D&D 5E Expected Additions to SRD 1.2

[Alzrius]

I mean, if you're going to push the limits of the OGL, I'm pretty sure the reasons why would be pretty important. There needs to be a good reason to do anything in life.

I see it differently; creative works, to me, don't require a reason for why they're made. Rather, they canbe created simply for the sake of creating something (this is different, of course, than asking why something would be used, rather than created). Asking why something should be created strikes me as carrying the insidious implication that creation requires justification, and that without said justification, something doesn't deserve to exist.

Speaking as a consumer, page count that is spent re-hashing what's in the PHB is wasted page count. That's time and money and effort that could be spent doing something more useful and valuable.

That's only the case if there's a finite page count that you're working within. That might be a valid concern for a print product, but for a PDF product it doesn't really apply.

 

[delericho]

That's only the case if there's a finite page count that you're working within. That might be a valid concern for a print product, but for a PDF product it doesn't really apply.

Just to be awkward: I'm yet to see a PDF that has an infinite number of pages. Any time that the writer spends generating a workaround for something in the PHB but not the SRD is time they're not spending on other things. I'd rather that be minimised as far as possible.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wouldn't be surprised actually if they intentionally left out the sub-classes for whom they themselves actually would prefer to make "new stuff" for. That was one of the original issues we say in the 3E era... all kinds of things WotC might've wanted to publish books about further down the line had already been done many times over by other third-party publishers.

Considering the very slow, heavily-outsourced, publication strategy we see going forward that seems tantamount to blocking 'new stuff' entirely in the near term.

But as it stands now... only they get to make new 'Battlemaster Maneuvers' (mentioned as such). Only they get to make new 'Totem Warrior' animal styles. Only they get to expand on the 'Wild Surge' table. Only they get to make new animals which can be specifically mentioned as being compatible to the 'Circle of the Moon' druid for wildshaping, and the 'Beastmaster' ranger for companions.

They're also the only ones who can riff off those things or reference them, which could be a tad chilling when it comes to developing closely-related things. Especially given 5e's design paradigm, in which mechanics are more tightly coupled to the fluff they represent. Each publisher who wants to put out a few new maneuvers or a class or sub-class that uses maneuvers, instead having to create a novel maneuver system, rather than just tack onto the battlemaster's or throw a class a few CS dice. That would make the new content from each such publisher incompatible or at least, inconsistent, with eachother, and the base game. Conversely, adding a new school of wizardry or a new Domain, or a few new spells could be done fairly smoothly.

Asking why something should be created strikes me as carrying the insidious implication that creation requires justification, and that without said justification, something doesn't deserve to exist.

There's been a lot of that going around since the edition war.

I do not think it would be too hard to come up with a martial maneuvers system that uses variable damage dice for weapon that scale (just like spells scale with level). That would include weapon properties and things like stances to totally rewrite the martial side of things.

It wouldn't be. It might not be that hard to come up with a better one than the Battlemaster has (JMHO, but it'd be hard not to do better, MDDs from the playtest, for instance). But, such a system would be untethered from the official game, while one that built on and improved the battlemaster system would have some level of compatibility and sense of continuity. We might very well get several very good alternate maneuver systems, none of which get any visibility, while a not-as-good extrapolation of battlemaster maneuvers might have a shot at broad acceptance.

Overall 5E is simple

Overall it's inconsistent and complicated, but not yet bloated, much like the classic D&D it captures the feel of so well, it's just familiar enough complexity that it's not a barrier to our enjoyment.

 

[Nagol]

I see it differently; creative works, to me, don't require a reason for why they're made. Rather, they canbe created simply for the sake of creating something (this is different, of course, than asking why something would be used, rather than created). Asking why something should be created strikes me as carrying the insidious implication that creation requires justification, and that without said justification, something doesn't deserve to exist.



That's only the case if there's a finite page count that you're working within. That might be a valid concern for a print product, but for a PDF product it doesn't really apply.

There is however, both a finite amount of time available to read and a finite brain capacity to parse and verify that this section is both already known and exactly the same as a previous added segment from all the other optional material grokked..

 

[Li Shenron]

We also can see that the SRD includes only one subrace per race currently (which is funny, considering the Basic Game gives you both subraces for the dwarf, elf, and halfling)... and only one subclass per class. So it asks the question whether the other ones will be added any time soon.

I am definitely not sure, but I don't actually think the SRD is meant to be playable but rather a reference for further design.

I got the impression that one subclass is included as a design example, although I would have expected the Battlemaster instead of the Champion, so that 3PP could design new Maneuvers. (I don't know, maybe they can anyway?) So this is one thing that I think it would make sense to include in the SRD.

edit: just noticed you wrote the same thing yourself in previous page...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I see it differently; creative works, to me, don't require a reason for why they're made. Rather, they canbe created simply for the sake of creating something (this is different, of course, than asking why something would be used, rather than created). Asking why something should be created strikes me as carrying the insidious implication that creation requires justification, and that without said justification, something doesn't deserve to exist.

The act of creation always fills some need, if only in the creator. If the creator hopes for other people to appreciate and use and even pay for their creation, it will need to meet their needs, too. (This isn't always a concern, but it isn't an unreasonable assumption when talking about the OGL and the SRD)

It's also true that re-printing the wood elf verbatim isn't really much of an act of creation. You're not making anything new with that reprint.

That's only the case if there's a finite page count that you're working within. That might be a valid concern for a print product, but for a PDF product it doesn't really apply.

Time and money and effort are all limited. Our lives are limited, our attention spans are limited.

If you want to truck in pure hypothetical ideology, you don't need advice. No one can physically stop you from publishing a verbatim copy of the PHB and selling it on your website for $2,000 a pop.

There are just consequences for that action.

One of those consequences is likely to be that not many people buy your PHB.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That would make the new content from each such publisher incompatible or at least, inconsistent, with each other, and the base game. Conversely, adding a new school of wizardry or a new Domain, or a few new spells could be done fairly smoothly.

I dunno... I almost think it forces creators to actually work a little harder so that what they create for Fighters *is* in fact compatible or at least consistent with each other and the base game.

The thing everyone right now is going to have to deal with and sift through (now that the SRD and DMGuild are up) is a whole HEAP of really crappy, thrown-together, and non-playtested mechanics that some people are going to try and make a quick buck off of by uploading it. So if WotC's decision to not include the Superiority Die and Maneuver system means we don't see a mass of junk maneuvers (and instead more time and thought put in to other Fighter options that have to be designed to be more compatible) I personally see that as a win.

And in many ways... this is why I actually appreciated what we had for 5E before this announcement-- 5E material made by companies that knew how to work their way around the 3E SRD. Because that was a fairly strong indicator they actually were taking their time with what they were designing, in order to make sure they were remaining in compliance. It was much harder to just toss off some quickie thing for 5E with little thought, because of the risks that entailed.

Let's just hope the ease of using Dungeon Masters Guild doesn't completely destroy that level of careful consideration in design.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I dunno... I almost think it forces creators to actually work a little harder so that what they create for Fighters *is* in fact compatible or at least consistent with each other and the base game.

Well, sure, blocking the easy/obvious way to add content in a consistent manner will mean more work for anyone who tries to do so.

So if WotC's decision to not include the Superiority Die and Maneuver system means we don't see a mass of junk maneuvers I personally see that as a win.

But a mass of junk spells is OK?

And in many ways... this is why I actually appreciated what we had for 5E before this announcement-- 5E material made by companies that knew how to work their way around the 3E SRD. Because that was a fairly strong indicator they actually were taking their time with what they were designing, in order to make sure they were remaining in compliance. It was much harder to just toss off some quickie thing for 5E with little thought, because of the risks that entailed.

At least, now those who want more content have a slush pile to sort through. Those who want the limited content and limited risk of the official products simply ignore the 3pp stuff.

Let's just hope the ease of using Dungeon Masters Guild doesn't completely destroy that level of careful consideration in design.

There's really not much to destroy. 5e's design philosophy is comparatively open and free-wheeling, anyway, and DMs were already free to do their thing.

 

[empireofchaos]

Honestly, you're probably best not doing so at all. That way, a DM who wants to run your setting can choose to allow a Battlerager, or not, as he sees fit. It also has the advantage that when the edition updates (or the DM moves to another game entirely) the book remains more compatible - there are fewer mechanic to become obsolete.

Not doing it all is always a possibility. I'm just feeling out other options, because they seem preferable to self-imposed silence. The kind of set-up I'm thinking of would get rid of a few classes that are unneeded, add 3-4 homebrew classes, tinker with 1-2 paths, and leave the rest more or less intact. Simply including the homebrews and saying nothing else leaves the class set-up looking very truncated and underflavored (it's widely understood that GMs can allow whatever they want in a setting they are running anyway).

I guess one option might be to mention a class which is allowed in the setting and not off-limits in the SRD (e.g. Fighter), briefly describe and flavor it, and then obliquely mention archetypes by different names, but in such a way as to make it fairly obvious that you are talking about Battlemasters and Eldritch Knights. It would be a bit clumsy, but less so than having a setting with only three classes.

The one place where you might previously have had to do that was NPC stat-blocks, where perhaps Caesar is best represented as a level 10 Warlord. However, since 5e doesn't use PC-style stat-blocks for NPCs anyway, there's no reason to do this - he may well have powers similar to those granted by that level of that class, but he's best statted up as a monster anyway, so you don't need that word.

Or you could go the old Deities and Demigods route and indicate the class and level of the NPC without noting the path. The powers would be left vaguer, but wouldn't require redefining Battlemaster maneuvers for Caesar the Monster as something else.

(Also, bear in mind that since this is the same OGL as has been around for years, there's a whole library of open content that you can use with impunity. So chances are someone has already published an open version of whatever you need.)

Possibly, but reprinting the open content (under a different name) would result in a lot of wasted pages you don't really need, and referencing some little known open content (e.g. "For concrete stats of the "Doughty Battler", see Joe Blow's webpage [MENTION=6690440]..[/MENTION].) also seems unduly taxing to a potential reader.

Important note: I am not a lawyer. If you're serious about publishing, you'll want to consult one.

Understood - I figure bouncing ideas around is helpful to everyone, since most people have similar questions. Lawyers come at the end of the process.

 

[Remathilis]

The kind of set-up I'm thinking of would get rid of a few classes that are unneeded, add 3-4 homebrew classes, tinker with 1-2 paths, and leave the rest more or less intact. Simply including the homebrews and saying nothing else leaves the class set-up looking very truncated and underflavored (it's widely understood that GMs can allow whatever they want in a setting they are running anyway).

I'm sure you can say "in the world of Buubitybhutz there are no clerics, druids, or warlocks." Or "No class besides wizards and clerics can learn and cast magic". You can even create a new subclass that is similar (animal trainer ranger or lighting domain) as long as you are not just reusing things verbatim.

I guess the only place this fails is if your world hinges on ip-locked content (a nation of yuan-ti, the mountain range home to Goliaths) but I'd that is the case, you have to remove the race for a substitute or ditch the material.

To be honest though, I kinda hope the OGL/DMGuild split will move the "almost core, but my elves are taller" products towards DMGD and general compatibility with the core game and make the OGL a place for more wild and radical changes. The game needs more M&Ms and Spycrafts and less "Gareeze Wurld" Greyhawk clones.