D&D 5E Sage Advice is back!

[Mordhau]

Sorry, I just proved the exact opposite. You can't give them a feature AND a free feat. Then they are too powerful. I went through all four use cases, which included characters with traditonal backgrounds, and they are currently balanced.

Sounds good to me. If someone wants to be a a squire of solamnia I certainly won't complain about getting Great Weapon Master or Sentinel at level 1. (Or even both - variant human).

They can avoid falling of their horse while I wreak havoc with the opposition. Seems fair. I may be better at slaughtering bad guys but they'll kick my butt at dressage competitions. They can even help me out when I fail a saving throw once a day.

 

[Mordhau]

I don't agree. I don't believe the "average" customer wants anything. The "average" customer is probably playing D&D with a DM that owns a bunch of stuff and then when it comes time to make a character the "average" customer might look through a second book after the PHB but that's pretty much about it. But they certainly aren't buying their own copies of said products. If they use any bits, it's only cause the DM said a bit might work for them.

My tables through the life of 5E have included probably 20+ different players in all the various campaigns I've run, and if we're lucky, maybe half of them bought their own Player's Handbook. And that's it. The PHB. That's ALL half of the players own, the other half hasn't bought anything at all. And if any of them are using any character creation stuff from either those books it's only because they can use my D&D Beyond master subscription to see them and select them. But I'm the one who bought them and paid for them. Which means I'm the "engaged" customer, and the other 20 of them are the "average" ones.

So what does that mean? It means that ANY new products that WotC puts into the pipeline to create and produce WILL be for the most "engaged" customers (IE people like us), because we are the only ones who will actually buy the product when it comes out anyway. No "average" customers will do so. So those of us who answer the surveys ARE the ones WotC should be asking and taking cues from. They don't need to really think about how any new items will affect the "average" player, because that "average" player would only ever see it in practice if the "engaged" player decided to bring it into play at the table. And that "engaged" played would certainly know better than WotC would whether it was worth doing so.

People who don't buy books aren't average customers for the simple reason they're not customers, but they are still a complicating factor because you still need those people.

I also think there's rather a gap between people who buy all the books and do surveys online and casual players who never buy anything. It's in that gap you'd find the "average customer".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, they can still try to claim compatibility if the core they're assuming is the new core. I'm sure they just assume people will either buy the new books, or be too casual to notice the difference.

I’d say that if casual players don’t notice the difference or run into playability issues, it’s compatible. Full stop.

 

[DEFCON 1]

People who don't buy books aren't average customers for the simple reason they're not customers, but they are still a complicating factor because you still need those people.

I also think there's rather a gap between people who buy all the books and do surveys online and casual players who never buy anything. It's in that gap you'd find the "average customer".

Okay... then what are you calling the "average" customer?

Someone who has just bought the three main books? If that's the case, then it doesn't matter what WotC produces because that average customer isn't going to buy it. Is it someone who buys only the "player-facing" books (PHB, Xanathar's, Tasha's)? Then those "average" players obviously are probably looking for any and all player-facing material available, and thus will buy whatever these new books are that have these new variations of the rules.

However you slice it... I do not believe there is this very large group of players out there who have a very specific slice of wants from D&D but who have remained completely silent on the topic as you have proposed. But even if for the sake or argument they ARE out there... if they are remaining silent and not letting their wants and needs known... then sorry, too bad for them. Those people will just have to make due with the books they currently have and enjoy and play the game as they want it.

After all... that's true for ALL of us. There's not a single one of us who needs to buy or play any extra set of rules that we don't want. So regardless of what WotC releases in the future... we have everything we need to play with right now. And if there are any extra odd and estoeric rules systems that we might want but aren't going to get from WotC as they instead release these other ideas (like feat trees or Backgrounds with a feat baked in)... then we need to just go searching for any of the thousands of 3rd party designers out there who are working their butts off to produce new and original material for us and get over the fact that it isn't the designers of D&D who are releasing it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay... then what are you calling the "average" customer?

Someone who has just bought the three main books? If that's the case, then it doesn't matter what WotC produces because that average customer isn't going to buy it. Is it someone who buys only the "player-facing" books (PHB, Xanathar's, Tasha's)? Then those "average" players obviously are probably looking for any and all player-facing material available, and thus will buy whatever these new books are that have these new variations of the rules.

However you slice it... I do not believe there is this very large group of players out there who have a very specific slice of wants from D&D but who have remained completely silent on the topic as you have proposed. But even if for the sake or argument they ARE out there... if they are remaining silent and not letting their wants and needs known... then sorry, too bad for them. Those people will just have to make due with the books they currently have and enjoy and play the game as they want it.

After all... that's true for ALL of us. There's not a single one of us who needs to buy or play any extra set of rules that we don't want. So regardless of what WotC releases in the future... we have everything we need to play with right now. And if there are any extra odd and estoeric rules systems that we might want but aren't going to get from WotC as they instead release these other ideas (like feat trees or Backgrounds with a feat baked in)... then we need to just go searching for any of the thousands of 3rd party designers out there who are working their butts off to produce new and original material for us and get over the fact that it isn't the designers of D&D who are releasing it.

As someone who is working on a thing that will specifically look to give variant classes that are more esoteric and weird, and a broad expansion of ritual magic, I second this.

 

[Remathilis]

If someone asks you if your changes are compatible with the existing game, and your answer starts with, "it depends on your definition of compatible ", you already have a problem.

I know people who ran 1e monks in their 2e games, used 3.0 prestige classes on 3.5 characters, and ran warlords and invokers next to slayers and warpriests. I even know a guy who ran a BECMI elf in AD&D. If you don't mind converting or the odd corner case ad-hoc ruling, 5e and 5.5 will be fine. If 100% compatible is your goal, there might be issues.

 

[Scribe]

If you don't mind converting or the odd corner case ad-hoc ruling, 5e and 5.5 will be fine.

Yep. I think sometimes we make waaaaaaaaaay too much out of compatibility, when really 5e is so loose most of the issues people can see or predict, wont really make a difference anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep. I think sometimes we make waaaaaaaaaay too much out of compatibility, when really 5e is so loose most of the issues people can see or predict, wont really make a difference anyway.

Oh, I agree. I just think falling back on your definition of a word you used in an official statement would be poor form and may antagonize some folks.

 

[jasper]

I’d say that if casual players don’t notice the difference or run into playability issues, it’s compatible. Full stop.

Looks at my irregular adventure league players. And the modules. Oh they notice. And we flustered a DM and killed one part of module. Two flight base PCs at Tier 1 with huge arms can carry the two non flyers and skip over the mobs encounters.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Looks at my irregular adventure league players. And the modules. Oh they notice. And we flustered a DM and killed one part of module. Two flight base PCs at Tier 1 with huge arms can carry the two non flyers and skip over the mobs encounters.

When did they make flight AL-legal for low level characters? I remember when the Aarakocra were first legal that flight was not allowed for AL play.