D&D 5E State of D&D

[seebs]

Bloat doesn't have a firm definition. I think it's at the intersection of being unable to find content you want easily (by being uncertain of the location), being unable to easily transport the material, having books that might never be used in play, and the balance of material being affected by power creep.

Yeah. I was really annoyed the first time I found a 4e feat in one of the books that was unconditionally better than a parallel feat in the PHB.

I'd love PDFs as well.
Digital content is neat, but it does compete with the physical books, which is unfortunate. It gets necessary for games like Pathfinder or 4e, but I don't think it's as needed for 5e. There's just less math and complexity in gaining levels.

It's true that it competes somewhat with the physical books, but it's notable that everyone but Wizards seems to think it's a good deal for them. And while it may not be as-needed, I would absolutely love to have searchable text for the 5E rules, instead of physical books. Well, given me, probably in addition to physical books. But searchable text is such a huge advantage. So is the ability to have the complete text of all three core books in an object that weighs less than half what one of them does.

Other than that, I'd like 2-3 more subclasses for most of the classes. Maybe 3-4 for the barbarian, bard, and druid who are a little under loved. But that's far less content than you could squeeze into a single 256-page book, let alone a full-sized PHB2.

Yeah. If they did that, plus maybe some psionic classes and some other stuff, they might have about enough for one reasonably solid expansion book.

Seriously, look at the numbers. Each subclass takes roughly 3/4 of a page, so if there were 4 new subclasses for each class, that'd be around 40 pages. Maybe 50 with art. To almost double the subclasses in the game. Add subraces for each race and you might get 60 or 70 pages. What do you fill the remaining 180-odd pages with? Some spells, some feats, some martial manuevers. Yeah, that'll kill 20 or 30 pages. 150 more to go.
What then? Double the content? Triple? At that point things just become silly...

At that point, the game is pretty much done. WotC could release a single giant splatbook and "finish" the edition in terms of support in a single month. There'd be room for a big all-in-one tonal expansion (like psionics) with classes, subclasses, races, monsters and the like, but not much else would be needed.
Or they could space out that content over three or four years, with small releases that are heavy in flavour (like in the post-Essentials 4e line). Making each book with its content more anticipated and exciting.

They could, but that would most likely result in a lot more paper to carry around to get the same game mechanics, and that doesn't entirely appeal to me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

ps- And I don't happen to see the need; I think there are plenty of "high-level" monsters in this MM. I wish there was a greater variety of low-level monsters.

Also, it may need reiteration, that unlike 3.x or 4e, 5e's bounded accuracy allows for monsters to retain their threat value longer. So lower level monsters can be used into mid-level range and mid-level monsters into higher level play.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

I've been playing for the same length of time. And I've not yet felt the pressure to need this new content you are speaking of. So now what? Do our votes cancel?

No votes here, just experiences. But I am curious about specifics here. We started with the early to mid playtest. How often do you guys play, how long have you guys been playing, and what level are your PCs now?

 

[Mistwell]

Two things (and I mean this in the nicest possible way):

First, I made sure to note my incredulity regarding solo adventuring.

Not solo adventuring, solo MONSTERS. As in a single Dragon vs a party of adventurers. It's a standard concept for D&D.

Second, BECMI? Really? You recall that from re-design (Holmes) we had a 1-3 set ... and that lasted from 1977 until late '81 (expert, through 14) and BECMI wasn't complete until 1985!

When BECMI supported mid-high level play, it had a wide array of challenges available for those levels. That's my point. 5e currently supports mid-high level play, but lacks adequate challenges for those levels.

Finally, the reason there is *less* (not none, like BECMI!) support for high-level play is more basic; many campaigns just don't last very long at high levels.

You've erroneously changed what I wrote to be high level play when I said mid to high level play. 8th level is not an unusual level, for example. I cited there are three TOTAL CR 12 creatures. CR 12 is not a rare challenge level for most campaigns. It might be where some end, but most campaigns seem to get to around that level.

ps- And I don't happen to see the need; I think there are plenty of "high-level" monsters in this MM. I wish there was a greater variety of low-level monsters.

There are definitely not "plenty" and someone did a breakdown of CRs and found low-level was disproportionately represented in this edition relative to every prior edition of the game. Again, Mearls admits to this - there's no battling opinions here, it's an objective fact there are fewer challenges at those levels than prior editions, and they knew that going in and said they are working on it.

 

[Mistwell]

Also, it may need reiteration, that unlike 3.x or 4e, 5e's bounded accuracy allows for monsters to retain their threat value longer. So lower level monsters can be used into mid-level range and mid-level monsters into higher level play.

Yes but only by increasing monster count, which directly impacts room sizes, and harms your ability to adapt old adventures and use the existing library of maps out there, and harms your ability to use solo monsters. In fact this is the issue which led to the congo-line rules problem which required a lot of post-publication patch work from Crawford and Mearls to deal with (because 5e move-attack-move rules changed the ability to create choke points).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No votes here, just experiences. But I am curious about specifics here. We started with the early to mid playtest. How often do you guys play,

Weekly (for the most part).

how long have you guys been playing,

5e? Since the very first playtest packet.

and what level are your PCs now?

Which campaign? And do the APs count? Those alone go to 15+ each.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Not solo adventuring, solo MONSTERS. As in a single Dragon vs a party of adventurers. It's a standard concept for D&D.

Is it? By who's standard?

If you are specifically speaking to dragons, sure maybe. Okay. But then, in 5e I find dragons to be a decent challenge to a party of adventurers. So there's that.