D&D 5E Advanced D&D or "what to minimally fix in 5E?"

[Shardstone]

Remaking all classes means a new phb, doesnt it?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, why do we have more than one kind of any given thing then? Commercially speaking, shouldn't every company just make the most popular thing?

That is what a lot of companies actually do, but there is also the strategy of filling in the niche of people not satisfied with the popular thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is what a lot of companies actually do, but there is also the strategy of filling in the niche of people not satisfied with the popular thing.

If that were true, we simply wouldn't have nearly the variety of products (all kinds of products) that we have.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If that were true, we simply wouldn't have nearly the variety of products (all kinds of products) that we have.

Most of the variety is being supplied by the same people. The brands are owned by the same holding companies and in many markets there are only a couple of actual players. In some case, rival product is made by the same producer for the benefit of the brand holder.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Most of the variety is being supplied by the same people. The brands are owned by the same holding companies and in many markets there are only a couple of actual players. In some case, rival product is made by the same producer for the benefit of the brand holder.

My point is, why aren't those companies dedicating all their resources to the most popular product they can make? I've been told that popular and good are the same thing here.

 

[Zardnaar]

Remaking all classes means a new phb, doesnt it?

Pretty much yes.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My point is, why aren't those companies dedicating all their resources to the most popular product they can make? I've been told that popular and good are the same thing here.

Different markets reward different strategies. 10 or 20 different flavoured sugared water products might be a good idea in the soft drinks market but not in a different market and in some markets bare different competing products are inevitable.
If the barriers to entry are low then there will be a lot of competition. A lot of this multiband competition has arisen by some one creating a trusted brand in the market and then being bought up by the holding companies.

As for your other point: that good == popular.
For certain values of "good" this is perfectly valid. There is no independent metric of good in many of these cases. What is really being measured is "good enough".
If the Toyota Corolla is the most sold car in the world that is an argument that, it is the best car, but you will not convince a fan of BMW or Mercedes of that.
That is because the person buying the BMW or Mercedes has a different set of motives for their choice and the Toyota will not satisfy them.
Similarly, there may be another car that is arguably better than the Corolla for the average buyer but to know that they would have to be a car aficionado and they would not be interested in a Toyota in the first place.

In short, the statements:
"5e is a good game because of design ...."
"5e is a good game because it is the most popular"
"Tales of the Valiant is the best ttrpg" are from the standpoint of the person making the statement but the "5e is good because it is popular" is the only one with a metric that independent of a person's value judgement.

Going forward it will be really intriguing to watch if Kobold Press will be able to continue to sell 5e supplements that also support Tale of the Valient.

 

[CapnZapp]

@CapnZapp, would something like Laserllama's work on the PHB (and other) classes work? Greatly increase player options but doesn't fundamentally change 5e.

Could be. Not familiar with their work. "Greatly increase player options but doesn't fundamentally change 5e" is right on the spot though!

 

[CapnZapp]

If I'm getting the gist correctly, this would be a book like Xanathar's or Tasha's. You still use the PHB, but layer these rule changes on top to tweak the game to work a certain way (think of the class Alternate features or expanded downtime rules). Houserules in written form.

Though personally, I'd rather just outright change it at the core level. And, as I said before, once you break open the cadaver it's hard to just stop at fixing one spot, it's easy to get into scope creep and tweak and tweak and tweak - ending up with something quite different from the original but fitting your ideal of what the game should be.

You are getting the gist correctly.

And you are giving a good example why so many efforts go awry, ending up as completely separate games... which defeats the point of starting out in the first place!

Not least because history is littered with the corpses of would-be D&D fixes or "killers". Heartbreaking to watch.

The point here would specifically be to not break away from D&D. Remain completely reliant on D&D. Be a supplement to, not a replacement of, D&D.

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel like you're missing your own point, unfortunately.

If you have a design that changes the class definitions by changing subclass levels, and invalidates previously existing subclasses by creating a new two-tiered layer of stacking subclasses, you've forked the game, even if the new book is meant to be used alongside the current PHB.

Well, for the systems that are covered by this hypothetical product, I want to be able to pretend this was how D&D worked all along.

So for classes, I'm not interested in making them work with the existing classes.

Imagine a reimagined set of classes that just happens to unlock the potential for much greater player option space, that just slots right into the rest of 5E!

Imagine if WotC actually created their Fighers and Rangers and Warlocks in such a way that everybody selected subclass at the same time, and all three characters could choose the same subclass... and also imagine if this choice wasn't "permanent" all the way up to level 20, but halfway-ish there you got to make a new selection to reflect upon what your character turned out to be and experience. Which also injects much needed energy into the third and fourth tier of the game, I believe.

This change alone would add to charbuilding greatly without changing the overall game's complexity; without adding any burden at all on the DM.

Yes I said "supplement not replace" but I meant that as a whole. I do not think adding supplementary classes that still work in conjunction with the existing ones is a viable approach. I meant that this hypothetical product should only do what it sets out to do, and not then "fix" (change beyond all recognition) any number of other things. If it isn't on the list in my OP, expect the game to work exactly as in vanilla D&D.