D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Minigiant]

I admit, the existence of Feats is a flaw, but some people seem to like them, so I don't think it's all that bad.

Oh ho.
So perhaps you agree with me that many of the aspects offeats should be available in other ways?

 

[Hussar]

But all I wanted was a page or 2 of weapon or armor related stuff. Casters always get tons and tons of new spells. My fighter, Hak McSlash, woulda been fine with a hammer on a stick, a new pokey stick, 2 new chuckable weapons, and some dangerous thing on the end of a rope or chain.

The fact that there are few martial additions to 5e that should been in the 3 core books (like thrown weapon fighting fighting style) is just beyond strange. The barbarian, fighter, and rogue get more and more magical as each time WOTC mentions them.

Of the ten or so official fighter subclasses, like 5 of them have magic, and the 1 of those 5 appeared in core, and 1 of them is in the Wildemount book (how official you want to count this is up to the reader). So, there are still more non-magic fighter subclasses than magic ones. More and more magical? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? They started out with 1 or 2 magical fighters - Eldritch Knight and Arcane archer out of like 6 fighter subclasses and have added like 2 more since then.

Of the eight rogue subclasses, 3 are distinctly magical.

Barbarians are a bit of an odd duck since they've been a magical fighter class since day 1.

But, again, you keep making this argument that you're needs are not being addressed. The goalposts have shifted rather a lot from your original wish list of armor as DR etc. New weapons? Good grief, there's a shopping list of that stuff on DM's Guild. More than you could possible want.

Again, WotC is being absolutely clear here. They will not produce stuff that makes other books harder to use. Full stop. A book of weapons impacts monsters. It means that every adventure module going forward has to include some of these new weapons. If flails ignore shields, for example, it means that every monster that uses a flail suddenly nerfs my sword and board fighter - a nerf that is most certainly not needed. And, since only a tiny handful of monsters actually use a shield, this will hurt the players far more than grant them any advantage. Players get REALLY shirty when you start having stuff that impacts their careful build creation. I remember using Dragon Heist and doing a Fall Season adventure which meant that outdoor ranged attacks were at disadvantage due to the winds. The players of the archer character lost his naughty word on me for that. Didn't matter that it would only impact a couple of encounters. He went completely orangutan poop.

And you want to add a shopping list of weapon effects that need to be included in every subsequent publication going forward, plus will impact every previous publication? Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh ho.
So perhaps you agree with me that many of the aspects offeats should be available in other ways?

Split between Subclasses and improv Skill rolls, basically.

 

[Minigiant]

Of the ten or so official fighter subclasses, like 5 of them have magic, and the 1 of those 5 appeared in core, and 1 of them is in the Wildemount book (how official you want to count this is up to the reader). So, there are still more non-magic fighter subclasses than magic ones. More and more magical? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? They started out with 1 or 2 magical fighters - Eldritch Knight and Arcane archer out of like 6 fighter subclasses and have added like 2 more since then.

The fighters since Xanatars: (Echo, Psi, and Rune Kinght) are all magical.

Of the eight rogue subclasses, 3 are distinctly magical.

The rogues since Xanatar's: (Phantom and Soulknife) are magical.

Barbarians are a bit of an odd duck since they've been a magical fighter class since day 1.

Berserker isn't magical. And thre are tons of nonmagical barbarian ideas. Tribal Chiefs. Horse Archers. Weapon hurlers, Battleragers.

But, again, you keep making this argument that you're needs are not being addressed. The goalposts have shifted rather a lot from your original wish list of armor as DR etc. New weapons? Good grief, there's a shopping list of that stuff on DM's Guild. More than you could possible want.

One line on my list was armor as DR.

At what point did I say I wanted all those things. Someone asked for a list of possible modules and I gave some examples. I don't want all of those things. I just would have liked something. I have what want from paid third party items and my own game design.

But it isn't about me. It's about others. I'm not with the "I Got Mine" mentality that is persistent in the D&D community. Especially from DMs. What about All the DMS and Groups who don't know about DMGuild? So the variants WOTC throws to the side might never reach some of those looking for rules and advice to get the game they want.

Again, WotC is being absolutely clear here. They will not produce stuff that makes other books harder to use. Full stop. A book of weapons impacts monsters. It means that every adventure module going forward has to include some of these new weapons.

Oh you mean how monsters don't get maneuvers.

Seriously how does giving an orc a double axe wreck 5e?

f flails ignore shields, for example, it means that every monster that uses a flail suddenly nerfs my sword and board fighter - a nerf that is most certainly not needed. And, since only a tiny handful of monsters actually use a shield, this will hurt the players far more than grant them any advantage. Players get REALLY shirty when you start having stuff that impacts their careful build creation. I remember using Dragon Heist and doing a Fall Season adventure which meant that outdoor ranged attacks were at disadvantage due to the winds. The players of the archer character lost his naughty word on me for that. Didn't matter that it would only impact a couple of encounters. He went completely orangutan poop.

That's why I want manuevers based on weapons and have weapon groups. These rules would remove the single tactic buildism in warrior classes.

That's the reason why I hoped for weapon groups. 5e locks warriors into a single tactic at level 1 or 2 where some casters can change their character around every day or load multiple strategies at one time.

And Axeman would have bonuses with handaxes, battle axes, and great axes. 3 combat styles to choose from. And they would have the luxury of choosing the damage of axes over the penetration of light, war, and great hammers.

 

[Hussar]

The fighters since Xanatars: (Echo, Psi, and Rune Kinght) are all magical.


The rogues since Xanatar's: (Phantom and Soulknife) are magical.


Berserker isn't magical. And thre are tons of nonmagical barbarian ideas. Tribal Chiefs. Horse Archers. Weapon hurlers, Battleragers.

[/QUOTE]
Since there has been one class book since Xanathar's, again, I think you might be reading a bit much into this. And, while Berserker isn't magical (at least, not really), every other Barbarian has been. This is hardly a change. Tribal Chief isn't a subclass, horse archer isn't a barbarian class and weapon hurler? battlerager? None of those are actual classes. Those are just combat collections. Again, not what WotC has been producing at all.

One line on my list was armor as DR.

At what point did I say I wanted all those things. Someone asked for a list of possible modules and I gave some examples. I don't want all of those things. I just would have liked something. I have what want from paid third party items and my own game design.

But it isn't about me. It's about others. I'm not with the "I Got Mine" mentality that is persistent in the D&D community. Especially from DMs. What about All the DMS and Groups who don't know about DMGuild? So the variants WOTC throws to the side might never reach some of those looking for rules and advice to get the game they want.

I think this is why every single month, WotC puts a honking big section in Dragon+ advertising DM's Guild. Not really sure how much more outreach they could do. Between Reddit sites with hundreds of thousands of members (/r DNDNext alone has 7600 members online RIGHT NOW and a membership of just shy of half a million), online play shows like Critical Role, and various other venues, "I have no idea what DM's Guild is" rings a bit hollow.

Oh you mean how monsters don't get maneuvers.

Seriously how does giving an orc a double axe wreck 5e?


That's why I want manuevers based on weapons and have weapon groups. These rules would remove the single tactic buildism in warrior classes.

That's the reason why I hoped for weapon groups. 5e locks warriors into a single tactic at level 1 or 2 where some casters can change their character around every day or load multiple strategies at one time.

And Axeman would have bonuses with handaxes, battle axes, and great axes. 3 combat styles to choose from. And they would have the luxury of choosing the damage of axes over the penetration of light, war, and great hammers.

5e no more locks a warrior into single tactics than you force it. That's a ridiculous statement. See, this is why it's such a problem. Sure, when you point buy your character and dump stat, instead of building balanced characters, yeah, you have single, one trick pony characters that do one thing over and over again. But, that's a player problem. I've seen that far too many times. Ok, I'm going to singularly focus feats, ASI's, magic items and every other character option on using this one tactic. What? You are nerfing my tactic because of the wind?!?! HOW DARE YOU!! HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO PLAY!!!!

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for those players. Bounded accuracy means that a 16 in your prime stat is more than good enough. No, you don't have to use one weapon and only that one weapon for 16 levels to be effective.

The only people who want more options are the optimizers and, frankly, I couldn't care less about that or what they want.

 

[Minigiant]

Since there has been one class book since Xanathar's, again, I think you might be reading a bit much into this. And, while Berserker isn't magical (at least, not really), every other Barbarian has been. This is hardly a change. Tribal Chief isn't a subclass, horse archer isn't a barbarian class and weapon hurler? battlerager? None of those are actual classes. Those are just combat collections. Again, not what WotC has been producing at all.

Thane and Chief barbairans are as valid a subclass as Cavalier. And a hurler and archer barbarian would allow Rage to effect their ranged attacks.

Barbarian is one of the most one trick pony classes as many of the base features focus on Str based Melee.

I think this is why every single month, WotC puts a honking big section in Dragon+ advertising DM's Guild. Not really sure how much more outreach they could do. Between Reddit sites with hundreds of thousands of members (/r DNDNext alone has 7600 members online RIGHT NOW and a membership of just shy of half a million), online play shows like Critical Role, and various other venues, "I have no idea what DM's Guild is" rings a bit hollow.

And still the new DMs I mentored knew nothing of Dragon+ or DMGuild until I mentioned it. Everyone will kow about the Strixhaven book. FNo where near as many will see the top downloads on DMGuild.

5e no more locks a warrior into single tactics than you force it. That's a ridiculous statement. See, this is why it's such a problem. Sure, when you point buy your character and dump stat, instead of building balanced characters, yeah, you have single, one trick pony characters that do one thing over and over again. But, that's a player problem. I've seen that far too many times. Ok, I'm going to singularly focus feats, ASI's, magic items and every other character option on using this one tactic. What? You are nerfing my tactic because of the wind?!?! HOW DARE YOU!! HOW DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT TO PLAY!!!!

Yeah, I have zero sympathy for those players. Bounded accuracy means that a 16 in your prime stat is more than good enough. No, you don't have to use one weapon and only that one weapon for 16 levels to be effective.

The only people who want more options are the optimizers and, frankly, I couldn't care less about that or what they want

Nah. I disagree with a lot of this.

You pick a fighing style at level 1 or 2. Only Champions get a second at high levels. And Shields stink in 5e without a fighting style backing it up. And you can't even throw multiple weapons in a turn without a fighting style.

It's 5e that makes characters into one trick ponies. It isn't about optimization. The advantage of switching styles is extremely low and is only done when a warrior's primary style is cancelled. 5e barely learned the lessons of 3e and 4e and hamstrung itself to be easier.

 

[MichaelSomething]

"In order to make an arrow curve, there's a few things you have to do. Firstly, I move the fletching about halfway down the arrow. So what that does is it puts the arrow on a centre axis. The second thing that you have to do is instead of knocking the arrow straight back, i'm gonna knock it high, so it's gonna look like this. So what happens is when you shoot the bow sideways, it puts the arrow into a fishtail, so then you can curve it."

 

[Rabulias]

More curving arrows around obstacles:

 

[Hatmatter]

You pick a fighing style at level 1 or 2. Only Champions get a second at high levels. And Shields stink in 5e without a fighting style backing it up. And you can't even throw multiple weapons in a turn without a fighting style.

It's 5e that makes characters into one trick ponies. It isn't about optimization. The advantage of switching styles is extremely low and is only done when a warrior's primary style is cancelled. 5e barely learned the lessons of 3e and 4e and hamstrung itself to be easier.

Hi Minigiant, I want to reiterate that I would like you to get the kinds of elements you desire in future D&D books. At this point, I am not precisely sure why I continue to read this thread as, speaking for myself, I certainly do not want you unhappy with D&D and I think the last ten pages or so of the thread have kind of turned into a discussion about that!

But, with that being said, I read a couple things that you wrote in this recent post that I quoted above and I thought I would contribute by sharing my experience with this goofy game called D&D.

First, with regard to "Shields stink in 5e without a fighting style backing it up." That is a subjective opinion, of course, and I am sure that this is your experience...so I won't try to take that away from you (nor could I). Also, importantly, I skipped the 3rd edition of D&D, so that colors my own experience. I played 4th edition, but honestly it has been so long I cannot remember the specifics of shield use...I am sure that shield use in 4th edition is more nuanced than 5th edition because achieving that kind of detail was an objective of 4th edition. But, with that being said, I will share that my experience of shields in 5th edition is not that they stink if one does not have the protection fighting style, and that shields in 5th edition are more useful than shields in the 1st edition and 2nd edition of AD&D. Not only do shields provide a two-point AC adjustment across the board, but some classes can use the shield for interesting effects (the cavalier does, the cleric or paladin can incorporate a holy symbol into a shield and thereby avoid material components to spells, plus some other exceptions in the game where shields come up and that are slipping my mind in the moment, and this is not even introducing a discussion about shield mastery, which, given the digression about feats from the last two or three pages of this thread, I will certainly avoid). That two-point adjustment to AC is great. Anyway, in my experience shields have a place and, vis-à-vis 1st and 2nd edition -- and for that matter, Basic -- do not stink. Probably vis-à-vis 3rd or 4th edition they stink...I really don't have enough experience to hold such an aromatic opinion.

My second humble contribution here would be to respond to this notion that "you can't even throw multiple weapons in a turn without a fighting style." I do not understand this. Anyone with multiple attacks, gained at 5th level or 6th level by the battle smith artificer, college of valor or college of swords bards, monk, barbarian, ranger, paladin, and, of course, the fighter, can throw a # of weapons/turn equal to the character's # of attacks, which would be two for these characters and, of course, even more for a higher-level fighter. But, in addition, any character at even 1st level can employ the "Two-weapon Fighting" rule on page 195 of the PHB to throw an additional light weapon by using a bonus action. This option means that such a character does not get the usual ability modifier to damage with that additional thrown attack. For convenience sake, here is the rule:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

All right, over and out, my friends. Avoid the stinky shields, use all kinds of crazy cool weapons, throw a couple light weapons a round using your bonus action, and have a good time at the table!

 

[ph0rk]

I do not understand this. Anyone with multiple attacks, gained at 5th level or 6th level by the battle smith artificer, college of valor or college of swords bards, monk, barbarian, ranger, paladin, and, of course, the fighter, can throw a # of weapons/turn equal to the character's # of attacks

Character has 2 attacks; starts round with one spear in hand.

Round 1:
Character throws spear,
Character draws second spear
Character throws second spear
Character ends round with two empty hands.

Round 2:
Character draws spear
Character throws spear
Character cannot draw a new spear, character ends round with empty hands.