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

[Smackpixi]

Omg are you guys so far up you own asses here. 100% WOTC Does not, even vaguely, take D&D as seriously as you people do here. Love you, but wow.

 

[Aging Bard]

Omg are you guys so far up you own asses here. 100% WOTC Does not, even vaguely, take D&D as seriously as you people do here. Love you, but wow.

Omg you are so wrong! Hasbro, the publicly traded parent company of WotC, now talks about D&D as a growth property in its quarterly conference calls with its investors. That takes just one Google search to confirm. But thanks for playing, wow.

 

[Hussar]

Celestial Warlock and 4 Elements Monk never appeared in any edition of D&D.

Are you saying D&D can't have new things?
Are you saying that D&D should not explore crunch element fans have criticized in the past?
Are you saying that D&D should not explore crunch elements from other IP?

Not quite the same things. D&D has long added new classes. Fair enough. But, you're asking for fundamental game changes that would completely rewrite how the game is played.

Adding a Celestial Warlock only impacts groups that have one in them. And, it plays well with other supplements. You don't have to rewrite Ghosts of Saltmarsh because someone decides to play a Celestial Warlock. Your changes would entirely rewrite every monster, every module and a good chunk of the PHB. At that point, yeah, while it might be arguable whether this is rude to say or not, but, why are you playing D&D if you want these things?

 

[Marandahir]

Not quite the same things. D&D has long added new classes. Fair enough. But, you're asking for fundamental game changes that would completely rewrite how the game is played.

Adding a Celestial Warlock only impacts groups that have one in them. And, it plays well with other supplements. You don't have to rewrite Ghosts of Saltmarsh because someone decides to play a Celestial Warlock. Your changes would entirely rewrite every monster, every module and a good chunk of the PHB. At that point, yeah, while it might be arguable whether this is rude to say or not, but, why are you playing D&D if you want these things?

Also, Celestial Warlock and Way of the Four Elements Monks are hardly new concepts to D&D, they just were called different things in past editions (Favoured Soul, variant Cleric, Shugenja, four different heroic themes that were original 4e Monk builds based on A:TLA, etc).

 

[Minigiant]

Not quite the same things. D&D has long added new classes. Fair enough. But, you're asking for fundamental game changes that would completely rewrite how the game is played.

Adding a Celestial Warlock only impacts groups that have one in them. And, it plays well with other supplements. You don't have to rewrite Ghosts of Saltmarsh because someone decides to play a Celestial Warlock. Your changes would entirely rewrite every monster, every module and a good chunk of the PHB. At that point, yeah, while it might be arguable whether this is rude to say or not, but, why are you playing D&D if you want these things?

One of the often touted reasons to play 1e, 2e and many OSR direct clones is that they are so simple that DMs and groups can add house rules over the game easily to change D&D to meet their desires or expectations.

Now adding "flails give a bonus to your attack rolls equal to your proficiency modifier when attacking a target donning a shield" means you don't want to play D&D.

To me, the opposition to additional optional rules feels more like people don't wanting to tell players No to allowing official content. I just get where the vehement opposition to crunchy variant rules even being printed outside of that or seeing 5e as perfect and untouchable.

"You want to a D&D rule therefore you don't want to play D&D". Nah. I just think the longsword and battle-axe being identical is silly. And them being almost functionally identical to the war pick, morningstar, flail, and warhammer is even sillier.

 

[Weiley31]

play as awakened animals with all the animal equipment and enhancements.

I get what your saying, but there is Animal Adventures: Gullet Cove and Humblewood that covers those niches. shrugs

 

[Weiley31]

Or the Beastmaster would have been redone

The Beastmaster has been redone technically. It's just for some odd reason, people refuse to accept the Revised Ranger as the fix for that.

 

[Hussar]

One of the often touted reasons to play 1e, 2e and many OSR direct clones is that they are so simple that DMs and groups can add house rules over the game easily to change D&D to meet their desires or expectations.

Now adding "flails give a bonus to your attack rolls equal to your proficiency modifier when attacking a target donning a shield" means you don't want to play D&D.

To me, the opposition to additional optional rules feels more like people don't wanting to tell players No to allowing official content. I just get where the vehement opposition to crunchy variant rules even being printed outside of that or seeing 5e as perfect and untouchable.

"You want to a D&D rule therefore you don't want to play D&D". Nah. I just think the longsword and battle-axe being identical is silly. And them being almost functionally identical to the war pick, morningstar, flail, and warhammer is even sillier.

Hang on a tick here.

That's NOT what was being argued against. There was a shopping list of very fundamental changes to the game, half of which have never appeared in any form in D&D before.

We're not talking about a single change to one weapon vs a target with a shield (a completely pointless rule anyway since so few creatures actually USE shields). We're talking about a book that completely rewrites every single book and means that anyone using it would have to completely rewrite every published adventure that WotC produces. In other words, this is a book that would mean that it would be even more work for DM's.

Not a good direction for development IMO.

This rolls right back into that horrible thread about D&D vs Bespoke games. People want D&D to do everything and they are for some reason shocked when the game doesn't really help them when they try to drift away from the central concepts of D&D. A humanoid dominated campaign? Since when has D&D ever supported that? D&D has always centered around monsters.

Good grief, humanoids make up what, 10% of the creatures in the monster manual? And you want an entire set of rules so you can focus on that and you want WotC to produce it? Good luck with that.

 

[Shardstone]

Omg are you guys so far up you own asses here. 100% WOTC Does not, even vaguely, take D&D as seriously as you people do here. Love you, but wow.

You think a business doesn't go to agonizingly detailed lengths to ensure they bring in profit and establish market dominance?

 

[Minigiant]

Hang on a tick here.

That's NOT what was being argued against. There was a shopping list of very fundamental changes to the game, half of which have never appeared in any form in D&D before.

We're not talking about a single change to one weapon vs a target with a shield (a completely pointless rule anyway since so few creatures actually USE shields). We're talking about a book that completely rewrites every single book and means that anyone using it would have to completely rewrite every published adventure that WotC produces. In other words, this is a book that would mean that it would be even more work for DM's.

It seems you are missing that
1) The rules would be optional
2) You wouldn't play with all the rules
3)The DM would choose which ones are in his or her game.

You really thought I was suggesting making 4 armor variants to be all added as core rules for everyone. I never said that?

This rolls right back into that horrible thread about D&D vs Bespoke games. People want D&D to do everything and they are for some reason shocked when the game doesn't really help them when they try to drift away from the central concepts of D&D. A humanoid dominated campaign? Since when has D&D ever supported that? D&D has always centered around monsters.

Good grief, humanoids make up what, 10% of the creatures in the monster manual? And you want an entire set of rules so you can focus on that and you want WotC to produce it? Good luck with that.

There are still tons of human sized fey, undead, monstrosities, and fiends. And tins of weapon and armor users if you just nudge up to Large size. Weapons combat for humanoid and monsters is boring in the base system. Giants are still whacking stuff with big weapons and chucking rocks.

I still think the simplistic weapon and armor system is too simple for base D&D. Many people complain about the HP sponges in 5e. And because of action economy, just adding spellcasters is just a headache if you add more. Especially If you want to play them smart, with individuality, or with anti-player tactics.. And the opposite problem is true with the monsers are outnumbered and suffer action ecomony disadvantage.

So when my group hit the bosses of the gang that took over a mining town, I wasn't going through running 3 casters again. I cut out spellcasting and subbed in my "Anime Fighting Weapons Group Rule" into for the onis' casting. So once the minions got fireballed to death, they had 2 crazy interesting oni warriors and an oni spell caster to deal with.