D&D General Less is More: Why You Can't Get What You Want in D&D


log in or register to remove this ad

Moonmover

Explorer
The spell list were not futureproofed. Wizards of the Coast try to future-proof them in the new core books and realized because they waited so long the fan base would erupt if they try to futureproof the spell list.
Can you elaborate on this point? I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "future-proof" here. In what sense is the 2014 spell list not future-proof, and how could be be changed to make it so?
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I don’t know if it was dumped too early relative to other editions.
A number of years. No.
A number of books. Yes.

Can you elaborate on this point? I genuinely have no idea what you mean by "future-proof" here. In what sense is the 2014 spell list not future-proof, and how could be be changed to make it so?
WOTC attempted to futureproof 2024 spell lists by going from Class based Spell lists to Source based Spell lists.

Instead of having a spell list for Wizards sorcerers warlocks and bards separately, they'd all use a combined Arcane spell list. Official and third party classes and subclasses would just place a spell in the arcane spell list and everybody would know which classes and subclasses have access to it.

However since they waited ten years to attempt this, fans were too used to the old method, retroactively changing things would be a pain, and the characteristics of the class lists were too ingrained in the edition's fandom to change.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
A number of years. No.
A number of books. Yes.


WOTC attempted to futureproof 2024 spell lists by going from Class based Spell lists to Source based Spell lists.

Instead of having a spell list for Wizards sorcerers warlocks and bards separately, they'd all use a combined Arcane spell list. Official and third party classes and subclasses would just place a spell in the arcane spell list and everybody would know which classes and subclasses have access to it.

However since they waited ten years to attempt this, fans were too used to the old method, retroactively changing things would be a pain, and the characteristics of the class lists were too ingrained in the edition's fandom to change.
Ah yes, the all terrible fans…
 

Clint_L

Legend
Yeah, I'm firmly in the "keep it simple" camp. If I had my way, there'd be fewer skills, fewer classes, way fewer spells, fewer subclasses, fewer playable species, fewer of just about everything. That's why I'm generally opposed to suggestions for adding the Psion, the Gish, the Warlord, etc.; I don't see that the additional complexity is worth it. If you must add those things, do it through setting books that I can choose not to buy and don't have to worry about on my DDB character creation screens.

The only place I differ is when it comes to monsters, but those can be added as desired without impacting the core rules or increasing complexity. Maybe magic items, as well.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I prefer a sleek set of core rules that allow for modular expansion. Overall, I think D&D 5e did this well. I've been able to add on all manner of subsystems, classes, spells, and items from subsequent official books, TPPs, and homebrew without breaking the game. I do wish they spend more time steamlining and rules/advice for adding to the game. The DMG material for alternate rules, creating monsters, developing encounters, creating magic items, etc. doesn't feel as well designed as the PHB. I'm hoping that the 2024/5 DMG takes the lessons learned over the past decade, and the more time and money they've had to redesign it, and give DMs and TPPs much better tools for adding to and altering the game in ways that don't ruin game balance--or at least make it easier to make informed game-"breaking" changes and additions.

Also, while the core system is pretty darn sleek and robust, the presentation makes learning and referencing the rules much more complicated than necessary. Here is to hoping that the new PHB and DMG improve their layout, organization, cross-referencing etc.
 


Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Less is More...

If you are creative enough to bring new ideas to keep the game fresh.

The main argument against Less is More is running out of little ideas

The main concern with the current path of 5e is that the current designers are tapped out of the wall little ideas that they have been using to build books.

The narratives significance of some of the subclasses and feats in Tasha's was weak. And some were reprints. So how would the next major splat book look m Do they have good ideas for two sub classes for every class That would be worth buying another major supplement? Are there any popular settings from pre-2000 that they can use to make books or will they have to dip back into settings that aren't new and shiny.

Updated Core books might be being printed for this year but we are still at "late stage edition" 5e If you don't have more to sell.

I mean we have a thread in this forum where people are asking why are they trying to sell Greyhawk to 25 year olds.
I expect they will be "updating" 5e content with the next few releases at least, but calling the books by different names and reorganizing the content so they can plausibly re-sell the material.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I expect they will be "updating" 5e content with the next few releases at least, but calling the books by different names and reorganizing the content so they can plausibly re-sell the material.
That would never work.

Even the bean counters know that would never work.

No one will buy nonCore or niche updated reprints at full book price

That's why "Less is More" has to be planned. I don't know what WOTC is gonna do in 2026 when all the easy conversions of past settings and subclasses are all done.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top