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

[Hussar]

Yes it is.
However what is considered niche is up to debate without numerical proof. Also which products and modules, niche or not, that is officially supported can be debated.

Because not every officially supported 5e product had a D&D majority following pushing for it before publishing.

I'm fairly willing to bet that "Armor as DR" is a niche idea, considering that in nearly FIFTY YEARS, D&D has never done it. No, I tell a lie. 2e did allow a tiny bit of DR with full plate armor. Same goes for a number of things what were on that list a few pages ago that I responded to. If no one at WotC or TSR ever supported an idea, it's probably pretty good evidence that there isn't a whole lot of calls for it. Granted, there could be this great swell of silent folks out there. But, barring any other evidence, I'm going to lean on the notion that since many of the rules that people are asking for in this thread have never been supported in D&D, that they probably are fairly niche.

That's my point. A person saying a module is niche has as much validity as one saying it is popular due to the absences of proof or WOTC claims.

Therefore popularity or lack thereof should not be used to as a reason to excuse deep crunchy or fluffy mechanic modules.

Again, there's degrees here. When you have elements that no one has ever supported in fifty years of the game, it's probably fairly likely that these things aren't quite as popular as some might like.

And, again, you still haven't explained how this wouldn't split the fanbase. Anyone who buys into these rules modules now has a huge bar towards buying other products. If you have all these crunchy rules additions, then modules don't work for you anymore because, for the amount of conversion work that's required, you might as well just write your own adventures. Where's the upside for WotC to produce a product that makes it harder to sell all the rest of their products?

No... It's not a misquote, it's a statement from me pointing out how the omission of a single word allowed you to misrepresent the complaint being made. The rest of the partially bolded sentence in your earlier post was not worth addressing because it depended on that initial misrepresentation. Deliberate or not, it doesn't matter if wotc "mentioned" specific or even broad things they have spent several years saying rulings not rules & telling GMs to build it themselves

I'm confused. They have told you, in no uncertain terms, that they are not going to do crunchy supplements - that's the whole point of rulings not rules and GM's should do it for themselves - but somehow they are not telling you what to expect from them? They've been pretty openly clear on this. They are not going to do it. Full stop. How is that not clear?

 

[Minigiant]

I'm fairly willing to bet that "Armor as DR" is a niche idea, considering that in nearly FIFTY YEARS, D&D has never done it. No, I tell a lie. 2e did allow a tiny bit of DR with full plate armor. Same goes for a number of things what were on that list a few pages ago that I responded to. If no one at WotC or TSR ever supported an idea, it's probably pretty good evidence that there isn't a whole lot of calls for it. Granted, there could be this great swell of silent folks out there. But, barring any other evidence, I'm going to lean on the notion that since many of the rules that people are asking for in this thread have never been supported in D&D, that they probably are fairly niche

I didn't pull those ideas out of thin air. There are feats and magic items that give DR. Exotic weapons were in multiple editions. Weapon groups and weapon based feats were in multiple editions. Multiple types of shields were in multiple editions.

I didn't pull half those ideas out of thin air. D&D is the creator of the silly orc double axe.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

D&D is the creator of the silly orc double axe.

I think the klingons got there first.

 

[Hussar]

Let's have a little review shall we? This is the post that I objected to:

Minigiant said:


That and more

• Armor as Pierce/Slash/Bludgeon Damage Resistance
• Armor as HP
• New Armor tables (with gambeson and brigandine)
• Multiple types of shields
• New weapons tableau
• Exotic weapons
• Weapon group Fighting styles
• Weapon group Maneuvers
• Parry as Defense
• Touch AC, Reach AC, and Protection AC
• Melee AC and Ranged AC

Currently it's hard to run a pure humaniod game of 5e as the weapons and armor systems are... so simple.

Now, yes, feats do grant DR. But, that again, only applies to a single PC. It's not exactly a huge change to the game. Armor as DR completely rewrites combat as characters now have to carry golf bags of weapons so they aren't dealing half damage most of the time. Armor as HP is a totally new concept that has never appeared in D&D before. New armor table - well, fine, but, again, what's the point? We already have 2 types of shields and no version of D&D ever really dealt with more than 3. I still don't know what a "weapons tableau" is. Exotic weapons? In a game where you are lucky to get 2 feats for the entire campaign? Never minding that feats are optional and a number of tables don't use them. Weapon group fighting styles - again, over complexifying D&D combat that has never cared about this before. Parry as defense - what are we playing Palladium games now? Again, a concept that has never appeared in D&D. FIVE different types of AC? Yeah, that isn't going to require the DM to rewrite the entire monster manual now is it?

All to play a humanoid centric campaign, which D&D has never supported and 5e most certainly doesn't support. There isn't a single hint that WotC expects play to center around a single monster type. So, again, why on earth would WotC produce this? This is exactly what the DM's guild is for.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the klingons got there first.

Wasn't that a double scythe?

5e doesn't have war scythes.

 

[Minigiant]

Let's have a little review shall we? This is the post that I objected to:



Now, yes, feats do grant DR. But, that again, only applies to a single PC. It's not exactly a huge change to the game. Armor as DR completely rewrites combat as characters now have to carry golf bags of weapons so they aren't dealing half damage most of the time. Armor as HP is a totally new concept that has never appeared in D&D before. New armor table - well, fine, but, again, what's the point? We already have 2 types of shields and no version of D&D ever really dealt with more than 3. I still don't know what a "weapons tableau" is. Exotic weapons? In a game where you are lucky to get 2 feats for the entire campaign? Never minding that feats are optional and a number of tables don't use them. Weapon group fighting styles - again, over complexifying D&D combat that has never cared about this before. Parry as defense - what are we playing Palladium games now? Again, a concept that has never appeared in D&D. FIVE different types of AC? Yeah, that isn't going to require the DM to rewrite the entire monster manual now is it?

All to play a humanoid centric campaign, which D&D has never supported and 5e most certainly doesn't support. There isn't a single hint that WotC expects play to center around a single monster type. So, again, why on earth would WotC produce this? This is exactly what the DM's guild is for.

Many of these things were in previous editions. You might not like them. You might not see the point. But claiming aspects of older editions are not popular or desired and should be handled by DMGuild is an opinion.

5e only has 3 polearms. 5e doesn't differentiate between a longsword and a battle-axe or a glaive and halberd. These are new concepts of a 5 plus year D&D edition.

 

[Hussar]

Many of these things were in previous editions. You might not like them. You might not see the point. But claiming aspects of older editions are not popular or desired and should be handled by DMGuild is an opinion.

5e only has 3 polearms. 5e doesn't differentiate between a longsword and a battle-axe or a glaive and halberd. These are new concepts of a 5 plus year D&D edition.

However, your list doesn't mention polearms. So, why are you talking about them now? I was specifically responding to the list you made. If you want to talk about other stuff, please introduce it before using it in an argument.

In AD&D, the only difference between a longsword and a battle axe was in the larger than man sized targets damage. But, that was borked because it made longswords head and shoulders better than any other one handed weapon. I suppose in 1e, there was a slight difference in the weapon vs AC table, but, then again, so few people actually used that that 2e largely dropped it and 3e did away with it entirely.

Now, if you want to start adding stuff to each weapon, great. But, again, that's just adding workload to the DM and making other products less useful. Where's the upside for WotC? This is what you keep ignoring. Never minding the massive complexity it adds to the game when you start talking about monsters. These are fundamental changes that will impact every single encounter that a group plays. Not only will they impact every single encounter, they will impact every single round and likely every single action at the table.

Why do you expect WotC to provide this?

 

[Minigiant]

, your list doesn't mention polearms. So, why are you talking about them now? I was specifically responding to the list you made. If you want to talk about other stuff, please introduce it before using it in an argument.

New weapon tables and exotic weapons. Polearms are the main core weapons missing in 5e.

Why do you expect WotC to provide this?

I don't.

Where's the upside for WotC?

I and others buy more of their product.

 

[Parmandur]

I and others buy more of their product.

Why make something that can sell thousands of books, when for the same investment they can sell hundreds of thousands of books...? ROI, and longterm brand management, are the keys here. Besides, if people buy DMsGuild products, WotC makes money, and if people buy OGL products, eventually WotC will make money.

 

[Minigiant]

Why make something that can sell thousands of books, when for the same investment they can sell hundreds of thousands of books...? ROI, and longterm brand management, are the keys here. Besides, if people buy DMsGuild products, WotC makes money, and if people buy OGL products, eventually WotC will make money.

So they couldn't fit 2 pages in Xanatar or Tasha?