log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E D&D Studio Blog - Sage Advice - Creature Evolutions

There's a new D&D Studio Blog - Jeremy's posted about "Creature Evolutions": Creature Evolutions | Dungeons & Dragons

Some quick takeaways:
  • Some creatures that were formerly humanoids will, going forward, be monstrosities, fey, or something else. ("Humanoid" is reserved for creatures with similar "moral and cultural range" to humans.)
  • Alignment got put in a "time out".
  • They've started using class tags so that DMs know that a particular NPC can attune to magic items limited to a particular class.
  • Bonus actions get their own section in the stat block now.
  • They've merged the Innate Spellcasting and Spellcasting traits and have gotten rid of spell slots.
Also some stuff we've already guessed based on the stat blocks and playable races in Wild Beyond the Witchlight.

There's also some Sage Advice on "rabbit hops" for harengon PCs.

FA4V0VnXsAAPtoQ
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The first D&D stream I watched was an intro to 4E. Main thing I noticed? They spent more time looking at their character sheet than interacting with each other. Maybe with a different group it would have been more entertaining to watch, but I guess we'll never know.

I think a lot of things contributed to 5Es success. Streaming is one, but I don't think the streams would have been as successful with previous editions. There were also other things that fell into place. Geek culture, an fantasy, has more acceptance. I feel like people were also looking for a way to connect in a more personal way. Even COVID left people looking for alternative forms of entertainment.

So I think many things contributed to this versions popularity, including streaming. Just not solely streaming.
The early Aquisitions Inc games are very fun to listen to, but yeah the idea 5e itself isn’t any significant part of the rise of D&D is…funny, to say the least.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Twisted? I'm not quite sure what you mean.
You told me that the root was that spellcasting was unconvenient and important spells should be written out.
Total agreement from me.
I said, counterspell not being able to counter the new actions anymore, is not a good solution because it is not consistent to arbitrarily make some abilities uncounterable.
You say, it is good, because counterspell is nerfed at the same time.
I do agree that a nerf is necessary.

I however say that making one thing better (readability and thus challenge of monsters) by making a different thing more balanced but annoyingly inconsistent is bad design.

Better design would be redesigning counterspell so that it is a more fun and balanced ability in encounters against solo spellcasters. Maybe counterspell not being a spell at all but a level 5 ability of a wizard (and other casters with access to the counterspell spell) that can be used prof times per day as a reaction would be a better consistent nerf.

Why is your argument twisted? Because you mix up two different only remotely related things which both need to be adressed seperately.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
More good changes to help push the racist, homophobic and misogynistic people further from the game. And the louder someone protests all the changes done with 5E, the more likely they are one of those people and to be avoided.

Mod Note:
There are changes in the game that aid inclusivity, and that's awesome.

However, many changes are NOT for inclusivity purposes! Thus a blanket, "if you protest changes, in general, you should be avoided," is not supported, and is inappropriate for these boards.

Also, do keep in mind the difference between racism and bigotry - they aren't the same. The former can be unintentional, and may mean a person is a bit ignorant, but not necessarily a bad person.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
D&D had been dying since the 90s.

5e brought it back to life. Without it there would be no new D&D.
D&D has not been dying since the 90s. Or the 80s, or even the 70s. The number of people playing the game has only increased year after year, decade after decade.

3rd Edition changed the game enough, that long time super-fans found controversy to argue about. But more people were playing than ever before.

4th Edition changed the game significantly, that long time super-fans found controversy to argue about. But more people were playing than ever before.

5th Edition changed the game again, that long time super-fans found controversy to argue about. But more people were playing than ever before.

Societal changes, including the rise of streaming and the onslaught of the pandemic, has contributed to D&D's even more rapidly rising popularity and visibility today, certainly. But D&D has always been an ascendant cultural phenomenon. And the solid design of 5th Edition certainly helps as well.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
D&D has not been dying since the 90s. Or the 80s, or even the 70s. The number of people playing the game has only increased year after year, decade after decade.

3rd Edition changed the game enough, that long time super-fans found controversy to argue about. But more people were playing than ever before.

4th Edition changed the game significantly, that long time super-fans found controversy to argue about. But more people were playing than ever before.

5th Edition changed the game again, that long time super-fans found controversy to argue about. But more people were playing than ever before.

Societal changes, including the rise of streaming and the onslaught of the pandemic, has contributed to D&D's even more rapidly rising popularity and visibility today, certainly. But D&D has always been an ascendant cultural phenomenon. And the solid design of 5th Edition certainly helps as well.

People thought we would never see the popularity of the 80s ever again before 5e.

People thought D&D might be dead during 4e. Pathfinder even overtook it.

D&D was a niche geeky thing that had negative connotations for people who played it before 5e.

There was cultural awareness of it in the 80s as this new thing and there was fear and outrage. After that it faded into obscurity the failed movie notwithstanding.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
People thought we would never see the popularity of the 80s ever again before 5e.

Two things?

1) So what? If you aren't better than your best day, you're dying? This seems tied to the myth that the only healthy state is one of growth - but eternal growth is not sustainable. It isn't a flaw to not always be the hit sensation. It is okay to be doing okay. Maintaining a steady keel means you're still afloat, and all that.

2) People thought it. Yeah, and? Turns out, people were wrong. That happens a lot. Maybe "people" shouldn't be considered authoritative, or even all that meaningful. Lots of "people" are not actually in the business, and are talking through their hats.
 

HammerMan

Adventurer
People thought we would never see the popularity of the 80s ever again before 5e.

People thought D&D might be dead during 4e. Pathfinder even overtook it.

D&D was a niche geeky thing that had negative connotations for people who played it before 5e.

There was cultural awareness of it in the 80s as this new thing and there was fear and outrage. After that it faded into obscurity the failed movie notwithstanding.
Each edition out sold the one before it (maybe not true for 1e not sure) so saying 4e might have killed D&D is not true. Pathfinder's growth to #2 was not only to the determent of D&D... infact nobody (unless someone corrects me) has data on how many people were buying and playing both... 4e still, with pathfinder, outsold 3e. 5e out sells 4e, and if we follow the pattern 6e will one day outsell 5e.

the idea of the game dying would be when the new edition DOESN"T sell as well as the ones before...

My guess is the time that the new edition will show that the game is 'dying' will be the edition we argue about the least here on enworld.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
Each edition out sold the one before it (maybe not true for 1e not sure) so saying 4e might have killed D&D is not true. Pathfinder's growth to #2 was not only to the determent of D&D... infact nobody (unless someone corrects me) has data on how many people were buying and playing both... 4e still, with pathfinder, outsold 3e. 5e out sells 4e, and if we follow the pattern 6e will one day outsell 5e.

the idea of the game dying would be when the new edition DOESN"T sell as well as the ones before...

My guess is the time that the new edition will show that the game is 'dying' will be the edition we argue about the least here on enworld.

Those aren't the numbers I have seen. Or even close to it.

Icv2 has data that is where the Pathfinder #1 thing comes from during 4e.

Now Pathfinder is tiny compared to D&D and it isn't because they are doing worse now.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
People thought we would never see the popularity of the 80s ever again before 5e.

People thought D&D might be dead during 4e. Pathfinder even overtook it.

D&D was a niche geeky thing that had negative connotations for people who played it before 5e.

There was cultural awareness of it in the 80s as this new thing and there was fear and outrage. After that it faded into obscurity the failed movie notwithstanding.
Pop culture visibility does not equate to the health of the game. Every edition, year after year, player numbers (and sales) have only increased.

You are right that D&D is more visible in the mainstream media, and social media, than it has been ever before, with the possible exception of the 80s . . . . . but D&D has never been "dying".

There's been some rough periods . . . . the death of TSR, the collapse of 4E . . . . but those were momentary blips on an otherwise consistent upwards trend.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Those aren't the numbers I have seen. Or even close to it.

Icv2 has data that is where the Pathfinder #1 thing comes from during 4e.

Now Pathfinder is tiny compared to D&D and it isn't because they are doing worse now.
The numbers you have seen . . . . . okay.

Pathfinder eclipsed D&D in sales . . . . . only during the short window when WotC wasn't publishing new D&D titles. It didn't before, and it doesn't now.
 

ad_hoc

(he/they)
Pop culture visibility does not equate to the health of the game. Every edition, year after year, player numbers (and sales) have only increased.

You are right that D&D is more visible in the mainstream media, and social media, than it has been ever before, with the possible exception of the 80s . . . . . but D&D has never been "dying".

There's been some rough periods . . . . the death of TSR, the collapse of 4E . . . . but those were momentary blips on an otherwise consistent upwards trend.

D&D has only been increasing in sales?

This is literally the first time I've seen someone say this.

The idea that 5e is only doing well because it is D&D so of course the brand will do well is laughable at best.

This is the last I'm going to engage in this though because the whole conversation is absurd.

For the first few years 5e came out people refused to believe the numbers of players. Now they're making up past numbers to make it sound like it was anywhere close.

Always got to make up a reason I guess. I don't even get why, admitting that 5e is popular because it is a good game doesn't injure you. Even if you don't like it.
 


teitan

Legend
Each edition out sold the one before it (maybe not true for 1e not sure) so saying 4e might have killed D&D is not true. Pathfinder's growth to #2 was not only to the determent of D&D... infact nobody (unless someone corrects me) has data on how many people were buying and playing both... 4e still, with pathfinder, outsold 3e. 5e out sells 4e, and if we follow the pattern 6e will one day outsell 5e.

the idea of the game dying would be when the new edition DOESN"T sell as well as the ones before...

My guess is the time that the new edition will show that the game is 'dying' will be the edition we argue about the least here on enworld.
To be factual Parhfinder only outsold D&D when WOtC started cancelling products in the run up to the playtest announcement but the gap between the two was very thin.
 


Dire Bare

Legend
D&D has only been increasing in sales? This is literally the first time I've seen someone say this.
Yup. If this is the first time you've heard this . . . are you new to the boards? This comes from WotC themselves, based on sales and survey data.

The idea that 5e is only doing well because it is D&D so of course the brand will do well is laughable at best.
Not what I said, but . . . . the D&D brand is pretty powerful. There are many games out there that arguably improve on the RPG formula, but D&D remains the king-of-the-hill, in part, due to brand power. However, 5th Edition is a great game, and deserves the success it has earned outside of brand-recognition.

This is the last I'm going to engage in this though because the whole conversation is absurd.
Okay.

Always got to make up a reason I guess. I don't even get why, admitting that 5e is popular because it is a good game doesn't injure you. Even if you don't like it.
I've been playing since the Elmore Red Box, and 5th Edition is my favorite edition by far. I love D&D, and I love 5E D&D!
 


You told me that the root was that spellcasting was unconvenient and important spells should be written out.
Total agreement from me.
I said, counterspell not being able to counter the new actions anymore, is not a good solution because it is not consistent to arbitrarily make some abilities uncounterable.
You say, it is good, because counterspell is nerfed at the same time.
I do agree that a nerf is necessary.

I however say that making one thing better (readability and thus challenge of monsters) by making a different thing more balanced but annoyingly inconsistent is bad design.

Better design would be redesigning counterspell so that it is a more fun and balanced ability in encounters against solo spellcasters. Maybe counterspell not being a spell at all but a level 5 ability of a wizard (and other casters with access to the counterspell spell) that can be used prof times per day as a reaction would be a better consistent nerf.

Why is your argument twisted? Because you mix up two different only remotely related things which both need to be adressed seperately.
I agree for the redesign!
The whole gimick of blind countering, that some DM allow or not to know the spell, or the level, or both, or asking a check, just show that the spell need a redo.
Make it an exclusive wizard ability, or even an abjurer wizard ability with a limited use per day.
 

Hussar

Legend
You told me that the root was that spellcasting was unconvenient and important spells should be written out.
Total agreement from me.
I said, counterspell not being able to counter the new actions anymore, is not a good solution because it is not consistent to arbitrarily make some abilities uncounterable.
You say, it is good, because counterspell is nerfed at the same time.
I do agree that a nerf is necessary.

I however say that making one thing better (readability and thus challenge of monsters) by making a different thing more balanced but annoyingly inconsistent is bad design.

Better design would be redesigning counterspell so that it is a more fun and balanced ability in encounters against solo spellcasters. Maybe counterspell not being a spell at all but a level 5 ability of a wizard (and other casters with access to the counterspell spell) that can be used prof times per day as a reaction would be a better consistent nerf.

Why is your argument twisted? Because you mix up two different only remotely related things which both need to be adressed seperately.
Why? Why do they need to be addressed separately?

This addresses both issues, does so in a simple manner that is easily adjudicated and easy to use at the table. And, as I said before, this is a well tested design that has been in D&D (in 3rd party products anyway) since 5e was released.

Why reinvent the wheel? You agree that monster casting needed to be changed. You agree that counterspell needs to be nerfed. This accomplishes both in one nice, neat package? @Krachek's idea about tracking things on a daily basis? Bugger that. I don't need yet another thing for players to lose track of. Hrm, did I counterspell once or twice in that last encounter that we ran two weeks ago but, we're still on the same adventuring day this week? No thanks.
 

Why? Why do they need to be addressed separately?

This addresses both issues, does so in a simple manner that is easily adjudicated and easy to use at the table. And, as I said before, this is a well tested design that has been in D&D (in 3rd party products anyway) since 5e was released.

Why reinvent the wheel? You agree that monster casting needed to be changed. You agree that counterspell needs to be nerfed. This accomplishes both in one nice, neat package? @Krachek's idea about tracking things on a daily basis? Bugger that. I don't need yet another thing for players to lose track of. Hrm, did I counterspell once or twice in that last encounter that we ran two weeks ago but, we're still on the same adventuring day this week? No thanks.
No.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top