Mechanics of Revived Settings; your thoughts?

[Coroc]

I got a new tough nut for y'all to crunch: Dragonlances. How would you rule the damage Output of these?

Imagine the Situation of air combat with a Dragon rider wielding a dragonlance. If he is a fighter he would eventually get 2 attacks per round. But with the dragonlance having such a high damage boost (at least it should, also in 5e) and the realistic Scenario that it is the impact ergo 1 attack how would you rule that?

In fact the same Situation applies to nomral mounted Lance combat, imagine a joust, it would be awfully stupid to make the attacks of the Knights e.g. 2 per round when it is 1 impact.

I once read a question in rpg stackexchange forum which up to date makes my toes cringe. Someone asked if he could dual wield Lances, and over 60% or so of the answers stated that with two weapon fighting this would not be a Problem at all since it states the Lance being a one handed weapon and he would get two attacks in a jousting Situation by that. Oh dear Lord.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Maybe some melee equivalent of the "loading" property?

 

[Satyrn]

The thing is, elves, dwarves and halflings are the most tired sub-Tolkien derivative clichés, who should really be at the top of the list for the chop in order to make a setting that is actually interesting.

I can get behind that. And if I was to build a setting based on your view instead of [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]'s - the basics of D&D ought to be present in D&D - I'd happily chop them.

 

[Parmandur]

I got a new tough nut for y'all to crunch: Dragonlances. How would you rule the damage Output of these?

Imagine the Situation of air combat with a Dragon rider wielding a dragonlance. If he is a fighter he would eventually get 2 attacks per round. But with the dragonlance having such a high damage boost (at least it should, also in 5e) and the realistic Scenario that it is the impact ergo 1 attack how would you rule that?

In fact the same Situation applies to nomral mounted Lance combat, imagine a joust, it would be awfully stupid to make the attacks of the Knights e.g. 2 per round when it is 1 impact.

I once read a question in rpg stackexchange forum which up to date makes my toes cringe. Someone asked if he could dual wield Lances, and over 60% or so of the answers stated that with two weapon fighting this would not be a Problem at all since it states the Lance being a one handed weapon and he would get two attacks in a jousting Situation by that. Oh dear Lord.

Jousting I wouldn't handle as combat: probably just opposing Athletics checks.

 

[Remathilis]

I can get behind that. And if I was to build a setting based on your view instead of [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]'s - the basics of D&D ought to be present in D&D - I'd happily chop them.

At the risk of sounding corporate, there are a few concerns that need to taken into account in regards to settings.

Wizards is a giant in the realm of RPGs (a big fish in a small pond) so the return on their investment needs to be sizable. I vaguely recall their goal is like 50,000 sales to be considered a success. (I might be off on the number, its been a while). The more useful a book, the more people buy it, the more niche the book is, the less people buy of it. Consider: The Sword Coast Guide was one of the lowest selling books in 5e because it was of limited use to people not running in Faerun. A book like VGtM (which mixed lore, PC races, and monsters), XGtE (which mixed PC and DM rules) and MToF (which again mixes monsters and PC stuff) all sold better because it can be used by a multitude of players (far more than say, Monster Manual 2 or Complete Guide to Warriors would). Further, WotC only puts out one such book a year (so far, this may change in 2018). This means every release needs to hit maximum audience penetration.

Second, its worth noting what people like. FiveThirtyEight famously determined the most played/popular classes and races in 5e, and well, a lot of iconics are popular as well. A setting that lacks elves (and by extension half-elves) is going to annoy a large chunk of the D&D population. sure, [MENTION=24049]Paul[/MENTION]_Farquhar might like it, but Wizards has to cater to more than just him; they have to sell that setting to a large swath of D&D players and a large swath of D&D players like their elves!

So with those two metrics in mind, does it REALLY make sense to produce setting-books for settings that remove popular options from the game? Your already creating a niche product (by producing a specific setting that may/may not interact well with supplements current and potential, by limiting the genre of fantasy to one players may/may not enjoy) it makes less sense to remove popular options from play. Your further limiting your potential sales when you tell paladin or elf fans they need not apply.

The safest play, IMHO, would be to follow Paizo's lead and create a single world that literally has every option they print found on it (Golarion); they have Faerun primed for that role already. The fact they are talking about anything revolving older settings is a calculated risk, and one I think WotC will hedge by making them as friendly to all players as possible. Its the biggest reason why I've expect a "Guide to the D&D Multiverse" rather than specific D&D campaign setting books for a while now; mitigate the risk that a Dark Sun player will skip the Ravenloft CS by bundling DS and RL in one book.

As to the more avante garde settings; this is exactly what the OGL is there for. A setting like Midnight (which resembles D&D mechanically but no where in terms of race, class, magic, monsters, etc) is perfect for a publisher with a lower sale threshold for success. Settings that radically change D&D assumptions are perfect fodder for small publishers, but poor choices for WotC. I'd love to see more settings like Primeval Thule or Tal'Dorei do things different than WotC can. I think those small, niche settings have a home there, because WotC needs to go big and going big means satisfying the biggest possible audience.

 

[Eltab]

I got a new tough nut for y'all to crunch: Dragonlances. How would you rule the damage Output of these?

Imagine the Situation of air combat with a Dragon rider wielding a dragonlance. If he is a fighter he would eventually get 2 attacks per round. But with the dragonlance having such a high damage boost (at least it should, also in 5e) and the realistic Scenario that it is the impact ergo 1 attack how would you rule that?

In fact the same Situation applies to nomral mounted Lance combat, imagine a joust, it would be awfully stupid to make the attacks of the Knights e.g. 2 per round when it is 1 impact.

I once read a question in rpg stackexchange forum which up to date makes my toes cringe. Someone asked if he could dual wield Lances, and over 60% or so of the answers stated that with two weapon fighting this would not be a Problem at all since it states the Lance being a one handed weapon and he would get two attacks in a jousting Situation by that. Oh dear Lord.

A lance is not really a "one-handed weapon" - you have to brace it against your torso, or your mount. Yeah sure you can carry two lances at a time (one on each side), but you cannot wield both of them at once.
Plus, your flying mount is rather large; 10-foot pole is to horse as ... something very bulky and clumsy (sapling?) ... is to dragon.

OTOH, if you were to be more abstract, there is only one Blow but several Attacks go into it. If you only hit with one attack, your opponent received a soft blow; if you hit with several of your attacks then he took a solid strike.
edit: And if you hit with all your attacks he has to roll an opposed skill check to stay in the saddle.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OTOH, if you were to be more abstract, there is only one Blow but several Attacks go into it. If you only hit with one attack, your opponent received a soft blow; if you hit with several of your attacks over he took a solid strike.

I've seen this approach work well in other systems.

 

[Parmandur]

At the risk of sounding corporate, there are a few concerns that need to taken into account in regards to settings.

Wizards is a giant in the realm of RPGs (a big fish in a small pond) so the return on their investment needs to be sizable. I vaguely recall their goal is like 50,000 sales to be considered a success. (I might be off on the number, its been a while). The more useful a book, the more people buy it, the more niche the book is, the less people buy of it. Consider: The Sword Coast Guide was one of the lowest selling books in 5e because it was of limited use to people not running in Faerun. A book like VGtM (which mixed lore, PC races, and monsters), XGtE (which mixed PC and DM rules) and MToF (which again mixes monsters and PC stuff) all sold better because it can be used by a multitude of players (far more than say, Monster Manual 2 or Complete Guide to Warriors would). Further, WotC only puts out one such book a year (so far, this may change in 2018). This means every release needs to hit maximum audience penetration.

Second, its worth noting what people like. FiveThirtyEight famously determined the most played/popular classes and races in 5e, and well, a lot of iconics are popular as well. A setting that lacks elves (and by extension half-elves) is going to annoy a large chunk of the D&D population. sure, [MENTION=24049]Paul[/MENTION]_Farquhar might like it, but Wizards has to cater to more than just him; they have to sell that setting to a large swath of D&D players and a large swath of D&D players like their elves!

So with those two metrics in mind, does it REALLY make sense to produce setting-books for settings that remove popular options from the game? Your already creating a niche product (by producing a specific setting that may/may not interact well with supplements current and potential, by limiting the genre of fantasy to one players may/may not enjoy) it makes less sense to remove popular options from play. Your further limiting your potential sales when you tell paladin or elf fans they need not apply.

The safest play, IMHO, would be to follow Paizo's lead and create a single world that literally has every option they print found on it (Golarion); they have Faerun primed for that role already. The fact they are talking about anything revolving older settings is a calculated risk, and one I think WotC will hedge by making them as friendly to all players as possible. Its the biggest reason why I've expect a "Guide to the D&D Multiverse" rather than specific D&D campaign setting books for a while now; mitigate the risk that a Dark Sun player will skip the Ravenloft CS by bundling DS and RL in one book.

As to the more avante garde settings; this is exactly what the OGL is there for. A setting like Midnight (which resembles D&D mechanically but no where in terms of race, class, magic, monsters, etc) is perfect for a publisher with a lower sale threshold for success. Settings that radically change D&D assumptions are perfect fodder for small publishers, but poor choices for WotC. I'd love to see more settings like Primeval Thule or Tal'Dorei do things different than WotC can. I think those small, niche settings have a home there, because WotC needs to go big and going big means satisfying the biggest possible audience.

Their goal for each book has been stated to be 100,000 copies: not an unreasonable goal, considering the ~10 million Americans playng the game, but only achievable still by hitting it's if right ntes for a diverse audience. We can surmise that they are meeting their set goal, considering that they haven't shaken up their publishing strategy in four years, a WotC record.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

TWe can surmise that they are meeting their set goal, considering that they haven't shaken up their publishing strategy in four years, a WotC record.

As a tangential thought, I will say that they seem to be at least tweaking it. The plan for 2 or 3 AL seasons per year has been reduced, and Xanathar's Guide to Everything as almost entirely a crunch book is something they seemed initially reluctant to try.

Despite Xanathar's selling really well, it doesn't seem to have been received as well as Volo's Guide to Monsters, which seems to have been very well received.

And of course, now Mordenkainan's Tome of Foes is coming out as another VGtM style book. If it does as well, I expect that type of product is going to keep coming out. Lore + Character options (races) + Monsters seems to be working for most people. (No complaints from me, because I agree that VGtM is one of the best 5e products.)

I'm sure they will put out more (non-race) crunch, since they're still putting it out there for playtesting in UA articles, but I'm guessing they'll put it out in a different format--probably in a book that includes more lore. Maybe something similar to the VGtM format, but with crunch other than races in that section.

Moving along my stream of consciousness thoughts...

SCAG was interesting as an experiment that didn't do so well. There was too little Forgotten Realms in it for people who wanted a FR setting book, and too little not-necessarily-FR (by page count) for people who didn't. Of course, if you aren't counting by pages literally none of the crunch in the book is FR specific, except Ghostwise Halflings. Duergar and Svirfneblin are classic D&D (not FR specific), as is Battlerager and Bladesinger, and even the FR-specifically titled Purple Dragon Knight subclass had an alternative title "banneret" for non-FR usage. The non-human deity charts near the beginning of the book are also not FR, nor are the descriptions of the deities in the racial sections later in the book.

I think the biggest problem with the non-FR stuff in SCAG was that people new to the game couldn't tell what actually is FR stuff (like sun elves or gold dwarves) and what isn't. And of course, the page count issue for that stuff compared to the actual FR stuff. For me, the book is absolutely worth it for all the classic D&D stuff crammed into it that probably isn't going to be republished for 5e elsewhere for quite some time (as well as some gems like green flame blade), but that's in spite of the fact that probably 75% of the pages in the book are of little or no value to me, since even when I do FR, I run it in 2e/3e era rather than 5e era.

Probably the more effective way to handle settings for WotC is to create books that aren't setting specific, and then address setting details in sidebars. OR, to make a book that gives us information on multiple settings, while also including setting non-specific stuff.

A book with a bunch of crunch (and suggestions for where it could fit into multiple settings) and then chapters on different genres with example settings given--skillfully woven together in such a way that people who want to play "pulp fantasy" can get a lot out of that section, even if the Mystara-specific example isn't of much use to them, for instance. Basically, that's the sort of book they could publish the mechanics for various settings in and still hit a wide market.

Of course, they wouldn't have much room for monsters. They'd need to make some sort of monsters of the multiverse book to include the various setting monsters. They could include tables at the back listing which of the monsters were traditionally found on which worlds.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I can get behind that. And if I was to build a setting based on your view instead of @Remathilis's - the basics of D&D ought to be present in D&D - I'd happily chop them.

Well, Dark Sun doesn't chop them, it just makes them non-core.

Core Dark Sun races:
Human (psionic variant)
Mul (Dwarven subrace)
Half Giant (replaces half orc)
Tri-Kreen

Non-core but still playable:
Elf (Arthas subrace)
Half Elf
Halfling (Arthas subrace)
Dwarf (Arthas subrace)
Yuan-Ti pureblood

Gnomes, Tieflings, Dragonborn are presented as non-core in the PHB, ergo they can be freely cut from the setting.


That's what Starfinder does too: it has all new core races (apart from human) but old races (elves, dwarves, etc) still exist in the setting and can be played with GM permission.