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

Oofta said:

It's funny. People want a more modular system and more options. We get a more modular system and more options and suddenly it's bloat and the sky is falling.

If you don't want to allow them, don't. They're quite campaign setting specific. I don't allow dragon marks from Eberron into my campaign, why would I allow Dark Gifts if it doesn't fit the theme of my campaign?

Click to expand...

Exactly! Dark Gifts and Supernatural Gifts are not a REQUIREMENT of the game. They're a dial you can use to increase the power of your characters if you so choose. But the existence of a dial doesn't mean we all have to use it now and that the game itself is going to be balanced around the use of said dials.

I'd argue that choosing what NOT to include in your game is far more important than choosing what TO include. Otherwise we'll all be playing fantasy kitchen sink. Now, some games WANT a Chalmun's Cantina in Mos Eisley Spaceport feel to their setting. But the existence of Owlfolk and Rabbitfolk and Hobgoblins of the Feywild and Hobgoblins not of the Feywild and Tritons and Aarakocra and Leonin and Dhampir and Hexbloods and Minotaurs and Firbolgs and Aasimar etc should not mean you have to find a place for them all in your game. It means that they're tools in your tool box as a DM (and in the tool box of a player if the DM allows said ancestry for character creation). "If it exists, there's a place for it in Eberron" is not a model that all DMs should follow. Use what works for your game, dump the rest. Maybe add them back in if the game takes a hard turn toward horror or faerie stuff at some point, but there's no reason to have to use everything, certainly not all at once.

This is modular. Both the use and the not-use are equally valid choices with consequences for the tone and mechanics of the game.

Minigiant said:

Agree. My point is that Beers and Friends has a limit. Even the casual restaurant has a few fancy foods. Even the bar keeps a few fancy drinks.

At a certain point, you have to sell more than basic commercial beer in different colored bottles.

Click to expand...

After all those years on the net, the overall mental space to afford complex rules has shrink a lot! In the 80-90 it was the time of user’s manual that come with each and every complex thing you buy. Today all is about buy, open and use. Learning is done as you play or use things and game. DnD take a great risk with a Phb and hundred of pages of rules book.
It is still working, pen, paper, theater of the mind got a little vintage feeling that is quite cool and off trend compare to the rest of our technological life, but they can’t push the experience too far.
So they have to keep the game as simple as possible.

Oofta said:

It's funny. People want a more modular system and more options. We get a more modular system and more options and suddenly it's bloat and the sky is falling.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

I want more mods.
Other people want fewer mods to prevent bloat.
I has "Just use the ones you want. Ban want you don't"
Other people has "But people expect to use what's in the books"
Then I say "you ban some races and classes dontcha"

And now we can't have new chart of 15 new polearms and a new shield mod.

Bucklers are not the same as Viking round shield, dangnabbit!

Oofta said:

It's funny. People want a more modular system and more options. We get a more modular system and more options and suddenly it's bloat and the sky is falling.

If you don't want to allow them, don't. They're quite campaign setting specific. I don't allow dragon marks from Eberron into my campaign, why would I allow Dark Gifts if it doesn't fit the theme of my campaign?

Click to expand...

This is an argument against the idea of a consolidated PHB revision that includes all the races and classes from splats and setting books. Most people expect what is in the PHB is generally considered core and allowed in most games, while people seem to have an easier time restricting supplemental material.

Minigiant said:

Exactly.

I want more mods.
Other people want fewer mods to prevent bloat.
I has "Just use the ones you want. Ban want you don't"
Other people has "But people expect to use what's in the books"
Then I say "you ban some races and classes dontcha"

And now we can't have new chart of 15 new polearms and a new shield mod.

Bucklers are not the same as Viking round shield, dangnabbit!

Click to expand...

I just don't think 5e is granular enough to support that sort of thing in a meaningful way. You'd have to simultaneously reintroduce weapon speed, reach by the foot and weapon vs armor types to make it worthwhile. Which isn't to say one couldn't, but it's not simply a matter of expanding the weapon list.

Krachek said:

After all those years on the net, the overall mental space to afford complex rules has shrink a lot! In the 80-90 it was the time of user’s manual that come with each and every complex thing you buy. Today all is about buy, open and use. Learning is done as you play or use things and game. DnD take a great risk with a Phb and hundred of pages of rules book.
It is still working, pen, paper, theater of the mind got a little vintage feeling that is quite cool and off trend compare to the rest of our technological life, but they can’t push the experience too far.
So they have to keep the game as simple as possible.

Click to expand...

The base can be simple. I just want my variant rules and I'm only going to pay for it once.

Krachek said:

After all those years on the net, the overall mental space to afford complex rules has shrink a lot! In the 80-90 it was the time of user’s manual that come with each and every complex thing you buy. Today all is about buy, open and use. Learning is done as you play or use things and game. DnD take a great risk with a Phb and hundred of pages of rules book.
It is still working, pen, paper, theater of the mind got a little vintage feeling that is quite cool and off trend compare to the rest of our technological life, but they can’t push the experience too far.
So they have to keep the game as simple as possible.

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

This is an argument against the idea of a consolidated PHB revision that includes all the races and classes from splats and setting books. Most people expect what is in the PHB is generally considered core and allowed in most games, while people seem to have an easier time restricting supplemental material.

Click to expand...

Minigiant said:

The base can be simple. I just want my variant rules and I'm only going to pay for it once.

Click to expand...

Honestly? I mostly agree with the three of you on this. PHB SHOULD be simple. Not a simple as the Essentials Kit or Starter Set, but it shouldn't overwhelm the player with variant rules and ancestry and class options. It should be the core for which +1 can build from.

I think a revised PHB shouldn't be necessarily a consolidated PHB so much as including the options that are strict replacements (like revised ancestries, additional class spells, arguably the Ranger options from Tasha's) while excluding dials like supernatural gifts and the other class features. Those could go into the DM's Toolbox section of a revised DMG or else into an Unearthed Arcana-esque companion book of dials, bells, and whistles, alongside the subclass and ancestry options from Volo's, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's, and Tasha's. This can and should be the default +1 rulebook, to be revised regularly to recompile new options into it.

Marandahir said:

Honestly? I mostly agree with the three of you on this. PHB SHOULD be simple. Not a simple as the Essentials Kit or Starter Set, but it shouldn't overwhelm the player with variant rules and ancestry and class options. It should be the core for which +1 can build from.

I think a revised PHB shouldn't be necessarily a consolidated PHB so much as including the options that are strict replacements (like revised ancestries, additional class spells, arguably the Ranger options from Tasha's) while excluding dials like supernatural gifts and the other class features. Those could go into the DM's Toolbox section of a revised DMG or else into an Unearthed Arcana-esque companion book of dials, bells, and whistles, alongside the subclass and ancestry options from Volo's, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's, and Tasha's. This can and should be the default +1 rulebook, to be revised regularly to recompile new options into it.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, but I keep thinking the books would look like the following if we included all of the rules.

Oofta said:

I don't necessarily disagree, but I keep thinking the books would look like the following if we included all of the rules.
View attachment 137316

Click to expand...

Sure. I guess recompiling an Unearthed Arcana book isn't feasible. But merging in SOME but not ALL of the content of these "one for every 2 out of 3 years" splatbooks into a revised PHB every 10 years might be feasible. And then every so often you can release a big book of ancestries or a big book of subclasses that recompiles previously released ones to allow PHB+1 to continue. Tasha's is just weird and interesting because it's really both. Volo's and Mordenkainen's were big book of ancestries + monsters; and Xanathar's was a big book of subclasses. But Tasha's has both ancestries and classes in it.

teitan said:

I don't even think it is significant long term myself. I like it but I think it will be minimal impact as a side option in a refresh which will upset some folks but pandering rarely leads to sustained sales, politics aside. Nearly killed DC and Marvel a few years back.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call anything they did in Tasha's "pandering": mostly they just laid out the math theybise for balancing options internally and gave guidelines for making homebrew consistent.