D&D General Does D&D (and RPGs in general) Need Edition Resets?

[haakon1]

The community rejected templates in 5e.

No one told me about this election.

 

[Minigiant]

No one told me about this election.

Have you participated in the playtest.

If you participated in the playtest you would know about the massive whining about the stuff I talked about.

That's what I am saying.

The feedback that WOTC got in 3e, 4e, and 5e makes incremental design for the #1 TTRPG nearly impossible.

 

[Remathilis]

The community rejected templates in 5e.

As the default option. But I'm not talking about the default option. I'm talking about an option that can be swapped in.

The PHB beastmaster was hated, and in Tasha we were given the option to use a template version. It was liked and made it to the 24 PHB. However, the 14 version is still usable in 24 if you really wanted to. What you're proposing though is akin to replacing the 24 ranger with the UA version with the spirit animal built into the chassis that used neither the 14 beastmaster nor Tasha's. That's not Iterative design, that's three unique attempts to do the same thing.

 

[Minigiant]

As the default option. But I'm not talking about the default option. I'm talking about an option that can be swapped in.

The PHB beastmaster was hated, and in Tasha we were given the option to use a template version. It was liked and made it to the 24 PHB. However, the 14 version is still usable in 24 if you really wanted to. What you're proposing though is akin to replacing the 24 ranger with the UA version with the spirit animal built into the chassis that used neither the 14 beastmaster nor Tasha's. That's not Iterative design, that's three unique attempts to do the same thing.

The community want more from the Druid than the Beast master companion.

That's the problem.

What the druid player wants is 100x times more involved than what a beast master ranger wants.

The druid template system would have to be massive. More than WOTC is willing to do and more than what will sell

You can't "just do a template system" when 50% of druid players want a to get +8 to Stealth by turning into a small animal. Half the druid community wants to be able to wildshape into every animal in every book printed according to the designers.

And before you say "that could just be an option" no buddy. A piecemeal system would lead to abuse and recreate the Druidzilla. Because you'd have to recreate everything. Every single beast under a certain CR.

And still is before you realize you're proposing massive amounts of clunky bloat design.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't say the edition was killed. I said good ideas were killed.

Here let me explain with an example.

Druid's Wildshape and Beast Monster statblock.

The 3e, 4e, 5e druid do not meet the standards of the community because in order to get what the playerbase ad DMbase wants, you need to reset the game several times. The Fans want to be about to wildshape into the animals in the books. And they don't want their old books to be outdated.

However you'd have to design the beasts in the books to

1. used as monsters
2. user as PC
3. balanced over several levels
4. not over shadow several classes

That requires a ton of playtesting and redoing the MM and PHB. Which is a new edition as you will have to rewrite the Monster Manual several times. It's adesire for systemic change.

However how can you write all the beast statblocks if the fanbase want to keep the old beast statblocks for backwards compatibility?
You can't.

Thus the fanbase will be in charge disappointed with the druid until WOTC can rewrite the MM in 6e.
The Druid and Beasts need another edition change.

Or instead simply restrict the shapes a Druid can take, allowing only non-fantastic animals and birds between rat/wren and eagle/hippo size. So, good for scouting and aerial surveillance, good for individual long-range travel (a bird can fly a long way in a day), good for tracking by scent, poor for combat.

And don't allow casting while in animal form, maybe with a very few exceptions.

Problem solved.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say the edition was killed. I said good ideas were killed.

Here let me explain with an example.

Druid's Wildshape and Beast Monster statblock.

The 3e, 4e, 5e druid do not meet the standards of the community because in order to get what the playerbase ad DMbase wants, you need to reset the game several times. The Fans want to be about to wildshape into the animals in the books. And they don't want their old books to be outdated.

However you'd have to design the beasts in the books to

1. used as monsters
2. user as PC
3. balanced over several levels
4. not over shadow several classes

That requires a ton of playtesting and redoing the MM and PHB. Which is a new edition as you will have to rewrite the Monster Manual several times. It's adesire for systemic change.

However how can you write all the beast statblocks if the fanbase want to keep the old beast statblocks for backwards compatibility?
You can't.

Thus the fanbase will be in charge disappointed with the druid until WOTC can rewrite the MM in 6e.
The Druid and Beasts need another edition change.

But druids can Wildshape into stuff from the MM now. I don't see the problem.

 

[Minigiant]

Or instead simply restrict the shapes a Druid can take, allowing only non-fantastic animals and birds between rat/wren and eagle/hippo size. So, good for scouting and aerial surveillance, good for individual long-range travel (a bird can fly a long way in a day), good for tracking by scent, poor for combat.

And don't allow casting while in animal form, maybe with a very few exceptions.

Problem solved.

Half the druid 5e community as per the 5e playtest does not want any restrictions on wildshape beyond CR.

 

[Lanefan]

Half the druid 5e community as per the 5e playtest does not want any restrictions on wildshape beyond CR.

Well too bad for them.

Of course they don't want any restrictions! No player wants restrictions on what their characters can do.

It's on the designers to ignore this type of pleading and look at the bigger picture.

 

[Minigiant]

Well too bad for them.

Of course they don't want any restrictions! No player wants restrictions on what their characters can do.

It's on the designers to ignore this type of pleading and look at the bigger picture.

So incremental design wouldn't work with D&D.

Because you cannot give the customer what they want without a reset.

Maybe for a smaller game like DCC or Shadowdark, it could work.

 

[Remathilis]

And before you say "that could just be an option" no buddy. A piecemeal system would lead to abuse and recreate the Druidzilla. Because you'd have to recreate everything. Every single beast under a certain CR.

And still is before you realize you're proposing massive amounts of clunky bloat design.

Great. Let's get rid of all optional rules to avoid abuse. RAW or Die.

Hmmm... Maybe that's the beauty of the VTT...