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

[Parmandur]

I'm a little bit surprised that with the discussion on feats no one has mentioned how you have to choose between taking a feat or an ASI in 5E. That does a lot to discourage using them.

I would like to take a feat most of the time to increase my options, but increasing my AC or to-hit modifier is going to come up way more often in play. Some feats also let you increase an ability score, but they're rarely the ones I find particularly flavorful.

As a DM, I just go ahead and let everyone have a feat at first level and let variant humans have two, plus characters who gain a fighting style get Martial Adept for free.

That was their best decision in regards to Feata, makes it easy to ignore them.

 

[tetrasodium]

Don't see much evidence of this being a thing at all.

You don't need to, it's simple mathematics. The gm has a lot of say & outsized influence over what a group plays.

 

[Parmandur]

You don't need to, it's simple mathematics. The gm has a lot of say & outsized influence over what a group plays.

"Simple mathematics" when the evidence we do have is that the game is growing in popularity...? That's wishful thinking, not math.

 

[tetrasodium]

"Simple mathematics" when the evidence we do have is that the game is growing in popularity...? That's wishful thinking, not math.

Moving the goalposts like that might make it easy for you to dismiss my point. That however is a completely different point than the one I made & an entirely different context than the 70/30 one that was being discussed.

 

[Parmandur]

Moving the goalposts like that might make it easy for you to dismiss my point. That however is a completely different point than the one I made & an entirely different context than the 70/30 one that was being discussed.

It's not moving the goalposts? If there is a sufficient demand, WotC will make product. If there isn't sufficient demand, it doesn't really matter if they don't, particularly when the DMsGuild and OGL can service niches. There is simply no reason to suspect that there is any swell of overwhelming dissatisfaction rising up after 7 years of continued and growing support. By 14 years,maybe the things you want will have gotten support: for the first 4 years of the game, there was zero Setting support, and now we are getting two Settings a year.

 

[Hatmatter]

It's not moving the goalposts? If there is a sufficient demand, WotC will make product. If there isn't sufficient demand, it doesn't really matter if they don't, particularly when the DMsGuild and OGL can service niches. There is simply no reason to suspect that there is any swell of overwhelming dissatisfaction rising up after 7 years of continued and growing support. By 14 years,maybe the things you want will have gotten support: for the first 4 years of the game, there was zero Setting support, and now we are getting two Settings a year.

There is the additional point that, even though I want Minigiant and Tetrasodium to receive what they desire in D&D books, much of what I have seen requested in the last few pages of this thread seems to be at odds with one of the main design goals of D&D Next and Fifth edition: to make combat faster. The desire for faster, more streamlined combat was a recurring request from players during the playtest, so it became a priority for Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, and team.

Perhaps some of the combat options that Minigiant and Tetrasodium request could be introduced to the game in such a way as to not interfere with this objective, but as I have read this thread (and not responded) the last few days, I have had serious doubts that it would be possible. Although, as I say, I would like all players to get what they want and be happy with the D&D game system. Making the impossible possible should, perhaps, be the goal of a company called Wizards of the Coast.

However, it may be that one of the other role-playing games that Tetrasodium mentioned in post #645 above may be more satisfactory. D&D is a giant playground for fantasy role-playing, but it is not going to be perfect for everyone's tastes. Monopoly is a fun board game, but it is not going to satisfy everyone all the time. It does not mean that Monopoly needs to be redesigned...it is ok for board game players to go to a different board game to scratch a particular itch. Monopoly will be there waiting when players want to return to it. I suspect the same could be said of D&D.

Speaking for myself, I am glad that streamlined combat became a priority. Even as Enworld was filled with hatred toward 4th edition twelve years ago, I would defend the parts of 4th edition I liked and I searched out 4th edition games in town and played it (I find complaining on and through the Internet to be crude, but that is a subject for a different forum). But, boy oh boy did the combat take a long time. I took my wife and we finally gave up because the combat was so tedious and time-consuming, the storytelling qualities at the table suffered. But, of course, I think a more story-inspired DM could have worked with that.

Cheers and happy role-playing everyone!

 

[cmad1977]

People have been predicting a drop in sales for the past 5 years. Eventually they'll be correct.

Yup. If you spew enough poop, some will stick to the wall.

 

[Parmandur]

There is the additional point that, even though I want Minigiant and Tetrasodium to receive what they desire in D&D books, much of what I have seen requested in the last few pages of this thread seems to be at odds with one of the main design goals of D&D Next and Fifth edition: to make combat faster. The desire for faster, more streamlined combat was a recurring request from players during the playtest, so it became a priority for Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, and team.

Perhaps some of the combat options that Minigiant and Tetrasodium request could be introduced to the game in such a way as to not interfere with this objective, but as I have read this thread (and not responded) the last few days, I have had serious doubts that it would be possible. Although, as I say, I would like all players to get what they want and be happy with the D&D game system. Making the impossible possible should, perhaps, be the goal of a company called Wizards of the Coast.

However, it may be that one of the other role-playing games that Tetrasodium mentioned in post #645 above may be more satisfactory. D&D is a giant playground for fantasy role-playing, but it is not going to be perfect for everyone's tastes. Monopoly is a fun board game, but it is not going to satisfy everyone all the time. It does not mean that Monopoly needs to be redesigned...it is ok for board game players to go to a different board game to scratch a particular itch. Monopoly will be there waiting when players want to return to it. I suspect the same could be said of D&D.

Speaking for myself, I am glad that streamlined combat became a priority. Even as Enworld was filled with hatred toward 4th edition twelve years ago, I would defend the parts of 4th edition I liked and I searched out 4th edition games in town and played it (I find complaining on and through the Internet to be crude, but that is a subject for a different forum). But, boy oh boy did the combat take a long time. I took my wife and we finally gave up because the combat was so tedious and time-consuming, the storytelling qualities at the table suffered. But, of course, I think a more story-inspired DM could have worked with that.

Cheers and happy role-playing everyone!

Seems like a job.for the DMsGuild.

 

[Minigiant]

Perhaps some of the combat options that Minigiant and Tetrasodium request could be introduced to the game in such a way as to not interfere with this objective, but as I have read this thread (and not responded) the last few days

It's actually not hard.

It's mostly attacks with simple bonuses.

Roll attack roll. If hit, STR DC 15 to break shield. Advantage of welding an axe, pick, or hammer.

Roll attack roll, if hit deal 1 damage and next attack and damage roll have advantage.

Basic stuff. All the stuff a good DM would adjudicate just written down for new DMs.

 

[tetrasodium]

There is the additional point that, even though I want Minigiant and Tetrasodium to receive what they desire in D&D books, much of what I have seen requested in the last few pages of this thread seems to be at odds with one of the main design goals of D&D Next and Fifth edition: to make combat faster. The desire for faster, more streamlined combat was a recurring request from players during the playtest, so it became a priority for Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Rodney Thompson, and team.

Perhaps some of the combat options that Minigiant and Tetrasodium request could be introduced to the game in such a way as to not interfere with this objective, but as I have read this thread (and not responded) the last few days, I have had serious doubts that it would be possible. Although, as I say, I would like all players to get what they want and be happy with the D&D game system. Making the impossible possible should, perhaps, be the goal of a company called Wizards of the Coast.

However, it may be that one of the other role-playing games that Tetrasodium mentioned in post #645 above may be more satisfactory. D&D is a giant playground for fantasy role-playing, but it is not going to be perfect for everyone's tastes. Monopoly is a fun board game, but it is not going to satisfy everyone all the time. It does not mean that Monopoly needs to be redesigned...it is ok for board game players to go to a different board game to scratch a particular itch. Monopoly will be there waiting when players want to return to it. I suspect the same could be said of D&D.

Speaking for myself, I am glad that streamlined combat became a priority. Even as Enworld was filled with hatred toward 4th edition twelve years ago, I would defend the parts of 4th edition I liked and I searched out 4th edition games in town and played it (I find complaining on and through the Internet to be crude, but that is a subject for a different forum). But, boy oh boy did the combat take a long time. I took my wife and we finally gave up because the combat was so tedious and time-consuming, the storytelling qualities at the table suffered. But, of course, I think a more story-inspired DM could have worked with that.

Cheers and happy role-playing everyone!

There lies the problem in that bolded bit. It would be an absurd claim to suggest that players do not massively outnumber GMs. Even if you count tables where some of the players sometimes GM or have GM'd before it's still going to be an avalanche of what players want completely dominating any differences from DM PoV. It was not until recently that wotc even started bothering to ask if someone is a dm & what percentage they are a dm/player. Prior to that it was not even a datapoint to consider if there was statistically different leanings about something between players & those who DM more than a given percentage. Combine that with the 70% rule and you could have topics where a hypothetical 100% of DMs feel strongly in one direction while even a mere majority* of players are mildly in favor of the other direction and that hypothetical unified DM position would be completely shut out from consideration under the 70% rule.

Also you misrepresent the other side by panning everything as something that would slow down or somehow unwind wotc's "objective" of faster combat. Wotc's own decision to simplify combat down to little more than a damage die with a near certain hitrate resulted in everything being a giant bag of HP that slows combat. Some of these changes allow room for changing the design defect that unquestionably contradicts with that goal of "faster combat".

likely even just some plurality