D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[Mistwell]

The shift Tasha caused was enough to kill PHB +1 as q viable rule Xanathar never achieved that.

So you're saying it changed a rule which about 5% of games used to begin with (AL rules)? Yeah, that's not major. And that change was coming for a long time anyway. Even before Tasha's a bunch of AL games being played in homes were letting that rule slip a bit here and there, particularly with spells. There was a previous more major change to AL rules which happened unrelated in any book, when they reset how treasure and magic items operate. That definitely impacted AL more than Tasha's did.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Tasha's didn't kill PHB+1. The Tasha character creation rules were adopted into the D&D AL Player's Document to get around that problem.

Your intel is out of date. They tried to get around it the way you said, but the disparity between a Tasha's character and a none Tasha's book was too great, most thanks to bonus class features. AL has since dumped PHB +1, you can now mostly freely mix and match books. Want to play a Triton Storm Herald Barbarian? You can now do that.

They even allow Aacrakora and Winged Tieflings in AL now.

 

[Marandahir]

Your intel is out of date. They tried to get around it the way you said, but the disparity between a Tasha's character and a none Tasha's book was too great, most thanks to bonus class features. AL has since dumped PHB +1, you can now mostly freely mix and match books. Want to play a Triton Storm Herald Barbarian? You can now do that.

They even allow Aacrakora and Winged Tieflings in AL now.

Sorry, you're MOSTLY right I was looking at v10 not v10.3. That said, PHB+1 was not dumped; it's just that your choice of ancestry is not tied to the rule but instead covered by a list of options in the associated document. Classes, feats, and spells are still tied to PHB+1. I also do not see Aarakocra in said document's list. See attached.

 

[FarBeyondC]

If people are going to bring up AL rules as an indication of anything, at least try to keep up with the latest rules.

PHB+1 was dumped in February, for everything except for the Seasonal Campaign (which that Player's Guide is an older version of the rules of) for which (unless Wotc changes their mind in the interim) PHB+1 only remains for consistency (hah!) until the next season, when it'll be dumped there as well.

 

[Marandahir]

If people are going to bring up AL rules as an indication of anything, at least try to keep up with the latest rules.

PHB+1 was dumped in February, for everything except for the Seasonal Campaign (which that Player's Guide is an older version of the rules of) for which (unless Wotc changes their mind in the interim) PHB+1 only remains for consistency (hah!) until the next season, when it'll be dumped there as well.

Sorry, hard to be able to keep up with them when they don’t update the player’s guide. Please don’t be passive aggressive about it, not all of us have a good news source for it beyond downloading the guides. I’ll take it that I was wrong then, but you can see my confusion.

 

[teitan]

It's a significant marker in the gradual evolution of the game, but it's not as radical as all that.

I don't even think it is significant long term myself. I like it but I think it will be minimal impact as a side option in a refresh which will upset some folks but pandering rarely leads to sustained sales, politics aside. Nearly killed DC and Marvel a few years back.

 

[Aldarc]

I doubt we will see another Xanathar/Tasha style book before they do a mild refresh for a backwards compatible 6E. But they have succeeded in making something truly evergreen here.

I would definitely be onboard for a mild refresh. I would hope for something that would (a) support backwards compatibility, much as you say here, but also (b) address some balance/flavor issues that both the players and designers seem to have with the various character options and possibly some of the ambiguous ruling areas (e.g., stealth, vision, and lighting). I could also foresee that a new edition would swap out less popular core character options for more popular options from later books. (Could the half-orc just be replaced with the orc? Possibly.)

I would definitely be curious whether the designers would use the opportunity to scratch some of their personal design irks. Mearls, for example, wished in hindsight that the warlock was designed differently regarding the interaction between their patron/boon. So I would be curious whether or not things like that would change if they had the opportunity to refresh or whether they would keep it the same.

Edit: I am curious what people see within the acceptable boundaries of a "refresh" and which things should remain untouched, though that may just repeat a lot of the same points raised in this thread.

None of the previous editions lasted forever.

Sooner or later, WOTC stands to make a lot more money by releasing a new edition. The faster they keep releasing power creep content, the sooner that will have to be.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yup. It feels like we've reach that stage in the edition when they're willing to let the power creep flow in the name of diverse options, but not to the weird experimental stage yet. Ravenloft and Theros both just felt really "confident", like they know the approach they want to take (as did Tashas). Also the massive power-creep from Divine Blessings or whatever they're called in Theros and the Dark Gifts in Ravenloft is a clear statement of intent re: future settings. It also provides an additional layer of customization which I think a lot of people like. If 5E Eberron was developed and published now instead of when it was I'm pretty sure they'd have used a model more like that to handle Dragonmarks (and likely given people w/o Dragonmarks other advantages).

 

[Marandahir]

Yup. It feels like we've reach that stage in the edition when they're willing to let the power creep flow in the name of diverse options, but not to the weird experimental stage yet. Ravenloft and Theros both just felt really "confident", like they know the approach they want to take (as did Tashas). Also the massive power-creep from Divine Blessings or whatever they're called in Theros and the Dark Gifts in Ravenloft is a clear statement of intent re: future settings. It also provides an additional layer of customization which I think a lot of people like. If 5E Eberron was developed and published now instead of when it was I'm pretty sure they'd have used a model more like that to handle Dragonmarks (and likely given people w/o Dragonmarks other advantages).

To be fair, supernatural gifts were in the Dungeon Master's Guide too; they didn't originate in Theros. It's just that the ones in Theros and the Dark Gifts in Ravenloft are clearly designed to be equivalent to a feat and designed as a first level feature that everyone can get. PCs in Theros and Ravenloft are supposed to be tougher for reasons pertaining to those settings.

Dark Sun is another such setting that has a history of this: 4e, they were the source of the heroic themes feature that essentially gave your character an additional encounter power (the next one of which you wouldn't get until 3rd level), in earlier editions, you're just assumed to start at 3rd instead of 1st. But a bit later in 4e, Dragon magazine and various products introduced themes for everyone. An additional heroic tier choice was very valued for narrative reasons, and having an extra tool in the arsenal was nice. It just meant that DMs had to rebalance encounters that had been written for earlier in the edition by adding a monster or two - just get the CR up a few levels.

These Gifts are doing the exact same thing to the 5e landscape. Maybe it would be power creep if only some characters get the power, but the books specifically suggest that if someone starts with these, everyone should or should get a bonus feat. Honestly, before Theros, I always granted everyone a bonus feat to begin with, anyway (so that they wouldn't feel beholden to miss out on the first ASI to get a feature that made their character feel right).

 

[Oofta]

It's funny. People want a more modular system and more options. We get a more modular system and more options and suddenly it's bloat and the sky is falling.

To be fair, supernatural gifts were in the Dungeon Master's Guide too; they didn't originate in Theros. It's just that the ones in Theros and the Dark Gifts in Ravenloft are clearly designed to be equivalent to a feat and designed as a first level feature that everyone can get. PCs in Theros and Ravenloft are supposed to be tougher for reasons pertaining to those settings.

Dark Sun is another such setting that has a history of this: 4e, they were the source of the heroic themes feature that essentially gave your character an additional encounter power (the next one of which you wouldn't get until 3rd level), in earlier editions, you're just assumed to start at 3rd instead of 1st. But a bit later in 4e, Dragon magazine and various products introduced themes for everyone. An additional heroic tier choice was very valued for narrative reasons, and having an extra tool in the arsenal was nice. It just meant that DMs had to rebalance encounters that had been written for earlier in the edition by adding a monster or two - just get the CR up a few levels.

These Gifts are doing the exact same thing to the 5e landscape. Maybe it would be power creep if only some characters get the power, but the books specifically suggest that if someone starts with these, everyone should or should get a bonus feat. Honestly, before Theros, I always granted everyone a bonus feat to begin with, anyway (so that they wouldn't feel beholden to miss out on the first ASI to get a feature that made their character feel right).

If you don't want to allow them, don't. They're quite campaign setting specific. I don't allow dragon marks from Eberron into my campaign, why would I allow Dark Gifts if it doesn't fit the theme of my campaign?