D&D (2024) Kobold Press posts 2024 DMG Hit Piece

[Yaarel]

How? How does 5.5 make it easier to homebrew?

Unlike the 2014 DMs Guide which entangles everything.

The 2024 DMs Guide presents the same content, but as discrete lego-like building blocks. If the DM wants to add something, no problem. Even more importantly, if the DM wants to remove something, there are no headaches. It lifts out clean. Done.

The 2024 DMs Guide makes Greyhawk the default setting for 2024. I was surprised to see Greyhawk be the default, not Forgotten Realms. But it is a solid choice. The original intention of the Greyhawk setting is for each DM to rework it according to the needs of each table. It is a great choice for default.

At the same time, 2024 makes it clear that one doesnt need to use Greyhawk. One can continue using Forgotten Realms, or one of the other many official settings including Strixhaven, Eberron, Planescape, etcetera. Because 2024 is so well presented as building blocks, the DMs Guide works well with any choice of setting − especially the homebrew settings that most DMs make from scratch.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The thought has crossed my mind that WotC's shenanigans with the OGL essentially causes multiple 3PP to jump the shark with their own variant systems which will all fail for being either too close or too unlike D&D 2024.

I don't think most of those systems are meant to "succeed" in the traditional sense.

If Kobold Press can make bank off of the ToV core books (I just bought the Monster Vault, myself), great.

But the point was that, if WotC tries their nonsense again and tries to blow up the OGL -- hard-to-impossible now, but that wasn't clear when most of these projects were announced -- these other publishers have created systems to allow them to sell their 5E-compatible stuff in perpetuity, as 5E players could just switch over to ToV or counterpart systems.

In other words, ToV doesn't need to do more than cover its costs. ToV just needs to exist so that Kobold Press can continue to sell their monster books, Midgard setting books, their various genre books and their adventures.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And one could always make an Advanced DMG or the like for the additional stuff folks seem to want...

And in Renton, a WotC executive suddenly sits up, a song in his heart, without even knowing why.

 

[TiQuinn]

I may think this is bad form but it doesn’t change whether or not I’d buy their products. Just to be clear from my standpoint.

 

[John Lloyd1]

a point for KP… that 2024 did not standardize subclass levels will never sit well with me

I haven't understood why this would be important. I heard people complaining when it was dropped from the UA, but didn't catch the reasoning.

 

[mamba]

I haven't understood why this would be important. I heard people complaining when it was dropped from the UA, but didn't catch the reasoning.

I simply prefer it. WotC abandoned all the good ideas they had and instead gave us this lukewarm rehash that is just treading water.

Some prefer it because it would enable a type of subclass that could function across classes (think Shadow of the Weird Wizard, if that means anything to you), me I prefer it for consistency already, the same way I prefer all classes to reach a new level at the same XP over this being different per class

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Some prefer it because it would enable a type of subclass that could function across classes

Justice for the Strixhaven UA subclasses!

 

[Yaarel]

me I prefer it for consistency already, the same way I prefer all classes to reach a new level at the same XP over this being different per class

That is a good point, for why standardized subclass levels make sense.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm curious as to the intended audience for KP's "review." It reads like they are positioning their product as the go-to for folks who really like 5e but are super salty at WotC. Which seems like a pretty tiny demographic, but this is the second time they've basically targeted it.

In that context, I guess "both are based on the 5th edition SRD" probably reads better than "PS we built our game off WotC's design."

I dunno - it just seems funny to me. Kinda desperate. Not a great look, IMO. Why not focus on how awesome your product is, rather than how bad the market leader (that you based your product on) is?

 

[Distracted DM]

I'm curious as to the intended audience for KP's "review." It reads like they are positioning their product as the go-to for folks who really like 5e but are super salty at WotC. Which seems like a pretty tiny demographic, but this is the second time they've basically targeted it.

In that context, I guess "both are based on the 5th edition SRD" probably reads better than "PS we built our game off WotC's design."

I dunno - it just seems funny to me. Kinda desperate. Not a great look, IMO. Why not focus on how awesome your product is, rather than how bad the market leader (that you based your product on) is?

Yeah, because their Game Master's Guide is awesome. Agreed with it all, especially the "who's the intended audience with this" sentiment.