D&D 5E (2014) Where are the options?

[delericho]

But they don't want us to think about a new edition.

Under any name - no 5.5, no 5Essentials, no Advanced 5th Edition...

I have no problem with that. But IMO that means they need to stay away from making revisions to the rules - if at some point they decide magic missile should have a to-hit roll, they don't get to make that change.

I quite like the idea of us all playing the exact same game, regardless of PHB printing

Eh. For it be "the exact same game", that would mean no house rules, either. And I don't think I've ever played an RPG for more than one session without changing something.

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, nobody is talking about changing or updating, that is invalidating, existing stuff.

At least I'm not.

If, for the sake of example, Melf decides to "update" his acid arrows, he would have to:

1) leave the existing spell untouched
2) come up with a new name for what technically is a brand new spell. The new name can (and probably should) be similar enough to the old name that it tells us we're dealing with an updated version of the old one.

But without actually removing or changing what previous printings of the PHB says.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, basically yeah, no general changes to core rules, I agree.

No updates like in 3.5 or Pathfinder or Essentials.

Keep the game the same. Only spruce up options that get little play.

By providing new options that just happen to closely resemble the old ones, that is. The old four elements monk or beastmaster ranger remains completely untouched.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] What other examples can you think of besides the elemental monk and the beast master ranger?

Honestly, I think that "correcting" these subclasses by creating new versions of them and renaming them slightly seems like a bad idea. I don't see how you can add options like that into new printings of the PHB and still retain the page count etc. as you suggested earlier.

Free online download? Great, go ahead and do it, and folks can have access to it and decide which is better, and what they'd like to use at their table.

But to update the PHB with let's say "Nature Lord" ranger in addition to the beast master just seems like an odd request. And the question of where does it stop comes into play. There do seem to be a couple of subclasses that almost everyone agrees are a bit flawed...but I've seen valid criticisms of many more. Which are due for an update, and who decides? Where does it stop?

Just seems to me to be better left to individual gaming groups to decide.

 

[CapnZapp]

The designers decide both where it starts, and where it stops.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The designers decide both where it starts, and where it stops.

Yes of course. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

If you were a designer, what changes would you make that you would want folded into future rules printings?

 

[CapnZapp]

See Post #61 of this thread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

See Post #61 of this thread.

Gotcha...thanks, I somehow missed that post.

I agree with many of this examples, myself, particularly the berserker exhaustion issue. And I think I get what you are describing more clearly now. I still think it might be an issue, causing confusion with books that no longer match and so forth. But perhaps it's doable.

Not sure if it's a necessary step, though. Unearthed Arcanna or some form of free download would also accomplish the same thing, and more simply, I would expect.

Having said that, I don't think I'd mind if they did this all too much. I just recall sitting down at a convention to play some Pathfinder, and my early edition Core Book was outdated in several ways and I had no idea. I wouldn't want similar things to happen with 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

Again, there would be no outdated PHBs.

At least technically. If you wanted that Berserker you would be welcome to buy a new PHB

But none of the things in your original PHB would be invalidated. Your Beastmaster Ranger or 4-Elements Monk would work swimmingly.

And I do mean swimmingly. The fact you created that character means you're alright with its percieved limitations, and nobody is taking that away from you, or making you read loads of errata/update documents.

The updated PHB is for
1) new customers who don't even have to know there were a different 4-Elements.
2) old customers like me who's nagged by how little use the old 4-Elements saw, and would love to play the archetype of a magical monk if only it wasn't described as "play anything else if you want a magical monk" by the Monk build advice documents and character guides.

So updates - no.

That only splits the community, like 3.0 and 3.5 or 4E and Essentials. (And apparently Paizo managed to do this on their own too). A devastating mistake that I'm confident today's WotC won't be making any time soon...

 

[delericho]

Again, there would be no outdated PHBs.

At least technically. If you wanted that Berserker you would be welcome to buy a new PHB

...

So updates - no.

That only splits the community, like 3.0 and 3.5 or 4E and Essentials. (And apparently Paizo managed to do this on their own too). A devastating mistake that I'm confident today's WotC won't be making any time soon...

For option-heavy games like Pathfinder or 4e, I'm increasingly convinced that the way forward is some sort of online database (be it PFSRD or the DDI Compendium). Once the number of books grows, finding the specific item you want somewhere in those thousands of pages of text becomes problematic.

That said, actually building that online database (and, in particular, monetising it) is rather more tricky - especially as the market still seems wedded to the notion of having one or more big, bulky core rulebooks for the game.