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

[Hatmatter]

I think it's extremely telling that you chose three, which would only take us to May 2024. I'll take you on five, because I think with three you could naughty word your way out of it if 6E came out in say June 2024, not May 2024. And any new PHB with any new/different rules beyond the changes made in the errata must count (I will allow future errata, if there are any, of course, but they need to actually go in the official errata document), none of the "I see no ships" bollocks because there aren't "enough" rules changes that I full expect to see from certain people (not you though actually) when it happens. I say five because I could easily see WotC feeling they have to delay 6E because their digital offering wasn't yet up to scratch in 2024 even though that is likely to be the intended year.

How much were you thinking?

Hey, Ruin, why are you using inflammable words like "naughty word" and "bollocks." Write when you are not so worked up because I do not see enough parameters to make a clear bet. I would like to establish those parameters without the escalating language.

So, in order to contribute to the parameters, let me say that a "50th anniversary edition" of the core books that includes errata does not qualify.

Concerning: "with any/new different rules beyond changes made in the errata," given that this conversation was taking place in the context of a "6th edition [note: I just edited this, as I originally wrote "5.5," but, if you go back and read the first few pages of this thread, it is all about 6th edition being around the corner] is around the corner" that people were writing in the first few pages of the thread, such a mark would be quite an easy mark to hit for you.

I would say that, presuming that there is going to be an anniversary edition, it will NOT contain:

1. Eliminate alignment. Alignment is still part of the game in the anniversary edition. This does NOT mean that alignments associated with races will not be deleted. If they bother to reset the type in the PHB for an anniversary edition of the game, I fully expect they would delete the alignment tendencies associated with race. Such a change would hardly would qualify as D&D 5.5th edition.​

2. Any anniversary edition of the core books will not give every character race (beyond human of course) a feat at first level, which some have mentioned. So, in that respect, the Dark Gives and Supernatural Gifts (Theros) will not be in the PHB, given that they are campaign-specific and dealt with already in some form in the DMG.​

3. The anniversary edition will not change the downtime rules or make the other optional rules in Xanathat's and Tasha's standard.​

4. When it comes to race, if they are printing a new anniversary edition of the PHB, I can see them having entries for "dwarf," "elf," "gnome," and so forth, but implementing the Tasha's ability score system. So, on that I am on the fence, simply because if they are going through the trouble of creating a celebratory anniversary edition, they might feel that is worthwhile. But, that is hardly D&D 5.5th edition.​

5. I do not think any anniversary edition will incorporate the new Xanathar's downtime optional rules as standard.​

6. I do not think that any anniversary edition will alter the ranger class from what it is in the PHB.​

7. I do not see any anniversary edition altering the monk or sorcerer class as someone said earlier in this thread (just a page or two ago).​

​

Determining the odds is an interesting endeavor, because, as I said, it is a low bar to say that there is going to be an anniversary edition. But, defining what would constitute a "new edition" and, make no mistake a D&D 5.5 edition would be a "new" edition, is the difficulty. Perhaps determining the odds would best be done through a poll here on ENworld such as Oofta mentioned upthread. But, before anyone posts that poll, we should agree on the wording.

If we can proceed forward defining terms in specific ways and not using escalating rhetoric, I could put down probably $100 (American) on such a bet...but, to be clear, I am not putting down that money YET because we have not decided on odds and also we have not fully hashed out what constitutes an "anniversary edition" (my side and, I presume Oofta) and what constitutes a 5.5 or 6th edition (your side).

 

[Steampunkette]

Where do I see 5e heading?

1) Action-Oriented Storytelling and Mental Movies.
More than anything, Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft stressed the core idea that D&D isn't suited for hardcore gothic horror suspense building storylines, but instead was more suited to Action-Horror. Something where there's oppressive dread and disorder going on but the tension is broken through a jump-scare type situation, then a fight, then a return to the dread.

I think they'll carry that forward into future supplements. Specifically things like Dark Sun being more "Mad Max: Fury Road" than Conan the Barbarian visits Thunderdome.

2) More inclusive narratives.
Obviously a thing they're moving toward and honestly a really good direction to go! Our world is moving past the point where archetypal stereotypes are a "useful" crutch for quickly getting across ideas about appearances, sounds, and styles, if only because the internet is right at the players' fingertips to see various cultures that many of us older players relied on harmful stereotypes for descriptions.

Similarly, increased visibility of different orientations, abilities, and identities can only make our hobby more inviting to people we would actually like having at our tables!

3) Narratively focused Social and Exploration pillar expansions.
We're always gonna get new spells, classes, races, and stuff over the years, obviously, because people love that kinda crunch. But with things like Dark Gifts, Fear and Stress, and Survivor mechanics introduce new ways to approach storytelling for D&D. Some that we've seen before, some that are -entirely- new. Survivors, in particular, offer a way for players to contribute during the exploration of historical events, setting scenes for adventures, or just having someone to play while their main character is incapacitated or indisposed.

I could absolutely see Survivor Mechanics being expanded on at many tables, for example, when the party "Splits" for narrative reasons and the players want to be present for every session. Mock up a few survivors as "Minor Characters" for the players whose main characters have split off from the party during one session, and the next session swap the roles with the split-off characters becoming the main characters of the session while the rest of the table plays Minor Characters until the party can reunite and the Minor Characters fade into the background or become contacts for the Main Characters (NPCs roleplayed by the players rather than the DM? Novel and involving!)

4) New Edition?
Possibly. But not likely. I think they'll wait for the 10 year mark, repackage all the errata, "New Core" mechanics, and sell a "Comprehensive 5th" edition that is kinda-sorta 5.5e but is really much more 5.25e. The classes and skills and stuff will pretty much be unchanged beyond some light errata, but you'll get another 15-20 pages worth of Exploration and Social content with various systems taken from Volo's, Tasha's, Ravenloft, and other releases added in to the Comprehensive PHB, another 30-50 in the Comprehensive DMG, and then a bunch of information in the Comprehensive MM about different ways to alter the creatures provided in the original Monster Manual with a new set of 30-40 monsters and monster-revamp examples mingled in a reprint of the original material.

 

[tetrasodium]

Howdy Tetra.

As I mentioned pages ago and as Marandahir stated quite well, this criticism is based on evaluating D&D 5th edition based on development and deployment of rules. At the launch of 5th edition, the designers made it clear that going forward they were interested in having the game develop through storylines and when they want to add or revise a rule, they will, but there is no particular schedule for that.

It is fine for one to say that someone or some organization is letting one down because their values do not match one’s own values. However, to judge the organization and its books on a broader (less personal) level such as you seem to be doing by using criteria that Wizards itself is not using for D&D is not fair to them.

What you are doing is perfectly understandable. I have played and loved D&D for a long time and back in 2nd edition created an entire binder of homebrewed rules. I know that the mechanics-heavy approach has always been an element of the game and has been the first love of many gamers. Further, it became dominant as part of Wizard’s design philosophy for the game with 3rd and 4th edition.

However, Mike Mearls (as D&D Next was becoming 5th edition) and others at Wizards for years have made it clear that this is no longer the dominant design philosophy behind the D&D books. Others have said that in this thread in different ways.

So, where you are identifying innovation in the above quote and the analogy that you are drawing with 3rd edition, while understandable along the “past is prologue” line of thinking that we can all relate to, is not fair to how D&D has been designed and evaluated by Wizards for the last seven years.

Cheers and keep rolling! So nice to have a sustained conversation where everyone has been so civil and intelligent and thoughtful. That being said, I am starting to feel like I am repeating myself so I may be bowing out soon (also I have a lot of work to do).

I'm not sure I'd agree with you that mere observation of magpieism is judgment. On 9/42020 levelup previews a tightly linked origin/heritage+background but it's too late to update the still largely unrevealed loosening of 5e's races due to go out in tcoe a month later with its one custom linage& rules for tweaking exsting races in november.. January 2021 gothic lineages UA goes out& suddenly for the first time it's lineages. Someone from paizo makes a blog post about her daughter being a fan of rabbits where a rabbitfolk race is written up, wotc releases a rabbitfolk race. the 5e Wotc does not have a record of bold new stuff that makes the occasional coincidental similarity look like mere coincidence. Within the next week we are likely to see anime5e (ToC) with quite a few new mechanical elements, likely wyvern's SGP that also has quite a few changes within the next couple months it looks, & then levelup itself around october with its own new spins on things.Parallel development is a thing yes, but there are only so many times it can happen before people start using other terms like follow copy & knock off.

Someone is definitely leading the way on making rules to fit different playstyles, but it's obviously not wotc this time. Instead wotc has been focused on adventures & settings without much in the way of mechanics beyond a few new race/lineage class feat spell & monster additions. That's a mere observation rather than judgement. Wotc is laser focused on what is acceptable or desired by 35 million of the 50 million players they claim to have, which is fine; but the remaining 15 million aren't any more monolithic than the 35.... We saw how it worked with pathfinder when someone else targeted a large plurality of d&d players that wotc was ignoring. Difference being those three spent covid getting ready & polishing their forks while wotc's big innovation to 5e was yet another set of level zero start type rules to choose from.

 

[Oofta]

Make the bet.

If you are certain of your position, there is nothing to lose.

Wait the time. It should be clear who wins.

If its not clear, then someone reneges. (or you agree to let it go)

The internet shall judge...lol.

(not directed at either of you...but as my father would say...put up or shut up)

I am more than willing, but we do have to establish ground rules on what "a new edition" means. For me it's more than just some minor fluff and descriptions here and there. It's fine if it's largely backwards compatible. But that's why I think any final call would have to be done by a neutral third party and the closest we could get would be a public poll.

 

[Hatmatter]

I'm not sure I'd agree with you that mere observation of magpieism is judgment.

Hello Tetra,

When it comes to my work on literature, sometimes I discuss "magpieism." I do not recall using that phrase or suggesting "mere observation of magpiesism is judgment" anywhere here. Heck, I can't even write "magpieism" without the spellcheck of this forum-posting program attempting to correct the spelling! If I understand your first paragraph correctly, nothing in that paragraph pertains to what I was responding to.

When you write, "Difference being those three spent covid getting ready & polishing their forks while wotc's big innovation to 5e was yet another set of level zero start type rules to choose from," it seems to me, that you are still evaluating D&D ("wotc's big innovation to 5e") based on the publication of new rules. My posting to which you are responding was yet another attempt by me to clarify that using that basis for evaluation is using a standard that Wizards as an organization has not been using for seven years.

But, I think you know that. I understand you are disappointed and that you believe Paizo is ahead of Wizards on this curve. From my perspective, they are on different racetracks.

I hope that Wizards begins to publish material that satisfies you and the 15 million gamers you reference. We are all part of a shared gaming community and I would like to see everyone satisfied.

 

[tetrasodium]

Hello Tetra,

When it comes to my work on literature, sometimes I discuss "magpieism." I do not recall using that phrase or suggesting "mere observation of magpiesism is judgment" anywhere here. Heck, I can't even write "magpieism" without the spellcheck of this forum-posting program attempting to correct the spelling! If I understand your first paragraph correctly, nothing in that paragraph pertains to what I was responding to.

When you write, "Difference being those three spent covid getting ready & polishing their forks while wotc's big innovation to 5e was yet another set of level zero start type rules to choose from," it seems to me, that you are still evaluating D&D ("wotc's big innovation to 5e") based on the publication of new rules. My posting to which you are responding was yet another attempt by me to clarify that using that basis for evaluation is using a standard that Wizards as an organization has not been using for seven years.

But, I think you know that. I understand you are disappointed and that you believe Paizo is ahead of Wizards on this curve. From my perspective, they are on different racetracks.

I hope that Wizards begins to publish material that satisfies you and the 15 million gamers you reference. We are all part of a shared gaming community and I would like to see everyone satisfied.

Yes I'm quite aware that you would like to limit the discussion entirely to adventures races archtypes and settings that put a new coat of paint on a frozen ruleset that let you play with a new coat of paint rather than wotc's disregard for mechanics & crunch. That desire of yours does %not make the areas wotc has been ignoring irrelevant. You happen to be in one or more of wotc's 35 of 50mil players happy with all or most of their choices & feel like they are meeting your needs well. I happen to be in one or more of wotc's remaining 15 million customer groups unhappy about their needs being ignored. Wotc has talked up mechanics for the last two books despite largely avoiding the them in the books themselves & obviously feels like those groups of customers not entirely in the 70% are significant enough to provide lip service to. Other companies are doing more than providing lip service in their pre-launch hype. Wotc provides that lip service because 30% of 50 million is still a huge number but other companies are beginning to offer mechanics in addition to a coat of paint.

None of the three forks of 5e I listed are made by paizo,I even listed the company names & linked them. Unlike wotc's 5e settings so far all, of them have significant mechanics changes to fit the coat of paint they bring. Even if there are elements of 5e that I like enough to continue playing it, I'm not willing to run it any longer and there are companies that appear to be building mechanics alongside their themed reskin of 5e.

 

[Hatmatter]

Yes I'm quite aware that you would like to limit the discussion entirely to adventures races archtypes and settings that put a new coat of paint on a frozen ruleset that let you play with a new coat of paint rather than wotc's disregard for mechanics & crunch.

Ouch. You sound mad (hard to tell in this text-only format). I am not trying to upset you.

I would add "storylines," as I have not used the terms "races archtypes [sic] and settings" in our conversation. What I have said is that, in the 5th edition era, Wizards has said that they are "developing" D&D by developing storylines. If that is me trying to "limit the discussion," then, yup, I am guilty. But, of course, it is always good for one's sense of being heard and understood [that is my sense of being understood] to be summarized and denounced accurately.

I wrote "Paizo" in my response to you because you specifically wrote about Pathfinder: "We saw how it worked with pathfinder when someone else targeted a large plurality of d&d players that wotc was ignoring." (from posting #403)

Cheers!

 

[tetrasodium]

Ouch. You sound mad (hard to tell in this text-only format). I am not trying to upset you.

Text is bad at conveying tone is all.

I would add "storylines," as I have not used the terms "races archtypes [sic] and settings" in our conversation. What I have said is that, in the 5th edition era, Wizards has said that they are "developing" D&D by developing storylines. If that is me trying to "limit the discussion," then, yup, I am guilty. But, of course, it is always good for one's sense of being heard and understood [that is my sense of being understood] to be summarized and denounced accurately.

I wrote "Paizo" in my response to you because you specifically wrote about Pathfinder: "We saw how it worked with pathfinder when someone else targeted a large plurality of d&d players that wotc was ignoring." (from posting #403)

Cheers!

the term storylines is all well & good, but to a degree storylines need the support of mechanics with more depth than a thin d20 supplement got back in the day. 5e was written to very heavily fit the needs of super heroic fantasy in the forgotten realms. For better or worse, design decisions were made to support than choice. Settings like eberron & ravenloft bring a different set of storylines that are limited by those design decisions 5e made rather than being enabled by mechanics. Other companies are creating rules wotc refused to, they will unquestionably create their own "storylines" as well. We once saw what happens when a company other than wotc targets a minority segment of wotc's customerbase with rules and their own storylines created to fit those rules. Back in the days of 4e that split was because wotc was actively creating rules and storylines that went in a new direction, this time wotc's basically not even bothering with the rules.

 

[Hatmatter]

Text is bad at conveying tone is all.

the term storylines is all well & good, but to a degree storylines need the support of mechanics with more depth than a thin d20 supplement got back in the day. 5e was written to very heavily fit the needs of super heroic fantasy in the forgotten realms. For better or worse, design decisions were made to support than choice. Settings like eberron & ravenloft bring a different set of storylines that are limited by those design decisions 5e made rather than being enabled by mechanics. Other companies are creating rules wotc refused to, they will unquestionably create their own "storylines" as well. We once saw what happens when a company other than wotc targets a minority segment of wotc's customerbase with rules and their own storylines created to fit those rules. Back in the days of 4e that split was because wotc was actively creating rules and storylines that went in a new direction, this time wotc's basically not even bothering with the rules.

Ok.

When it comes to expressions like "basically not even bothering with the rules," put me in agreement with Marandahir, Oofta, and Parmandur earlier in this thread. I think Wizards of the Coast are deploying rules through storylines (e.g. arctic conditions rules in Iceland Dale instead of in a 5th edition of Wilderness Survival Guide).

You and I have come to an impasse that may best be described as looking for different kinds of publications from D&D. Again, as I said above, I hope that Wizards of the Coast comes through for you in the near future.

I would note that it is not entirely accurate to write "5e was written to very heavily fit the needs of super heroic fantasy in the forgotten realms." I am certain that D&D Next was developed as an attempt to create a version of D&D that would appeal to as many people as possible. The Forgotten Realms is convenient as a world for most of D&D's Adventure Paths (but not all...Ghosts of Saltmarsh), but the D&D Next designers were concerned with creating a version of D&D that is a game that permits players to role-play in fantasy that can be customized. The D&D designers have gone out of their way to make it clear that the default setting is the "D&D multiverse," not Abeir-Toril. When looking for a popular "common currency" setting for most of the Adventure Paths books, the Forgotten Realms was the easy choice. But, I do not think D&D Next/5th edition was at all designed to "heavily fit the needs of upper heroic fantasy in the forgotten realms [sic]." The D&D tropes the designers were using and refining have been around long before Greenwood revealed the Realms to the public in the pages of Dragon.

But, that is an academic point and I do not want to derail us further. Clearly, I agree that the Forgotten Realms has been the "star pupil" example for D&D 5th edition, witness the illustration of dwarf or elf sub race descriptions with the Forgotten Realms terms as examples.

You and I agree that we love role-playing, we disagree with how successful Wizards of the Coasts' fundamental assumptions have been for the game as it goes forward.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But ... but ... they sky is falling! Falling I tell you! Any day now ... just you wait ... any day!

It is sad, that you read "the sky is falling" into what I wrote. I think it is just the opposite. Now (or in a few years) is the best time to upgrade the rules to the new standards.