yes...a lot of people did not like how ranger worked with the system and they have been working for a long time with a lot of feedback on how to make it better.
I resemble this remark!
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Tashas had a lot of rules changes (optional but still changes) and Xanathars had a LOT of rules changes albeit minor ones (Falling, Sleeping, Material components and spells).
So you are just not correct in that at all.....
And they haven't announced all the books for 2021 and certainly haven't discussed 2022 so I am eager to hear how you are certain we won't see more Xanthars and Tasha's in the next few years?
I agree with you...the last time anything related to the OP was mentioned was at least 2 pages ago. Maybe its time to return to the original topic, or let this thread die.
It is typical with any controversial thread. I have made my point about power-gamers not accepting 4d6 rolls until the dice gods smile on them. I know I am right, with decades of experience. Then there are some that try to defend an indefensible position.And ultimately, we see the positions that are flavoured by real life intrude into the conversation, much has real life has intruded into this fantasy game, trying to destroy its soul. Just wait until I craft my next thead, which I have been holding off on. This thread will be locked, soon enough.
Material Components and Casting Subtle Spell
" To be perceptible, the casting of a spell must involve a verbal, somatic, or material component. The form of a material component doesn’t matter for the purposes of perception, whether it’s an object specified in the spell’s description, a component pouch, or a spellcasting focus"
Before it was unclear at best what a material component did for spellcasting....can you hide the component? If it is a staff and I use sutble spell will the person I am casting on notice?
This changed how Subtle Spell worked in a MAJOR way as now if you have a material component for a spell it is now 100% clear that is is noticeable.
Sleeping in Armor:
Sleeping in light armor has no adverse effect on the wearer, but sleeping in medium or heavy armor makes it difficult to recover fully during a long rest.
When you finish a long rest during which you slept in medium or heavy armor, you regain only one quarter of your spent Hit Dice (minimum of one die). If you have any levels of exhaustion, the rest doesn’t reduce your exhaustion level.
This changed from before as sleeping armor was not addressed and paladins could sleep in plate with no effects. Now a paladin must choose between the penalties above or potentially be awoken without their armor in dangerous situations.
Falling and Flying creatures
Before it was not clear what happened if a flying creature had its speed reduced to 0 or if was knocked prone (as if by the Tripping attack from a battlemaster).
This affects not only flying creatures but flying PCs as well in a major way....you are now going to fall if an effect knocks you prone while airborne.
I mean these have big impacts on builds and play styles. They are clarifying or adding to core rules.
I hate giving this thread further oxygen, but the word y'all are looking for is "expansion." Xanathar's and Tasha's and whatever else have made rules expansions. And they did so because the publisher saw a market desire for them. They made money off of them.
Ill concede to that....it's more of an expansion of rules than full on replacements but they did have several rule "expansions" that did change play for a lot of builds.
XGTE was an expansion, as it added a ton of stuff, and clarified a number of other issues (someone mentioned Falling). The abomination that shall not be named was part expansion, (new spells, new subclasses). That part was OK. Some of that stuff might even find its way to my table (sorry Twilight Cleric, not you). But then it took a hard left turn and entire sections were dedicated to rewriting core rules. That is not expansion, but a new edition, replacing established game mechanics.
Adding a GPS system to my car is an expansion. Moving the steering wheel to the other side of the car is not an expansion.
They clarify core rules but we are splitting hairs.
Visible =/= perceived as part of spell casting.
They yes your focus is out.... But do they notice you are casting a spell without the V/S components? Not idea and was DM fiat.
Now we know the intent was that the focus alone makes it very clear you are casting a spell. This means that subtle spell will not work for any spell with M components.
This was absolutely not clear before this book and it's highlighted in the book for that very reason.