D&D 5E Where are the options?

[CapnZapp]

That's still problematic, as they're adding new options that do what existing options do. So it doesn't really add more choices and character options to the game. And, since it's presenting a more powerful version of an existing option, it's pure power creep. And it does nothing to remove the poor options from play, which remain potential traps.

There's no real good solution for dealing with underpowered options. Even free DMsGuild PDFs with optional revisions wouldn't do the trick, since it'd be easy to miss.

Thank you.

I agree there is no single "best" solution.

I personally feel that the "lightly revised PHB" solution would be best, but I know WotC doesn't agree.

Btw, I do not mean a 3.5 for 5.5. That was a fracking disaster.

I mean more like this:

You prepare a new text mass for your PHB with facelifted mechanics. Then you simply start to print that, as 12th printing or whereever they're at right now. No new version number. Add a clear but minor design change (on the front, spine, back, and title page) so people that know about this can see what printing they're getting.

Make sure to keep the same page numbering.

People that don't know about this (or doesn't care) simply pick up "a PHB".

Sure, it's incrementally better, but most things work exactly like they used to. (Much like, I don't know, printing 7 is "better" than printing 2 since more errata is incorporated)

Any change means a new name (since otherwise you have super confusion). The Ranger gets a class feature, but it isn't called "Hunter's Mark". That's the name of the spell that remain exactly as is. The class feature can be called "Ranger's Mark" for what I care; just make sure it's got its own unique name.

Make everything new part of the free Basic Rules to stop people from complaining.

Make it clear this is what you've done, but don't do faster-stronger-scooter either. You don't want to hide this. But you don't tell people their existing PHBs are bad either (by doing "now even more improved!" ads)

Be forthright, not braggy.

Tell us the people you plan on NOT doing this again for at least two years (assuming this gets printed in Aug 2016 and the edition first got going in Aug 2014; can't remember exact details). You might never do it again. Or you will. But whatever: for the two next years, only errata as usual. You don't want people to hold off their purchases, after all. </Osborne>

Boom. Done.

Let's see what I can remember from memory:
- a new Beastmaster mechanic for those that like a combat pet. Add a sidebar explicitly saying "yes this makes the character hog more than his share of the spotlight, so usage is completely up to the DM and the group. Do not use if equal spotlight is more importance than having a non-sucky pet"
- That Ranger's Mark. Oh yeah, baby! Preferably with "charges" that increase with ranger level. Ranger is already extremely frontheavy (that is, I don't know of anyone playing it single-classed)
- Give all Warlocks Eldritch Blast.
- 4 Elements Monk is sad.
- Rogue could do with a couple extra sneak dice
- Berserker Barbarian. Unconditionally drop the exhaustion for starters. No ifs, no buts. Then be generous - consider Berserking needs to compare to Bear Totem resistance, possibly the game's best single feature.
- add a couple of new Sorcerer spells that play into the Wild Mage's strength; most easily ranged spell attacks at levels 3, 4 and 5.
- while you're at it, make sure there are enough decent acid, cold and electricity spells (mainly at levels 2-4) to make choosing them and not Fire Mage/Red Dragon not the bloody stupid choice it is today.

I feel better already

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

So we have: A site thats currently an utter mess with no real quality products...

Nope. There are quality products there, maybe not a high ratio of them, but what do you expect - quality takes time, so of course the first products out are going to trend a bit light on it.

...the SRD that is pretty useless...

It's as useful as it can be.

...and Merals sloppy seconds...

More like "ongoing playtest that actually has the players' collective opinion shape the future products of the game" than "sloppy seconds".

Not exactly pillars of confidence.

They give me plenty of confidence... must be something specific to you that is preventing the same from happening.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Cue my proposal..!

Instead of expanding the game into more and more obscure archetypes, why not step back and critically examine the ones we've already got!

I have no problem with this in general, depending on the format in which it's done. If it's similar to the UA articles about the ranger, that would be fine. But any kind of published product I would hope would not be revisiting material we've already received. Especially with the presence of the DMs Guild and the fact that problems with a specific class or subclass is going to be highly subjective, even given that there seems to be some consensus on a few examples.

I'd much rather any published material be new material. Class tweaks and the like can stay in UA.

So we have: A site thats currently an utter mess with no real quality products, the SRD that is pretty useless, and Merals sloppy seconds.... Not exactly pillars of confidence. Hell they all have the same problem: No real production value or much care. Hell even the disaster that was Complete Warrior had the former.

Splatbooks are no better than any of that stuff, except they're deemed "official". But as I said in my earlier post, there is generally a small amount of useful stuff in most splatbooks. Most gaming groups will never ever come anywhere close to using all the options that are given in books like that.

I much prefer they keep it simple. Especially since the DMG of this edition is designed to help DMs and player groups come up with anything they'd like....that book is there to help you change anything about the game that you might want....from new races and classes to setting changes such as increased technology to rules options to add complexity to combat and so on.

I find it hard to believe that someone who wants, let's say a Cavalier class or subclass, would spend the resources to purchase a book and read it to get that class, rather than simply looking at the DMG already sitting on their shelf and coming up with the class themselves. The amount of time it would take to do so doesn't really seem that extreme, so to those who argue they have no time to create content, I feel that's a bit silly. My time's limited, too....but if I don't have the time to create a little content for the game, then chances are I don't actually need more content than what I have.

 

[Mistwell]

Why are you talking to an empty room?

I figure maybe someone is watching at home on C-Span or will check the Congressional Record at some later date

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The problem is that there is a middle ground between a book a month and no books at all. WotC has a history of knee jerk reactions to issues that result in overcompensation that ruins games. 4e is a prime example. Lots of good ideas there that got carried away and turned people off to the game. This lack of official support for 5e is very likely going to do the same.

Anecdotal evidence here on my part, but I haven't seen this bare out in any real way. When 5e hit the shelves a year'ish ago it sold quickly. After that, it sold consistently; a dozen PHB's would come in and they'd be sold within the month (I live in what others would consider a 'small town'; about 23k people...yeah, it's the capitol city of the Yukon). This rate is maintained with pretty much every 5e book that's been put out. A dozen get in, all are get sold out in a consistent time. No, it's not "gone in a day", but as I said, for us up here in the Great White North, it's a telling thing.

I would hazard a guess that the folks who are seeing and/or complaining about lack of "stuff" are the ones that either have so little time to put into a campaign...probably shouldn't be trying to play RPG's; or got into the hobby with the end of 2e or beginning of 3e. In those latter cases, they are just used to having "stuff". The 3.x+ version in particular didn't teach or encourage DM's or players to use their imaginations and make up. Those versions encouraged DM's and players to throw money out and buy a book that had new stuff in it...and then another book...and another...and another...etc. Or, to put it another way, "old schoolers" like myself don't need or even really want "more rules". We find more enjoyment thinking about what we like, using our imaginations, taking a few hours to write out what we need/want, and use that for the next game. If I need more "earth based" spells, I'll make them up. If I need some "earth based creatures", I'll make them up. If I want a new underground-focused druid-ranger type class or archtype, I'll make it up. If I need rules for suffocation, air quality, or how much space a person needs to squish through a small opening, I'll make it up. To old schoolers, this is one of the things we enjoy. Er, at least I do.

Anyway...yeah...with 5e focused more on 'story' and less on 'splat', I think they (WotC) have expectations of revenue to match. I don't think they'll "turn off people" who come into the hobby...and, from yet more anecdotal evidence, 5e seems to have brought back a lot of older players as well as introduced a lot of new ones. So if this demographic is high enough, what they will expect is "one hardback every 6 or so months", and that will be normal. It's the poor folks who loved and got used to the "book a week" club that 3.x/PF/4e was doing that are going to complain and threaten to leave because "there's no stuff".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Jester David]

I personally feel that the "lightly revised PHB" solution would be best, but I know WotC doesn't agree.

Btw, I do not mean a 3.5 for 5.5. That was a fracking disaster.

I mean more like this:

You prepare a new text mass for your PHB with facelifted mechanics. Then you simply start to print that, as 12th printing or whereever they're at right now. No new version number. Add a clear but minor design change (on the front, spine, back, and title page) so people that know about this can see what printing they're getting.

Make sure to keep the same page numbering.

People that don't know about this (or doesn't care) simply pick up "a PHB".

Sure, it's incrementally better, but most things work exactly like they used to. (Much like, I don't know, printing 7 is "better" than printing 2 since more errata is incorporated)

The "Paizo Route".

The catch with incremental changes is similar to the problems with the 4e Updates.
First, because you can make changes, there's less pressure to get it right the first time.
Second, because anything could be updated, you always need to check to see if it has, slowing down play; it doubles the places to check before making a ruling. (After a revised printing, I stopped looking at my print Pathfinder books and only went to the PDFs.)
Because the first printing could (likely would) be updated it devalues that printing and encourages people to wait for a second printing. But that just slows the time before an update.
Lastly, it creates a situation where people are told their character doesn't behave how they think, leading to an ugly surprise.

I'd almost prefer a revised PHB in 3-4 years with all the fixes rather than wave after wave of incremental changes.
Fewer changes than a 3.5, and designed to be completely compatible. Fix some non-errata errors, work in some Sage Advice answers, and do some super minor rebalancing. Give it a new cover and maybe swap out a few of the weaker bits of art. But otherwise keep the same look and layout to keep down costs.
But that might still not go over well. The community is reactive and it would still feel like asking folk to repurchase the book. If that was paired with a free document on the website and/or DMsGuild with the changed content, it might help. But with that it mind...

As I said earlier, there's always something that could be fixed. Always. Games are never perfect. Even if you uplift all the weakest options, that just means something else becomes the weakest option. Fix that, and something else becomes the weakest. Whenever you're making a list, something always has to be on the bottom.
At the risk of slippery sloping, once you start making changes it's hard to stop. Maybe there are some overpowered options that need toned down? A rule that isn't working. Maybe a skill or ability score or save that's at the edge of the curve. That's exactly how we ended up with 3.5e, when the planned "reprint with errata and tweaks turned into a complete revision. Because, unsurprisingly, game designers want to design games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

While I agree with @Jester Canuck overall, I wouldn't mind if they targeted certain specific areas that seem to have a general consensus of being highly flawed, as @CapnZapp suggests. But as I said earlier, I'd want these in the form of a free UA article or errata or something like that. I think the beast master and the berserker subclasses would be two examples of things that could be fixed relatively easily.

If it didn't happen, no big deal, but I wouldn't mind if it did. But I do think it's something to be careful with as I think it could easily lead to problems.

 

[Tallifer]

The options are here. Many of them for free.http://www.dmsguild.com/

 

[Maxperson]

WotC is currently in said middle ground, and appears intent upon staying there.

0 is not a middle ground. There have been no books dedicated to rules. The tidbits they toss into adventures and then cobble together into an amalgam of tidbits isn't anywhere remotely close to the middle. It's just to the right of nothing.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. There are quality products there, maybe not a high ratio of them, but what do you expect - quality takes time, so of course the first products out are going to trend a bit light on it.

It doesn't matter how much quality is there. Nothing there is official, even if it is endorsed.