D&D 5E Where to Now?

[Lanefan]

Something to note, the original "modularity" concept was a delusional fantasy. Our very experienced group (who all participated in the playtest) discussed it at length, and couldn't come up with a method that would work the way they claimed they could provide (characters using different rules at the same table). I think this is why the original modularity option never arose.

Much to my disappointment, as this was for me by far the biggest thing playtest-era 5e was promising: that I could easily convert my own system and in effect play 1e within 5e's framework.

What was released as 5e would take so much work to convert to what I want that it's just not worth bothering.

As for an actual modular setup... it already exists. 5E is by far the easiest edition to homebrew (except maybe OD&D), where you can add a lot of cool things onto the existing chassis.

Yes, you can add things in; but what if your goal is to subtract things out?

The chassis as it exists is already too complex: too many classes and sub-classes, too many options, etc. for what should be the bare-bones simpler-than-0e D&D framework.

This is where you lose me. One of the great successes of 5E has been its simplicity. Having some modular options is one thing, but it's also very easy to go too far the other way into the splatbook territory. I don't expect anything naval related again from WotC, since the necessary rules were already provided. I suspect that planar themed things will exist when/if they ever make a Manual of the Planes or Sigil campaign/AP. Same with psionics with Dark Sun (assuming they ever figure out how they want it to work). Almost everything else is likely going to be regaled to the DMGuild, which is its purpose after all.

My main problem with the DMGuild is that if I can't buy it in my FLGS (once such things return) it might as well not exist.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Create -> D&D cinematic multiverse.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Having just gotten an IRL example of disease on the largest possible scale, enhanced Medicine / disease rules are either going to be 'coming soon' -or- 'not touching that with a 10-foot pole'. Depending on if you think the buying audience will want their characters to be able to help -or- want no such reminders; we play D&D to set aside our troubles for a few hours.

There's a book of diseases on DMSGuild that is one of the very few Adamantine sellers on the site; it is enormously popular and white useful. The same group also headlined a book of make-your-own diseases and a book for adventure based on the diseases (I was a contributor to that last one).

I don't know how the pandemic has affected sales of the first two but the adventure collection still sells 20-30 copies per month.

The first book can be found here:

Dungeon Masters Guild

www.dmsguild.com

 

[Mistwell]

First priority in my view is to perform major surgery on the druid and sorcerer, which char-gen sites and D&D Beyond consistently show to be the game's least popular classes. Makes no difference to me whether WotC officially eliminates the original versions, just as it didn't matter to me whether the 3.0 ranger stuck around alongside their 3.5 counterpart, but when a portion of the PH is poorly designed then those failures shouldn't be treated as untouchable canon just because they were once printed.

There is nothing poor in the design of the Druid, it's a fantastic class. It's just an unpopular concept. You can't "fix" the concept. People just don't like that nature-themed caster. I suspect it was the Hobbit movies that damaged the concept. Seeing Radagast with bird poop all of his head just smacked the remaining reputation right out of the Druid concept. Tweaking the mechanics won't help because it's not the mechanics that is the issue - the mechanics are excellent and a tad overpowered.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Regarding the Druid, I would have liked shapechanging to have been confined to one subclass. That would have opened up more design space.

(Same thing with Rangers and spellcasting.)

But, as for it being "unpopular", isn't that ok? I don't think it's an indication of a class being "bad" if it isn't popular. I kind of like that some concepts are more rare than others.

 

[Shiroiken]

Much to my disappointment, as this was for me by far the biggest thing playtest-era 5e was promising: that I could easily convert my own system and in effect play 1e within 5e's framework.

What was released as 5e would take so much work to convert to what I want that it's just not worth bothering.

Heh. I was designing my own edition of 5E during the playtest, using the ideas that I liked from the playtest and other ideas I had of my own. I did this because after 4E, which my group grew to despise, we didn't have much faith in WotC turning out a good product. Fortunately, we were quite wrong!

Yes, you can add things in; but what if your goal is to subtract things out?

The chassis as it exists is already too complex: too many classes and sub-classes, too many options, etc. for what should be the bare-bones simpler-than-0e D&D framework.

Most aspects of the game can be removed, but there are parts that can't be simply removed without impacting other things. For example, if you don't like a class/sub-class/race/feat/whatever, there's nothing stopping the DM from simply saying "no." The base game is super simple, with 4 races, 4 classes with sub-class each, no feats or multi-classing. Options are minimal, and non-existent after character creation.

Somethings are harder to change without upsetting the balance. One great example that was a massive flame war on the WotC forums about non-magical healing. Second Wind is harder to remove (if you hate non-magical healing) without weakening the class, but in this case changing it to Temp HP works fairly well. If you don't like spell slots, you can try to remove it to convert to a Spell Point system, but obviously that can have balance changes too (which is why they never made said module IMO).

My main problem with the DMGuild is that if I can't buy it in my FLGS (once such things return) it might as well not exist.

Care to explain? Do you primarily do Organized Play?

 

[Lanefan]

Most aspects of the game can be removed, but there are parts that can't be simply removed without impacting other things. For example, if you don't like a class/sub-class/race/feat/whatever, there's nothing stopping the DM from simply saying "no." The base game is super simple, with 4 races, 4 classes with sub-class each, no feats or multi-classing. Options are minimal, and non-existent after character creation.

I realize feats are optional, and that most classes can be made so.

Somethings are harder to change without upsetting the balance. One great example that was a massive flame war on the WotC forums about non-magical healing. Second Wind is harder to remove (if you hate non-magical healing) without weakening the class, but in this case changing it to Temp HP works fairly well. If you don't like spell slots, you can try to remove it to convert to a Spell Point system, but obviously that can have balance changes too (which is why they never made said module IMO).

Yeah, I'd want to take out non-magical healing, completely re-do how resting works such that nothing recharges on a short rest except a very few h.p., re-do how spells are cast by going to a 1e-2e model using casting times, and go to a non-additive multiclassing system where each class advances independently.

And that's just the start.

Care to explain? Do you primarily do Organized Play?

Gads, no! It's just than when I buy something I want a physical copy handed to me to take home, and I'd prefer my money go to a local store keeping local people in jobs.

 

[jsaving]

There is nothing poor in the design of the Druid, it's a fantastic class. It's just an unpopular concept.

Druids haven't always been among the game's least popular classes but they are in 5th edition D&D. That provides pretty conclusive evidence that the 5e druid is hobbled more by poor design than an inherently unpopular concept, though I'm glad you personally find it to be better than most people do.

But, as for it being "unpopular", isn't that ok? I don't think it's an indication of a class being "bad" if it isn't popular. I kind of like that some concepts are more rare than others.

If people don't want to play a class, that is totally fine, but then it doesn't belong among the 12 classes printed in the Player's Handbook for general use by everyone. That "real estate" is very limited and there are plenty of other classes that came close to making the PH cut and could have been of more use to more players.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think the Druid is badly designed at all. It is, however, specifically designed. The class centers on Wildshape, so if your idea for a Druid-y character doesn't involve shape change it's going to be a poor fit. I also find that the Druid, moreso than any other class, suffers from a little too much nicey-nice in the class write up. There's not a lot of bad-assery to be found there, and rather too much Sierra Club for my tastes. The night is dark and full of terrors after all. I also think the Druid has had some of the least interesting expansion of concept via new subclasses, which is a shame, although 3PP material expands this enormously. Legendary Games, for example, has the Circle of Shapeless and Primal Terror, in their Fey and Forest Classes supplement. That, my friend, is a cool concept for a Druid.

The class certainly has a place in the PHB though, and lots of people play Druids.

 

[Minigiant]

I do like they've taken the approach that not all abilities should be about combat, or necessarily useful in combat. That's cool....but...a Ranger is a combat class. Has been since Day 1 of the Ranger class....so offering magic as their main combat aspect is frankly not good enough (since that seems to have been their answer for any particular class issue this edition...uh, just give it spellcasting, done).

I was thought the ranger was primarily a exploration class. It's signature thing since OD&D was tracking. The whole gimmick was that the ranger was the person who hunted the savage humaniods who would not conform to peaceful relations and to convince the animals/plants to not kill random townsfolk as sustenance. The D&D Ranger is a Aragorn clone but a specific one: the guide with mystical gifts. That'swhy the Aragornesge plantand divination magic makes sense along with the animal magic. A sane person would bring magic

The pure guerilla/ambush ranger is from war gaming and video gaming. Places where tracking and wilderness survival aren't used. You could make the mystical guide and the grounded ambusher into the same class but it would not be elegant.

I don't think the Druid is badly designed at all. It is, however, specifically designed. The class centers on Wildshape, so if your idea for a Druid-y character doesn't involve shape change it's going to be a poor fit. I also find that the Druid, moreso than any other class, suffers from a little too much nicey-nice in the class write up. There's not a lot of bad-assery to be found there, and rather too much Sierra Club for my tastes. The night is dark and full of terrors after all. I also think the Druid has had some of the least interesting expansion of concept via new subclasses, which is a shame, although 3PP material expands this enormously. Legendary Games, for example, has the Circle of Shapeless and Primal Terror, in their Fey and Forest Classes supplement. That, my friend, is a cool concept for a Druid.

The class certainly has a place in the PHB though, and lots of people play Druids.

I agree the druid is specifically designed for a certain image. It's ultra specific and filled with toomuch ideas. Even the designers say it is the biggest source of rule problems. It's the biggest headache.

It would be best for WOTC to create a new book with a whole new class for other wilderness casters.
Maybe a whole Wilderness book with a shaman class, new druid and ranger spells, wilderness subclasses for fighter, bard, barbarian and rogue, and rules for more wilderness hazards.