Keep in mind that what comes out next year is not the UA, the reality is none of us actually know what the revised PHB will have - for any class. As far as I am concerned both of you are wrong about the ranger ( both the PHB and the UA) but that is a discussion for another thread not here. I have liked the some of the UA changes (sorceror and ranger(overall) and disliked others (Druid). I will keep trying the UAs and giving my feedback and will wait and see what the revision brings before making any decisions. There are a lot of things I think should be changed but then there have always been lots of things I thought should have been done differently. Each version is really a different game but with similar features ( the devil is in the details) and each has been playable and enjoyable - yes even 4e. Hasbro/WOtC are a for profit corporation, they are not a nonprofit and expecting them to act like one is a lost cause IMO. On the other hand they don’t want to alienate the population to the point that folks leave faster than new players come in and they will always welcome ways to ncrease their revenue streams. The reality today is that you don’t need dice, don’t need figurines, don’t even need a tabletop to play the game. At least half the campaigns out there are homebrew to official worlds, even those are mostly static settings unlike FR that has always progressed through its own history so it’s got a regular flux of new lore that you need to to keep up with (welcome to the lore books revenue stream) so they are scrambling to see what they can do that the market will bare in a rapidly changing environment. They are going to ( and have) made mistakes by listening to different parts of their own teams. It happens, they reversed and changed direction based on our ( the playing/writing community) input - that’s actually a good thing.
It is still 5e, so I do not see it as switching, but I will run old and new rules at the same time, for example letting my players mix and match old and new races, classes, backgrounds, etc.
I think this is going to get really complicated. There will be two sets of rules for nearly everything. Not just classes and backgrounds and such but also basic mechanics like grappling or downtime activities. We can already see this with races - someone says "I'm a kobold," and you have to follow up with "legacy or new?" to know what they actually are.
To me its far simpler to just toss in a few houserules to 5e and call it good. I'd rather point to one customized set of rules than two opposing official sets.
Instead of seeing it as two sets of rules, I see it as one set of rules with more options. It is not complicated. The base game alone already have lots of variant sets of rules and options, and no one is confused (except maybe by alignment). Adding more is not going to change anything.
- We have literally three ways to generate characters: monster stat blocks, character sheets, and sidekicks. People loved sidekicks despite it being a whole different system. If people can love that, they can love having more options when playing with their character sheets. One reason I like being a GM is because monster stat blocks have no rules, and I like having infinite options to create the NPC I want to make. - While there are a few outliers out there who complain about the variety of elves, most people who play elves love having so many options. No one is confused with having to specify high elf, dark elf, wood elf, etc., and I have not seen anyone complain about having additional versions of Aereni and Valenar high and wood elves. Having legacy and non-legacy versions of races is not going to be a big deal, if anything it lets players pick and choose which option they prefer. - Besides Artificers, all other classes got OCFs, and each table and even player can choose whether they use it or not, and for classes that got multiple OCFs, they can pick and choose which OCFs they want to use. Having more versions of classes gives players to further fine tune their fantasy. In my ideal world, D&D would have no classes and players are able to progress however they want, but if I cannot have that, the next best thing is to offer a bunch of classes with a bunch of customization options. - Backgrounds are customizable by RAW, but it seems like lots of people are okay with just sticking with presets most of the time. - Alignment is a whole can of worms, and while some of us want it to be excised from general statblocks, we are not looking for its removal as an option from the game. Having "typically" in front of alignment in statblocks is enough of a compromise for me at least. - There are three ways to generate stats, and if people are rolling, it seems like most people add their own homebrew twist to it rather than strictly follow what is outlined in the PHB. - Feats are optional. - We have two different magic resource system: spell slots and spell points. - We have three different rest systems. - We have XP and non-XP based progression. Non-XP based progression can be further divided into session based and story based. XP based progression can be distributed like at least a dozen different ways depending on the options you choose. - We can decide whether we want to incorporate lifestyle expense, downtime activities, and/or encumberance.
Any complexity that the updated core books can add are negligible.
I voted "I might actually sit this next edition out" for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, I've been thoroughly unimpressed with One D&D as a whole. I couldn't even be bothered to fill out the surveys for the past couple of UA documents. They already have one of the most successful iterations of D&D ever with 5e, all they had to do was fine tune some of the system's shortcomings and they'd be golden; they're instead trying to reinvent the wheel and make massive and pointless changes to the system that only make it more complicated then it really needs to be. With how convoluted and all over the place the "updated" rules are, it's only become more and more clear to me that the current design team has no idea what they're doing with this game. All things considered, my group has no interest in switching over to One D&D, and we'll probably just keep playing 5e for the time being.
Secondly, I no longer trust WotC as a company after all the blunders its brought us the past couple of years. I've been very disappointed with the past few 5e books I've purchased from them, as they contain half-baked ideas at best and downright nonsense at worst. Add in the OGL debacle and how they sent hired goons after a longtime Magic the Gathering fan over a mistake WotC themselves made and I simply cannot in good faith continue to support WotC anymore. If anything, all of these things have led me to look towards other game systems made by companies that actually respect their customers, such as Old School Essentials and Savage Worlds.
^^^^^ This.
I think 5e is a fairly good system, and intend to keep playing it for as long as I have people wanting to play it with me. The changes in One D&D that I've seen to this point haven't been enough to persuade me it's "better." That said, *especially* after the two fiascos this year, I still have zero interest in supporting WotC any further. Negative interest, actually. At the very least they will never get another dime from me directly. Ever.
Their corporate behavior and mindset is by far my bigger concern over the quality of the product; even if I thought One D&D was good, I wouldn't be moving toward using it. And apparently the people who hire Pinkertons and are incapable of just being straightforward and direct with the community also like to play fast-and-lose with considering a new system to not be a new edition. Who'd have thought? (I've seen the intended changes from some of the One D&D previews. It's close to 5e, but the differences are enough that IMO it's fairly deceptive to NOT just call it a new edition.)
Sooo..... yeah. DEFINITELY "sitting this next edition out."
What we are saying is that changing those options and changing the basic rules is bad and basically creates a new version.
Options does not mean basic rules change. And none of those options change the basic written rules.
And what are those new options? People keep talking about new rules as if you cannot mix and match with the old, like it is an either/or type of thing when it is not. In fact, you can often run multiple rules at the SAME time. Just because they are new does not mean you have to use them. Hell, I am pretty sure there is a table out there with one player running around with the original orc with a negative Int penalty while another player uses the newest version of the orc.
There is literally nothing stopping one player from using heroic rest while another player uses gritty realism rest in the same campaign in the same session. Many options that people think of that applies to everyone in the party can actually be applied individually. Just as not every player has to keep track of encumberance, not every player has to use critical failures either in the UA.
I do not think anyone can name any rule (Legacy, current, UA, or otherwise) that you cannot run multiple variants of it at the same time. It could potentially be a hassle, sure, but it is not impossible. And honestly, the hassle can even be offloaded to the players. Just because a player likes to keep track of encumberance and lifestyle expense does not mean the GM has to keep track of it with them either. If a player likes to use critical failure, they can choose to give themselves a penalty when they role a 1.
It seems that it is a new set of rules replacing an old set of rules more than 2 sets coexisting.
If that is not the case then why the legacy tag for the old?
I do not see it as replacement. Yes, the UA tells you to replace whatever rules are in the original PHB with the UA ones for feed back purposes, but if you are having fun with it rather than play testing, you do NOT have to replace anything. You can run both rules side by side at the same time if you want to.
Legacy is for rules that are no longer being supported, but that does not mean you cannot use them in conjunction with new rules.
There is literally nothing stopping one player from using heroic rest while another player uses gritty realism rest in the same campaign in the same session.
I'm bringing this thread back because I changed my mind after the last UA. Let me explain: I was of the opinion that i would switch to new edition. And not just me, but that most would switch the edition, even those who said no. However, as the latest UA has been taken steps backwards, myself and my various playgroups are starting to think there's no reason to switch. Switch to what, if it's the same edition? Why are we going to buy some books that we already have, and that the only thing that they are going to contribute is a little makeup here and there? I understand that many people complained that the new edition did not seem like it could be compatible with much of the published material. And that is why they are backing down in many aspects, because otherwise it's impossible to make it compatible. But then, if the changes are not important, why would someone who already has them buy the books?
What do you think? Has the last UA modified your position in one way or another?
At the moment, it's sit this one out. I don't like some of the changes I've seen game technically wise, like the changes to the Paladin and the Warlock. And those are the two classes I play most, so... Thanks but no, thanks.
I have to be honest, I haven't liked the vast majority of the changes that I've seen for it. I do like the changes to the Warlock, and a few other things here and there, but over-all, I don't like the direction they are taking.
Some things definitely need to be 'fixed', but they don't seem to be addressing those - like multi-classing. Multi-classing in 5e is too easy, and gives too much benefit. No one wants to play single-classed characters because multi-classed characters can inflict 3x the damage of a single-classed character (or more). Getting kind of tired of mages running around in plate armor, and everyone else casting Shield and getting sneak attack, all thanks to multi-classing. Almost everyone now takes a 2-3 level dip into something else, because the benefits of doing so greatly outweigh the drawbacks. Who cares if your highest level spell is 1 level lower than it could have been if doing so allows you to combine Weapon + hex-like ability or spell + sneak attack + smite + channel divinity once a round for several rounds (instead of having access to a single spell of one higher level).
Fighters could have been improved by giving all fighters the maneuvers of the Battlemaster in addition to whatever other choice they make at 3rd level. Instead they're adding weapon mastery which is just going to make combat even more complicated. Large battles are complicated enough now everyone (with mastery) is going to get the ability to use even more abilities to further complicate the battlefield.
I thought they learned their lesson with 4e, this isn't a video game. Combats should not be a random mix of button mashing abilities (every class doesn't need a 'power source' and magical abilities).
A few tweaks to 5e would have been better than all the changes they are putting forth - and I don't believe for a second that it's backwards compatible. Someone playing legacy content will be underpowered compared to someone using the new content within the same group.
I'll of course take a look at whatever they put forth, but I am on record with the belief that this is going to be another 4e situation (where most of those playing the game try to pretend it doesn't exist); but with DnD Beyond, I don't see how that will be possible. They will likely force the change on everyone whether we want it or not (and that will cause players to leave the game).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
(every class doesn't need a 'power source' and magical abilities)
If I have one major gripe with 5E, it's this: everyone's a spellcaster. Everyone. There are umpteen versions of the healing class. There's a real lack of flavor and "tone" to most of the classes. I get that this is both a strength and weakness of 5E: it's eminently customizable but also broadly based so as to appeal to the widest audience possible.
I've been toying with creating very low magic/no magic versions of the barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, and rogue. I think the core mechanics of 5E allow for a great deal of creativity and customization that's not reliant on giving everyone standard spellcasting abilities.
I’m personally hoping that a very large portion of the site’s paying users don’t just jump over, it might encourage WotC to be respectful in the way it treats us OG 5e users with regards to Tools and Materials. Personally feel they should just admit this is a new edition and make section of pages for it on the site.
They'll do what they always do with UA: push out some popular changes in the playtest, get feedback, and then inexplicably publish final versions that are missing the popular stuff and have added entirely new, untested stuff.
I used to have confidence that Wizards understood D&D and was on the same page as players for the most part. I don't feel that way anymore. These days it feels more like their rules are being made in a dark room, locked away from the world, by a madman, while Jeremy Crawford and the rest are just spin doctors trying to convince us that this isn't the case.
Or, in less provocative terms, I think they've lost the magic.
But even ignoring that, I don't think this feats-forward, lore-agnostic evolution is something I'm after. I get my fill of "builds" from video games and trading card games. I appreciate a pinch of it for flavor in my cooperative tabletops, but it's not the core appeal for me. Base 5e used to minimize this aspect by design, but it has broken down more and more over time, and 6e looks like it's gonna begin even further along the spectrum than where 5e is ending.
I don't think this feats-forward, lore-agnostic evolution is something I'm after. I get my fill of "builds" from video games and trading card games. I appreciate a pinch of it for flavor in my cooperative tabletops, but it's not the core appeal for me. Base 5e used to minimize this aspect by design, but it has broken down more and more over time, and 6e looks like it's gonna begin even further along the spectrum than where 5e is ending.
I understand, heck just click on my link to the other thread on my profile. But also i think another system might be your solution.
I agree. My intention is to move to an OSR game whenever I'm given the chance. Going back to core 5e doesn't really seem to be an option.
Won't switch to 6e, 1D&D, 5.5e, or whatever it's being referred to as these days. Have sadly lost all faith in Wizards as a competent IP owner and will sit it out in hopes that one day things improve. It's been a good motivation to spend more time playing other systems again, including older versions of D&D, so silver linings and all. Also concerned that use of this site as far as 5e is concerned will be adversely impacted when the new rules drop, which is a real shame as this is by far and above the best tool for character management I'm currently aware of. Hoping for the best but planning for the worst, so to speak.
They'll do what they always do with UA: push out some popular changes in the playtest, get feedback, and then inexplicably publish final versions that are missing the popular stuff and have added entirely new, untested stuff.
I used to have confidence that Wizards understood D&D and was on the same page as players for the most part. I don't feel that way anymore. These days it feels more like their rules are being made in a dark room, locked away from the world, by a madman, while Jeremy Crawford and the rest are just spin doctors trying to convince us that this isn't the case.
Or, in less provocative terms, I think they've lost the magic.
But even ignoring that, I don't think this feats-forward, lore-agnostic evolution is something I'm after. I get my fill of "builds" from video games and trading card games. I appreciate a pinch of it for flavor in my cooperative tabletops, but it's not the core appeal for me. Base 5e used to minimize this aspect by design, but it has broken down more and more over time, and 6e looks like it's gonna begin even further along the spectrum than where 5e is ending.
100 percent agree with all of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Maybe I'm going a bit off-topic, but I think they're missing the point. I understand that they are afraid that many people will avoid the new edition if it is not compatible. But what they seem to be doing now is very dangerous as well. If old and new are compatible, many potential buyers may simply argue that they don't need to buy books they already have. On the other hand, not introducing significant changes to the new edition is perhaps a short-term benefit, since you avoid being accused of "killing" the old, but it's a big problem in the long-term. Not doing a fresh start means dragging the problems that 5e already loads. And, in addition, you do not avoid the mechanical fatigue that many players already have.
I liked, with some reservations, what I had seen in the previous UAs. I would have preferred a new edition, but at least that 5.5 that they proposed seemed to extend the life of the game. But what was seen in the last UA is very hopeless. That certainly, as Jeremy Crawdford had already announced, is not a new edition. It's not a 5.5 either. It's a new Tasha in core books format, and not at all what I expected. There is no fresh start. It doesn't fix the problems in 5e, and actually aggravates some of the ones I already had. We will have to see the final publication, but right now it does not seem to justify investing in the new books. And I am afraid that it is quite possible that in the long run it will lose veteran players, who are already dragging a mechanical fatigue that the new books are not going to cure.
Not that we can be certain the results of this poll indicate how most in the community think and feel about "the upgrade" but if they do I'd say 2024 is going to be a year of catastrophic embarrassment for WOTC.
No system is perfect but I get the impression too many believe 5e ain't broke and don't need fixing. I know a lot of people who came back to the brand because of 5e who are turning their noses up at the idea of "an upgrade." The way they see it homebrewing suffices when it comes to ironing out any problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
Even if everything is backwards compatible I'm still on the fence - whilst I'm not sure I'll be picking up the new 'Core' books straight away, it may be case for me of choosing which Classes have improved and trying to get those a la carte on D&D Beyond (e.g. Fighter looks really improved, Warlock needs revision). Of course, that depends on what the final version will be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Yeah, I kinda like the Warlock the way it is but I might be willing to at least look at the new version. And solid point on being able to purchase pieces of the books (if that’s really an option).
Pretty sure piecemeal purchasing will continue with the new books, I see no reason for them to stop that. If anything, I'd expect to see more things like subclasses, spells, etc. available that don't even appear in books.
I'm also curious whether the new core classes will be released to DDB users similar to the 5e free basic rules. Folks on the fence would have that as a vehicle to try out the revisions before committing to core book or smaller purchases.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Keep in mind that what comes out next year is not the UA, the reality is none of us actually know what the revised PHB will have - for any class. As far as I am concerned both of you are wrong about the ranger ( both the PHB and the UA) but that is a discussion for another thread not here. I have liked the some of the UA changes (sorceror and ranger(overall) and disliked others (Druid). I will keep trying the UAs and giving my feedback and will wait and see what the revision brings before making any decisions. There are a lot of things I think should be changed but then there have always been lots of things I thought should have been done differently. Each version is really a different game but with similar features ( the devil is in the details) and each has been playable and enjoyable - yes even 4e. Hasbro/WOtC are a for profit corporation, they are not a nonprofit and expecting them to act like one is a lost cause IMO. On the other hand they don’t want to alienate the population to the point that folks leave faster than new players come in and they will always welcome ways to ncrease their revenue streams. The reality today is that you don’t need dice, don’t need figurines, don’t even need a tabletop to play the game. At least half the campaigns out there are homebrew to official worlds, even those are mostly static settings unlike FR that has always progressed through its own history so it’s got a regular flux of new lore that you need to to keep up with (welcome to the lore books revenue stream) so they are scrambling to see what they can do that the market will bare in a rapidly changing environment. They are going to ( and have) made mistakes by listening to different parts of their own teams. It happens, they reversed and changed direction based on our ( the playing/writing community) input - that’s actually a good thing.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Instead of seeing it as two sets of rules, I see it as one set of rules with more options. It is not complicated. The base game alone already have lots of variant sets of rules and options, and no one is confused (except maybe by alignment). Adding more is not going to change anything.
- We have literally three ways to generate characters: monster stat blocks, character sheets, and sidekicks. People loved sidekicks despite it being a whole different system. If people can love that, they can love having more options when playing with their character sheets. One reason I like being a GM is because monster stat blocks have no rules, and I like having infinite options to create the NPC I want to make.
- While there are a few outliers out there who complain about the variety of elves, most people who play elves love having so many options. No one is confused with having to specify high elf, dark elf, wood elf, etc., and I have not seen anyone complain about having additional versions of Aereni and Valenar high and wood elves. Having legacy and non-legacy versions of races is not going to be a big deal, if anything it lets players pick and choose which option they prefer.
- Besides Artificers, all other classes got OCFs, and each table and even player can choose whether they use it or not, and for classes that got multiple OCFs, they can pick and choose which OCFs they want to use. Having more versions of classes gives players to further fine tune their fantasy. In my ideal world, D&D would have no classes and players are able to progress however they want, but if I cannot have that, the next best thing is to offer a bunch of classes with a bunch of customization options.
- Backgrounds are customizable by RAW, but it seems like lots of people are okay with just sticking with presets most of the time.
- Alignment is a whole can of worms, and while some of us want it to be excised from general statblocks, we are not looking for its removal as an option from the game. Having "typically" in front of alignment in statblocks is enough of a compromise for me at least.
- There are three ways to generate stats, and if people are rolling, it seems like most people add their own homebrew twist to it rather than strictly follow what is outlined in the PHB.
- Feats are optional.
- We have two different magic resource system: spell slots and spell points.
- We have three different rest systems.
- We have XP and non-XP based progression. Non-XP based progression can be further divided into session based and story based. XP based progression can be distributed like at least a dozen different ways depending on the options you choose.
- We can decide whether we want to incorporate lifestyle expense, downtime activities, and/or encumberance.
Any complexity that the updated core books can add are negligible.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/marketplace >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
No one is saying those options are bad.
What we are saying is that changing those options and changing the basic rules is bad and basically creates a new version.
Options does not mean basic rules change. And none of those options change the basic written rules.
^^^^^
This.
I think 5e is a fairly good system, and intend to keep playing it for as long as I have people wanting to play it with me. The changes in One D&D that I've seen to this point haven't been enough to persuade me it's "better." That said, *especially* after the two fiascos this year, I still have zero interest in supporting WotC any further. Negative interest, actually. At the very least they will never get another dime from me directly. Ever.
Their corporate behavior and mindset is by far my bigger concern over the quality of the product; even if I thought One D&D was good, I wouldn't be moving toward using it. And apparently the people who hire Pinkertons and are incapable of just being straightforward and direct with the community also like to play fast-and-lose with considering a new system to not be a new edition. Who'd have thought? (I've seen the intended changes from some of the One D&D previews. It's close to 5e, but the differences are enough that IMO it's fairly deceptive to NOT just call it a new edition.)
Sooo..... yeah. DEFINITELY "sitting this next edition out."
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Nico - V. Human Swords Bard 5 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Wysp's Hidden Tower
Sterling - V. Human Bard 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic]
Finn - V. Human Hexblade Warlock 5 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Beneath the Mountain
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates)
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
And what are those new options? People keep talking about new rules as if you cannot mix and match with the old, like it is an either/or type of thing when it is not. In fact, you can often run multiple rules at the SAME time. Just because they are new does not mean you have to use them. Hell, I am pretty sure there is a table out there with one player running around with the original orc with a negative Int penalty while another player uses the newest version of the orc.
There is literally nothing stopping one player from using heroic rest while another player uses gritty realism rest in the same campaign in the same session. Many options that people think of that applies to everyone in the party can actually be applied individually. Just as not every player has to keep track of encumberance, not every player has to use critical failures either in the UA.
I do not think anyone can name any rule (Legacy, current, UA, or otherwise) that you cannot run multiple variants of it at the same time. It could potentially be a hassle, sure, but it is not impossible. And honestly, the hassle can even be offloaded to the players. Just because a player likes to keep track of encumberance and lifestyle expense does not mean the GM has to keep track of it with them either. If a player likes to use critical failure, they can choose to give themselves a penalty when they role a 1.
I do not see it as replacement. Yes, the UA tells you to replace whatever rules are in the original PHB with the UA ones for feed back purposes, but if you are having fun with it rather than play testing, you do NOT have to replace anything. You can run both rules side by side at the same time if you want to.
Legacy is for rules that are no longer being supported, but that does not mean you cannot use them in conjunction with new rules.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/marketplace >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
..........
Locke - V. Human Shadow Monk 3 / Undead Warlock 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in FOW - DMless West Marches
Nico - V. Human Swords Bard 5 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Wysp's Hidden Tower
Sterling - V. Human Bard 2 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic]
Finn - V. Human Hexblade Warlock 5 - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Beneath the Mountain
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates)
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
I'm bringing this thread back because I changed my mind after the last UA. Let me explain: I was of the opinion that i would switch to new edition. And not just me, but that most would switch the edition, even those who said no.
However, as the latest UA has been taken steps backwards, myself and my various playgroups are starting to think there's no reason to switch. Switch to what, if it's the same edition? Why are we going to buy some books that we already have, and that the only thing that they are going to contribute is a little makeup here and there?
I understand that many people complained that the new edition did not seem like it could be compatible with much of the published material. And that is why they are backing down in many aspects, because otherwise it's impossible to make it compatible. But then, if the changes are not important, why would someone who already has them buy the books?
What do you think? Has the last UA modified your position in one way or another?
At the moment, it's sit this one out. I don't like some of the changes I've seen game technically wise, like the changes to the Paladin and the Warlock. And those are the two classes I play most, so... Thanks but no, thanks.
I have to be honest, I haven't liked the vast majority of the changes that I've seen for it. I do like the changes to the Warlock, and a few other things here and there, but over-all, I don't like the direction they are taking.
Some things definitely need to be 'fixed', but they don't seem to be addressing those - like multi-classing. Multi-classing in 5e is too easy, and gives too much benefit. No one wants to play single-classed characters because multi-classed characters can inflict 3x the damage of a single-classed character (or more). Getting kind of tired of mages running around in plate armor, and everyone else casting Shield and getting sneak attack, all thanks to multi-classing. Almost everyone now takes a 2-3 level dip into something else, because the benefits of doing so greatly outweigh the drawbacks. Who cares if your highest level spell is 1 level lower than it could have been if doing so allows you to combine Weapon + hex-like ability or spell + sneak attack + smite + channel divinity once a round for several rounds (instead of having access to a single spell of one higher level).
Fighters could have been improved by giving all fighters the maneuvers of the Battlemaster in addition to whatever other choice they make at 3rd level. Instead they're adding weapon mastery which is just going to make combat even more complicated. Large battles are complicated enough now everyone (with mastery) is going to get the ability to use even more abilities to further complicate the battlefield.
I thought they learned their lesson with 4e, this isn't a video game. Combats should not be a random mix of button mashing abilities (every class doesn't need a 'power source' and magical abilities).
A few tweaks to 5e would have been better than all the changes they are putting forth - and I don't believe for a second that it's backwards compatible. Someone playing legacy content will be underpowered compared to someone using the new content within the same group.
I'll of course take a look at whatever they put forth, but I am on record with the belief that this is going to be another 4e situation (where most of those playing the game try to pretend it doesn't exist); but with DnD Beyond, I don't see how that will be possible. They will likely force the change on everyone whether we want it or not (and that will cause players to leave the game).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
If I have one major gripe with 5E, it's this: everyone's a spellcaster. Everyone. There are umpteen versions of the healing class. There's a real lack of flavor and "tone" to most of the classes. I get that this is both a strength and weakness of 5E: it's eminently customizable but also broadly based so as to appeal to the widest audience possible.
I've been toying with creating very low magic/no magic versions of the barbarian, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, and rogue. I think the core mechanics of 5E allow for a great deal of creativity and customization that's not reliant on giving everyone standard spellcasting abilities.
I’m personally hoping that a very large portion of the site’s paying users don’t just jump over, it might encourage WotC to be respectful in the way it treats us OG 5e users with regards to Tools and Materials. Personally feel they should just admit this is a new edition and make section of pages for it on the site.
They'll do what they always do with UA: push out some popular changes in the playtest, get feedback, and then inexplicably publish final versions that are missing the popular stuff and have added entirely new, untested stuff.
I used to have confidence that Wizards understood D&D and was on the same page as players for the most part. I don't feel that way anymore. These days it feels more like their rules are being made in a dark room, locked away from the world, by a madman, while Jeremy Crawford and the rest are just spin doctors trying to convince us that this isn't the case.
Or, in less provocative terms, I think they've lost the magic.
But even ignoring that, I don't think this feats-forward, lore-agnostic evolution is something I'm after. I get my fill of "builds" from video games and trading card games. I appreciate a pinch of it for flavor in my cooperative tabletops, but it's not the core appeal for me. Base 5e used to minimize this aspect by design, but it has broken down more and more over time, and 6e looks like it's gonna begin even further along the spectrum than where 5e is ending.
I agree. My intention is to move to an OSR game whenever I'm given the chance. Going back to core 5e doesn't really seem to be an option.
Won't switch to 6e, 1D&D, 5.5e, or whatever it's being referred to as these days. Have sadly lost all faith in Wizards as a competent IP owner and will sit it out in hopes that one day things improve. It's been a good motivation to spend more time playing other systems again, including older versions of D&D, so silver linings and all. Also concerned that use of this site as far as 5e is concerned will be adversely impacted when the new rules drop, which is a real shame as this is by far and above the best tool for character management I'm currently aware of. Hoping for the best but planning for the worst, so to speak.
100 percent agree with all of that.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
Maybe I'm going a bit off-topic, but I think they're missing the point. I understand that they are afraid that many people will avoid the new edition if it is not compatible. But what they seem to be doing now is very dangerous as well.
If old and new are compatible, many potential buyers may simply argue that they don't need to buy books they already have.
On the other hand, not introducing significant changes to the new edition is perhaps a short-term benefit, since you avoid being accused of "killing" the old, but it's a big problem in the long-term. Not doing a fresh start means dragging the problems that 5e already loads. And, in addition, you do not avoid the mechanical fatigue that many players already have.
I liked, with some reservations, what I had seen in the previous UAs. I would have preferred a new edition, but at least that 5.5 that they proposed seemed to extend the life of the game. But what was seen in the last UA is very hopeless. That certainly, as Jeremy Crawdford had already announced, is not a new edition. It's not a 5.5 either. It's a new Tasha in core books format, and not at all what I expected. There is no fresh start. It doesn't fix the problems in 5e, and actually aggravates some of the ones I already had. We will have to see the final publication, but right now it does not seem to justify investing in the new books. And I am afraid that it is quite possible that in the long run it will lose veteran players, who are already dragging a mechanical fatigue that the new books are not going to cure.
Not that we can be certain the results of this poll indicate how most in the community think and feel about "the upgrade" but if they do I'd say 2024 is going to be a year of catastrophic embarrassment for WOTC.
No system is perfect but I get the impression too many believe 5e ain't broke and don't need fixing. I know a lot of people who came back to the brand because of 5e who are turning their noses up at the idea of "an upgrade." The way they see it homebrewing suffices when it comes to ironing out any problems.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
Even if everything is backwards compatible I'm still on the fence - whilst I'm not sure I'll be picking up the new 'Core' books straight away, it may be case for me of choosing which Classes have improved and trying to get those a la carte on D&D Beyond (e.g. Fighter looks really improved, Warlock needs revision). Of course, that depends on what the final version will be.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Yeah, I kinda like the Warlock the way it is but I might be willing to at least look at the new version. And solid point on being able to purchase pieces of the books (if that’s really an option).
Pretty sure piecemeal purchasing will continue with the new books, I see no reason for them to stop that. If anything, I'd expect to see more things like subclasses, spells, etc. available that don't even appear in books.
I'm also curious whether the new core classes will be released to DDB users similar to the 5e free basic rules. Folks on the fence would have that as a vehicle to try out the revisions before committing to core book or smaller purchases.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.