D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[Parmandur]

except in the playtest you just have dwarf with no stat bonus and you take a background that gives you +1 to one and +2 to another.
the playtest says to replace the race with the background...aka it means remake the character.

No, the 0laytest rules sya to choose either the old Race modifiers or the Background modifiers, which Grandfathers in the 5E options like Mountain Dwarf or Half-Elf that follow a different formula (take away the modifiers, rhe Mountain Dwarf and Half-Elf have less stuff than other Raves in 2014 or any Species in One)

the spesfic what? the rules are not teh same for the same sets of actions abilities you name it... it's a diffrent game ion the same chasie

You can run a character sheet from 2014 in a 2024 game, using the Subclass or Race abilities. People are doing it, nothing breaks.

But the math...you know the math is the only thing that matters.

Yes, absolutely, the ability to use old PCs in One shows that.

 

[Parmandur]

where I agree with the flaw you identify with 3e I disagree it stopped new players enmass

I know tons of people who picked up 5E who think it is indltimidating who would never have touched 3.x, so it seems like it did stop new players from my viewpoint.

 

[BrokenTwin]

3e has a major flaw that hinder it becoming massive in popularity like 5e. 4e has the same one. System mastery. Both are so complex in their mathematics and designed with system mastery in mind, that you are almost encouraged to build a game breaking character as a reward, that it can be discouraging to new people. It’s also overwhelming. 5e is simple and remains simple. That’s also the benefit that it and 1e had over all other editions that let them be popular, they didn’t/don’t have a ton of materials to buy and play with. You have your core books and a small, small handful of additional optional materials. I hope 1D&D doesn’t get away from that model but with 5e increasing its supplement count the last few years I could see it getting out of hand in 4 years.

I wouldn't say 4E required much in the way of system mastery in so much as its upfront tactical design caused a lot of option paralysis from people who just wanted to play something simple. The actual system for 4E was really easy to teach and learn. I'd argue in some ways more easy than 5E. But when you give a list of options every level to a group of players conditioned on being weary of trap options and ivory tower design instead of just choosing what seems fun, it can seem a lot more daunting than it actually is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh come on. Are you seriously trying to villainize WOTC because they are trying to make money? Of course they are. Every single company out there is. Just because you personally don’t like what they’re selling, doesn’t mean it’s some big evil conspiracy to just fool us all into giving them money.

I'm concerned because it seems to be prioritized over making the game as good as it can be. Removing or obscuring content,, pushing online play really hard, making game decisions based almost solely on a popularity contest, marketing an entirely new set of corebooks as basically the same while simultaneously pushing their customers to re-buy those "basically the same" books". Going half-way on an edition change for the 50th when they could easily have released a real new edition, that works the way they think modern gamers want, with a new setting to match, that doesn't trade on cheap nostalgia while simultaneously messing with it, either in lore or just lack of content.

The resulting game would likely not be one I'd like, but it would have been an honest attempt to make a better game that suits the needs of a new audience. Instead they went for the easy cash.

I understand not everyone agrees, but that doesn't change how I feel.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why should we base the comparison on 2014 PHB instead of all the things that were introduced since and are being used by many? It makes more sense to compare against the current game than it does to limit it to 2014, because the incremental change is from the current game to 1DD, not from 2014 to 1DD.

In the reality of what's out there, sure. For practical purposes, everyone I know who plays but doesn't DM has at best just the 2014 PH. That's what they'll compare this new book to, not to ten years of iteration.

 

[mamba]

The difference between feats being optional and having a feat that is ASI instead of taking a feat… yes mathematically it’s the same but mechanically it’s WOTC removing the decision from the DM.

lol, if this is a relevant difference for you, I cannot help you. The decision only changed from ‘are there feats’ to ‘is ASI the only feat’, it is still the DM / group who decides, and nothing about what is being decided has changed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wouldn't say 4E required much in the way of system mastery in so much as its upfront tactical design caused a lot of option paralysis from people who just wanted to play something simple. The actual system for 4E was really easy to teach and learn. I'd argue in some ways more easy than 5E. But when you give a list of options every level to a group of players conditioned on being weary of trap options and ivory tower design instead of just choosing what seems fun, it can seem a lot more daunting than it actually is.

that's the thing... new players didn't know to look out for traps or ivory tower desgin... that is why it worked better with new players then some older ones...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes. You are totally correct. But people like to slab a lable on something they don't like to show their disdain. Facts come second if at all.

I agree, that essentials was just a compilation of the latest rules upgrades and alternate classes (with different names even so there is no confusion) and a different structure.

The problem was just, that there was no audience left, as it solidly stroke a middle ground between AEDU and classical or 5e class structure. And since it showed that players were mostly either pro or contra, you and I seemed to be the only people who loved essentials...

I still believe, if essentials came before classic 4e, we would have seen a lot less edition warring, as essentials catches the feel of classical D&D way better (at the cost of some balance*).

*allthough in practical play balance was still top notch (executioner, I look at you).

except in the playtest you just have dwarf with no stat bonus and you take a background that gives you +1 to one and +2 to another.
the playtest says to replace the race with the background...aka it means remake the character.

False. It says to choose one method or the other, if your race has ASIs built in.

You can’t use the new revised dwarf with one pre-revision trait, because that would be like mixing in Trance onto your dwarf, or using only part of the errata to a race. A race is a rules package. You use the whole thing.

That doesn’t make it different games.

 

[mamba]

In the reality of what's out there, sure. For practical purposes, everyone I know who plays but doesn't DM has at best just the 2014 PH. That's what they'll compare this new book to, not to ten years of iteration.

So they are not using Xanathar’s or Tasha’s subclasses? Or Tasha’s +1/+2 rule over race specific ones? Or do they just not own the books but use the content?

Even if people you know stick to PHB options, there are plenty of people who use them and expect to also see them in the next PHB iteration

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wouldn't say 4E required much in the way of system mastery in so much as its upfront tactical design caused a lot of option paralysis from people who just wanted to play something simple. The actual system for 4E was really easy to teach and learn. I'd argue in some ways more easy than 5E. But when you give a list of options every level to a group of players conditioned on being weary of trap options and ivory tower design instead of just choosing what seems fun, it can seem a lot more daunting than it actually is.

Yeah as seen with essentials. The simple character enthusiast could play a thief or a slayer or a hunter, and have a very simple character that didn’t need to choose from a list of options every level, and I could make a hybrid executioner|avenger with assassin’s shrouds instead of the assassins strike, and MC feats for the rogue, and then grab the Covenent Agent PP at level 11, and we can play at the same table without issue.