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

[Hussar]

If you think combat is boring I don’t see why you’d play 5e unless you simply aren’t aware of other systems.

It's not binary though.

You can enjoy the game, but think that it would be nice to have a few more bells and whistles here and there.

I mean, that's like saying, "If you think the PHB classes are boring, why are you playing D&D" when there are a bag full of supplemental classes.

 

[Hatmatter]

Sort of apropos but sort of not, Mearls kind of sort of already gave us a psion in 5e.

Though I’d argue not quite, because they’re still tied to spell slots.

Thank you, ph0rk, for that link! I lived through most (but not all!) of that, but I got a kick out of reading it and appreciated Cambion's application of the warlock...but count me in as one of the one's looking forward to getting a psionicist and also looking forward to Dark Sun (the 2nd edition box set is sitting here on my shelf looking at me). But, at the same time, I really like the three psionic Tasha's subclasses.

 

[Azzy]

To be fair though, there are those that do and they deserve to be served as well.

I don't disagree. There should definitely be a book that delves into that (much like 2e's Player's Option: Combat & Tactics). I just don't think it sho be the default (as it would seem to be easier to add that layer than to subtract it ).

 

[Hussar]

I don't disagree. There should definitely be a book that delves into that (much like 2e's Player's Option: Combat & Tactics). I just don't think it sho be the default (as it would seem to be easier to add that layer than to subtract it ).

Oh, sorry, yes, totally agree with that. I was speaking to the point that, at the moment, 5e doesn't really have much in the way of tactical combat rules, whether core or otherwise. It would be nice to see a supplement that could drift the game in that direction just to give the crunchy folks something meaty to chew on.

Of course, the problem with that is, it might not play nicely with other elements in the game which might result in all sorts of weird issues when you combine things. IOW, Core+Crunchy Book is probably easy to work with. Core+Crunchy Book+all the other supplements, causes all sorts of headaches and unintended consequences.

 

[Minigiant]

Of course, the problem with that is, it might not play nicely with other elements in the game which might result in all sorts of weird issues when you combine things. IOW, Core+Crunchy Book is probably easy to work with. Core+Crunchy Book+all the other supplements, causes all sorts of headaches and unintended consequences.

So?
Just tell people how it changes the game.
5e is not 3e or 4e where major assumed were assumed. The rules can be optional.. If the Weapon Group Variant rules adds on average +3 damage to all weapon users, just tell all the DMs. The Races of Myth could come with warnings that they are more powerful than base races.

Not printing variants because it might change the fluff or chruch of the game kinda misses the point. I mean, the firearm rules in the DMG makes warriors broken. Not printing more rules that drasticially change the game goes against the reason why fans want them.

 

[Hussar]

So?
Just tell people how it changes the game.
5e is not 3e or 4e where major assumed were assumed. The rules can be optional.. If the Weapon Group Variant rules adds on average +3 damage to all weapon users, just tell all the DMs. The Races of Myth could come with warnings that they are more powerful than base races.

Not printing variants because it might change the fluff or chruch of the game kinda misses the point. I mean, the firearm rules in the DMG makes warriors broken. Not printing more rules that drasticially change the game goes against the reason why fans want them.

Again, this isn't a zero sum game. I'm simply pointing out the challenges to adding something to the game.

And, let's be honest here, you could put giant red flashing letters on a book saying it was 100% optional, and people would STILL bitch about it.

Let's use the firearms rules as a good example. You'll notice that those rules aren't used anywhere. Sure, they are presented in the DMG, but, even in settings which have firearms, like Forgotten Realms, those rules aren't used. They present different rules in Dragon Heist for firearms. And none of the ships in Ghosts of Saltmarsh have cannons, despite that being a prime place for having them. So, they keep these modular rules REALLY well buried for those that want to dig them out, but, they aren't really front facing at all.

Whereas a honking big hardcover focused on tactical rules is a lot harder to ignore. And, it might actually directly impact all the modules (as in adventure modules) that came before it, meaning that it makes for a much sharper fracture in the player base. Do new modules presume you are using the tactical book or not? Do they use some page count to point to how it can be adapted or no? Ignore it completely?

It's never quite as cut and dried as people want to pretend. It really is quite complicated to add far reaching rules to the system.

 

[Minigiant]

Again, this isn't a zero sum game. I'm simply pointing out the challenges to adding something to the game.

And, let's be honest here, you could put giant red flashing letters on a book saying it was 100% optional, and people would STILL bitch about it.

Let's use the firearms rules as a good example. You'll notice that those rules aren't used anywhere. Sure, they are presented in the DMG, but, even in settings which have firearms, like Forgotten Realms, those rules aren't used. They present different rules in Dragon Heist for firearms. And none of the ships in Ghosts of Saltmarsh have cannons, despite that being a prime place for having them. So, they keep these modular rules REALLY well buried for those that want to dig them out, but, they aren't really front facing at all.

Whereas a honking big hardcover focused on tactical rules is a lot harder to ignore. And, it might actually directly impact all the modules (as in adventure modules) that came before it, meaning that it makes for a much sharper fracture in the player base. Do new modules presume you are using the tactical book or not? Do they use some page count to point to how it can be adapted or no? Ignore it completely?

It's never quite as cut and dried as people want to pretend. It really is quite complicated to add far reaching rules to the system.

Part of that is WOTC's fault for running away from modular rules early and not emphasizing that Optional rules are optional and showing examples. And many of their optional rules arebad and like you said buried.

So now you have a community who has a large percentae thinks Dark Gifts are core and go in any campaign.

That's partially why I gave a short time before sales start to go down. They didn't leave themselve the openings to produce the wowing content that keeping long term fans in. WOTC havent set themselves up to put content that attacts fans who aren't also fans of a future book's theme or setting. A Greyhawk book might need the Lord Robilar's Combat Gambit system that WOTC wont make in order get a fan who doesn't care for sword and sorcery to buy it.

 

[TrueAlphaGamer]

I will say that I think that, ultimately, 5e is quite shallow as a result of both the team's design decisions and the slow pace of content release. I'm sure it's good enough for most players (it's good enough for me most of the time), but I am often left wanting for something more. It's sort of frustrating seeing the game be so hemmed in and reliant on DMs to do so much leg work, while at the same time barely giving us enough resources to easily draw on. Of course I can scavenge from earlier editions or other games or other publishers for settings or puzzles or ideas, but I have to put in a lot of effort to not only discern the bad from the good, but also to introduce this stuff to players who often don't focus on anything except the official stuff. I want more settings that aren't just the standard european fantasy fare (like half of Ravenloft was - ugh, those NPC names).

I hope for an increased pace of content, or a revision to the rules that also comes with a shaking up of design assumptions, but I'm unsure of when that might be. I think it is possible to do something like Games Workshop does with 40k, where there are (increasingly frequent) rules changes that still give backwards compatibility. I would guess that most of the adventures are backwards edit: forwards compatible, as are the monsters, and I'd wager many of the spells.

Though, I am an accelerationist, so if WotC decides to put 5e into a death spiral of splatbooks and "optional features", I'm all for it. :^)

And that's not to say I don't like 5e. I don't think it's a bad game, but I also don't think it's the best game, or that its growth is fully carried by the rules. But I do think that it has recently had a lot of momentum, through recent events, streaming, media, marketing, its history, and just a greater acceptance of TTRPG in the mainstream.

If you think combat is boring I don’t see why you’d play 5e unless you simply aren’t aware of other systems.

Funny you should say that. I think a lot of people are willing to learn and try new systems, but not a lot of groups are willing to fully put their weight behind those kinds of endeavors when they can "just play D&D". Cost of entry, and all that, plus the opportunity cost if any new game ends up not being as cool or fun as they thought.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

People keep saying things like this as if it's obvious. So I'll ask again. What aspects are outdated? Tasha's has some different rules, whether they're better is a matter of preference. The game doesn't really play much different if you use it or not.

I mean there are things I'd change. I think most people have something or other they would. But it's never going to be perfect and just because I think paladin's mounts are sorely underpowered after about level 4 doesn't mean I think we need a new edition.

-> spell focus rules!!!
-> ranger as a whole (tasha)
-> monk subclasses
-> sorcerer subclasses
-> downtime rules (xanathar)
-> tool proficiencies (xanathar)
-> all races (tasha)

not so much that changing anything would render older material useless. Just a new PHB that incorporates newer philosophies.

Also, if you mean it, that you want to get rid of racial stereotypes, you have to replace the most prominent book by something that represents the new philosophy.
Now it depends:
do you want to make it useful for old players: incorporate new subclasses for every class
do you want old people not to buy it (because you don´t want to look greedy), replace thos subclasses with slightly updated versions and publish the updates for free.

I could live with both options.

And I can live with the 5e books as they are for another while.
But I do think, the next edition will soon arrive and it will not render any source book invalid.

 

[tetrasodium]

-> spell focus rules!!!
-> ranger as a whole (tasha)
-> monk subclasses
-> sorcerer subclasses
-> downtime rules (xanathar)
-> tool proficiencies (xanathar)
-> all races (tasha)

not so much that changing anything would render older material useless. Just a new PHB that incorporates newer philosophies.

Also, if you mean it, that you want to get rid of racial stereotypes, you have to replace the most prominent book by something that represents the new philosophy.
Now it depends:
do you want to make it useful for old players: incorporate new subclasses for every class
do you want old people not to buy it (because you don´t want to look greedy), replace thos subclasses with slightly updated versions and publish the updates for free.

I could live with both options.

And I can live with the 5e books as they are for another while.
But I do think, the next edition will soon arrive and it will not render any source book invalid.

I'm not sure what I'd call that list you made but certainly wouldn't call it representative of "newer philosophies".