Hello, this is a reaction and discussion post to the new Gothic Lineages Unearthed Arcana. The UA expressed that they took the approach from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in regards to character customization (Ability Scores Increases, Languages, and Proficiencies), which I am totally for but it made be think of a few questions; Tasha's has been expressed heavily as an "optional supplementation" that people can simply choose to use, ignore, or modify for their games. However, with this UA expressing their follow up using these ideas from Tasha's and then presenting 3 whole lineages for playtesting, it makes me wonder in what direction they want to go with D&D as a whole. Is Tasha's going to become a much more mandatory resource? Will players have to change or abandon races in 5E games?
I want to know what your opinions are on the new UA and what they may mean for the future of 5E. Personally, if they continue to go in this direction with "lineages" and so on, they might as well publish a "Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide 2.0" and save themselves the trouble of spending "several years" to implement anything fully into the 5E model for character creation. This would provide players a fresh start with Lineages Tasha's more flexible character creation rules, as well as WotC a chance to update or even overhaul the races of the Player's Handbook and other resources. As for the Gothic Lineages themselves, I think they are better off as Campaign-related systems for the DM and players to fiddle with, but not limited to the respective settings, similar to the Piety System of Theros. Being able to play a Dragonborn lineage with a Dhampyr curse would be awesome, but I wouldn't want anyone to have to replace all their race features just for the sake of taking the lineage. The Hexblood would be even better off with a similar idea bc you are effectively changing species, so having a Grim Hollow take on the Hexblood would be fun and imaginative, and the Reborn in my opinion doesn't need to exist when you can just be a Warforged that's flavored to have a "reborn in a construct body" backstory. One idea a friend and I came up with when filling out the Gothic Lineage survey was having theses be set as mere suggestions with some mechanical additions or replacements in the process of character creation through a series of tables, similar to how the DM's Guide has the creation of Sentient Weapons laid out for a DM, but made far more extensively to cover the features of a Dhampyr, Hexblood, or Reborn, but not limited to those. An example we thought of was a Dragonborn who was cursed as a Dhampyr and thus he could have the Vampiric Bite feature but also choose to have one of the following through a table: your breath weapon does Necrotic damage, Sunlight Sensitivity, Spider climb feature, and so on.
So the PHB 2.0 and 3.0 already exist. That's what Xanathar and Tasha are, respectively.
Look at what the PHB 2 was for 3.5. It added extra classes, extra backgrounds, but it didn't reprint the older classes. Then it gave some extra player options. Then it gave some extra DM options. Sound familiar?
We're entering the power creep portion of 5th. More stuff is released and by and large, the newer classes/options are just far more powerful than the original parts.
That being said, its your table, homebrew your character creation as you want.
It’s UA- don’t worry about the language- it’s a shortcut
Spider-no, it’s not 2.0 or 3.0-that’s not how versions work. They’re supplements, not replacements
Yeah? So all the of the PHB 2 and 3 in the past were erroneously numbered?
The 3.5 PHB was a new version of the original PHB, replacing it. The PHB 3 was an additional PHB, to be used alongside the original PHB. The "." being there or not being there makes a meaningful difference. It seems pretty clear from the OP that this thread's about replacing the PHB, not adding to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes they are supplements, not the same thing. And the language of the UA isn't necessarily a concern, not at all, I just want a little more clarification on whether the Tasha's model will be the way at looking at future D&D content and UA as a whole, despite Tasha's being an optional supplement. If so, then races and lineages need to be covered and clarified far more. Would they address this new UA as templates later on instead?
Of course another PHB is coming out. These new mechanics are so far removed from 5e that it IS a new edition. Remember, many a game allows the PHB and one other book. (Think this is AL rules). So yeah, to incorporate all this into the game, it has to be put into the PHB. That is going to create huge conflict with people that own and play by the rules in the original PHB. Only way around that is for WOTC to declare 5e is no longer viable and 6e is now out there. That is what Tasha's and the newest UA are all about.
Tasha's is basically the 3.5 "supplement" of 5e. They just choose to do it in a different manner than 3rd edition; as "optional" material instead of a clear cut. This is more like how they did it in 4th edition with their Essentials supplements. I mean, technically it is optional, because you can still use all the pre-Tasha material no problem, and its fully backwards compatible, but...
But, going forwards, you can probably expect any new material to be drawn from the changes in Tasha's. Lineages and Subclasses will be like the ones in Tasha's, and probably assume you're using the features in Tasha's as well. Maybe not directly reference the abilities, but be balanced and designed with them in mind? Probably.
I'm not sure why Lineages or whatever are divisive in the least. Pathfinder had a system like that from the beginning. For Golarion it made a lot of sense to framework it that way and have varieties of humans sprinkled around different kingdoms. If you begin 5e in the Sword Coast as your framework, there is no reason for differentiating humans that much (or other races). Now, if you include all of Toril, or heck, if you expand to just include Faerun, then sure, we need some differences between the Sword Coast, The Dalelands, Amn, Cormyr, Moonsea, The Vast, etc but also Zakhara, Kara-Tur, Maztica, Katashaka, Laerakond and Osse. If you want to go past the framework of the Forgotten Realms (where we never really talk about Abeir at all), then why not have a metric that we can use to distinguish populations of the same race? I mean, just on earth we have vast differences between the rest of y'all and us Texans... much less differentiation in any other way. It's just a logical progression to expansion... and by not making it part of the PHB to begin with, it is optional in case some groups see it as separationist or non-inclusive or whatever, but those that want to have more variety than just a basic human can go for it.
I'm not sure why Lineages or whatever are divisive in the least.
At heart, its a conflict between Lawful Netural and Chaotic Neutral forces over the future of the game. *nods nods* Choose your alignment, and prepare for war! RAWRRRR!!!!
I'm not sure why Lineages or whatever are divisive in the least.
At heart, its a conflict between Lawful Netural and Chaotic Neutral forces over the future of the game. *nods nods* Choose your alignment, and prepare for war! RAWRRRR!!!!
*cough*
j/k
Not bad!
• The individualist, progressive, innovative, varying, customizing gamers of Chaos
• The collectivist, conservative, standardizing, repetitive, traditionalist gamers of Law
Considering the way WotC has handled the growth and expansion of the game, I think it's pretty clear that they are adamant about keeping the original PHB a relevant purchase. Many of the questionable things they've done (or not done) point to prioritizing the idea that the PHB you bought in the store is not considered obsolete or changed dramatically through errata. This hasn't gone over great in the modern world of living changing online documents and video games that get patched and updated on a regular cycle.
That being said, they did make a PHB 2.0 with 4th edition when they released the Essentials line. All the content was fully compatible with the rest of 4e, but it could also stand alone. It was basically an open beta for a lot of ideas for 5th edition.
I think a lot of what we saw in Tasha's and the Gothic Lineage UA is an "Open Beta" for the next edition. I have seen a lot of people on these forums and else where say that Lineage is a good idea, but by it self feels incomplete.
Also it is weird to have half of an edition do things one way and the rest do it another. They just need to make a choice, change or don't change, don't half ass it.
Considering the way WotC has handled the growth and expansion of the game, I think it's pretty clear that they are adamant about keeping the original PHB a relevant purchase. Many of the questionable things they've done (or not done) point to prioritizing the idea that the PHB you bought in the store is not considered obsolete or changed dramatically through errata. This hasn't gone over great in the modern world of living changing online documents and video games that get patched and updated on a regular cycle.
That being said, they did make a PHB 2.0 with 4th edition when they released the Essentials line. All the content was fully compatible with the rest of 4e, but it could also stand alone. It was basically an open beta for a lot of ideas for 5th edition.
The problem with that is the char creation junk in Tasha's and the grey box in the UA both run explicitly counter to char creation in the PHB. Yeah, WOTC can say it is backwards compatible, but now a DM at a tabletop game has to have both versions of char creation available. And if the DM does not, that will lead to a lot of unhappy players who sit down at that DM's table. Now, frankly, I will enjoy crushing the spirit of some min-maxer using Tasha's rules, but I am old school DM. I pity the AL DM.
D&D 5e continues to do well economically, despite continual predictions of 6e.
I dont see a 6e any time soon.
Even when 6e comes, it would probably be more like 1e to 2e, where both sets of books remain usable.
If a significantly new edition of D&D comes, I see it more likely to be a shift to virtual reality and artificial intelligence, than a shift from one gaming engine to an other.
D&D 5e continues to do well economically, despite continual predictions of 6e.
I dont see a 6e any time soon.
Even when 6e comes, it would probably be more like 1e to 2e, where both sets of books remain usable.
If a significantly new edition of D&D comes, I see it more likely to be a shift to virtual reality and artificial intelligence, than a shift from one gaming engine to an other.
Good luck with VR and AI.....You are now talking about people playing a video game. A super-immersive video game, but still just that. And it seems the tech for that is a long long way off.
D&D 5e continues to do well economically, despite continual predictions of 6e.
I dont see a 6e any time soon.
Even when 6e comes, it would probably be more like 1e to 2e, where both sets of books remain usable.
If a significantly new edition of D&D comes, I see it more likely to be a shift to virtual reality and artificial intelligence, than a shift from one gaming engine to an other.
Good luck with VR and AI.....You are now talking about people playing a video game. A super-immersive video game, but still just that. And it seems the tech for that is a long long way off.
Yeah, but extreme AI is probably sooner than a new D&D edition.
During the 1980s, people thought it was impossible for AI to win at chess. Because it hadnt happened yet, and seemed so far away. But. Then it happened, as predicted. Moores Law is Moores Law.
Moores Law is still on track, as tightly as it ever was. What the near future computational power can do, will happen.
I agree with those predicting that the Turing Test will pass about year 2025 (plus or minus a year). It seems so far away today. But it will happen.
Heh, with extreme AI, you can tell it exactly what kind of things that you like about D&D and it will write-up the gaming engine for you. And be able to efficiently translate one gaming engine into an other, similar to translating a language, so different players can be using different versions of D&D at the same table.
Hello, this is a reaction and discussion post to the new Gothic Lineages Unearthed Arcana. The UA expressed that they took the approach from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything in regards to character customization (Ability Scores Increases, Languages, and Proficiencies), which I am totally for but it made be think of a few questions; Tasha's has been expressed heavily as an "optional supplementation" that people can simply choose to use, ignore, or modify for their games. However, with this UA expressing their follow up using these ideas from Tasha's and then presenting 3 whole lineages for playtesting, it makes me wonder in what direction they want to go with D&D as a whole. Is Tasha's going to become a much more mandatory resource? Will players have to change or abandon races in 5E games?
I want to know what your opinions are on the new UA and what they may mean for the future of 5E. Personally, if they continue to go in this direction with "lineages" and so on, they might as well publish a "Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide 2.0" and save themselves the trouble of spending "several years" to implement anything fully into the 5E model for character creation. This would provide players a fresh start with Lineages Tasha's more flexible character creation rules, as well as WotC a chance to update or even overhaul the races of the Player's Handbook and other resources. As for the Gothic Lineages themselves, I think they are better off as Campaign-related systems for the DM and players to fiddle with, but not limited to the respective settings, similar to the Piety System of Theros. Being able to play a Dragonborn lineage with a Dhampyr curse would be awesome, but I wouldn't want anyone to have to replace all their race features just for the sake of taking the lineage. The Hexblood would be even better off with a similar idea bc you are effectively changing species, so having a Grim Hollow take on the Hexblood would be fun and imaginative, and the Reborn in my opinion doesn't need to exist when you can just be a Warforged that's flavored to have a "reborn in a construct body" backstory. One idea a friend and I came up with when filling out the Gothic Lineage survey was having theses be set as mere suggestions with some mechanical additions or replacements in the process of character creation through a series of tables, similar to how the DM's Guide has the creation of Sentient Weapons laid out for a DM, but made far more extensively to cover the features of a Dhampyr, Hexblood, or Reborn, but not limited to those. An example we thought of was a Dragonborn who was cursed as a Dhampyr and thus he could have the Vampiric Bite feature but also choose to have one of the following through a table: your breath weapon does Necrotic damage, Sunlight Sensitivity, Spider climb feature, and so on.
I can't wait to hear your thoughts on it all!
So the PHB 2.0 and 3.0 already exist. That's what Xanathar and Tasha are, respectively.
Look at what the PHB 2 was for 3.5. It added extra classes, extra backgrounds, but it didn't reprint the older classes. Then it gave some extra player options. Then it gave some extra DM options. Sound familiar?
We're entering the power creep portion of 5th. More stuff is released and by and large, the newer classes/options are just far more powerful than the original parts.
That being said, its your table, homebrew your character creation as you want.
It’s UA- don’t worry about the language- it’s a shortcut
Spider-no, it’s not 2.0 or 3.0-that’s not how versions work. They’re supplements, not replacements
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Yeah? So all the of the PHB 2 and 3 in the past were erroneously numbered?
The 3.5 PHB was a new version of the original PHB, replacing it. The PHB 3 was an additional PHB, to be used alongside the original PHB. The "." being there or not being there makes a meaningful difference. It seems pretty clear from the OP that this thread's about replacing the PHB, not adding to it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes they are supplements, not the same thing. And the language of the UA isn't necessarily a concern, not at all, I just want a little more clarification on whether the Tasha's model will be the way at looking at future D&D content and UA as a whole, despite Tasha's being an optional supplement. If so, then races and lineages need to be covered and clarified far more. Would they address this new UA as templates later on instead?
Of course another PHB is coming out. These new mechanics are so far removed from 5e that it IS a new edition. Remember, many a game allows the PHB and one other book. (Think this is AL rules). So yeah, to incorporate all this into the game, it has to be put into the PHB. That is going to create huge conflict with people that own and play by the rules in the original PHB. Only way around that is for WOTC to declare 5e is no longer viable and 6e is now out there. That is what Tasha's and the newest UA are all about.
fair enough
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Tasha's is basically the 3.5 "supplement" of 5e. They just choose to do it in a different manner than 3rd edition; as "optional" material instead of a clear cut. This is more like how they did it in 4th edition with their Essentials supplements. I mean, technically it is optional, because you can still use all the pre-Tasha material no problem, and its fully backwards compatible, but...
But, going forwards, you can probably expect any new material to be drawn from the changes in Tasha's. Lineages and Subclasses will be like the ones in Tasha's, and probably assume you're using the features in Tasha's as well. Maybe not directly reference the abilities, but be balanced and designed with them in mind? Probably.
Regarding AL stuff, the AL documentation now includes the Tasha's racial modifiers stuff so that you can use it without violating the PHB+1 rule.
I'm not sure why Lineages or whatever are divisive in the least. Pathfinder had a system like that from the beginning. For Golarion it made a lot of sense to framework it that way and have varieties of humans sprinkled around different kingdoms. If you begin 5e in the Sword Coast as your framework, there is no reason for differentiating humans that much (or other races). Now, if you include all of Toril, or heck, if you expand to just include Faerun, then sure, we need some differences between the Sword Coast, The Dalelands, Amn, Cormyr, Moonsea, The Vast, etc but also Zakhara, Kara-Tur, Maztica, Katashaka, Laerakond and Osse. If you want to go past the framework of the Forgotten Realms (where we never really talk about Abeir at all), then why not have a metric that we can use to distinguish populations of the same race? I mean, just on earth we have vast differences between the rest of y'all and us Texans... much less differentiation in any other way. It's just a logical progression to expansion... and by not making it part of the PHB to begin with, it is optional in case some groups see it as separationist or non-inclusive or whatever, but those that want to have more variety than just a basic human can go for it.
At heart, its a conflict between Lawful Netural and Chaotic Neutral forces over the future of the game. *nods nods* Choose your alignment, and prepare for war! RAWRRRR!!!!
*cough*
j/k
Not bad!
• The individualist, progressive, innovative, varying, customizing gamers of Chaos
• The collectivist, conservative, standardizing, repetitive, traditionalist gamers of Law
he / him
Heh, individualists and collectivists, the yin and yang (respectively) of D&D gaming.
he / him
Considering the way WotC has handled the growth and expansion of the game, I think it's pretty clear that they are adamant about keeping the original PHB a relevant purchase. Many of the questionable things they've done (or not done) point to prioritizing the idea that the PHB you bought in the store is not considered obsolete or changed dramatically through errata. This hasn't gone over great in the modern world of living changing online documents and video games that get patched and updated on a regular cycle.
That being said, they did make a PHB 2.0 with 4th edition when they released the Essentials line. All the content was fully compatible with the rest of 4e, but it could also stand alone. It was basically an open beta for a lot of ideas for 5th edition.
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
I think a lot of what we saw in Tasha's and the Gothic Lineage UA is an "Open Beta" for the next edition. I have seen a lot of people on these forums and else where say that Lineage is a good idea, but by it self feels incomplete.
Also it is weird to have half of an edition do things one way and the rest do it another. They just need to make a choice, change or don't change, don't half ass it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The problem with that is the char creation junk in Tasha's and the grey box in the UA both run explicitly counter to char creation in the PHB. Yeah, WOTC can say it is backwards compatible, but now a DM at a tabletop game has to have both versions of char creation available. And if the DM does not, that will lead to a lot of unhappy players who sit down at that DM's table. Now, frankly, I will enjoy crushing the spirit of some min-maxer using Tasha's rules, but I am old school DM. I pity the AL DM.
D&D 5e continues to do well economically, despite continual predictions of 6e.
I dont see a 6e any time soon.
Even when 6e comes, it would probably be more like 1e to 2e, where both sets of books remain usable.
If a significantly new edition of D&D comes, I see it more likely to be a shift to virtual reality and artificial intelligence, than a shift from one gaming engine to an other.
he / him
Good luck with VR and AI.....You are now talking about people playing a video game. A super-immersive video game, but still just that. And it seems the tech for that is a long long way off.
Yeah, but extreme AI is probably sooner than a new D&D edition.
During the 1980s, people thought it was impossible for AI to win at chess. Because it hadnt happened yet, and seemed so far away. But. Then it happened, as predicted. Moores Law is Moores Law.
Moores Law is still on track, as tightly as it ever was. What the near future computational power can do, will happen.
I agree with those predicting that the Turing Test will pass about year 2025 (plus or minus a year). It seems so far away today. But it will happen.
Heh, with extreme AI, you can tell it exactly what kind of things that you like about D&D and it will write-up the gaming engine for you. And be able to efficiently translate one gaming engine into an other, similar to translating a language, so different players can be using different versions of D&D at the same table.
he / him