D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[doctorbadwolf]

The most recent edition change was last year, which is why I say it wasn’t much different.

No, it was not.

And regardless of some peoples silly insistence on calling it one, it does not matter to the point in any way.

5e does not have a setting that is made for it. If it gets one, the comparison that needs to be made is to older editions, not the same edition at its launch.

Eberron is built with 3.5 assumptions. Nentir Vale is 4e, inserarably.
5e should have a setting made with its assumptions and norms, where the current phb is the basis for the primary species of the main part of the setting and 5e supplements fill in the rest. Where artificers exist but arent common, where paladins are governed by oaths and thus orders might have members worshipping different deities, etc, etc.

Arguing about whether the 2024 phb is a new edition or not is just a pointless distraction from that.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Maybe a future setting could start like a simple adventure. Ravenloft started like this before to become a setting. We have got the Radiant Citadel and Witchlight.

Maybe the Vodoni empire, a faction from Spelljammer, discovered a planar gate toward other primal material plane. They discovered a new wildspace but this was being explored and conquered by a rogue gith faction (a thoon cult, for example). In the worlds of this wildspace there are remains of Athasian civilitation.

 

[Corinnguard]

There is no customer base definition. The base is way to fractured on what it thinks and perceives for there to be any single definition put forth by it. We can't even get 5 people here on the site to agree on definitions. That leaves only WotC to set a definition.

If they can set one at all. There have been several instances where WoTC had done something really stupid and was completely caught off guard when the DM/Players really took an active dislike of what they had done. Ex. The OGL 1.0 debacle.

 

[TiQuinn]

No, it was not.

And regardless of some peoples silly insistence on calling it one, it does not matter to the point in any way.

5e does not have a setting that is made for it. If it gets one, the comparison that needs to be made is to older editions, not the same edition at its launch.

Eberron is built with 3.5 assumptions. Nentir Vale is 4e, inserarably.
5e should have a setting made with its assumptions and norms, where the current phb is the basis for the primary species of the main part of the setting and 5e supplements fill in the rest. Where artificers exist but arent common, where paladins are governed by oaths and thus orders might have members worshipping different deities, etc, etc.

Arguing about whether the 2024 phb is a new edition or not is just a pointless distraction from that.

I’m just going to go back to my original point that you quoted: as much as I like new settings, and would be fine if they made one, I’m not convinced there needs to be one created specifically for the reasons of showcasing 5e mechanics - because at this point, 11 years past the debut of 5e, every adventure module WotC has put out has been to showcase those rules.

It’s unnecessary to do so, and nothing here has convinced me that’s some sort of problem that needs to be solved. Players today learning D&D are learning it with 5e rules; there’s a whole lot of players who never played any other edition - there’s no need to make a setting that highlights those differences anymore than has been done in the updates to various setting books already. Your comparison to 4e and 3.5e is a decade late.

If there is a major edition change that ushers in a whole new set of mechanics and changes, of which I don’t believe the 2024 Edition (whether or not you think it’s a new version) did, then maybe my opinion on that would change. But as it stands…this is a nothing burger.

 

[Minigiant]

Countercounterargument. There is no customer base definition. The base is way to fractured on what it thinks and perceives for there to be any single definition put forth by it. We can't even get 5 people here on the site to agree on definitions. That leaves only WotC to set a definition.

The customer base isn't fractured.

Many of the grumblers are not 5e Customers.

The 2024 5e customer base is mostly united under the assumption of 5.5e. they might not like an expression of those assumptions but the point is they like feats, the 10 species, 12 classes, and the generic version of monsters.

WOTC is however stuck in their ways because they don't hire enough senior designers of the editions demographics. It's an issue with RPG design in the past. By the time you get clout to be an influential designer you are stuck in certain aways and at least a little behind the curve. It's slowly changing due to new styles of playtesting and quick internet feedback via channels

So there is a blurb of ideas uniting the 5e customer base. It's just WoTC is always behind and non5e fans add feedback.

 

[Corinnguard]

Many of the grumblers are not 5e Customers.

Many of the so-called grumblers are not 2024 5e customers. Some of us just prefer 2014 5e, an even older edition of D&D or a 5e-adjacent RPG (A5e, ToV, etc.).

 

[Minigiant]

Many of the so-called grumblers are not 2024 5e customers. Some of us just prefer 2014 5e, an even older edition of D&D or a 5e-adjacent RPG (A5e, ToV, etc.).

Exactly.

You are correct. I missed that detail in my rush.

A 2024 5e D&D customer might want something in their 2024 setting that a 2014 5e, A5E, or TOV customer might hate

 

[Corinnguard]

A 2024 5e D&D customer might want something in their 2024 setting that a 2014 5e customer might hate

Or at least borrow for their 2014 setting because that particular game feature works better for them than its' 2014 version. If a game feature doesn't work for somebody, they just need to look around for a version that does. Plenty of places to do an Investigation check in.