D&D (2024) D&D 5.11 - the time of big change is over

[Remathilis]

Personally, I'm mad with power!

I run Ravenloft, I'm positively drunk with power.

 

[Yaarel]

@OldSchoolGamerGirl

For the 2024 approach to building a species, any Human and any Elf can have high Charisma.

High Charisma is perhaps the most important aspect of the 2014 Half Elf race. This Charisma is easy to do for any 2024 Elf-Human concept. Any species. Also any species can choose where their second ability boost goes.

The 2014 Half Elf is also known for skill dabbling, but 2024 has level 1 feat and background cover this kind of thing. In my eyes, the feat and background are generous for the player being able to get the relevant skills for a particular character concept. So skill dabbling is already abundant. What matters for a 2024 Elf-Human multispecies character is which skills to pick for the individual character concept.

Darkvision, for those players who want it, is available from the Elf parentage.

(Note, I prefer only Wood Elf and Drow Elf have Darkvision and acquire it via magic, and the other Elf cultures lack Darkvision. But even here a Wood Elf pick would supply the Darkvision.)

That is pretty much it.

In other words, when switching from the 2014 Half Elf race to the 2024 Elf-Human multispecies, there is moreorless zero information loss, mechanically.

In fact, with the Charisma and skill dabbling already covered, any other species traits that a player picks from either parentage becomes an upgrade in mechanical power, with respect to a Half Elf concept.



With regard to 2014 Half Elf race flavor, 2014 didnt really support this flavor anyway via mechanics. This nonmechanized flavor is just as doable for a 2024 Elf-Human.

Actually, because backgrounds are part of the 2024 approach, the flavor works out better. For example, the 2014 Half Elf write up says, "Half-elves are welcome in human cities and somewhat less welcome in elven forests." But this isnt really true anyway. It depends on which Human cities and on which Elf forests. Yet this ethnic tension (or rather special tension) does make sense as a 2024 background. When a player selects such a background, it just so happens that this particular Elf-Human comes from a culture where there was special tension.



Every way I look at it, dropping the 2014 Half Elf race seems like a good idea. There is no loss. ... In fact there is only gain when going for an Elf-Human character concept that can better represent the D&D flavor tradition.

 

[Clint_L]

I can imagine that WotC is having a heck of a time balancing survey feedback and their desire to drive sales. Even with their product diversification efforts, like VTT, generating hype around the need to "upgrade" to the latest "edition" has to be part of their strategy.

In other words, there needs to be enough upgrades to make buying the revised books (for the "same" edition of the game) worthwhile. I suspect they are working hard on the messaging for that campaign, as well as perhaps adding in options for some of the things we've seen in UA to sweeten the offering.

I think this is a misunderstanding of their strategy. The old editions model was, indeed, all about driving sales of the latest books, as quickly as possible. However, that creates a natural break point that makes it appealing for many players to quit the game or stick with what they have, splintering the player base.

The new strategy, as they have described it, is about maintaining momentum. The current PHB, for example, continues to sell well. So the plan is to just roll that over into the updated version, not to make those who already own the 2014 version feel like they have to replace it right away. Eventually, of course, most of us will, but the idea is that the game will slowly evolve as new players buy the new books.

 

[Stalker0]

Back on topic, I am not sure what 5.11 means, but I agree it looks like the are walking back some the playtest ideas. That is pretty typical of every UA we have received in the past 8-9 years. So not surprising.

I don't think the notion that several of the radical ideas being pulled back is surprising. What is likely more surprising to some is the notion that "the radical idea factory is closed".

Considering we haven't seen playtests on:
1) Spells
2) Combat Mechanics
3) skills
4) Monsters
5) DMG stuff
6) Traps
etc etc

People might go, "wait that's it, that's the only area you all are innovating on?"

And its a reasonable sentiment, though at the same time we don't know how much innovation will occur without playtests. Perhaps they will use internal playtesting for a great deal of areas and continue a bit more radical ideas, just not in the areas that felt they needed direct player feedback on.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think the notion that several of the radical ideas being pulled back is surprising. What is likely more surprising to some is the notion that "the radical idea factory is closed".

Considering we haven't seen playtests on:
1) Spells
2) Combat Mechanics
3) skills
4) Monsters
5) DMG stuff
6) Traps
etc etc

People might go, "wait that's it, that's the only area you all are innovating on?"

And its a reasonable sentiment, though at the same time we don't know how much innovation will occur without playtests. Perhaps they will use internal playtesting for a great deal of areas and continue a bit more radical ideas, just not in the areas that felt they needed direct player feedback on.

I mean, some of that we've already seen the tests for, namely spells, combat mechanics, and skills.

 

[renbot]

KP tried running Paizo's Playbook when it wasn't going to be applicable.

I mostly agree but I might reframe it as "KP took a chance when it looked like the Paizo playbook was going to be applicable, lucrative and possibly necessary for a certain segment of the gaming population." But as others have noted, fewer changes to 5E leaves KP as the answer to a question no one is asking anymore.

I still backed ToV. Because I like exploring how changing a rule or system can change the feel and style of a game. And because I compare it to other things I spend money on and new gaming stuff always beats eating out. (I live in a stupid expensive area where going out is ludicrously expensive but gaming PDFs cost the same for me as they do for everyone else.)

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I don't think the notion that several of the radical ideas being pulled back is surprising. What is likely more surprising to some is the notion that "the radical idea factory is closed".

Considering we haven't seen playtests on:
1) Spells
2) Combat Mechanics
3) skills
4) Monsters
5) DMG stuff
6) Traps
etc etc

People might go, "wait that's it, that's the only area you all are innovating on?"

And it’s a reasonable sentiment, though at the same time we don't know how much innovation will occur without playtests. Perhaps they will use internal playtesting for a great deal of areas and continue a bit more radical ideas, just not in the areas that felt they needed direct player feedback on.

When they started the playtest I never expected to see playtest of most of those extras and I don’t really see the need to now either. My expectations changed slightly when they said they would playtest the DMG and MM a month or so ago. My feeling now is we get a little DMG stuff and I really have no idea what they would playtest for the MM. maybe a revised statblock?

 

[Remathilis]

I mostly agree but I might reframe it as "KP took a chance when it looked like the Paizo playbook was going to be applicable, lucrative and possibly necessary for a certain segment of the gaming population." But as others have noted, fewer changes to 5E leaves KP as the answer to a question no one is asking anymore.

I still backed ToV. Because I like exploring how changing a rule or system can change the feel and style of a game. And because I compare it to other things I spend money on and new gaming stuff always beats eating out. (I live in a stupid expensive area where going out is ludicrously expensive but gaming PDFs cost the same for me as they do for everyone else.)

Oh don't get me wrong, KP was taking a reasonable gamble. WotC had just pooped the bed on the OGL, and all the discussion was firmly focused on the rumors that One D&D would be some marriage of a VTT, D&D Beyond, and traditional TTRPG with monthly subscriptions and microtransaction content drops. KP saw a chance for history to repeat and they took it. They did look foolish when they said "The PHB is going away" as if since the inception Crawford and Kendrick weren't discussing the idea of a new PHB, but I don't think it did anything to hurt their sales (I think the kickstarter would have doneas well as it did regardless). Still, I think they tried to pull "the vanguard of your favorite edition" card Paizo pulled and it just didn't make sense in this context. Honestly, they probably should have pulled a "5e, reimagined" card and leaned in on all the new stuff they'll need to flesh out the SRD rather than the "5e, retained" line they did.

Water under the bridge now.

 

[Stalker0]

Oh don't get me wrong, KP was taking a reasonable gamble.

Can someone provide me some context. KP? What gamble are we talking about?

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Can someone provide me some context. KP? What gamble are we talking about?

Kobold Press. One of the bigger producers of third party 5e supplements - Tome of Beasts, Midgard campaign setting, etc.

Due the OGL fiasco, they've been developing a new, non-OGL 5e clone called "Tales of the Valiant", initially codenamed "Project Black Flag".