D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[Umbran]

Just because some people are playing half-starved, doesn't mean that they don't want to eat a bit more.

Actually, if WotC did their market research, and this is what they found, then it means *exactly* that they don't want to eat a bit more. They are happy as they are, not burning out or suffering from game bloat, and don't want more.

I know it may be hard to accept that not everyone wants a larger stream of content, but... it seems to be working.

 

[Maxperson]

We are getting two crunch focused products this year (races, Subclasses and a boatload of monsters in Ravnica, apparently), so they are ramping up. Slowly, rationally. Nothing hasty.

Why do you think the Ravnica setting book will be any more crunch focused than the Sword Coast book, which was not crunch focused at all?

 

[Parmandur]

Why do you think the Ravnica setting book will be any more crunch focused than the Sword Coast book, which was not crunch focused at all?

Well, the book apparently has as many monster statblocks as MToF, and a number of M:tG PC races and some number of subclasses, and some sort of Faction Background system that is a twist on the existing rules. So, even discounting the monsters (the most useful sort of crunch, IMO), it looks to be somewhere north of SCAG in crunchiness. The fluff level is likely to be low, given that is paired with the Art Book as the Planeshift articles have been.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, the book apparently has as many monster statblocks as MToF, and a number of M:tG PC races and some number of subclasses, and some sort of Faction Background system that is a twist on the existing rules. So, even discounting the monsters (the most useful sort of crunch, IMO), it looks to be somewhere north of SCAG in crunchiness. The fluff level is likely to be low, given that is paired with the Art Book as the Planeshift articles have been.

I'm going to disagree with you about monsters. At least to a degree. Once you get past 2-3 monster books, more monsters don't do much. You already have more than you can use. We are at 3 already, so more monsters aren't really going to be that big of a deal. A few unique ones to Ravnica will be useful, but many not so much. A few unique races and subclasses will be the most useful things provided. Perhaps some unique feats. Those won't be most of the book, though. Like the Sword Coast, most of the book will be names and places, so you can run a game in the setting.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm going to disagree with you about monsters. At least to a degree. Once you get past 2-3 monster books, more monsters don't do much. You already have more than you can use. We are at 3 already, so more monsters aren't really going to be that big of a deal. A few unique ones to Ravnica will be useful, but many not so much. A few unique races and subclasses will be the most useful things provided. Perhaps some unique feats. Those won't be most of the book, though. Like the Sword Coast, most of the book will be names and places, so you can run a game in the setting.

Let me guess...you don't DM most of the time?

DMs usually need more monsters. Every edition has figured this out. Even other games, they figure it out that GMs need more and varied foes to challenge the players with. There is a reason monster books sell well, even the third party ones. It's, in many ways, more important than more character options.

In terms of "they went too far against character options" I think that was a rational argument to make early on in this edition where we didn't know if the edition had serious staying power. It was a question with doubt.

But now? I don't even think it's a rational argument to make anymore with the amount of data we have about this edition. It's just...blown away all the other editions in terms of so many things. Sales. Popularity. Pop culture. Critical reception. Just pick a metric, and this edition has proved over 5 years that it really hit the right balance in terms of what they've published and how often they've published it. I mean literally every year of this edition is doing better than the last year now, by a meaningful amount, and by record-breaking amounts.

I just think the "we need more crunch content at a faster pace" argument has lost at this point, at least in terms of the overwhelming majority of consumers of this game. We just don't. This pace has proven to be a good pace. Their plan to focus all marketing and PR efforts on one book at a time with many months to focus on it in advance with nothing conflicting with that focus has really worked quite well. They've figured this out - after all these years, they hit on the right formula.

It's fair to be disappointed that formula doesn't match your preferences of course. But...I think it's denial to still think issues with content pace are widespread. We know at this point it's not - as much as we can known anything in capitalism about a successful product formula. All the "you nailed it" indicators are green on this one.

 

[Maxperson]

Let me guess...you don't DM most of the time?

I DM all the time. Hundreds of monsters, many of which get re-used a ton, is more than enough to last me a decade or more with left overs.

DMs usually need more monsters. Every edition has figured this out. Even other games, they figure it out that GMs need more and varied foes to challenge the players with. There is a reason monster books sell well, even the third party ones. It's, in many ways, more important than more character options.

Sure. DMs like to have several hundred monsters the way players like to have several hundred feats. They don't use many of them, but it's fun to have a ton to select from. 3 monster books is plenty, though.

 

[Mistwell]

I DM all the time. Hundreds of monsters, many of which get re-used a ton, is more than enough to last me a decade or more with left overs.



Sure. DMs like to have several hundred monsters the way players like to have several hundred feats. They don't use many of them, but it's fun to have a ton to select from. 3 monster books is plenty, though.

No man. DMs have needed more monsters before feats were a thing - before many character options at advanced levels were really a thing beyond spells. We don't need hundreds of feats. That's a settled question at this point. Obviously, this game doesn't need hundreds of feats to succeed and I don't think we will ever get to "hundreds" of feats. Feats are not even a major focus of this version of the game, as an optional rule.

I suspect maybe you'd just prefer Pathfinder or another edition of the game? Something with more player options in the crunch rules?

 

[Maxperson]

No man. DMs have needed more monsters before feats were a thing - before many character options at advanced levels were really a thing beyond spells. We don't need hundreds of feats. That's a settled question at this point. Obviously, this game doesn't need hundreds of feats to succeed and I don't think we will ever get to "hundreds" of feats. Feats are not even a major focus of this version of the game, as an optional rule.

I've been DMing since 1e and I have never needed more monsters. Ever. Was it fun to leaf through all the monster books to pick what I wanted to use next? Sure. I never needed more due to running out, though. I suppose if I just put a different monster in each room of every dungeon and castle the PCs visit I would run out, but I don't do hack 'n slash so that's not a problem that I have encountered.

I suspect maybe you'd just prefer Pathfinder or another edition of the game? Something with more player options in the crunch rules?

Why would I want to go back to the insane bloat of 3e and 4e? Wanting more than 1 book worth of stuff in 4 years isn't even close to being the same as wanting 5-8 books a year.

 

[Mistwell]

I've been DMing since 1e and I have never needed more monsters. Ever. Was it fun to leaf through all the monster books to pick what I wanted to use next? Sure. I never needed more due to running out, though. I suppose if I just put a different monster in each room of every dungeon and castle the PCs visit I would run out, but I don't do hack 'n slash so that's not a problem that I have encountered.



Why would I want to go back to the insane bloat of 3e and 4e? Wanting more than 1 book worth of stuff in 4 years isn't even close to being the same as wanting 5-8 books a year.

Because you don't need to take all the books available for a prior edition or Pathfinder, you could just pick and choose the quantity that is a better fit with your preferences.

I think it's pretty clear we're just not going to get the pace you'd prefer for this edition. Don't you? There just isn't the public clamoring for more crunch rules player options from their consumers.

 

[delericho]

IMO Monster Manuals are like cookbooks - DM's are more likely to imagine what they might do with them than they are to actually use them.

(Of course, that means that it may well be commercially wise to publish more and more monsters, since the market is there. But I'm less convinced they're actually a good purchase.)

And, certainly, for 5e I have no desire for more general-use monsters. Though a setting-specific collection of monsters would still be welcome.