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.

 

[Dire Bare]

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]

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.

 

[Bolares]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying that...

 

[teitan]

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.

 

[teitan]

Also the edition that was never eclipsed was Basic D&D red box. Nothing outsold it and no edition until 5e outsold 1e. Not even 3.5.

 

[Dire Bare]

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!

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

If 4th edition could not kill D&D, nothing they publish can. lol

 

[Krachek]

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]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.