Part of the reason they're doing that I think is that WotC's messy separation of Original 5e from Extra-Crispy 5e leads 3pp to focus on the rules changes WotC made to the same edition and "update" accordingly. If there was a clearer separation the push wouldn't be quite so fierce IMO.
No. I feel it's more accurate what the changes actually represent. I see a clearer separation than some do.antagonism?
But they don't even call it that on the book covers
3.5 said 3.5, 4e essentials said 4e essentials.. eh. Just nitpicking.
View attachment 386508
Being good at teaching the game?
By contrast, I assumed at first you were blasting WotC for their lackluster and unbalanced material. I use Kobold Press stuff and find it is much better than most of the other 3PP content available, and more well thought out than a lot of WotC content.Honestly, I'd rather they try to convince me on why I should bother buying any more of their lackluster and unbalanced material then try to tell me for the 100th time why a book I do enjoy and have been getting use out of is bad and I should feel bad for liking it. Books like Deep Magic, Ebon Tide, and Tome of Heroes are so underwhelming and I have to tweak everything just to make it on par with WotC's stuff, let alone other 3pp products that increase the power scaling for player and DM material, and even their monster books are only ok, many other 3pp creators have done a lot better in my opinion, even Level Up and I haven't even invested much time with that particular monster manual yet. I have no intention of touching ToV if the quality is the same as all the rest I've tried to use so far.
Above is definitely a bit over the top and just my own opinion on the material, but honestly I'm just so sick of this rhetoric of insulting something people like in order to try and convince them that this other thing is so much better. I has never made me try anything that is pitched like that. It's prevalent is so many conversation about all manner of entertainment, it's just tiring.
Ok, little rant over, I feel loads better.
This is flawed reasoning. There are a lot of people who will do what you describe. There are also a lot of people who are bothered by rules, but not so much that they would go out of their way to track new ones down on the internet, but would have an improved play experience if there were optional rules handy in the DMG for them.
I think there's a world of difference between a DMG that has a "new DM guidance" section, and a DMG that is pretty much noting but new DM guidance. The new 2024 DMG is firmly in the latter camp, and while I like what it does, I suspect strongly that in a year or two WotC has plans for an Advanced DMG down the road as there's a lot of "experienced DM" content missing from it.
The DMG if it included the optional rule section.
I don't agree with this. If they were going to name it 6e, there would have been significantly more changes. The changes we got with 5.5e were because they wanted 5e to be compatible with it. That desire wouldn't have been there for a completely new edition.
LOL there's a KFC ad playing in the corner
