D&D General Kobold Press Going Down a Dark Road

[TwoSix]

"Balance" is only a bad word when applied to WotC products.

It's an absolute requirement when applied to non-WotC products.

Definitely balance should be a consideration. But some people judge material based on whether it's comparable to a champion fighter, and others if it's comparable to a hexblade paladin or a chronurgy wizard. There's really no standard that fits everyone, so you inevitably hear balance complaints about any 3pp product.

Now, you hear the same things around WotC's stuff, but there the reaction is "Well, I'd edit or ban the parts I don't like, but still leave the rest." 3pp will get tossed if there's any aspect that feels even slightly off.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I disagree. I think that many people (including me) correctly excoriated the statement, but then moved on to other things.

I haven't read any logical or reasonable arguments "excoriating" the statement.

Just a lot of whinging and equivocating, which isn't at all the same thing. The fact is, WotC, are, realistically, stopping publishing 5E books in 2024. Pretending that they won't is shenanigans at best, and I don't think even WotC have suggested otherwise. Why would they? There's no benefit to them lying about this. Hell, if anything, I think KP are being unrealistically positive - they think digital version of the 5E rulebooks will still be sold - I think that's unlikely myself.

Thus calling it FUD is outright dishonest, frankly.

At worst it's fairly mild marketing.

I'm not even a KP fan, and much more likely to go with 1D&D than KP's take (indeed I use digital books only for D&D), but the absolute posturing and seemingly-pretend offense people are taking to a very straightforward statement here is 100% internet at its finest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Definitely balance should be a consideration. But some people judge material based on whether it's comparable to a champion fighter, and others if it's comparable to a hexblade paladin or a chronurgy wizard. There's really no standard that fits everyone, so you inevitably hear balance complaints about any 3pp product.

Now, you hear the same things around WotC's stuff, but there the reaction is "Well, I'd edit or ban the parts I don't like, but still leave the rest." 3pp will get tossed if there's any aspect that feels even slightly off.

WotC definitely has an undeserved reputation for quality, and as a result is given much more of a pass on stuff like that. Really irritates me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Definitely balance should be a consideration. But some people judge material based on whether it's comparable to a champion fighter, and others if it's comparable to a hexblade paladin or a chronurgy wizard. There's really no standard that fits everyone, so you inevitably hear balance complaints about any 3pp product.

I hope you don;t mind a slight sreail... but this is my rpboelm with 5e as is and why I wish we were getting a more ondepth rehaul...

2 7th level front line melee characters running through he same adventure with the same level of optimizations, but 1 is a fighter (any subclass really but lets keep the champion) and 1 took 2 levels of paliden and 5 of warlock (hexblade/sword pact) is 2 VERY diffrent experences in power and balance.

if we take a 3rd table, same adventure same level of optimization and make the main front line melee character a level 1 hexblade warlock level 6 valor or sword bard you get another level inbetween the two

if we take a 4th table same adventure same level of optimzation but make the front liner a melee war cleric we get a 4th pt on this graph.

Now, you hear the same things around WotC's stuff, but there the reaction is "Well, I'd edit or ban the parts I don't like, but still leave the rest." 3pp will get tossed if there's any aspect that feels even slightly off.

I already spend a lot of time handleing fixing WotC issues,,, I don;t want to add MORE time fixxing 2pp isssues too.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

WotC definitely has an undeserved reputation for quality, and as a result is given much more of a pass on stuff like that. Really irritates me.

I think you mistake "I have enough on my plate with 1 company without adding 200-30 more" with "oh this one company does no wrong"

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you mistake "I have enough on my plate with 1 company without adding 200-30 more" with "oh this one company does no wrong"

In your case I will certainly concede that point. But I don't think I'm wrong in a larger sense.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

WotC definitely has an undeserved reputation for quality, and as a result is given much more of a pass on stuff like that. Really irritates me.

I think the problem is that people tend to see it as:

WotC vs 3PPs

Lumping them all together. Rather than separating out different 3PPs who have very different standards for balance, and noting that WotC themselves have been all over the road on balance. By lumping them together, absolute car-crash stuff gets assigned to "all 3PPs", rather the small number of companies it should be assigned to. And "pretty bad" stuff like, say, virtually everything Critical Role-related is also assigned to all 3PPs, even though half of it is published by WotC!

WotC definitely, on average, do a better job than 3PPs, on average, but that's not a reasonable position, because why are you averaging all 3PPs, rather than looking at those relevant to you?

I think you mistake "I have enough on my plate with 1 company without adding 200-30 more" with "oh this one company does no wrong"

No.

Because you're not dealing with 200-300 more, are you? That's nonsense.

You're dealing only with what you actually choose to add. So you're illustrating the lie here - people pretending like 3PPs are this huge extra balance burden. They're not. You - as a DM - do not have balance/monitor "all 3PPs". You only have to look at the ones you're interested in and actually add to your campaign.

That's a much smaller number.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They provided new subclasses (indeed, this is where the term "subclass" got started in D&D.) These subclasses could be played right alongside the original ones. Those with altered roles were especially ripe for such a thing. Certainly, you could mix and match to your heart's content: a Slayer Fighter next to an original Paladin in the front, with an Arcanist (aka original) Wizard next to an Elementalist Sorcerer in the back. Or what-have-you.

Not to mention all the options for mixing and matching features between subclasses, like using assassin’s shroud on an executioner (it works better and doesn’t need feats compared to the original assassin, due to having better at will damage), or the fact you could take phb fighter encounter powers instead of power attack, or the fact that phb rangers could grab the primal utility powers made for the scout and hunter rangers.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I haven't read any logical or reasonable arguments "excoriating" the statement.

Just a lot of whinging and equivocating, which isn't at all the same thing. The fact is, WotC, are, realistically, stopping publishing 5E books in 2024. Pretending that they won't is shenanigans at best, and I don't think even WotC have suggested otherwise. Why would they? There's no benefit to them lying about this. Hell, if anything, I think KP are being unrealistically positive - they think digital version of the 5E rulebooks will still be sold - I think that's unlikely myself.

Thus calling it FUD is outright dishonest, frankly.

First, I don't think you read all the thread.

Second, you literally just called the majority of people who commented earlier on as "whinging" and "equivocating[.]"

Third, you just called me dishonest.

So I will be quite clear- here is your statement:

"The fact is, WotC, are, realistically, stopping publishing 5E books in 2024. Pretending that they won't is shenanigans at best, and I don't think even WotC have suggested otherwise."

Here is KP's statement (attempting to sell their product):

1) 5th Edition Core Rulebooks are going away. The 5E Monster Manual, Player’s Handbook, and Dungeon Master’s Guide will not stay in print. New players must either use purely digital rulebooks (which works for some people) or find a new version.

We aim to keep the spirit of tabletop alive by producing beautiful, inviting versions of the core rulebooks for those who prefer to play face-to-face and those who don’t want to pay a monthly subscription to play.

Are you a fortune-teller? Are you Nostradamus? Are you James Cole, the protagonist from 12 Monkeys, sent from the future to Ruin-splain to us mor-ans how the future must happen?

Because if you're not, I think you probably need to be a lot less derogatory in your comments when you are talking about things that (1) haven't happened yet, and (2) have had no official announcements.

Moreover, notice what people have objected to- both the FACT that Kobold Press is making statement about the future that they don't know, and the FACT that the are implying that their version of D&D will be closer to 5e than WoTC's version, and, moreover, that WoTC will not be releasing hardcover books for face-to-face play and only allowing subscription models- NONE OF WHICH IS PROVABLY TRUE.*

Given your combative and derogatory tone, which you tend to leap to (even though I didn't quote you, reply to you, or "at" you in any way), I think we're good. Thanks!


*Here's what I said, emphasis supplied-
1. Anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention knows the statement is not provably correct and there is absolutely no real defense of it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the problem is that people tend to see it as:

WotC vs 3PPs

Lumping them all together. Rather than separating out different 3PPs who have very different standards for balance, and noting that WotC themselves have been all over the road on balance. By lumping them together, absolute car-crash stuff gets assigned to "all 3PPs", rather the small number of companies it should be assigned to. And "pretty bad" stuff like, say, virtually everything Critical Role-related is also assigned to all 3PPs, even though half of it is published by WotC!

WotC definitely, on average, do a better job than 3PPs, on average, but that's not a reasonable position, because why are you averaging all 3PPs, rather than looking at those relevant to you?

No.

Because you're not dealing with 200-300 more, are you? That's nonsense.

You're dealing only with what you actually choose to add. So you're illustrating the lie here - people pretending like 3PPs are this huge extra balance burden. They're not. You - as a DM - do not have balance/monitor "all 3PPs". You only have to look at the ones you're interested in and actually add to your campaign.

That's a much smaller number.

True. One new 5e book is one new 5e book to look at, whether it comes from Kobold Press, EN Publishing, WotC, Mage Hand, or someone else.