D&D 5E D&D survey March 2016--Awakened Mystic, Kits of Old survey results, and "first, major mechanical expansion"

MechaTarrasque · Mar 25, 2016

WotC has a new survey at http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/dd-survey-march-2016.

They also discuss the Kits of Old UA survey results, and they really like the response for the college of swords bard.

The article also discusses some preliminary info into the "first, major mechanical expansion", more design philosophy than anything concrete.

ChrisCarlson · Mar 25, 2016

I'm playing a college of swords bard right now. I generally like it, but have a few minor quibbles.

It competes with itself for bonus actions. It also, because it strongly encourages two-weapon fighting, practically requires you take the warcaster feat at your earliest opportunity.

But I'm still having fun with it.

Ancalagon · Mar 25, 2016

Are we headed for the bloat again?

spectacle · Mar 25, 2016

Ancalagon said:
Are we headed for the bloat again?

Mike Mearls said:
It also means developing some guidelines DMs can use to manage options in their campaigns. As an example, in various interviews we’ve talked about how we expect a single campaign should use the PHB and one other book as resources for players. Beginning DMs should stick to only the PHB.

So nope, unless the DM chooses to ignore the guidelines and lets his players combine options from all the books at once.

DEFCON 1 · Mar 25, 2016

Ancalagon said:
Are we headed for the bloat again?

Only if you buy the book.

Don't buy the book, you won't have bloat.

TwoSix · Mar 25, 2016

MechaTarrasque said:
The article also discusses some preliminary info into the "first, major mechanical expansion", more design philosophy than anything concrete.

That's the stuff.

I'm A Banana · Mar 25, 2016

A PHBII (or something like it) after 2-3 years sounds OK to me, given their stated design goals (needs to fill a need, needs to be clearly modular). Optional like feats and multiclassing sounds OK, and it's the perfect place for stuff like entirely new classes (like the mythical "support-oriented non-magical character") or even new takes on old classes (new ranger!), races that don't fit comfortably into FR storylines, DM options that might've needed more page count than the initial DMG could dedicate, etc.

It's interesting because this sounds like it's 5e's version of the ".5ing" that has happened since roughly 2e. 2.5 = Skills & Powers; 3.5 = ...well, 3.5; 4.5 = essentials; 5.5 = "Here's a book of more options!" (you could even make a case for 1.5 = Unearthed Arcana!). It seems like a good use of that economic inevitability.

On the survey, I was mostly neutral about new options (put in a reminder that fast, easy, evocative mechanics are always better than complex ones, and to concentrate on the STORY behind a class rather than the mechanical niche. I've played dragonborn, gnomes, and minotaurs (huh...no "common race"!), and bards and clerics and sorcerers.

I harped on the lack of narrative cohesion for the Mystic some more. "I am touched by the far realm and so I can solve mysteries and punch hard" needs more explanation, more context, more presence, if it is to be the narrative.

Daern · Mar 25, 2016

I said that we don't need much more for traditional games. I asked for a Domain Play, Mass Combat themed Birthright style campaign adventure. Maybe one that starts at a higher level. That might be a great way to expand the game.

CapnZapp · Mar 25, 2016

Ancalagon said:
Are we headed for the bloat again?

If you by "bloat" mean anything else than "no more crunch", then yes.

I'd much rather there are crunch supplements you can elect to not buy, than no supplements at all.

In the latter case you win and I lose. In the former case, nothing changes for you, you still win - and I win too.

Which do you think I prefer?

CapnZapp · Mar 25, 2016

I'm A Banana said:
A PHBII (or something like it) after 2-3 years sounds OK to me, given their stated design goals (needs to fill a need, needs to be clearly modular). Optional like feats and multiclassing sounds OK, and it's the perfect place for stuff like entirely new classes (like the mythical "support-oriented non-magical character") or even new takes on old classes (new ranger!), races that don't fit comfortably into FR storylines, DM options that might've needed more page count than the initial DMG could dedicate, etc.

It's interesting because this sounds like it's 5e's version of the ".5ing" that has happened since roughly 2e. 2.5 = Skills & Powers; 3.5 = ...well, 3.5; 4.5 = essentials; 5.5 = "Here's a book of more options!" (you could even make a case for 1.5 = Unearthed Arcana!). It seems like a good use of that economic inevitability.

On the survey, I was mostly neutral about new options (put in a reminder that fast, easy, evocative mechanics are always better than complex ones, and to concentrate on the STORY behind a class rather than the mechanical niche. I've played dragonborn, gnomes, and minotaurs (huh...no "common race"!), and bards and clerics and sorcerers.

I harped on the lack of narrative cohesion for the Mystic some more. "I am touched by the far realm and so I can solve mysteries and punch hard" needs more explanation, more context, more presence, if it is to be the narrative.

I certainly hope it isn't 5.5

That would imply a whole raft of niggling rules tweaks, and that's horrible.

A PHB2 or somesuch implies something entirely different, namely more options, more crunch, more goodness, but without having to relearn what we already know.

And most importantly: without splitting the playerbase into the haves and the have-nots.

D&D 5E D&D survey March 2016--Awakened Mystic, Kits of Old survey results, and "first, major mechanical expansion"

MechaTarrasque

Hero

ChrisCarlson

First Post

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon

spectacle

First Post

DEFCON 1

Legend

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich

Daern

Explorer

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

Similar Threads