D&D 5E (2024) Why no new packs since late September?

[Micah Sweet]

That all depends on what you personally find inspiring. I've opened the 5e MM at random and turned up the page on Gargoyles (p140) and found the matching 4e MM page.

What do I get from 5e? Five paragraphs an indent and a statblock:

• The paragraphs:
  • A basic description
  • One saying that they are animate stone
  • One saying they have a deadly reputation
  • One saying they are cruel servants (on re-reading there are two just only a little is marked in bold)
  • One line and a half that belongs in the statblock saying they don't need to eat drink, breathe, or sleep
• A section on their link to Ogremoch
• A statblock where there are only a couple of differences between it and an oversized bear
  • It can fly
  • You do half damage if you hit it with normal weapons and shouldn't try to petrify or poison it (but for some reason the stone doesn't e.g. resist fire any better than flesh)
  • It disguises itself as stone

Honestly it reads to me as if the authors were paid by the word. In particular you do not need two paragraphs to say that gargoyles are cruel servants when you also say that gargoyles delight in creating terror and causing pain.

Meanwhile I look at the 4e one and I see about as much and at least for me it's far more inspiring. Three general sections, not one but two statblocks, and two tactics sections.

• An introductory paragraph
• A section of Gargoyle Lore with an appropriate difficulty check
• A section on encounter groups, giving you a suggestion as to who they are likely to work with that you can just drop into play
• Two different statblocks - one for your standard gargoyle and one for a higher level one
• A distinctive special ability with two signature abilities
  • The ability to turn to stone as a standard action giving it DR 25/All, regeneration, and tremorsense (and that it leaves as a minor action)
  • A flyby attack which recharges after it turns to stone
  • (Oh, and it can fly and is immune to petrification)

With that statblock the tactics section is almost redundant. It is on its own a memorable encounter with the gargoyles turning into stone and even if you know which they are they are still almost indestructible while stone. And the suggested encounters also help.

The next page I flicked through to in the 5e MM was Goblins - and even comparing the two is absolutely unfair as 5e is not in the same league as 4e here. I'll give 5e its due and say that when you compare it to any edition except 4e it looks good, with the basic Goblin having Nimble Escape while the Goblin Boss can also pull people into its way.

But in terms of inspiration 4e leaves 5e in the dust for me. We've the encounter groups of which there are half a dozen (and they would be so much better if instead of just saying "Encounter Group" they gave each one a name). But instead of two stat blocks - "Normal goblin" and "Boss Goblin" there are Goblin Cutter Minions, the Goblin Blackblade with a 1d6 Sneak Attack, the standard Goblin Warrior that likes to run around, the Goblin Sharpshooter (again with Sneak Attack), the Goblin Hexer (Goblins have their own type of mages with really cruel magics - and it's this that the 5e Underboss gets its signature ability from), the Goblin Skullcleaver who rages, and the Goblin Underboss who has a quasi-warlord ability and who has strong survival instincts.

Sure 5e spends an entire paragraph to say that goblins have Challenging Lairs while 4e spends about half a sentence saying "[goblin lairs are]... often easily defensible and often riddled with simple traps designed to snare or kill intruders".

But are you really telling me, hand on heart, that you can not see why I find the monster manual that gives goblins their own type of spellcasters (which is really useful and evocative fluff), gives most goblins extra damage for having combat advantage (again fluff made manifest), and gives me encounter groups I can use straight out of the book containing multiple types of monster (some using just goblins, some using goblins and other animals, and some where the goblins are getting bossed around by hobgoblins or bugbears - more fluff made manifest) is much better for setting up challenging encounters and inspiring than the one that just has blank prose, no tactical advice, and only "goblin" and "goblin boss" even if the 5e one spends literally eight lines saying "the strongest goblins are bosses but often ousted and some are replaced by hobgoblins and bugbears"?

I find that the 4e monster manual has more fluff than any other edition because it follows the rule "Show, don't tell". When you write the fluff as text boxes you are telling. When you write it into the encounter groups, and into the character's abilities you are showing. But telling is more basic and easier to understand.

I personally prefer Level Up's Monstrous Menagerie to either.

 

[dave2008]

In general over the course of the edition,, yes.. but the 4e MM sure didn't.

It depends on what you are comparing it to and what monsters you are comparing. I still contend the MM had more lore than most give it credit for:

• each creature had a intro paragraph, some got several paragraphs, of lore
• each monster had a "Lore" section.
• each monster had a "Tactics: section which often had lore in it
• each monster had an "Encounter Groups" section which included some more lore.
• Many monster entries had several types of the same monster and each of those types might have an additional paragraphs of lore (as in giants) or simple more tactics lore (as in orcs).

When you add all that up it was often very similar to previous editions (2e excluded). Now I will say it tended to be more generic, but there was a good deal there often. Some examples (PS I realize differences in stat blocks don't make this a 1-1 comparison):

	3e	4e
Aboleth	3/4 page	2 pages
Doppelganger	1/2 page	1 page
Dragons	9 (just chromatic + generic)	12 pages (just chromatic + generic)
Giants	4 pages	6 pages
Orcs	1 page	3 pages
Troll	3/4 page	2 pages
Unicorn	3/4 page	1 page
Yuan-ti	almost 2 pages	5 pages

 

[dave2008]

What I did say, and it's true, is that any change to the core books is in fact a fundamental change. It changes the fundamentals.

Well that can't be true. One could make numerous changes to the core books and they would not necessarily be fundamental. For example:

What if I took chapter 4: Personality and Background, and moved it up to become Chapter 2? Is that a fundamental change?
What if I gave the PHB a better index (many people complain about it), is that a fundamental change? That is not to mention errata, clarifying language, etc.

So I assume you didn't actually mean "any change," would that be correct? If that is correct, then we would first need to determine what is a fundamental change. That (what is fundamental) of course is were opinions will vary.

 

[dave2008]

I will be happy if I am eventually shown to be mistaken.

Whether you are correct or incorrect may depend largely on what your definition of 100% compatible is. The '24 MM is likely to be different from the '14 MM but I fully expect to be able to use the monsters in that book with any version of 5e I'm playing. The same is true for MotM. Just as I can use monsters from that book with '14 D&D, I expect I can use them with '24 D&D.

Also, WotC, to my knowledge, never promised 100%.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I never said anything about tolerability. What I did say, and it's true, is that any change to the core books is in fact a fundamental change. It changes the fundamentals.

So we are actually not speaking about 6e, but 50e?

4e alone had uncountable numbers of changes to the core books.
3e had a lot of changes to stealth and polymorph rules.
5e had updates to divine smite, darkness and quite a few more.

So if you want to go by that arbitrary definition, have fun.

 

[mellored]

There are only a couple of powerful feats and it's not common for more than one to fit any given PC.

So everyone gets 1, maybe 2 nerfs.

And with 5.5e 100% of them get a free feat PLUS feats that they choose. They are now stronger over all.

And everyone gets 1 buff.

-1 nerf +1 buff = balanced.

Sticking with the archers example...
They lose +10 damage (sharpshooter), gain +1AC (defensive style, bonus feat) and +1 to a stat (new sharpshooter).

Unless you got more detailed math (not fear) to show otherwise. I just don't see any power increases.

 

[mellored]

Whether you are correct or incorrect may depend largely on what your definition of 100% compatible is. The '24 MM is likely to be different from the '14 MM but I fully expect to be able to use the monsters in that book with any version of 5e I'm playing. The same is true for MotM. Just as I can use monsters from that book with '14 D&D, I expect I can use them with '24 D&D.

Also, WotC, to my knowledge, never promised 100%.

Thus far, the only thing I see as not compatible is trying to combine the 2 different character creations, mostly the sub-classes not lining up.

But even then, it doesn't take too much house ruling to make it work.

 

[OB1]

This is total speculation on my part, but I would guess that the data WotC got back prior to the original close of the survey contained results were far enough off from what they were hoping that it gave them pause (and likely very different that the feedback they got on packet 1).

They extended the deadline both to take a deeper look at the initial results and to see if they could get more results in. The other extensions may be a way to buy time to rework the next class group based on those results, but I wouldn't be surprised if the next packet is a revision of the Expert group instead.

Packet 2 is a massive amount of change to the way the game is played by PCs, whereas packet 1 really only changed the edges of how you create a 1st level character. While I agree that the P2 changes are still fully compatible with 5e in terms of the math, the style and feel of it is way different. But to me at least, it didn't feel like those changes would result in a better or worse play experience, just a different one.

With the core 3 books all hitting the top 15 in ALL BOOKs sold on Amazon this week 8 years after their release, there's got to be real debate at WotC over making any changes that could cause that number to drop long term. Do we make a small set of changes with the goal of continuing the slow steady growth of D&D over the next decade, or go for a large set of changes which would create a massive 1 or 2 quarter spike in sales but with an unknown growth period after.

If they want both, IMO, then they are going to need the class playtests to be hitting a 70-80% approval rating, and I just can't imagine that packet #2 got much higher than 50-60% overall.

 

[Maxperson]

Well that can't be true. One could make numerous changes to the core books and they would not necessarily be fundamental. For example:

What if I took chapter 4: Personality and Background, and moved it up to become Chapter 2? Is that a fundamental change?
What if I gave the PHB a better index (many people complain about it), is that a fundamental change? That is not to mention errata, clarifying language, etc.

Clearly in the context that I'm using it, I'm discussing changes to the actual rules. I've cited the racial and monster changes in MoM, the character creation changes in Tasha's, the class changes in the playtest doc and 1st level feats from the playtest doc.

A reordering or index change doesn't change any of the fundamental rules in the core books.

 

[Maxperson]

So everyone gets 1, maybe 2 nerfs.

No. Not everyone was an archer or great weapon user.

And everyone gets 1 buff.

At least two. More if they take more than one feat with their ASIs. And more if their class has been made better. And more if their race has been made better.

Sticking with the archers example...
They lose +10 damage (sharpshooter), gain +1AC (defensive style, bonus feat) and +1 to a stat (new sharpshooter).

And at least one more feat, plus likely a race and/or class increase.