D&D 5E D&D survey March 2016--Awakened Mystic, Kits of Old survey results, and "first, major mechanical expansion"

[ZzarkLinux]

I'm glad that people who want more will have the option to purchase more. If it is a PHB2, then I'll be happy too. A PHB2 would add new classes, new backgrounds, new feats, and reference the original PHB mechanics, and leave the old classes "unchanged". New classes like the Marshall, Knight, Battlemind, and more would be great

New classes would be great. I would dislike a 5.5 book because then I would need another purchase to run my existing fighter. To repost from an another thread:

I just want my PHB to be relevant. I worry about showing up at a table with just my PHB and being told "Sorry. We use Essentials Character Points 5.5e coreclass re-write here. You need another purchase to contribute at our table".

I hope WotC gives us something we all want :-D

A PHB2 or somesuch implies something entirely different (than a 5.5 version), namely more options, more crunch, more goodness, but without having to relearn what we already know.

And most importantly: without splitting the playerbase into the haves and the have-nots.

Please don't re-release existing classes or upgrade them. Give the classes new names. Re-releasing the fighter (Essentials) would limit support for the older version. Releasing an "Expansion Pack" for the fighter (Character Points in Skills & Powers) would allow other fighters at the table to outshine me unless I purchase the expansion book.

Can't wait to see what WotC learns from the survey

 

[CapnZapp]

I still feel like we're talking about different things. Like, your old books were perfectly fine when 4e released Essentials. Essentials still filled the same business niche (a shot in the arm a few years after the core rules were out). You could even get away without updating to 3.5e, if strict rules adherence wasn't a big deal. 3e -> 3.5e, about 3 years. 4e -> 4essentials, about 3 years. Each of them basically a "Hey, everyone's got the Core Rules, now they need to buy this!" from a business standpoint.

Anyway, didn't really mean to disappear down a "DEFINE .5e's!" rabbit-hole, just noting that I imagine this book will be more than just a few new character options and likely is planned to come in the edition lifecycle like 3.5e and 4essentials were and so will likely be a Pretty Big Deal Release in the next year or so.

You might still miss my point (apologies if you did get it)

Releasing an Essentials, or 3.5, is indeed made to get people to buy everything once more.

But that is the exact mistake I hope they won't repeat.

They've said the PHB is meant to be evergreen. To be that, people need to find it a compelling purchase. It will only remain that if the game stays ONE game.

No new versions. No large rule changes (including the death of a thousand cuts).

Instead: release moar stuff, but do the opposite of past marketing efforts.

Don't try to make the PHB look old and stale.

Keep the gamer with only the 2015 core books feeling he's still playing the SAME game as the gamer who buys everything.

The decision to do 3.5 was in part made to earn more money. But they also split the community.

The vibe I'm getting is that they're ready to try another approach than... well, the one's they've tried for pretty much every previous edition.

But the thing is, splitting the community is a luxury they might well not be able to afford this time around. Not with so many other games competing for the gamer's attention.

Who knows; perhaps Paizo is secretly hoping WotC will follow your advice, only to see a surprise stealth "Pathfinder 5E" release steal half their customer base from under their feet...?

 

[CapnZapp]

Please don't re-release existing classes or upgrade them. Give the classes new names.

Don't worry I'm in complete agreement.

I did mean adding, say, a Hunter class to satisfy those who want a more combaty beastmaster ranger class, but without actually invalidating those who remain perfectly content with the PHB ranger.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would like some fixes for some classes. The ranger could be fixed by adding some downtime activities that allow him to expand his favoured terrains. Maybe some ritual spells. Maybe just a spell that lets him attune to new surroundings. He should not lose all his benefits when you travel to a new terrain. Also downtime activities to expand your spells known repertoire. Which would also benefit the sorcerer.
That can be easily done without a complete rewrite in the classes and instead be offered in a supplement.
I would also like intelligence affect some downtime activities. The time you need to learn a new tool or language. The amount of money you get with your crafting or trade.

 

[IgnatiusJ.Reilly]

New options of any kind would be great. I hope, at least, that some of it can be hammered into the setting specific mechanics of the currently unsupported campaign settings. I didn't get the impression it was going to be a '.5' at all, only a splat book. I prefer sub-classes, as opposed to new classes, but some folks will want new frameworks, so that's fine. The Artificer will always be a wizard in my mind, even if UA version wasn't too enticing.

 

[Savevsdeath]

People can we please stop crying bloat? Having a new monster book and maybe a new player book with spells and sub-classes every year or two would be amazing.

No one is forcing anyone to buy it. I feel terrible that there is rarely anything to buy for this edition from WoTC. I don't need Pathfinder levels of glut. I just would appreciate something.

And no DMsG is not an option until they find a real way to separate the wheat from the chaff.


This constant outcry against product is such a downer.

For real. I really want more 5E stuff, and the more people go 'it's okay, move along and don't tamper with the rules', the less likely it becomes i'll ever see it. You don't have to buy rules you don't want, so please let the rest of us have our goodies. And for 's sake, 5E really needs some errata. I know, I know, WotC swore to never do that - but it's necessary. There's broken, unclear in the books that needs clarifying. And again, it's a 'don't get it if you don't wanna use it' situation.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...5E really needs some errata. I know, I know, WotC swore to never do that - but it's necessary.

5E has some errata, and WotC never swore not to issue errata - they swore that they wouldn't use errata as a means to change the intended function of game content in this edition.

Did you say "errata" when you meant "official rules changes" or "rules updates"?

 

[Savevsdeath]

5E has some errata, and WotC never swore not to issue errata - they swore that they wouldn't use errata as a means to change the intended function of game content in this edition.

Did you say "errata" when you meant "official rules changes" or "rules updates"?

Yes, thank you. And despite my misplaced wording, i stand by my statement - lots of things are mechanically awful. Beastmaster, i'm looking at you - and take a lot of DM fiat to make worthwhile again, and not every DM has a good grasp of mechanics to do it in a way that's fun and ot over or underpowered.

 

[Savevsdeath]

5E has some errata, and WotC never swore not to issue errata - they swore that they wouldn't use errata as a means to change the intended function of game content in this edition.

Did you say "errata" when you meant "official rules changes" or "rules updates"?

Yes, thank you. And despite my misplaced wording, i stand by my statement - lots of things are mechanically awful. Beastmaster, i'm looking at you - and take a lot of DM fiat to make worthwhile again, and not every DM has a good grasp of mechanics to do it in a way that's fun and not over or underpowered.

 

[CapnZapp]

Whatever WotC's wording, please accept that when people say "errata" they might just mean "rule they'd want replaced"

Thank you.

Otherwise the discussion becomes unbearably tedious...