log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 6E 6E When?

I actually disagree with this entirely. It's not that people are more easily confused, it's just that there are more new players. And having a bunch of rulebooks with similar names is going to confuse new players...
I mean, that's not crazy or anything: if 3.5 was not bringing in many new players, and the PH2 just comfortably sold to established ones, while 4e was selling mainly to new players, then, yeah, maybe it was conceivably confusing...
….but then why try to 'solve' that with an even more confusing 10-product 'Essentials' line, led by a retro-"Red Box" aimed at old players? While leaving the offending numbered book in print?
And, why, if we are dealing with so many presumably-still-confusion-subject new players, today, go entirely the other way with one potential 'on ramp' and make it mechanically lead-into a defunct edition? Surely that's at least as confusing?

I mean, I know I'm confused. ;)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I mean, that's not crazy or anything: if 3.5 was not bringing in many new players, and the PH2 just comfortably sold to established ones, while 4e was selling mainly to new players, then, yeah, maybe it was conceivably confusing...
….but then why try to 'solve' that with an even more confusing 10-product 'Essentials' line, led by a retro-"Red Box" aimed at old players? While leaving the offending numbered book in print?
And, why, if we are dealing with so many presumably-still-confusion-subject new players, today, go entirely the other way with one potential 'on ramp' and make it mechanically lead-into a defunct edition? Surely that's at least as confusing?

I mean, I know I'm confused. ;)

Well, what you are stating is kind of confusing. After all, new books have added the same things we've seen in "[core book] 2". Are you confused by Volo's guide to monsters?

To me, the devs having more flexibility with the type of book they publish in addition to being less confusing to new players in addition to not causing any other negative side effects makes this a no brainer.

Even if the only advantage was that they don't have to fill a new book with just new monsters, they can give more in depth info on existing monsters is good enough for me. Even if it does confuse some old grognards.
 

Second Edition is pretty clunky, but it does at least avoid the major faults of 5E. Honestly, though, the best course for that would probably be one of the competent retro-clones.

Im not financially in a position to invest in a new game system. I bought 1 or 2 about 10 years ago and they sat on my bookshelf until I sold them. 5E just isnt doing it for me, but I cant quite figure out why. 4E is out of the question, and 3.x/Pathfinder are too complex for my tastes at this point. Think I'll dust off my 2E books and read through them and decide what to do.
 

3.5 edition was published in 2003, and PH 2 in 2006.

If you have learnt strategy as military professional, fan of wargames or as businesment manager you know after starting the plans have to change and adapt. If WotC has got a plan for the next years this isn't written on stone but should be enoughly flexible to adapt to new situations.

I have said now the cadence of sourcebooks with "crunch" is slower, most of titles are modules or background. This means the balance of power isn't broken yet and nothing has to be fixed. And the metaplot is totally stopped, frozen. My theory is the futures plans about the metaplot of all the lines may be linked with the future projects about mass media (videogames, movies and teleseries in streaming services).

In my opinion the current strategy is the return of old lines: (after Eberron) Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Kara-tur, Greyhawk, and some pieces of recycled/updated crunch about classes and PC races.

I dare to say there are future plans for a non-fantasy d20, maybe Gamma World or d20 Modern, at least to allow adaptations of famous franchises set in the modern age (for example videogames). The challenge is d20 system isn't ready for crossovers among different titles. You can create a d20 Street Fighters, d20 Overwatch or a d20 Star Wars, but you can't use someone as "guest artist" in other titles because the balance of power could be broken. These different genres aren't ready to be mixed yet.
 

Well, what you are stating is kind of confusing. After all, new books have added the same things we've seen in "[core book] 2".
Yes, and all I'm stating is things WotC has said & done at various times, that, though they might have seemed reasonable (or not, in some cases), in isolation, don't add up when considered in light of eachother.

Is the market perhaps changing? Sure! But I don't think human nature and what constitutes a bar for confusing your product line can be changing all that fast. :🤷:

Are you confused by Volo's guide to monsters?
I've not been confused by any of the thing WotC has said were dreadfully confusing, just by their insistence that they were confusing, and their going forwards with solutions to said confusion that were yet more confusing. ;P And, now, they've gone and left something that can't help but be confusing or off-putting alone, when they've gone to such great lengths before?

To me, the devs having more flexibility with the type of book they publish in addition to being less confusing to new players in addition to not causing any other negative side effects makes this a no brainer.
IDK. I can see that. I can also wonder what the point of obfuscating the nature of a supplement, rather than stating it clearly right in the title is.


Like I said, I have no conspiracy theory to offer, and I'm sure, it makes some sort of sense, in light of everything WotC has to consider, but from the outsider perspective, not s'much.
 

More I play 5E the more I dont like it. I hope they come out with 6E soon or Im switching back to 2E.
I can't see what's not to like in 5e that's not not to like in 2e, too.
OK, yes, there are differences in the fiddly mechanical details, but overall, they're remarkably similar in function & feel.

2e has kits, 5e has backgrounds & sub-classes. Fighters in 2e do tons of DPR (if you use optional weapon specialization), fighter in 5e do tons of DPR (if you use optional feats). Monsters in 2e had their hps & damage upped significantly, Monsters in 5e had their hps & damage upped significantly. 2e had optional NWPs but you could probably just make an informal stat check to do whatever, 5e has skills that hardly matter, and you can probably just do whatever by describing it to the DM and maybe making a stat check.
…?

Im not financially in a position to invest in a new game system. I bought 1 or 2 about 10 years ago and they sat on my bookshelf until I sold them. 5E just isnt doing it for me, but I cant quite figure out why.
That does sound frustrating.

Maybe you've just been confused by a book title? ;) j/k
 

Mistwell

Legend
As someone who played World of Warcraft before seriously playing D&D, 4E's being an on-ramp for MMO never made sense. Doesn't now

It was the plan for 4e however:

"Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI. At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing. The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals. Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.

The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI. DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the DDI team and it never really recovered. The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched, and the explicit link between 4e and DDI that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized. The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone. The marketplace backlash to 4e didn't help either. "
 

Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
I mean, I know I'm confused. ;)

It's honestly so simple I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse.

If you want to play the game, get the Player's Handbook. If you want to be a Dungeon Master, get the Dungeon Master's Guide. If you want more monster's to use in games, get the Monster Manual.

No idea where to start? Get the Starter's Kit. Want everything essential for character creation together in a box? Get the Essentials Kit.

They literally are all named precisely so you understand what they are.
 

Mistwell

Legend
Stop the arms races involving armor class, attack bonus and hit points and 5e can remain evergreen.

Uh, they stopped the arms race involving AC and Attack Bonuses for the most part. Welcome to 5 years ago.

It doesn't help their cause that the only things they've released with any consistency are giant, expensive hardback adventures. What they ought to be doing is developing 32-page adventures that are generic, setting-wise, but with a sidebar identifying where to locate in Greyhawk, FR, and Mystara. Do one every 4-6 months.

They've done this as well. Yeesh, it looks like you have only a vague passing familiarity with this edition dude.
 

It's honestly so simple I'm wondering if you're being deliberately obtuse
...bit o' humor's all that was.

5e suffers from the same basic flaws as 4e and 3e in how it treats the core damage and healing mechanics and in how it treats advancement of hit points, attack bonus, hit points, etc.
So, 5e's slow, but even, "BA" proficiency advancement is the same problem as 4e's rapid but even 1/2 level advancement, and 3e's rapid, but uneven BAB & in-/cross- class skill ranks advancement?

Stop the arms races involving armor class, attack bonus and hit points and 5e can remain evergreen.
The attack/AC race in 5e is more of a stroll. You gain 4 whole points of attack bonus over 20 levels, monsters of about CR = level may have a similar gain in AC (though monster ACs can vary by more than 4 among monsters of the same CR, anyway). Save DC/bonus can be a bit tighter, both can go up by exactly Proficiency + primary stat mod, but , there are at least some saves on virtually every class & monster that don't advance, at all.

Yes, hit-points/damage scales dramatically in 5e. Something has to scale in a level-based game.
 

I can't see what's not to like in 5e that's not not to like in 2e, too.
OK, yes, there are differences in the fiddly mechanical details, but overall, they're remarkably similar in function & feel.

2e has kits, 5e has backgrounds & sub-classes. Fighters in 2e do tons of DPR (if you use optional weapon specialization), fighter in 5e do tons of DPR (if you use optional feats). Monsters in 2e had their hps & damage upped significantly, Monsters in 5e had their hps & damage upped significantly. 2e had optional NWPs but you could probably just make an informal stat check to do whatever, 5e has skills that hardly matter, and you can probably just do whatever by describing it to the DM and maybe making a stat check.
…?

That does sound frustrating.

Maybe you've just been confused by a book title? ;) j/k

5E and 2E are similar in some cases and its been so long since I played 2E that Im probably forgetting the bad things with. Switching back at this point might just be trading one set of problems for another. But I will say that when 3E came out the tone of the game changed. Our group is taking a break until January, I'll give it some thought on what I want to do.
 

5E and 2E are similar in some cases and its been so long since I played 2E that Im probably forgetting the bad things with. Switching back at this point might just be trading one set of problems for another. But I will say that when 3E came out the tone of the game changed. Our group is taking a break until January, I'll give it some thought on what I want to do.
Yeah, there was a definite return to the less self-conscious-story/angst, more kick-in-the-door, 'back to the dungeon' vibe with 3e.
5e doesn't come down hard on either side of that, though, AFAICT. It's up to the DM what he wants to do with his campaign.
 

darjr

I crit!
Wait, just because no one has done the research into ph2 confusion for 3.5 doesn’t mean it wasn’t confusing. We think we know PH2 was confusing for 4e because WotC did some research into what was up and found this out.

it could very well BE that PH2 3.5 was just as confusing for people. I know I am now.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Wait, just because no one as done the research into ph2 confusion for 3.5 doesn’t mean it wasn’t confusing. We think we know PH2 was confusing for 4e because WotC did some research into what was up and found this out.

it could very well BE that PH2 3.5 was just as confusing for people. I know I am now.

I'm just confused as to why this is even an issue. There's no reason to keep the old convention other than "because that's the way they used to do it".
 



Parmandur

Legend
It was the plan for 4e however:

"Sometime around 2006, the D&D team made a big presentation to the Hasbro senior management on how they could take D&D up to the $50 million level and potentially keep growing it. The core of that plan was a synergistic relationship between the tabletop game and what came to be known as DDI. At the time Hasbro didn't have the rights to do an MMO for D&D, so DDI was the next best thing. The Wizards team produced figures showing that there were millions of people playing D&D and that if they could move a moderate fraction of those people to DDI, they would achieve their revenue goals. Then DDI could be expanded over time and if/when Hasbro recovered the video gaming rights, it could be used as a platform to launch a true D&D MMO, which could take them over $100 million/year.

The DDI pitch was that the 4th Edition would be designed so that it would work best when played with DDI. DDI had a big VTT component of its design that would be the driver of this move to get folks to hybridize their tabletop game with digital tools. Unfortunately, a tragedy struck the DDI team and it never really recovered. The VTT wasn't ready when 4e launched, and the explicit link between 4e and DDI that had been proposed to Hasbro's execs never materialized. The team did a yoeman's effort to make 4e work anyway while the VTT evolved, but they simply couldn't hit the numbers they'd promised selling books alone. The marketplace backlash to 4e didn't help either. "

Insofar as that may have been an intention,frankly it failed.
 

Parmandur

Legend
I mean, that's not crazy or anything: if 3.5 was not bringing in many new players, and the PH2 just comfortably sold to established ones, while 4e was selling mainly to new players, then, yeah, maybe it was conceivably confusing...
….but then why try to 'solve' that with an even more confusing 10-product 'Essentials' line, led by a retro-"Red Box" aimed at old players? While leaving the offending numbered book in print?
And, why, if we are dealing with so many presumably-still-confusion-subject new players, today, go entirely the other way with one potential 'on ramp' and make it mechanically lead-into a defunct edition? Surely that's at least as confusing?

I mean, I know I'm confused. ;)

I don't know why a conspiracy theory is necessary, it was a confusing and obtuse release scheme. Xanathar's title doesn't show what it does, but the blurb does.
 

Also, what does it mean to "keep an old convention?"
Good point. If 5e had bundled the player-side material in the various supplements we've seen so far and instead released it in a PH2 that would not have been continuing an old convention. Instead, it's returned to an old convention, in publishing not-too-focused supplements with unintuitive and/or setting-referent names.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top