Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana probably coming to D&D website (Reddit AMA)

[I'm A Banana]

With 5e doing so well it seems all well and good that other companies might want to join in and produce compatible content. But that gets tricky if, suddenly, WotC decides to produce an adventure that's too similar to something they planned, or changes the licence, or decides to release 6e. That's going to affect their company's sales and future.

I imagine [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] can give some interesting insight to what happens when an edition-change happens mid-Adventure Path. I'd wager it's not pretty.

While I don't imagine Paizo going whole-hog on 5e, I wouldn't be shocked if they had some support if there was a good, open license. From where I'm standing, Ryan Dancey has been proven pretty right about the OGL's benefit to WotC, it's only a question of if WotC realizes that and embraces the OGL (or something similar) or not.

 

[Umbran]

Agree. I dont fully understand why they are being so guarded about the future of 5e. Is it the old business chesnut of underpromise/overperform? Maybe something about how they intend to use and monetize their online system?

Two words: Movie Rights.

The Hasbro vs Sweetpea Entertainment lawsuit over D&D movie rights had closing arguments in late September. The judge has said that the rights are complicated, and will require some time to sort out. In the meantime, the litigants have some time to work out a settlement, should they wish:

“The rights between the two parties are complicated,” said Gee said Tuesday after both sides gave closing statements. She encouraged the parties to come up with an agreement instead of waiting for a decision from her. “There are two possible outcomes for a trial,” she cautioned. “One side wins, one side loses, or both sides are unhappy.”

- http://deadline.com/2014/09/dungeons-and-dragons-trial-ends-movie-sequels-839985/

The future of 5e with a movie (or, goodness, perhaps a franchise) is much different from the future without that link and profit source.

 

[Nebulous]

With some caveats as to what "that position" means. I don't think they are trying, for example, to be the top of iCV2 rankings.

I guess it means generating an appreciable amount of money for the boys in charge. I still honestly think that a decent D&D movie and/or cartoon from a major studio would be such a bazillion dollar megahit that they would be rolling in cash straight through 7th edition....

 

[Nebulous]

The Icewind Dale Trilogy directed by James Cameron, Sam Raimi and David Fincher.



i would have thought by now this avenue would have been tapped. Really. But so far it has only been second rate cartoons or poorly conceptualized movies or direct to video. Pathfinder can't make any claim to the D&D brand name or any of the 30+ years of campaign settings from which to build a movie series, AND with an already built in fan base.

 

[Greg K]

At the time, at the beginning of 3e and for years afterward, the avalanche of splat books was welcome, encouraged and loved by many people, myself included. When we finally got inundated by it all and realized you can only churn out the same thing so many times with a different cover, we got sick of it.

Then there were people like myself that did not like WOTC's player and new mechanics supplements (Unearthed Arcana being a notable exception), turned to third party material to cover those needs, but were selective about third party material we purchased. Being selective, inundated was never an issue for many of us.
Currently, I would welcome third party class variants and redesigns, because the WOTC design of 5e's classes are the one thing stopping me from wanting to run 5e just as was the initial case with 3e prior to third party supplements and Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Boarstorm]

because the WOTC design of 5e's classes are the one thing stopping me from wanting to run 5e

If I may sidetrack the thread a bit, what do you find objectionable with the class design? I'm just curious.

 

[Nebulous]

Then there were people like myself that did not like WOTC's player and new mechanics supplements (Unearthed Arcana being a notable exception), turned to third party material to cover those needs, but were selective about third party material we purchased. Being selective, inundated was never an issue for many of us.
Currently, I would welcome third party class variants and redesigns, because the WOTC design of 5e's classes are the one thing stopping me from wanting to run 5e just as was the initial case with 3e prior to third party supplements and Unearthed Arcana.

I respect your opinion, but how could third party or UA so drastically change the core classes as to shift them to usable? The template is identical, just different details.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

This is something that has been asked, and explained, and asked, and explained, but I thought this explanation was a good one:

"I'll give you an example of a theoretical expansion.

Let's say we wanted to do psionics. We'd tie that to a campaign you can play, maybe one centered on mind flayers or a similar foe.
The psionic sourcebook would be the player's companion to the DM's mind flayer campaign. The sourcebook would have all the info for creating psionic characters, along with world material for players who are creating characters for the mind flayer campaign. The player's book might also have a chapter written from an in-world perspective on psionics and psionic monsters, the kind of information that a character might have access to or have heard.

You can expect us to do one or two such products a year, to give people enough time to play through a campaign without overwhelming them with new options."

Most of what was said is fine, but this irks me.

See, as a DM, I want the system and fluff, but I don't care about an adventure path. I really don't want to pay for an adventure path to get psionics, or to get my Planescape bestiary, etc.

If it were all in a single book, that would be different, but are they going to put monsters and other DM rules in the player's guide? I seriously doubt it.

 

[TerraDave]

Most of what was said is fine, but this irks me.

See, as a DM, I want the system and fluff, but I don't care about an adventure path. I really don't want to pay for an adventure path to get psionics, or to get my Planescape bestiary, etc.

If it were all in a single book, that would be different, but are they going to put monsters and other DM rules in the player's guide? I seriously doubt it.

He seems to be implying that the "sourcebook" is linked to the adventure, but not the adventure.

 

[Greg K]

If I may sidetrack the thread a bit, what do you find objectionable with the class design? I'm just curious.

1. Rogue Archetypes, Druid Circles, Arcane Traditions and similar for many classes not kicking in at first level. Who trained the person, the environment in which the druid was raised and/or trained (for Circle of the Land Druid), I would like to see have more of an effect in the beginning.
2. Clerics not being more like 2e Specialty priests
3. Barbarian as rager or totem warrior. Disliked this about Pathfinder and 4e
4. Sorcerer heritage abilities or wild magic. Disliked this Pathfinder and 4e. I prefer something closer to 3e, but with a fairly common house rule of metamagic bonus feats rather than gaining dragon features or wild magic.
5. Classes with spellcasting at first level with cantrips and first level spells. I don't like multiclassed characters gaining the first level spell at first level. My preference is for first level to provide cantrips. This way someone multi-classing would have to spend time learning to crawl (cantrips) before learning to walk (casting first level spells).
6. Many class abilities (e.g., destroy undead) as mandatory class abilities. Personally, as a DM, I would rather have more choice options rather than a hard coded ability to help tailor the classes to better fit my campaign and the player's concept (if it fits within my campaign).