| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Aug 2022 : 16:00:41
|
Barely anything changed from 1E to 2E, and they called that a new edition. They dropped one score, dropped some classes, simplified others, and changed rounds and range references, and that was about it. 2E was highly backwards compatible with 1E.
So again, given what they've said they're doing, and looking at that example from the past, it comes across to me like a new edition.
Honestly, I think the main reason they're avoiding calling it that is they don't want to piss off people with new version fatigue. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4429 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2022 : 17:25:48
|
I can see why they don't want to call it 6th Edition. Though when you look at WotC track record on editions - its mixed at best. They had 2 and a half (or 3 depending on definition) editions in 8 years. 3.0 was 2000 to 2003 (or 1999 to 2002 if we're talking about support and usage. Revised 3rd came out in 2003 until 2007-ish. 2008 saw 4e and that ran until 2013 or so until 5e in 2014.
The play-test says to reference your current PHB a lot for spell descriptions and the like. Also, should you use this material you're still going to need Skills, other Feats, Classes, Monsters, magic items, etc which are all coming from the current material. So to me, I don't think a 6E is necessary based on the differences we've seen from 3e to 4e to 5e (all of which aren't compatible with eachother). I mean sure, you can adopt different mechanics and stuff and use old Adventures but you'll need to change the monsters or DCs of things etc.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2022 : 00:50:07
|
Continued from elsewhere...
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
This makes it very likey we are getting a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Book in 2024,because FR always gets a new Campaign Book in every edition.
Well, though I myself would call it a new edition, WotC has made a point of saying it's not a new edition. We didn't get a new setting book with 3.5, and we really didn't get one with 5 -- so whether this is 5.5 or 6E, it's not likely that we're getting a new FR setting book.
Also, this is also not the first time you've predicted a new setting book. You predicted the same because of the Magic cards, and also when WotC promised to revisit a setting. No offense, but your track record here does not impress. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer not to make predictions like that without something a lot more solid to back it up. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2442 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2022 : 00:52:43
|
| At most, we would get a new SCAG, that is just the same as the original with errata and the new stuff added. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2022 : 03:15:34
|
Windows XP was supposed to be the "one" WinOS forevermore. Designed in a modular update way which should (theoretically) remain viable indefinitely.
That was the promise.
Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, and Windows 10 each broke the same old promise while making the same new promise again and again.
And now we have Windows 11.
I realize Microsoft and WotC are two very different companies. But WotC has broken plenty of promises over the years.
Their best defense, sometimes offered by fans, is that WotC was a different company decades ago than it is today - different owners, different executives, different managerials, different workers on the floor. But if the company changed before than how can they promise they won't change again?
Not a big deal. Except the promise is itself part of the marketing, the appeal, the reason to buy. But only fools invest in promises which evidently won't (can't) be kept.
I expect to see rollout of 6E, 7E, etc. As long as WotC is still in the business of new D&D they're going to keep on publishing new D&D. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2022 : 03:22:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Continued from elsewhere...
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
This makes it very likey we are getting a new Forgotten Realms Campaign Book in 2024,because FR always gets a new Campaign Book in every edition.
Well, though I myself would call it a new edition, WotC has made a point of saying it's not a new edition. We didn't get a new setting book with 3.5, and we really didn't get one with 5 -- so whether this is 5.5 or 6E, it's not likely that we're getting a new FR setting book.
Also, this is also not the first time you've predicted a new setting book. You predicted the same because of the Magic cards, and also when WotC promised to revisit a setting. No offense, but your track record here does not impress. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer not to make predictions like that without something a lot more solid to back it up.
We *did* get the Player's Guide to Faerun, which was an update to most of the stuff published before... But I agree, it's not a full on Campaign book. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2022 : 11:54:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, I'm hearing that WotC is going out of their way to say this isn't 6E, and that it's not even a new edition.
But when you talking about revising all the rules and printing new books to go with those revised rules, that sure sounds like a new edition to me. You can tell me it's not a duck, but if it walks like one and quacks like one...
So by that measure, Revised 3rd Edition (aka 3.5) should've been 4th because they changed rules like spells, feats, class features, classes themselves and then printed books with those revised rules in them, thus invalidating "3.0" in the process.
Technically, yes. The reason it was called 3.5 was because the base mechanics of the game weren't changed, just how some specific things worked.
So by all circumstances thus far, this should be considered 5.5 considering that the base mechanics - things like how Proficiency is scaled by level (+2 to +6), Saving Throws based on Ability Modifiers, the base DC of any check being 8 + Prof. + Mod, and assuming ASI's will still be equivalent to Feats - remain unchanged that we know of.
I'm merely pointing out the similarities from how 3.5 differed from 3.0 but was an "upgrade" and that this seems to be the direction they're going and should be too considered an "upgrade".
Sure, except that WotC has said it's "edition-free", thus not a continuation of 5th edition at all. Everything is changing, even if the base mechanics are not. But it's all just semantics anyway and everyone can call it what they want. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2022 : 21:35:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Also, I'm hearing that WotC is going out of their way to say this isn't 6E, and that it's not even a new edition.
But when you talking about revising all the rules and printing new books to go with those revised rules, that sure sounds like a new edition to me. You can tell me it's not a duck, but if it walks like one and quacks like one...
So by that measure, Revised 3rd Edition (aka 3.5) should've been 4th because they changed rules like spells, feats, class features, classes themselves and then printed books with those revised rules in them, thus invalidating "3.0" in the process.
Technically, yes. The reason it was called 3.5 was because the base mechanics of the game weren't changed, just how some specific things worked.
So by all circumstances thus far, this should be considered 5.5 considering that the base mechanics - things like how Proficiency is scaled by level (+2 to +6), Saving Throws based on Ability Modifiers, the base DC of any check being 8 + Prof. + Mod, and assuming ASI's will still be equivalent to Feats - remain unchanged that we know of.
I'm merely pointing out the similarities from how 3.5 differed from 3.0 but was an "upgrade" and that this seems to be the direction they're going and should be too considered an "upgrade".
Diffan,
Thanks for the brief overview prior to this post. I enjoy looking over rules, but can honestly admit that I'm getting to an age that time will become a problem.
For what it is worth, I know that some folks will ardently disagree with me here, but I wouldn't be upset if they vastly upturned the table for 6e to work the "math". I see the problems with 3.5e at the upper levels that the numbers just get out of control. So, when 5e lowered the range from +2 to +6 and lowered the bonus on magic items... it was a good move to tighten the range. BUT ... I feel that 5e doesn't give a broad enough range considering you're working with a D20 dice so that you can give feats or other things and NOT have them have meaningful bonuses. I'd actually like to see the bonus go from +2 to +9 for levels 1-20 (so a change twice within 5 levels, with possibly no change at level 20.. the +9 being gotten at level 18). Then I'd further like to see them expand into the "epic" levels but following an ever expanding range... like +10 at 21, + 11 at 25, +12 at 30, +13 at 36.
Now, that being said, I know I'm probably not their target audience. Someone will come along and say something like the only reason to develop this would be for NPC design and 5e design believes "give an NPC whatever abilities you feel they need to make it challenging". But I really feel that giving a little more guidance on epic character and NPC creation is a core thing missing in 5e.
Some other things I feel 5e is missing is better rules for multiclassing spellcaster classes and some better magic item creation rules (not as nitpicky as 3.5e, but something more than what they did for 5e). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2022 : 21:57:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Barely anything changed from 1E to 2E, and they called that a new edition. They dropped one score, dropped some classes, simplified others, and changed rounds and range references, and that was about it. 2E was highly backwards compatible with 1E.
So again, given what they've said they're doing, and looking at that example from the past, it comes across to me like a new edition.
Honestly, I think the main reason they're avoiding calling it that is they don't want to piss off people with new version fatigue.
They did a good bit more than that from 1e to 2e, though you do have a point there. There were a lot of spell changes. They fully developed the concept of spell schools and introduced the specialist wizard. Most of it was on the magic front. Prior to 1e as well, just going from D&D to AD&D was a significant lift that occurred over just a few years.
Now, the change from 2e to 3e was a lot more significant (as were the changes to 4e), but I feel like Diffan may be right. Everythign I've heard so far makes it sound like more tweakage of rules and minor mods. But, we still have 2 years for things to be discussed.
I'd actual welcome more of a change, but what you call version fatigue isn't what I see as the issue. It's that the young audience that they're trying to keep intrigued can be fickle. Doing big changes that those of us have seen happen over 40 years and might be fine with .... might not be as accepted by the younger crowd. Many of them can't build out a character by hand and REQUIRE a program to help them. Please understand, that's not meant to be a slap against them. It's just an understanding that they're not used to doing the type of labor in character creation that many of us who are older wouldn't bat an eye at (and for a lot of us, we enjoyed doing). It's also not ALL of them.... but I know that there were a significant number of girlfriends of younger folk who came into 5e (at least by me), and they just aren't as invested in the numbers of the game (which isn't a bad way to play... just different). WotC hopefully does a good job with their D&D Beyond piece.
Oh, and just another aside. I had big hopes for Pathfinder 2e. I thought "they'll look at the 5e changes and see what has merit and rework their own math". Then I saw it, and it was just more and more rules. I think the simplification of 5e was wonderful... but they went TOO far. I could play pathfinder 2e and be extremely happy, but I have to admit its ruleset is exceptionally cumbersome. Of course, the problem I would run into is finding someone near me that's using those rules and/or willing to invest the money into them. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 23 Aug 2022 22:06:13 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2022 : 23:29:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've heard very little negative commentary about the 5E ruleset, so I'm wondering what all they intend to change. I worry it could be another 3E-4E shift, but even if it is, it doesn't have much impact on me -- I'm playing a AD&D 2E game now, and the last game before that was Pathfinder.
Going just from the PDF that was released, here are some changes that I saw:
• Races don't have attributes attached to them. So they get a slew of features from bonus feats to spell-like abilities when they hit certain levels. Some of these allow multiple use prior to taking a Long rest (see the Ardling, one who's ancestor is from the Upper Planes, so their version of the Aasimar/Deva, that can fly in a limited capacity).
• Attributes are associated with your Background and that's highly customizable. Really, from the PDF it's expected that most people will have custom backgrounds to put the +2 to one stat, +1 to another into their desired spots. They do have suggestions and sample ones - like the Soldier who gets +2 Strength, +1 Constitution or the Acolyte who gets +2 Wisdom, +1 Intelligence.
• Feats have level attachments. So far, the ones in the PDF are all 1st level and they have a Repeatable tag: meaning you can take it multiple times or not. Some of them also have Requirements but so far they all say None. I'm assuming that will change for others.
• The D20 Test. Here's one of the BIG Changes. Basically it describes that Ability Checks, Attacks, and Saves can "crit" or "fail" based on a natural 20 or 1 (respectively). This means should the DM say "You can shoot the moon with your arrow" and ascribe a DC 30 check, the player theoretically could achieve this with a nat. 20. Of course, I think that part is sorta stupid and I don't require checks unless a failure adds something to the game.
• Critical Hits. Another big change shows that only Player Characters can score Critical Hits and only with Weapon and Unarmed Strike attacks. So this means spells that target a monster (like Ray of Frost) have no added effects. It also describes that the "Weapon" damage die is doubled instead of all damage die. This is a HUGE nerf to your Paladin who can drop his smite on a Critical hit and double all the smite damage die.
• Spell Designation Changes. Spells are now either Arcane (accessed by your bards, sorcerers, wizards, warlocks), Divine (paladins and clerics) and Primal (druids and rangers).
• Grappled changed too. Initially it was a Strength Contest by the person trying to escape vs. the person holding him. Now it's a DC set by your Strength modifier + 8 + Proficiency bonus. So if an Orc with a Strength 18 and a +3 Proficiency bonus grapples the Wizard, the Wizard will need to make a Strength (Athletics) DC check of 15 to break free.
Some changes I like. The build your own Background vibes with how 13th Age does Skills, so simply adding where your +2/+1 bonuses go makes sense to me. Also, it sort of stops the meta of "well I'm a wizard so naturally High Elf's +1 Intelligence is a *must*." Instead it can be any race for the right background. An orc who picked up Wizardry in an old abandoned tower or actually applied to a college can work and not screw with stats. I also like the Grappled DC check. Makes things smoother and easier to do and less opposed rolls - which to me takes more time. I also like that Dwarves get Tremorsense with their Stonecunning ability! Also, I like that spells are divine, arcane, or primal (yay 4E-isms)
Some changes I don't like. Monsters not getting Critical Hits. To me, that's kinda dumb. Nat.20 always "wins" is also problematic, if you're in a group that the DM ascribes a d20 roll to really dumb or ridiculous things that make it really...whimsy. Not my cup of tea, but I can easily adjust for that or not include it.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
With their claims of backward compatibility, though, there isn't likely to be a lot of impact (though it does bring those obelisks to mind).
Going from the PDF, most of the stuff is pretty easy to incorporate. I'd say that the races sort of invalidate the PHB ones (such as the normal +1 to all stats Human) but that was already occurring with Tasha's Cauldron of Everything so meh there. I'm going to assume that there will be class changes too as things roll out. But I could take this PDF, add in the Backgrounds/Races and keep everything else in the PHB without little issues.
I felt this thread was useful, so I'm going to respond to it with the things I noticed as I move through it.
On the ability bonuses moving to background, agreed, it does make sense. That being said, the race abilities then even more need to imply certain benefits that match that race. So, for instance dwarves not getting a con bonus ... should have something to show they are hardy. Elves should get something to indicate they're graceful.
Each background gives a feat in addition to the ability score bonuses. Not some barely useful ability, but an actual feat. Hopefully they introduce more and more useful feats.
There are no longer "half" races, like half-elf, half-orc... etc... instead you can pick one race and get its abilities and adapt your appearance to include another race's stuff. It also affects your age. As a result, orc is a standard race.
New race of ardling - a "heavenly" being with some type of animal head. Might be from any of the three "good" alignments and related to various planes.
Dragonborn race - the gem dragon options recently added don't appear there.
High Elves - racial ability that lets them effectively change one of their cantrips every day to another arcane cantrip.
gnomes - forest gnomes get speak with animals a number of times per day equal to proficiency bonus (I think they could talk to burrowing animals before?) in addition to minor illusion. Rock gnomes get mending and prestidigitation (so they can fix things).
Tiefling - your origins varies as demons, devils, yugoloths and varies your appearance. This also drives a type of cantrip that you inherently know (hell sources get fire, abyssal sources poison spray, "underworld" sources chill touch)
will come back to this later.
Looking at the backgrounds section:
Notes I'd change
Farmer - Specifically given the carpenter tool proficiency. I would change this to a much broader range to include weavers, smiths, cooks, brewers, etc..... to represent were they on a sheep farm and spun wool, on a winery, did they make preserves, etc....
gladiator's get smith tools proficiency. I'm not really seeing that and this is where I think having a mold that everything has to follow should break. So, maybe a gladiator doesn't get a specific tool. Maybe they get a weapon proficiency. If they go fighter, yeah, that's useless, but so what. If its a gladiator wizard... well, that proficiency is useful.
Then there's the idea that all these backgrounds give a specific language..... like all guards speak dwarf? I can see giving a selection to choose from in some instances.
Granted, I see where all players can design their own background, so basically just "choose whatever you want and just call it the background you want". But, in that case... is their software going to give the option to build your own background? If not, they should give the option for doing farmers, etc... where you pick other proficiencies for the person who wants to use the software to design their character but may not want carpenter. It would be nice too if they did take into account that not everyone should get a "tool proficiency" or an additional language... and maybe someone else should get an additional language instead... or maybe proficiency with a weapon instead or even something like shield or a specific type of armor proficiency.
That being said, some of the above that I just presented COULD be done via a feat. So, maybe present some "alternative" backgrounds to show how they might be used. For instance, a militant wizard background might get the lightly armored feat. But in order to truly build one out, you should maybe get some other feat as well (for instance like weapon master which grants proficiency with 4 weapons of your choice). Its not an optimum build mind you... and it would be better if you just gave these things out as proficiencies since the feats have some other bonuses.
Still, I'll give them they've got a start of an idea for improving the backgrounds idea. They just need to give a few more options and some way to weigh them out (i.e. if you give up a language or tool proficiency maybe you can learn to use one weapon... or maybe a type of light armor like padded). Maybe if you give up the ability score bonus, you can get an extra feat.
Taking the above ideas into consideration... an idea for an armored spellcaster background... just to try the idea out... might involve
give up ability score improvements - get warcaster feat
give up language proficiency - get 1 weapon proficiency
feat choice - lightly armored
Comparing that to the "sage" concept, which gets you two extra arcane cantrips, a free 1st level spell, and a +2 int and +1 wisdom and a language
|
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 24 Aug 2022 12:21:19 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2022 : 13:02:11
|
In thinking through the above on the developing of backgrounds, and how for a lot of them they just seem to be giving abilities just to give abilities. It would probably be better to just give a set pool of greater and lesser options. Then for each background give one greater and three lesser options, plus 2 skills and a feat. The greater options might include
Greater Options
Ability score improvement a total of +2 to an ability score or +1 to multiple ability scores. Cannot be an ability score improved with a lesser option
Feat
Lesser Options
Ability score improvement a total of +1 to an ability score. Cannot be an ability score improved with a lesser or greater option
single weapon proficiency
language
tool proficiency
Then after these are chosen, a feat and two skills are chosen. If someone wants additional skills, they can take the skilled feat. Trying to break the option I just threw out, someone decides to use their "greater option" to buy the skilled feat... and as their feat choice as well, they take the skilled feat.... then they also get two skills. So, in that instance their background would give them 8 skills. If they're human, they get a bonus skill PLUS they could ALSO take the skilled feat. So, up to 12 skills now. Then their class likely gives them two skills. So, 14 skills. Then they choose to be a fighter..... Hmmm, even if they don't use this idea of replacing the ablity scores, with rules as written they could be getting 11 of the 18 skills just by being a human with a background that gives the skilled feat. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 24 Aug 2022 13:21:10 |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
|
|
PattPlays
Senior Scribe
469 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 09:54:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates.
Games as a service.  |
:The world's greatest OOTA fan/critic: :"Powder kegs within powder kegs!": :Meta-Dimensional Cheese: :Why is the Wand of Orcus just back?: :We still don't know the nature of Souls and the Positive Energy Plane: :PC on profile, Aldritch Elpyptrat Maxinfield: :Helljumpers, Bungie.net: :Rock Hard Gladiator, RIP Fluidanim, Long Live Pluto: :IRC lives:
https://thisisstorytelling.wordpress.com
T_P_T |
|
|
|
Kilamandaros
Acolyte
United Kingdom
20 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 15:34:03
|
I'm actually very positive about this change, it essentially means the hundreds and hundreds worth of books we've bought won't suddenly become obsolete over night and you can still use spells, monster stats etc. from all the 1st and 3rd party content that exists for 5e with minimal updating needed.
Yes, there are some utterly stupid design decisions in what they've shown so far (nat 20s don't count for spellcasters...what?) but it's good they're doing it as a beta with the opportunity for us to get them to change these decisions.
What I'm less optimistic about is the place of Forgotten Realms in 1st party content going forward. It's very clear over the last year they've moved further and further away from FR as the poster child for 5E. I think it is more likely to be setting agnostic or with the huge CR fanbase now dominating the playerbase, Tal'Dorei will be the new poster child. It pains me to say but I suspect we'll be lucky to even get another SCAG, especially after how poorly the 2 FR MTG sets have performed (unfortunate as this is purely down to lack of card quality and power, nothing to do with the setting).
At least we will still have DMs Guild! |
"It is you, after all, which has brought us to the dream. Nothing is real. Yet." |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 15:53:10
|
To be honest the main takeaway I had about the announcement video I've seen is that they are going to build an app which will make running handmade dungeons much easier and I'm in a position now where all of my gaming with my static group is done online (we are and will be in 3 different countries).
So if they make that work and I can get to make actually usable 3D maps and encounters for my buddies, that has got my attention (I know I will be disappointed but I'm thinking back to the days of my youth of customised Age of Empire maps with trigger events and everything).
Not caring much about the rules per se as I really don't have the time to cram another system into my brain (as I already have several different RPGs and setting taking up too much memory space). |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 17:12:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
I'm actually very positive about this change, it essentially means the hundreds and hundreds worth of books we've bought won't suddenly become obsolete over night and you can still use spells, monster stats etc. from all the 1st and 3rd party content that exists for 5e with minimal updating needed.
Yes, there are some utterly stupid design decisions in what they've shown so far (nat 20s don't count for spellcasters...what?) but it's good they're doing it as a beta with the opportunity for us to get them to change these decisions.
What I'm less optimistic about is the place of Forgotten Realms in 1st party content going forward. It's very clear over the last year they've moved further and further away from FR as the poster child for 5E. I think it is more likely to be setting agnostic or with the huge CR fanbase now dominating the playerbase, Tal'Dorei will be the new poster child. It pains me to say but I suspect we'll be lucky to even get another SCAG, especially after how poorly the 2 FR MTG sets have performed (unfortunate as this is purely down to lack of card quality and power, nothing to do with the setting).
At least we will still have DMs Guild!
They can't use Tal'Dorei since they don't own the rights to it. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 17:12:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
What I'm less optimistic about is the place of Forgotten Realms in 1st party content going forward. It's very clear over the last year they've moved further and further away from FR as the poster child for 5E. I think it is more likely to be setting agnostic or with the huge CR fanbase now dominating the playerbase, Tal'Dorei will be the new poster child. It pains me to say but I suspect we'll be lucky to even get another SCAG, especially after how poorly the 2 FR MTG sets have performed (unfortunate as this is purely down to lack of card quality and power, nothing to do with the setting).
Whereas I am ecstatic over the possibility of WOTC dropping The Forgotten Realms as D&D's default/standard setting. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Kilamandaros
Acolyte
United Kingdom
20 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 17:47:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
I'm actually very positive about this change, it essentially means the hundreds and hundreds worth of books we've bought won't suddenly become obsolete over night and you can still use spells, monster stats etc. from all the 1st and 3rd party content that exists for 5e with minimal updating needed.
Yes, there are some utterly stupid design decisions in what they've shown so far (nat 20s don't count for spellcasters...what?) but it's good they're doing it as a beta with the opportunity for us to get them to change these decisions.
What I'm less optimistic about is the place of Forgotten Realms in 1st party content going forward. It's very clear over the last year they've moved further and further away from FR as the poster child for 5E. I think it is more likely to be setting agnostic or with the huge CR fanbase now dominating the playerbase, Tal'Dorei will be the new poster child. It pains me to say but I suspect we'll be lucky to even get another SCAG, especially after how poorly the 2 FR MTG sets have performed (unfortunate as this is purely down to lack of card quality and power, nothing to do with the setting).
At least we will still have DMs Guild!
They can't use Tal'Dorei since they don't own the rights to it.
A blank cheque from WotC to CR would probably change that!
I hope I'm very wrong, I enjoy CR but I find the Tal'Dorei setting very bland compared to FR. I've found the players who tend to play in it are such huge fanboys/girls that if your DMing style isn't very close to Matt Mercer's then they complain. The Matt Mercer effect is no myth unfortunately! |
"It is you, after all, which has brought us to the dream. Nothing is real. Yet." |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 19:32:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by PattPlays
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates.
Games as a service.
GaaS ----- sounds like a lot of flatulence. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 20:34:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by PattPlays
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
The main premise behind One D&D is to get away from "editions" and instead have a basic rule set that can be updated as time goes on by specific book releases. Patches instead of updates.
Games as a service.
Maybe it's because I'm in IT, but I see merit in that approach.
What I don't like, however, is that WotC's setup is that you're either on the internet or you've got a stack of books. While I have and will always cherish material in dead tree format, I also love and see the value in having pdfs handy.
Having worked for companies that block access to gaming sites, I'm not down with WotC's approach. I've got a huge library of gaming pdfs, and I like having access to them whenever and wherever. (My workplace is quite paranoid about removable media -- but only in regards to writing to it. They're quite relaxed about reading from it, so long as you're not writing to it) |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2022 : 21:33:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
I'm actually very positive about this change, it essentially means the hundreds and hundreds worth of books we've bought won't suddenly become obsolete over night and you can still use spells, monster stats etc. from all the 1st and 3rd party content that exists for 5e with minimal updating needed.
Yes, there are some utterly stupid design decisions in what they've shown so far (nat 20s don't count for spellcasters...what?) but it's good they're doing it as a beta with the opportunity for us to get them to change these decisions.
What I'm less optimistic about is the place of Forgotten Realms in 1st party content going forward. It's very clear over the last year they've moved further and further away from FR as the poster child for 5E. I think it is more likely to be setting agnostic or with the huge CR fanbase now dominating the playerbase, Tal'Dorei will be the new poster child. It pains me to say but I suspect we'll be lucky to even get another SCAG, especially after how poorly the 2 FR MTG sets have performed (unfortunate as this is purely down to lack of card quality and power, nothing to do with the setting).
At least we will still have DMs Guild!
They can't use Tal'Dorei since they don't own the rights to it.
A blank cheque from WotC to CR would probably change that!
I hope I'm very wrong, I enjoy CR but I find the Tal'Dorei setting very bland compared to FR. I've found the players who tend to play in it are such huge fanboys/girls that if your DMing style isn't very close to Matt Mercer's then they complain. The Matt Mercer effect is no myth unfortunately!
Blank cheque wouldn't mean anything. CR currently has the rights to Tal'Dorei and they are producing novels, comic books, gaming books, and a little cartoon you may have heard of. They went from taping their hobbies while working as actors to being able to pay themselves to play. No matter what WotC would offer, it can't be more than the millions of dollars they are already making.
Hell, they are even cameoing in the D&D movie along with the kids from the 80's cartoon. If Critical Role wanted to by D&D, I'm pretty sure they could and Hasbro wouldn't even blink. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Kilamandaros
Acolyte
United Kingdom
20 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2022 : 00:39:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
They can't use Tal'Dorei since they don't own the rights to it.
A blank cheque from WotC to CR would probably change that!
I hope I'm very wrong, I enjoy CR but I find the Tal'Dorei setting very bland compared to FR. I've found the players who tend to play in it are such huge fanboys/girls that if your DMing style isn't very close to Matt Mercer's then they complain. The Matt Mercer effect is no myth unfortunately!
Blank cheque wouldn't mean anything. CR currently has the rights to Tal'Dorei and they are producing novels, comic books, gaming books, and a little cartoon you may have heard of. They went from taping their hobbies while working as actors to being able to pay themselves to play. No matter what WotC would offer, it can't be more than the millions of dollars they are already making.
Hell, they are even cameoing in the D&D movie along with the kids from the 80's cartoon. If Critical Role wanted to by D&D, I'm pretty sure they could and Hasbro wouldn't even blink.
I'm not sure you've got your figures right, don't get me wrong yes Critical Role makes millions - Wizards of the Coast made over 1.3 billion for Hasbro last year. They're really not in the same league in terms of business scale. |
"It is you, after all, which has brought us to the dream. Nothing is real. Yet." |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2022 : 02:21:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Kilamandaros
They can't use Tal'Dorei since they don't own the rights to it.
A blank cheque from WotC to CR would probably change that!
I hope I'm very wrong, I enjoy CR but I find the Tal'Dorei setting very bland compared to FR. I've found the players who tend to play in it are such huge fanboys/girls that if your DMing style isn't very close to Matt Mercer's then they complain. The Matt Mercer effect is no myth unfortunately!
Blank cheque wouldn't mean anything. CR currently has the rights to Tal'Dorei and they are producing novels, comic books, gaming books, and a little cartoon you may have heard of. They went from taping their hobbies while working as actors to being able to pay themselves to play. No matter what WotC would offer, it can't be more than the millions of dollars they are already making.
Hell, they are even cameoing in the D&D movie along with the kids from the 80's cartoon. If Critical Role wanted to by D&D, I'm pretty sure they could and Hasbro wouldn't even blink.
I'm not sure you've got your figures right, don't get me wrong yes Critical Role makes millions - Wizards of the Coast made over 1.3 billion for Hasbro last year. They're really not in the same league in terms of business scale.
It's not just about scale. It's about them creating a product, one that they put a lot of time, energy, and their own love into and it turned out to be profitable. I'm pretty sure the only reason they still use 5E is simply because it's the most modular for what they want and D&D Beyond keeps sponsoring them (i.e. free use of the software). |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
Edited by - Ashe Ravenheart on 26 Aug 2022 02:29:00 |
|
|
|
Kilamandaros
Acolyte
United Kingdom
20 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2022 : 11:12:28
|
| Absolutely, I'm not arguing they haven't done extremely well for themselves, I've watched it since they were just a random stream on Geek & Sundry (funnily enough I actually prefer that to the super polished non-live show of today). They are smart business people and it's definitely become a business now instead of just friends making a live stream. Matt is also heavily involved in 5e design and already has two officially licensed 5e books (Explorer's guide and Call of the Netherdeep). My guess if WotC/Hasbro came in with a big offer to buy the whole setting and get Matt to produce & promote Tal'Dorei as the poster setting of D&D One it would happen, but of course it's just speculation. |
"It is you, after all, which has brought us to the dream. Nothing is real. Yet." |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 27 Aug 2022 : 21:38:30
|
| I have never been able to understand the fascination of watching other people play... whether its roleplaying games or video games. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2022 : 01:25:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I have never been able to understand the fascination of watching other people play... whether its roleplaying games or video games.
It's a foreign concept to me, as well. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2022 : 01:35:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I have never been able to understand the fascination of watching other people play... whether its roleplaying games or video games.
It's a foreign concept to me, as well.
I can understand the appeal if you intend to improve your own game. Learn new moves and strategies and tactics, learn how to play your thing stronger, learn how others will play against it, learn what sorts of things other players and teams tend to prefer.
Competitors and professionals do this all the time, whether they do chess or hockey or boxing or poker or Starcraft.
You can improve your own roleplaying and playstyle by actively interacting, but not so much by passively watching. So I, too, don't really understand the popular appeal of these entertainments. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2022 : 04:22:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I have never been able to understand the fascination of watching other people play... whether its roleplaying games or video games.
It's a foreign concept to me, as well.
I can understand the appeal if you intend to improve your own game. Learn new moves and strategies and tactics, learn how to play your thing stronger, learn how others will play against it, learn what sorts of things other players and teams tend to prefer.
Competitors and professionals do this all the time, whether they do chess or hockey or boxing or poker or Starcraft.
You can improve your own roleplaying and playstyle by actively interacting, but not so much by passively watching. So I, too, don't really understand the popular appeal of these entertainments.
The last word there: entertainments
Just like it's fun to swap stories of what you did at your table at cons, it's just as fun to watch others tell their story. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. But it's always entertaining to watch. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
Posted - 28 Aug 2022 : 19:52:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I have never been able to understand the fascination of watching other people play... whether its roleplaying games or video games.
It's a foreign concept to me, as well.
I can understand the appeal if you intend to improve your own game. Learn new moves and strategies and tactics, learn how to play your thing stronger, learn how others will play against it, learn what sorts of things other players and teams tend to prefer.
Competitors and professionals do this all the time, whether they do chess or hockey or boxing or poker or Starcraft.
You can improve your own roleplaying and playstyle by actively interacting, but not so much by passively watching. So I, too, don't really understand the popular appeal of these entertainments.
The last word there: entertainments
Just like it's fun to swap stories of what you did at your table at cons, it's just as fun to watch others tell their story. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. But it's always entertaining to watch.
Got another term for it, and please understand I'm just stating how I've felt in watching people do roleplaying shows at night.... boring to me. I find anything else more entertaining. I guess because I'm used to roleplaying myself. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"One D&D" is coming
