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

[Hatmatter]

Honestly? I mostly agree with the three of you on this. PHB SHOULD be simple. Not a simple as the Essentials Kit or Starter Set, but it shouldn't overwhelm the player with variant rules and ancestry and class options. It should be the core for which +1 can build from.

I think a revised PHB shouldn't be necessarily a consolidated PHB so much as including the options that are strict replacements (like revised ancestries, additional class spells, arguably the Ranger options from Tasha's) while excluding dials like supernatural gifts and the other class features. Those could go into the DM's Toolbox section of a revised DMG or else into an Unearthed Arcana-esque companion book of dials, bells, and whistles, alongside the subclass and ancestry options from Volo's, Xanathar's, Mordenkainen's, and Tasha's. This can and should be the default +1 rulebook, to be revised regularly to recompile new options into it.

Perhaps...speaking for myself, I am not seeing the advantage of this kind of consolidation. It is ok for the game to grow and for new books to emerge with new options. I think the PHB is a fine introduction to the game as is (once completely new people have been introduced to a simpler version: I bought The Essential Box Set and share the book in that with my brand new players). If a consolidation edition is published, then there will be a need for another new consolidation a few years later.

Perhaps the Wizard's team will feel different, but I am having trouble understanding why it is not fine to simply let the game develop through new books that are published. Most of the non-campaign specific options are available in Xanathar's or Tasha's. Historically, those two volumes hardly constitute bloat (I am not saying that you are suggesting that, Marandhir). I think the game can handle options and expansions in new volumes. With the addition of D&D Beyond, as some have suggested, makes it even easier for those who use it to have a simple means of managing the natural development of the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

You appear to have missed my point: adding a bunch of weapons to the 5E list is meaningless without a more granular, detailed system to differentiate those weapons. AD&D had a significantly more detailed approach to weapons (not that anyone ever actually used it) that made a list of a dozen different polearms worth having. 5E's system as it is differentiates weapons by damage, handedness, simple reach and a handful of other traits -- none of which are going to make it worth listing polearms separately by era or nation of origin.

so did 3.x & even 4e. 5e decided nuance bad made a shrill cry of rulings not rules while chanting modularity and decreed it good

And why is this evidence that 5e can't handle such models? Why do we need an edition refresh to accomodate? I don't see any reason why this couldn't be published in a big book of options.

wotc would need to be willing to make changes. between xge tcoe rising & ravenloft it does not appear that there is any reason to believe wotc even considers changing things an option. The ravenloft book literally has a bulletpoint that may as well say "go fix it yourself"Feature monsters that are immune to tactics characters often use but that are vulnerable to other strategies the. characters could employ.

 

[Thunder Brother]

Not to stray off-topic, but the current weapon system represents to me this awkward balance that 5e has of offering essentially meaningless choice for a PC, being simultaneously simple but with meaningless complications. A glaive and halberd have separate listings, but are actually completely identical in price and stats, the only difference between a battleaxe and a longsword is the price (largely meaningless as well). The book says that you can always reflavor a longsword as a katana, but also decides that a trident has some mystical difference to a spear (again despite identical stats). In addition, outside of a handful of monsters, there's little difference between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Really you could consolidate the weapon list into a handful of options without losing any functional complexity.

Spells as well have a similar issue. Theater of mind is the officially-stated standard form of play, but spells really feel designed around playing on a grid, with precise distances and areas that a DM either needs to take into consideration or handwave.

Are these examples problematic enough to warrant a 5.5 or 6e? Obviously not, as we're six years in and the game is more popular than ever. But these issues and the changing design philosophies that we're seeing from Tasha's reads to me as designers who can't decide exactly what their own game is supposed to be. This isn't even getting into the highly visible trend of a game designed for small-scale tactical combat being used more and more for story and character-driven roleplaying.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

 

[Minigiant]

And why is this evidence that 5e can't handle such models? Why do we need an edition refresh to accomodate? I don't see any reason why this couldn't be published in a big book of options.

That's what I am suggesting. The post I was responding to stated 5e could not handle a weapon module which has few moving parts and could be easily explained.

My nephew is going to start DMing soon and one thing I suggested he consider is using just the base rules at first (at most the core 3) and run it pretty close to the rules. New DMs can easily be overwhelmed if there are too many options. Let them get past apprentice level DMs and then they'll be able to figure out what they want to add.

I wasn't talking about brand new DMs. I was talking about newish DMs who have run a few by the book games and are doing their first major houserules.

From my experience, this is where the worst houserules come from and the highest time of need guidance. It spawns so many help and complaint topics from DMs breaking their own games due to them changing stuff without understanding the the system yet propped up by the limited experience.

 

[Marandahir]

That's what I am suggesting. The post I was responding to stated 5e could not handle a weapon module which has few moving parts and could be easily explained.

We agree then. What I don't get is how this furthers your earlier argument about how 5e is on its last legs because reasons?

I wasn't talking about brand new DMs. I was talking about newish DMs who have run a few by the book games and are doing their first major houserules.

From my experience, this is where the worst houserules come from and the highest time of need guidance. It spawns so many help and complaint topics from DMs breaking their own games due to them changing stuff without understanding the the system yet propped up by the limited experience.

What measure is a broken game? If things aren't working right, you sit the group down, you retool, and move on. If the houserule lets the players do all sorts of wacky hijinks, why can't that be fun too? In my younger PC and DM days, my parties went on all sorts of wild hijinks because of some "bad" rulings. But some of those were the most fun we ever had, because we were going where our imagination takes us. If a DM needs help and asks for it sure, it would be good to have more guidance on that point. But ultimately this is not a rigid game and a lot of the fiat is in the DM's hands.

 

[Marandahir]

Not to stray off-topic, but the current weapon system represents to me this awkward balance that 5e has of offering essentially meaningless choice for a PC, being simultaneously simple but with meaningless complications. A glaive and halberd have separate listings, but are actually completely identical in price and stats, the only difference between a battleaxe and a longsword is the price (largely meaningless as well). The book says that you can always reflavor a longsword as a katana, but also decides that a trident has some mystical difference to a spear (again despite identical stats). In addition, outside of a handful of monsters, there's little difference between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Really you could consolidate the weapon list into a handful of options without losing any functional complexity.

Spells as well have a similar issue. Theater of mind is the officially-stated standard form of play, but spells really feel designed around playing on a grid, with precise distances and areas that a DM either needs to take into consideration or handwave.

Are these examples problematic enough to warrant a 5.5 or 6e? Obviously not, as we're six years in and the game is more popular than ever. But these issues and the changing design philosophies that we're seeing from Tasha's reads to me as designers who can't decide exactly what their own game is supposed to be. This isn't even getting into the highly visible trend of a game designed for small-scale tactical combat being used more and more for story and character-driven roleplaying.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

I think the differences is narrative function. Within polearms, a trident tells a very different story from a spear. A battleax and a longsword are quite different stories as well. A longsword and a katana? Pretty much just cultural differences there, the exact curve of the blade and how many edges are used in cutting.

Glaive and Halberd probably shouldn't have separate stats (both are bladed polearms); I imagine the rational was to leave the door open for weapon specialisation categories - Glaive would benefit from a sword specialisation, while Halberd from an axe specialisation. They haven't given us those but they were thinking about it for a long time.

 

[Minigiant]

What measure is a broken game? If things aren't working right, you sit the group down, you retool, and move on. If the houserule lets the players do all sorts of wacky hijinks, why can't that be fun too? In my younger PC and DM days, my parties went on all sorts of wild hijinks because of some "bad" rulings. But some of those were the most fun we ever had, because we were going where our imagination takes us. If a DM needs help and asks for it sure, it would be good to have more guidance on that point. But ultimately this is not a rigid game and a lot of the fiat is in the DM's hands.

5e is multiple moving parts with limited connection and different levels of complexity and rigidity.

The Weapons subsystem and the Attack subsystem are not rigid as they are extremely simple. Adjusting them is easy. However some changes can have major effects.

The class subsystem is complex with many hidden parts under the hood. This makes it rigid because barring a minor word changes, alterations can have many unintentional effects. A LOT of homebrew subclasses posted on websites are straight broken for general play.

5e doesn't guide fans for balancing subclass or weapons building. So a custom subclass from most people will be broken. Hence the need for official content from designers who know the rules under the hood or 3rd party designers who did the calculations to do it themselves.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The Supernatural Gifts and Dark Gifts aren't even power creep: they are just Feats. Theros explicitly says that instead of the included new options, a player can just take any Feat from the PHB.

But how is that not power creep? You don't get a Feat for free normally in D&D 5E. I mean, maybe you should, and a lot of campaigns run that way, but you don't, and that's quite significant. On top of that, several of the Supernatural Gifts and a slightly smaller proportion of the Dark Gifts are arguably superior to the vast majority of Feats in terms of raw power (even accounting for downsides with the Dark Gifts). The real odd one out with Dark Gifts is Second Skin, which AFAICT, is nearly 100% worthless*, where all the others are at least niche useful. I do like them, and it's cute that a couple let people who want 1 to be a "critical fail" can "buy in" to it being such.

* = It gives you Alter Self 1/day, but only into a single specific and distinctive form. It does not give you any natural weapons or anything, even though it describes some of the example forms like they'd have them, and you're not allowed to do that thing where you switch the benefits, nor change the form. I feel like I'm missing something big but Alter Self pretty explicitly doesn't give you any benefits beyond looking different unless you choose the amphibious or natural weapons options, which you are forbidden from doing in this case.

 

[Marandahir]

But how is that not power creep? You don't get a Feat for free normally in D&D 5E. I mean, maybe you should, and a lot of campaigns run that way, but you don't, and that's quite significant. On top of that, several of the Supernatural Gifts and a slightly smaller proportion of the Dark Gifts are arguably superior to the vast majority of Feats in terms of raw power (even accounting for downsides with the Dark Gifts). The real odd one out with Dark Gifts is Second Skin, which AFAICT, is nearly 100% worthless*, where all the others are at least niche useful. I do like them, and it's cute that a couple let people who want 1 to be a "critical fail" can "buy in" to it being such.

* = It gives you Alter Self 1/day, but only into a single specific and distinctive form. It does not give you any natural weapons or anything, even though it describes some of the example forms like they'd have them, and you're not allowed to do that thing where you switch the benefits, nor change the form. I feel like I'm missing something big but Alter Self pretty explicitly doesn't give you any benefits beyond looking different unless you choose the amphibious or natural weapons options, which you are forbidden from doing in this case.

The point though is that everyone has one of these if anyone is, and that they're particular to the campaign setting. We got specific supernatural gifts for Wildemount, Theros, and now Ravenloft. These are NOT assumed as the standard going forward. If they were, then encounters would be rebalanced accordingly (like they were in 4Essentials once Heroic Themes got ported from Dark Sun into the core assumed Nerath setting). Theros specifically stated that Therosian heroes are by default a bit tougher, more powerful than non-Therosian heroes. The supernatural gift is a way of expressing that without having to start at a higher level. Dark Sun is another setting that will likely have these, almost certainly expressed in part through suggesting players to take the Wild Talent feats from Tasha's.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The point though is that everyone has one of these if anyone is, and that they're particular to the campaign setting. We got specific supernatural gifts for Wildemount, Theros, and now Ravenloft. These are NOT assumed as the standard going forward. If they were, then encounters would be rebalanced accordingly (like they were in 4Essentials once Heroic Themes got ported from Dark Sun into the core assumed Nerath setting). Theros specifically stated that Therosian heroes are by default a bit tougher, more powerful than non-Therosian heroes. The supernatural gift is a way of expressing that without having to start at a higher level. Dark Sun is another setting that will likely have these, almost certainly expressed in part through suggesting players to take the Wild Talent feats from Tasha's.

Do you honestly believe any setting book is going to come out for 5E, from now onwards, without an equivalent to Supernatural Gifts?

Because I don't.

Everyone having a thing doesn't make it "not power creep", on the contrary, that makes the power creep more extreme. And AFAIK, none of those three settings contains any rules or advice for accounting for the "tougher" heros - correct me if I missed a bit somehow. So again, it's power creep.

You don't have to like that something is power creep, but by any reasonable definition, this is power creep. I also very much doubt Dark Sun will be limited to the Wild Talent Feats. It'll have those and a bunch of others I suspect, if it makes it to 5E.