Honest question: How? Why? Aside from its official status, what makes 2024 better than A5E or ToV (as far as we can tell)?I mean, say what you will about various shenanigans...WotC still puts out a prodict that I want.
Honest question: How? Why? Aside from its official status, what makes 2024 better than A5E or ToV (as far as we can tell)?I mean, say what you will about various shenanigans...WotC still puts out a prodict that I want.
Honest question: How? Why? Aside from its official status, what makes 2024 better than A5E or ToV (as far as we can tell)?
Well, I stopped paying attention to ToV after the first fee playtest packets were riddled with basic spelling and grammar errors. I'm sure those will ne fixed by publication, but I didn't have great confidence in the mechanics as presented (liked Heritage-Lineage, though).Honest question: How? Why? Aside from its official status, what makes 2024 better than A5E or ToV (as far as we can tell)?
I dunno, it remains to be seen if there is anything of value there. We are in a thread where we just saw multiple posters imply I was being too optimistic by having a little hope that wotc might do better by GMs this time around... Heck wotc appear to have reversed course entirely & embraced short rest nova class design a single packet after a long separation process they started way back at tashas & finally fired off the packet prior.I mean, a shiny new book with new art has its own appeal.
Personally, I'm most looking forward to the Larger Font & the 500-monster Monster Manual alone!
People keep saying that, but correlation does not equal causation.5e's skeleton is good.
REALLY GOOD!
That's why it succeeded. 5e's has the best skeleton of any Fantasy RPG.
I agree with you.People keep saying that, but correlation does not equal causation.
The folks putting 5e forward as the best version of D&D ever and then point at its success as proof are ignoring that Stranger Things, Big Bang Theory and many other main stream entertainment sources propelled D&D into the main stream, which equates to a lot of success. Critical Role also helped propel D&D(not necessarily 5e) into the main stream.
There's no way to know that 5e's massive success isn't despite the format and not because of it. Perhaps if 3e or even 4e had been released at the time 5e was, they would be even more wildly successful. Or maybe not.
What we can say is again that correlation does not equal causation and while 5e MIGHT be the best D&D ever, we can't just point at the sales and use that as the proof of that claim.
Especially when they are all at 70%(assuming WotC really sticks to those numbers) or higher or they never would have been released in the first place. So they are both higher and lower than 70%!Thank you!
I'm surprised that the post-Tasha's versions of those specific classes and subclasses were so low.
This is that "Chicken or the Egg" type argument. It's clearly BOTH. 5e was a very accessible version of D&D, conveniently at the same time that some D&D lovers got into positions of authority in the media and bravely put their love on display. They were successful doing so; so success breeds success - others did the same. A positive spiral occurred.People keep saying that, but correlation does not equal causation.
The folks putting 5e forward as the best version of D&D ever and then point at its success as proof are ignoring that Stranger Things, Big Bang Theory and many other main stream entertainment sources propelled D&D into the main stream, which equates to a lot of success. Critical Role also helped propel D&D(not necessarily 5e) into the main stream.
Not a chance. The stars had to align for it to happen. Those editions would have been more successful than they were if they'd been in the same position, sure. But I highly doubt that they'd have done the same or better. They simply were not as accessible. You have to be in the right place at the right time AND do the right things.There's no way to know that 5e's massive success isn't despite the format and not because of it. Perhaps if 3e or even 4e had been released at the time 5e was, they would be even more wildly successful. Or maybe not.
Not by itself, no. But you can claim that it was the right D&D at the right time (because clearly it WAS).What we can say is again that correlation does not equal causation and while 5e MIGHT be the best D&D ever, we can't just point at the sales and use that as the proof of that claim.
The stars had to align, but what I'm saying is that had the release of other editions been when 5e was released, the stars would have aligned for those editions. They would have been the "right D&D at the right time."This is that "Chicken or the Egg" type argument. It's clearly BOTH. 5e was a very accessible version of D&D, conveniently at the same time that some D&D lovers got into positions of authority in the media and bravely put their love on display. They were successful doing so; so success breeds success - others did the same. A positive spiral occurred.
Not a chance. The stars had to align for it to happen. Those editions would have been more successful than they were if they'd been in the same position, sure. But I highly doubt that they'd have done the same or better. They simply were not as accessible. You have to be in the right place at the right time AND do the right things.
Not by itself, no. But you can claim that it was the right D&D at the right time (because clearly it WAS).
Hopefully it's NOT the best D&D ever. Hopefully that is yet to come.