D&D 5E (2014) Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[ph0rk]

I don’t know about melee/ranged ac, but firmed up and complexified cover rules as well as removal of cover-ignoring portions of Spell Sniper and Sharpshooter would probably be an overall net good.

 

[tetrasodium]

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?

There are a lot of areas that 5e screwed up due to the 70% threshold like setting mayb to make lfqw invert with accelerating spreads as levels progress fondue to building for no feats no magic items, making tactical components that are hostile to the very concept of grid based tactical gameplay, setting ac so low that fights turn into mindless slogs beating on giant bags of hitpoints, or total lack of subjective elements. While making optional components to correct that kinda stuff, wotc might as well do it in ways that lean into or use other options like he mentioned too

 

[Minigiant]

There are a lot of areas that 5e screwed up due to the 70% threshold like setting mayb to make lfqw invert with accelerating spreads as levels progress fondue to building for no feats no magic items, making tactical components that are hostile to the very concept of grid based tactical gameplay, setting ac so low that fights turn into mindless slogs beating on giant bags of hitpoints, or total lack of subjective elements. While making optional components to correct that kinda stuff, wotc might as well do it in ways that lean into or use other options like he mentioned too

One hilarious thing is how there is a huge or at least very vocal group of the community who wants high magic low fantasy gameplay. Lots of villainous humanoids with minor shaman and mage backing and less monsters.

But the weapons, armor, items, and tactics elements are so bare bones and unsupported that you really can't do "Orcs stole the McGuffin. Clear out the base they made in the old tower and bring it back.". You have to throw in giant spiders or devils or go Fulll on Combat as War because all orcs can do is swing or throw axes and spears vs AC for a damage roll by default.

 

[Aging Bard]

I gave this answer in a similar thread, but this thread seems more appropriate. I apologize for the "double-post".

I agree that a true new edition needs to be some kind of major development. 5e still seems like it has a lot of life to me, and has been pointed out, has never been bigger or more successful.

But I don't think the people here are thinking big enough. WotC have already said they want a quickstart D&D where two new players, a character and the DM, can start playing in an hour. Moving in the direction of greater simplicity and player enjoyment has been a winner. 5e is doing something perhaps few other games can do: it is growing by bringing in completely new players who might not play anything else, rather than getting existing players to buy more (which WotC are also doing at the same time).

So let's extrapolate from this:
1) No DM: Eliminating the DM is a huge but inevitable step. Good DMing is very hard and ultimately gets in the way of many players' wishes. To be clear, I strongly dislike this direction but fear it is inevitable. This, of course, will require major playtesting and a very different "engine".
2) Solo play: Another logical conclusion. And solo play will be a huge sales boost. Imagine the number of new players who can play however they want with no judgment whatsoever. It's the closest we could have to a Star Trek holodeck. This would require innovative new approaches to existing tools like procedural generation and programmed modules.
3) Celebrity authors: Just like screen actors have muscled in on voice acting, professional authors may take over writing RPG modules, with former RPG authors reduced to converting the stories of professional authors to the RPG format. Again, not a result I desire at all, but a result that seems likely. This would require tools to "gamify" stories in a consistent D&D manner, with game designers helping the authors.

Combine these 3 developments and you get the perfect vehicle for anyone to be the hero of their own personal story, with no one to say they're doing it wrong. And of course, you will still be able to play with a DM and multiple players. This strategy is purely additive in bringing in players who would otherwise never give D&D a look.

Are these developments likely? Probably not, and certainly not soon. But the key is they are answers to the question: "How do we sell D&D to people who currently do not play?" And they might conclude that, nope, DM-less play can't be done. But D&D is now a growth property for Hasbro, and I guarantee that the number crunchers will ask these questions of WotC (FWIW, I have an actual financial background and experience in dealing with publicly-traded stock companies, though I have no personal knowledge of Hasbro or WofC).

P.S. I'm actually a 1e player and wargamer to boot (aging, indeed). So none of this analysis reflects what I personally want to see.

 

[Aldarc]

In 2008, they pursued the wrong market. Now they actually use big data.

I'm not a fan of overly reductive explanations like this. I think that 2008 was less about the market that they pursued and more about a diverse host of other factors: e.g., play-testing, public input, publishing time table, marketing, electronic tools failures, etc.

 

[BookTenTiger]

One hilarious thing is how there is a huge or at least very vocal group of the community who wants high magic low fantasy gameplay. Lots of villainous humanoids with minor shaman and mage backing and less monsters.

But the weapons, armor, items, and tactics elements are so bare bones and unsupported that you really can't do "Orcs stole the McGuffin. Clear out the base they made in the old tower and bring it back.". You have to throw in giant spiders or devils or go Fulll on Combat as War because all orcs can do is swing or throw axes and spears vs AC for a damage roll by default.

I agree with you that a more complex equipment section would be fun.

However, I disagree with you about the Orc Tower! First of all, that seems like a perfect dungeon, full of traps and exploration challenges. Also, the MM has a number of NPC stats that could easily be orcs: mages and bards and thugs and such. Furthermore, the Time of Foes includes stats for even more varieties of Orcs, including spellcasters!

Saying "all orcs can do is make an attack vs AC" ignores the great fun of D&D; the rules are just a guideline, and anyone can try anything... including the enemies!

 

[Minigiant]

However, I disagree with you about the Orc Tower! First of all, that seems like a perfect dungeon, full of traps and exploration challenges. Also, the MM has a number of NPC stats that could easily be orcs: mages and bards and thugs and such. Furthermore, the Time of Foes includes stats for even more varieties of Orcs, including spellcasters!

That's my point though.
You have to load your tower with magic users to make it interesting because the weapons and armor side is bland.
There are many tabletop and video games that up the tactical and strategic choices of different weapons and armor. Including older editions of D&D.And this isn'teven adding crazystuff.
Things like Flails ignore shields, Axes break shields or crit for more, or Plate being better vs slashing but worse vs bludgeoning.

Butin 5e, you have to load every enemy force with casters and tamed monsters to not bore your players..

 

[BookTenTiger]

That's my point though.
You have to load your tower with magic users to make it interesting because the weapons and armor side is bland.
There are many tabletop and video games that up the tactical and strategic choices of different weapons and armor. Including older editions of D&D.And this isn'teven adding crazystuff.
Things like Flails ignore shields, Axes break shields or crit for more, or Plate being better vs slashing but worse vs bludgeoning.

Butin 5e, you have to load every enemy force with casters and tamed monsters to not bore your players..

I still disagree. Even if you don't use magic, including traps, locked porticullis, tactics, roleplay opportunities, hostage negotiations, etc etc etc are all things D&D supports and turns your "axe vs AC" into a fun and interesting experience.

 

[Minigiant]

I still disagree. Even if you don't use magic, including traps, locked porticullis, tactics, roleplay opportunities, hostage negotiations, etc etc etc are all things D&D supports and turns your "axe vs AC" into a fun and interesting experience.

A lot of that isn't combat. The issue is that once iniative is rolled, the combat is very bland without magic or crazy monsters. The outside of combat stuff just hides it. And moving the Outside of combat stuff to inside of combat can trivalize combat fast. Especially because of how bland the base system is. You can't stick a trap or major hazard naturally in the middle of every room.

 

[BookTenTiger]

A lot of that isn't combat. The issue is that once iniative is rolled, the combat is very bland without magic or crazy monsters. The outside of combat stuff just hides it. And moving the Outside of combat stuff to inside of combat can trivalize combat fast. Especially because of how bland the base system is. You can't stick a trap or major hazard naturally in the middle of every room.

Has D&D ever really served this purpose? Has it ever really been a tactical combat simulator?

I find in 5e a lot of the tactics and strategies come from characters' abilities and class powers. I do think you're right that monsters could use some more interesting tactics (like 4e), but I still wonder if any edition of D&D has done this well.