D&D 5E Recent Errata clarifications

[Henadic Theologian]

Not doing that in the least. Unless your name is Ray, I'm not making a comment directed towards you or what you like at all.

In fact, I take offense and you claiming this is what I'm doing. I've REPEATEDLY over the top said people are free to do what they like, and I've been REPEATEDLY over the top told that I'm wrong, and many other things that dont bare repeating.

So nope.

His statement is..humorous to say the least, and I'll make note of it, because what they (Wizards) are saying, and doing, and NOT saying, do not line up.

Agreed, it's like their contradictory statements on canon or the fact that they officially stated they aren't merging the MtG and D&D multiverses, but Strixhaven and the AFR adventure with Ravnican villian or Theros, Tarkir, and Ravnica getting mentions along with regular D&D settings like Dragonlance, FR, and Council of Wyrms and Eberron in Fizban's Treasury of Dragons say otherwise.

There is no decisive vision at WotC, they are trying to move in every direction at once, and as much as it messes stuff up, they get away with it, because they have an insane level of market dominance that is almost unchallegnable.

 

[bedir than]

We wouldn't be seeing damage control like these clarifications

The clarification was merely because people on EN, Twitter, etc failed to read the Errata and instead just talked to each other about the errata. The claimed damage by "removing evil Beholders" and other lies needed clarification, not because WotC failed, but because social media failed.

 

[Charlaquin]

These changes are far from indicating that they've given up on appealing to veteran fans. We wouldn't be seeing damage control like these clarifications, or the restoration of monster statblock alignment in Fizban's, if they had; they'd just double down, certain that they could leave the old folks behind. They also wouldn't still be trying to tap into nostalgia through bits like the NPC cameos in Witchlight, or the Spelljammer races in the latest UA.

I think it's more likely they're attempting to see how far they can push changes intended to widen the audience without alienating their existing one. That's certainly the safest move for a big company with a successful product to make.

I don’t think they’ve given up on the veteran fans at all. They just know that there are a LOT more new fans, and also that these changes are seen as positive to a not-insignificant portion of the veteran fans too.

 

[JEB]

The clarification was merely because people on EN, Twitter, etc failed to read the Errata and instead just talked to each other about the errata. The claimed damage by "removing evil Beholders" and other lies needed clarification, not because WotC failed, but because social media failed.

They didn't feel the need to issue immediate clarifications on the new canon policy, the removal of alignment from sourcebooks, or the shift to floating ASI, and all of those were quickly interpreted in a variety of ways that some would deem incorrect or hyperbolic.

The key difference, I suspect, is that this change seemed to have (and is still having) a louder negative reaction from a larger number of fans. So it seemed like more of a threat to the bottom line than the other changes, which got more mixed responses.

 

[Scribe]

The key difference, I suspect, is that this change seemed to have (and is still having) a louder negative reaction from a larger number of fans. So it seemed like more of a threat to the bottom line than the other changes, which got more mixed responses.

Is it? I literally look nowhere but here.

 

[JEB]

Is it? I literally look nowhere but here.

The change got some significant pushback on r/dndnext, for example. There's now some counter-pushback after the clarification, but there are still a decent number of grumpy folks.

 

[Scribe]

The change got some significant pushback on r/dndnext, for example. There's now some counter-pushback after the clarification, but there are still a decent number of grumpy folks.

I mean people are going to have to accept it, the alternative is no longer worth it to Wizards.

 

[JEB]

They just know that there are a LOT more new fans,

More new fans? Yep, 55% are under 30, definitely a majority. But 45% are 30 and above, and the older you get in that cohort, the more likely they are to at least be veterans of 4E and 3E. Even if you only count the 27% that are 35 and over (which are more likely to be vets), that's still one-fourth of the fanbase that grew up with a certain version of the game and are more likely to be uncomfortable with things that seem like fundamental changes.

I doubt most companies are ready to commit to changes that could potentially annoy 27% of their userbase - but make small, cautious attempts to test the waters? Absolutely.

and also that these changes are seen as positive to a not-insignificant portion of the veteran fans too.

I don't think they know that for sure until they try them out. And it's already failed at least once - monster alignment disappeared by Van Richten's and came back in full by Fizban's. IIRC they even admitted they're in kind of an experimentation phase...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Funnily, I find the in-between planes far more interesting than the straight-alignment planes. I'd rather have Gehenna, Pandemonium, and Acheron (Hades is NE) than either the Hells or the Abyss.

Don't get me wrong, I find a lot of the in-between planes interesting (I like Acheron and Carceri), but Pandemonium could easily just be a few layers of the Abyss, and if Gehenna is the home of the Neutral Evil Fiends (Yugoloths), it should be the Neutral Evil Plane, instead of Hades (which isn't even the Underworld/Afterlife of the Great Wheel, it's just a place that Larva form and Night Hags have soul-trades). (And, like I said before, there's not really a reason to have two separate Planes of War, so merging Acheron and Ysgard and having the specific conflicts on them be separated by layers on the same plane, like how the Nine Hells has 9 Layers, etc.)

And don't get me started on the Upper Planes or Limbo.

(Sorry for the rant.)

 

[Mind of tempest]

When WotC does their surveys and a question about favorite races is included I always choose Dwarf and Halfling because they are criminally under utilized in many of the supplements going back to 1e. A million subraces of elf but what I'd love is more interesting dwarfs and halfling. I know it can be done!

I'd love if 5.5e or 6e did like Level Up has done (plug for the books!) as I really like it. I backed it sight unseen and I think species, culture, background is a great way to build a PC and how I've tried to do it (poorly) as a DM so far. Being a human from here is different from a human from here and these are how we can simulate it for your PC. Plus, in Level Up many of the cultures are named right after the species indicating what the default is.

The Level Up book highlights what I find missing from so many 5e official supplements. We get new species after new species, but what I really want are loads of new cultures and backgrounds with mechanical fiddly-bobs that I can graft onto my home game. Doesn't matter to me if it's a generic supplement with generic cultures and backgrounds or a setting book with specific ones.

Too much of D&D seems to lean on the race itself to provide depth by rolling culture directly into the race description and I think that does D&D a disservice. I don't think Tasha's and other changes by WotC have done an effective job of moving away from that and instead have left what I considering a dissatisfying mix that's neither fish nor fowl.

dwarves and halfling end up not being used because they are sort of bland they need some more work to really get them to be popular.