D&D 5E What would be your ideal 5E yearly product output?

[Vael]

In general, I have no problems with the current setup, APs, plus free web support. But, I wouldn't mind additional material. Here's what I'd like:

1. Expanded Player options. Yes, more or less a PH2, with more options for the core classes, plus Psionics and an Artificer class (and maybe another class or two, if they're warranted). Put it all together like Pathfinder's Advanced Players Guide, but with a different name. I don't really want Psionics sequestered into its own book. An "Expanded Players Options Book" with Psionics and material for the core classes seems like a good fit for me. One could even use Unearthed Arcana as a testing ground for this material.

2. DM support, in two forms. (I think alternating them, one every year, is a good idea)
2a. More Monster Manuals
2b. A collection of short adventures. Since Dungeon is no longer a thing, I'm surprised we haven't seen more support for DMs in the form of short, pick up and play adventures. I really liked 4e's Dungeon Delve book. Short adventures that can be completed in one to three sessions. Maybe have some overarching theme so that DMs could string together some of these adventures into an ongoing campaign.

 

[SigmaOne]

I'm unlikely to ever give a Kobold Press product a second glance, based on Tyranny of Dragons.

I'm curious, did you play through it or is this based on a read or reading reviews?

I've owned them since they came out, but never got around to them since we made our way slowly through Lost Mines and finished just after PotA came out, so that became the obvious next choice. And I agree with your assessment; after these two adventures, I'm ready to throw money at Sasquatch on principle until they change my mind. Regarding HotQ and RoT though, I've recently begun looking into them because I'm considering running them for another group. It seems to me that when I listen to the people who've run and played it, the opinions are much higher. Yes, that obviously introduces selection bias into the reviews, but it cuts both ways --- if some people give it a cursory read and say its crap and throw it to the side, that's also a kind of selection bias. It seems at a glance like a pretty good adventure path to run, and I think now with the common knowledge about and errata (much of it related to unfortunate last minute changes in the game rules and/or adventure itself, it seems), it's not a ton of work to "fix" the major issues. (And running any of these modules is a fair amount of work anyway.)

Anyway, just curious how many poor reviews there are after actual play. If people read it and say they'd never want to play it based on that, that's fine too --- their business. Either way, I'd definitely give Kobold Press a fair shake if they do further work for 5e.

I completely agree that all of these adventures that have come out are basically generic enough to be dropped into most (suitably generic) settings, and the conversion guide in PotA is a very welcome addition. Forgotten Realms plays a fine balance between feeling suitably generic that adventures set there can be dropped anywhere and being well known enough (especially from novels and video games). Names like Waterdeep, Neverwinter and Baldur's Gate have better name recognition in today's broader gamer market, so it makes sense to use the setting that includes them; and at the same time, players who want to strip all that away for their own setting won't have too much trouble. I certainly hope this holds true with Out of the Abyss as well... we'll see how that works out, with everyone's favorite dual-wielder involved.

 

[Jester David]

The catch with a player's option book is the size of subclasses. A large subclass takes up a page, and most take half. A 256-page book that has 50 pages of subclasses might have as many as 75 new subclasses. That's close to six new subclasses for each class.
I can think of two or three good ideas for each class. Trying to think of three more means a LOT of padding. To say nothing about having to balance and/or playtest 75 new options.
Let alone having one book like that every year or other year. I shudder at the thought. It'd be 3e Prestige Classes all over again...

 

[Parmandur]

The catch with a player's option book is the size of subclasses. A large subclass takes up a page, and most take half. A 256-page book that has 50 pages of subclasses might have as many as 75 new subclasses. That's close to six new subclasses for each class.

I can think of two or three good ideas for each class. Trying to think of three more means a LOT of padding. To say nothing about having to balance and/or playtest 75 new options.

Let alone having one book like that every year or other year. I shudder at the thought. It'd be 3e Prestige Classes all over again...

Some, particularly the Sorcerer, have room for quite a few builds, but you hit the nail on the head. One solid book could cover every major option; and maybe we will get that eventually.

 

[Stormonu]

I'd like to see a 16-32 page adventure per month (or two), plus one 96 page accessory a quarter.

On the adventure side, I'd like to see WotC staying away from AP's and instead do one-shot self-contained adventures (maybe with a paragraph on how to link it to prior/upcoming adventures, but nothing being a hard-baked dependency of playing one then the next).

As to the accessory, I'd like to see settings, monster books or sourcebooks that has a mix of player/DM material. In the latter, something like one full class, 2-3 alternate paths for existing classes, a few new mundane and magical items, a handful of spells for the players. For the DM, I'd like to see environments or setting ideas (akin to the Stormwrack/Frostburn/Sandstorm/Dungeonscape/Cityscape books), generic NPC stat blocks, traps, encounter starters and the like.

Also, I really think an Al-Qadim or Arabic style campaign could be easily done. It's a sad day when people raise less of an eyebrow over a campaign situated in Hell than one set in a pseudo Middle East because of *reasons*.

 

[delericho]

The other factor is consistency. WotC implies an inoffensive level of consistency, though that may not be true any longer, either. Kobold Press and Sasquatch Games are great examples. I'm unlikely to ever give a Kobold Press product a second glance, based on Tyranny of Dragons.

There's an irony there - Kobold Press have a deserved reputation for some good products, and this is the second time that a Wolfgang Baur adventure has suffered under a WotC/D&D logo ("Expedition to the Demonweb Pits" being the other). And, in both cases, it looks like a lot of the problems have been due to factors out of the author's control.

So, I'd be hesitant to write off KP at this stage, without at least having a look at something else they've produced.

 

[delericho]

I can think of two or three good ideas for each class...

Let alone having one book like that every year or other year. I shudder at the thought. It'd be 3e Prestige Classes all over again...

The thing is that there already dozens of 2nd Ed kits, 3e Prestige Classes, and 4e Paragon Paths. So they don't need to think of lots of good ideas for subclasses - amongst the mass of dross in those lists there are some really good ideas that are well worth adaptation.

 

[delericho]

It seems to me that when I listen to the people who've run and played it, the opinions are much higher. Yes, that obviously introduces selection bias into the reviews...

Adventure reviews are a tricky beast, because some things don't become apparent until actual play (good or bad), and yet it's also true that in actual play you never see the "path not taken". If your PCs never try to go off-script it doesn't matter if the adventure is a horrible railroad, for example.

 

[Yaarel]

It seems WotC is reluctant to publish more products until they are certain the rules are robust. When the dust settles on errata and various tweaks, more products will come. Otherwise, the hasty products would be locking the problematic rules into the lifetime of 5e.

 

[Mercule]

I'm curious, did you play through it or is this based on a read or reading reviews?

I've owned them since they came out, but never got around to them since we made our way slowly through Lost Mines and finished just after PotA came out, so that became the obvious next choice. And I agree with your assessment; after these two adventures, I'm ready to throw money at Sasquatch on principle until they change my mind. Regarding HotQ and RoT though, I've recently begun looking into them because I'm considering running them for another group. It seems to me that when I listen to the people who've run and played it, the opinions are much higher. Yes, that obviously introduces selection bias into the reviews, but it cuts both ways --- if some people give it a cursory read and say its crap and throw it to the side, that's also a kind of selection bias. It seems at a glance like a pretty good adventure path to run, and I think now with the common knowledge about and errata (much of it related to unfortunate last minute changes in the game rules and/or adventure itself, it seems), it's not a ton of work to "fix" the major issues. (And running any of these modules is a fair amount of work anyway.)

Anyway, just curious how many poor reviews there are after actual play. If people read it and say they'd never want to play it based on that, that's fine too --- their business. Either way, I'd definitely give Kobold Press a fair shake if they do further work for 5e.

I probably shouldn't be so quick to dismiss KP. There are a number of factors that make ToD a less than ideal test drive, for me. I'm well aware of this, and I occasionally jump from one side to the other of the line between "you did bad work" and "you produced a product that wasn't for me". I had high hopes for HotDQ, on my initial read-through and thought that most of the negative commentary was misguided. It was once I sat down to actually prep for play that I got frustrated. I like Eberron and had set LMoP in Eberron and wanted to continue my campaign, there.

My list of issues (including those that KP is utterly powerless to avoid) with ToD are thus:
1. I hate the Forgotten Realms. Any adventure that has enough FR flavor for me to actually be aware that it's set there could only ever get a B+ rating. Not fair, but that's life. HotDQ is functionally impossible to separate from the Sword Coast w/o rewriting it, just using it as an outline.
2. I'd already run my group through LMoP and a requirement in selecting the next adventure was to continue at 4th level, closing in on 5th. While you can join the module half-way through, it seemed less than optimal and I didn't like the idea of skipping half the content.
3. Half-dragons. Ick.
4. Half the module takes place on a caravan. Ick.
4a. Add to that the caravan portion read very poorly -- to the point I was pretty sure I'd have to make up enough to have written large parts of it, anyway.
4b. Caravans are a strange concept in a world with trains. I was pretty hot on the idea of shortening the caravan chapters and turning them into a sort of "Murder on the Orient Express" style. See point #1, about re-writing.
5. The intro reads as very contrived. I'm okay with the basic premise, but it seemed way too easy to come of the rails. I'd probably have solved that by having the PCs show up the next morning and get tasked with the cleanup, but it doesn't help with the apparent quality when I need to create my own first chapter.

Things I like about HotDQ:
1. All the mapped areas. Anything that could be called a "dungeon", in the old-school sense, seems pretty solid and interesting.
2. Overall cultist plot thing.
3. They tried to do something I hadn't seen before, in terms of structure.

My kids have seen the adult group playing and are interested. I may run HotDQ for them, unmodified, just to give it a chance. Or not. I might also take a stab at rewriting it for Eberron, too. Most likely, if I'm being honest, I'll just leave it on my shelf until the next time I think about it while running to the used book store; it'll remain a mediocre adventure that I never ran.