D&D (2024) I think we are on the cusp of a sea change.

[TheSword]

I mean, to me it was pretty obvious with Tasha's, why people would feel it was "late 5E".

For the very simple reason that in every edition, all the way back to 1E, there's this "late" phase and the sign you're in that late phase is major mechanical experimentation well beyond what was going on previously.

1E had Unearthed Arcana in 1985. In 1989 we had 2nd edition.
2E had the Player's Option series, starting in 1995. In 2000 3rd edition.
3E had a lot going on, but the sort of "final harbinger" was Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords in 2006. In 2008 we had 4th edition.
4E had Essentials in 2010, and then in 2014 we had 5th edition.
5E had Tasha's in 2020, and it seems like we're getting a new edition or quasi-edition in 2024.

One can definitely argue which books were the most identifiable for this. Like for me with 4E, the risks taken with Heroes of Shadow (wow that really just straight up has Arthas from WoW on the cover huh? Damn) in 2011 was the real "final harbinger" that told me this edition was kind of on the way out. With 3E I think you could point to other books earlier than ToB:tBo9S, but I think that was the "yo this is over" book.

Do you truly think Tasha’s constituted major mechanical experimentation?

• A customisable race?
• The merest dipping of toes into psionics?
• Rules for retconning character choices?
• Patrons

These are small editions that tinker with small elements of the rules, not the design breaking stuff that came at the end of 2nd and 3rd editions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Do you truly think Tasha’s constituted major mechanical experimentation?

• A customisable race?
• The merest dipping of toes into psionics?
• Rules for retconning character choices?
• Patrons

These are small editions that tinker with small elements of the rules, not the design breaking stuff that came at the end of 2nd and 3rd editions.

Yes I do, given 5E basically swore blind that they'd never do as much as errata and has generally been pretty leery of adding mechanical elements (with good reason). It is relative. In every edition it's been relative, no exceptions.

It went beyond what you're describing, too - it's not just retconning choices, there are tons of new choices, and many classes are simply upgraded by Tasha's.

I don't think it's as extreme as Tome of Battle, but let me be really straight with you, when it came out, I said we were moving into the "late, experimental" phase of 5E (I really don't want to dig for those posts but they're out there), and was predicting (as were many others, I wasn't special) a 2024 edition. Which is exactly what is happening.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Yes I do, given 5E basically swore blind that they'd never do as much as errata and has generally been pretty leery of adding mechanical elements (with good reason). It is relative. In every edition it's been relative, no exceptions.

It went beyond what you're describing, too - it's not just retconning choices, there are tons of new choices, and many classes are simply upgraded by Tasha's.

I don't think it's as extreme as Tome of Battle, but let me be really straight with you, when it came out, I said we were moving into the "late, experimental" phase of 5E (I really don't want to dig for those posts but they're out there), and was predicting (as were many others, I wasn't special) a 2024 edition. Which is exactly what is happening.

Isn't that the same post you predicted my untimely death on Saturday, December 18 at 11:24 am Pacific Standard Time?

Wait- what's that noise behind me?

AAAHHHHHHH

 

[TheSword]

Yes I do, given 5E basically swore blind that they'd never do as much as errata and has generally been pretty leery of adding mechanical elements (with good reason). It is relative. In every edition it's been relative, no exceptions.

It went beyond what you're describing, too - it's not just retconning choices, there are tons of new choices, and many classes are simply upgraded by Tasha's.

I don't think it's as extreme as Tome of Battle, but let me be really straight with you, when it came out, I said we were moving into the "late, experimental" phase of 5E (I really don't want to dig for those posts but they're out there), and was predicting (as were many others, I wasn't special) a 2024 edition. Which is exactly what is happening.

I think that’s definitely putting the cart before the horse.

We know we’re getting anniversary releases of the core books. Everything else is speculation. We don’t know that it will come even close to a new edition.

 

[Faolyn]

I think you’re forgetting that these creation stories are told by unreliable narrators. Even given that the stories aren’t quite as simple as you make out. Though it is a good example of why this lore is good. You sound like a bitter drow matron, or surly duergar explaining to their flock why moradin and corellon are wicked.

Except that there's nothing in D&D that suggests that the narrators are actually unreliable. We all know Gruumsh's story, but has there ever been a version told from the POV of the other gods?

The duergar made a deal with Asmodeus the prince of hell which you conveniently missed out. It was still greed that made them dig and dig. A lure, not a compulsion. They turned away from Moradin for treasure.

They were being mind-controlled, though. "A great elder brain and its mind flayers waited there, ready to take the next step in the subjugation of clan Duergar. The monsters had sent out a psychic lure that played on the dwarves' greed, and the never-ending work schedule that was the product of their obsession weeded out all but the best specimens for their slave pens."

This rather suggests that dwarfs are at least a bit greedy in general (as is everyone, of course), and the Duergar were just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got caught. They only made a deal with Asmodeus in order to get out of many generations of slavery--meaning that Lawful Good Moradin either couldn't or wouldn't aid them.

The elves were given beautiful and extremely long lived bodies because Corellon loved them, despite them turning away from him… they were also tricked to do so by an evil entity for the sake of power.

So again, punished for being tricked by an evil entity. And it's still punishing the children for the crimes of the parents. Even with the reincarnation angle, it's still a squicky to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think that’s definitely putting the cart before the horse.

We know we’re getting anniversary releases of the core books. Everything else is speculation. We don’t know that it will come even close to a new edition.

/shrug

Well you asked mate! It's part of what the thread's about!

My opinion is that, given what WotC has said, we're looking at a transition that will be like a more gentle form (but just as extensive, ultimately) the transition from 1E to 2E. Which obviously compared to the 2E-3E or 3E-4E or 4E-5E transitions would be a lot less extreme.

It's not like there isn't a lot of evidence or that my previous predictions have proven particularly inaccurate. If anything I've been slightly conservative re: degree of change I expect to see. They retained way more of the changes in from the playtest thing to Tasha's than I expected, for example.

This rather suggests that dwarfs are at least a bit greedy in general (as is everyone, of course)

Quite, dwarves in particular, including "good guy" dwarves "have form" (as we say in the UK) for being greedy. I mean, it's right there in Tolkien - "they delved to greedily and too deep". I don't think anyone would say the dwarves of the Mines of Moria "had it coming" lol.

 

[S'mon]

Can you explain how it would "become harder"?

And what would this "big third party publisher" be?

And what would their product look like?

To me, this is implausible nonsense. I can't think of a single "big third party publisher" who would want to "Make their own D&D with hookers and blow" or in this case "Make their own D&D with hookers and always-evil Orcs and dark-skinned always-evil Drow". If you can, name 'em. Which "big third party publisher" would do that? And it's nigh-impossible to imagine the product being something you could spin any more positively an an OSR game - you'd basically be seen as making "Intentionally problematic D&D". Not like accidentally problematic D&D, but intentionally problematic.

Who would even buy that?

I was thinking more something a bit dark fantasy, like eg Kobold Press's Midgard, not Venger Satanis levels of sleaze.

 

[S'mon]

It's the opposite.

WOTC is widening the player base. The issue is the old audience who was used to getting targeted in 100% of products are being targeted for 50% of products.

What products have they released recently targetting the old audience, do you think? I don't own Dungeon of the Mad Archmage, but that sounded like a pretty trad D&D concept, at least if it had had any treasure in the dungeon.

I haven't bought much WoTC stuff recently, but I guess that's as much about quality concerns as content per se. I think good 3PPs like Kobold Press, Arcanum Worlds (Odyssey of the Dragonlords) and Sasquatch (RIP) often seem to do a lot better stuff than most of my WoTC material. Otherwise I'd probably have had a look at Mythic Odysseys of Theros and a couple other things maybe.

 

[Malmuria]

What products have they released recently targetting the old audience, do you think? I don't own Dungeon of the Mad Archmage, but that sounded like a pretty trad D&D concept, at least if it had had any treasure in the dungeon.

I haven't bought much WoTC stuff recently, but I guess that's as much about quality concerns as content per se. I think good 3PPs like Kobold Press, Arcanum Worlds (Odyssey of the Dragonlords) and Sasquatch (RIP) often seem to do a lot better stuff than most of my WoTC material. Otherwise I'd probably have had a look at Mythic Odysseys of Theros and a couple other things maybe.

Wasn't there an entire book on dragons released like a month ago?

 

[S'mon]

Wasn't there an entire book on dragons released like a month ago?

Thanks! Since I already had a 3PP dragon book fulfilling my draconic needs, I ignored it.