LordofHats wrote: So I picked up Odyssey of the Dragonlords cause I want to run a Theros style Greek adventure but the Theros book doesn't have one really and I hoped to canabalize.
Not sure I'm gonna do that now.
Has anyone played this? I know someone was asking about 3rd party adventure modules a bit back. Right now the book is kind of blowing me away, especially in comparison to the official campaigns published by Wizards.
I've honestly heard nothing but bad things about it.
Hard railroad, terrible DMPCs, awful boss monsters that break most of the rules (and a few that aren't beatable without DM fiat/ massive editing of the adventure), and lots of solutions that basically can't be gleaned if the players haven't read the book.
And the setting details read as gibberish, basically making even less sense than a Doctor Who/Dragonlance crossover fanfic with He-Man and the worst elements of Americanized versions of Greek myth.
Hard railroad, terrible DMPCs, awful boss monsters that break most of the rules (and a few that aren't beatable without DM fiat/ massive editing of the adventure), and lots of solutions that basically can't be gleaned if the players haven't read the book.
And the setting details read as gibberish, basically making even less sense than a Doctor Who/Dragonlance crossover fanfic with He-Man and the worst elements of Americanized versions of Greek myth.
I can see the railroading with some of the stuff but it looks like a lot of that can be left out (or kept in and run, if the group wants to do it that way). In a way railroading doesn't feel out of place in a quasi-Greek setting. Fate and gak is a thing and I don't see anything that can't be glossed over by a good DM to cover the rails well. Leaving out the Epic paths, the book doesn't look any more railroady than any standard published campaign. Keeping them feels like it would force a certain amount of rail roading though.
There is definitely a lack of tools for arranging combats though. There's no guide to the book for what level players should be for what content and some of the combats seem designed with 'run away' being an option? Not sure. That part of the book is definitely messy. I'd also say the tone is a bit all over. Some parts are clearly humorous in a tongue-in-cheek way that seems to clash with other parts.
Hard disagree about the setting details though. The setting is honestly maybe the best part of the book. It's pretty good. It's basically someone smashed Dragonlance and Clash of the Titans together and this is what you get and I have to say it's not bad. I'd play a campaign in the setting. The in-book race options are all OP, but not more OP than the best official options. The sub-classes are hit and miss. Some are just lazy. Some are outright broken. Can't lie though, the Wizard subclass is pretty freaky cool. Wizard philosopher? Hell yes, great idea. Haven't gotten to any of the NPCs, though I noticed that most of them fit certain cliche archetypes.
porkuslime wrote: Blowing you away in this case meaning WOW this is SO much better?
Mostly in terms of how much work clearly went into it. Better? Hmm. A lot of the official campaign modules, especially those of the last few years, have felt kind of half-hearted/assed in a lot of ways. Part of what blows me away here is that someone bothered to actually put together a full level 1-maybe 20 adventure with a main campaign and lots of extra bits. There was a lot of work put into this thing. Is it all good? Just at a glance I can say no, but there's some cool gak too.
So, session 28 or so of Curse of Strahd, and we might finally be starting to get somewhere.... maybe. Still, at the rate my group is going; it is going to take us another 6 months or so.
I honestly did not expect it to take this long when I signed up, and am starting to get campaign fatigue!
Easy E wrote: So, session 28 or so of Curse of Strahd, and we might finally be starting to get somewhere.... maybe. Still, at the rate my group is going; it is going to take us another 6 months or so.
I honestly did not expect it to take this long when I signed up, and am starting to get campaign fatigue!
On session weekly for 3 hours in person. Outside of the session, we do not talk D&D.
However, I am finding that we are sticking to a lot of tropes of D&D about travel, resources, time, NPC interaction, etc that is really bogging down the game for me.
I despise random encounters as a waste of time. Travel between plot points is killing me. RPing pointless NPC interaction is getting on my nerves. Setting and narrating every PCs watch even when nothing happens is sucking away my soul. Each person's dreams being RPed and narrated is driving me bonkers!
However, I get the impression these are the methods they have always done things with the group I am part of, so I don't want to rock the boat too much. Everyone seems to be having fun, and I am having fun; but I can feel the fatigue starting to set in as I just want to get on with it!
It never hurts to bring it up with the DM. Even if this is how they generally do things and the rest of the group is fine with it, at least letting them know might a) prompt them to maybe reign it in a bit and b) make them aware of the things that bore you a bit, so they might start to throw you more of what you do enjoy to balance it out. Past that, a talk with the group might be awkward, but it could be that some of them have similar misgivings and are being equally quiet about it. If it's actively affecting your engagement with the game nearly 30 sessions in, it's possible and perhaps even likely you're not alone there.
For the record, I'm 100% with you on this. Gameplay that isn't relevant to the narrative and characters is just frustrating to me. Everything that happens should be designed to create tension, drama or peril and the things that don't are just not relevant for me. I'll narrate over days of uneventful travel or restocking on supplies in just a few seconds, because that's really not what I'm here for. Sure, if the players specifically ask the shopkeep for local information or the barman for rumours, that can become an RP moment, but if they're just resupplying or booking tavern rooms, I just have no time for that sort of pointless admin being strung out longer than necessary. Ditto for watches, I try to only call on them when there's actually a chance of something happening or being noticed, or if players expressly want to do something during that time. Otherwise, it's just a quick line or two and a confimation that everyone gets to click the Long Rest button.
I've just started a new game with a new group and one of them seems very into the logisical side of it, so I imagine they may not enjoy it when I get to my first 'Peter Jackson montage' and skip over a few days of travel where nothing happens. but we shall see. As DM, I see myself essentially as a director, and as such, my interest is in moving from scene to scene in as effective a way as possible. When part of the session is a life-and-death back alley brawl and the other half is a high-stakes meeting with the local baron, I'm not wanting to play out a scene in between where the players stop a random dwarf in the street for directions and get into a discussion about his beard care routine, or ask a local farmer how his crops are doing and get invited for tea; if this were a show or film, no one would watch those moments with any interest, and thus, I skip over them where possible.
Yeah, I definitely definitely feel that. I much prefer the 'we are showing the important bits' style and as much as I love just chatting in character, having to roleplay through doing something inane like manage watches or such if theres no underlying point to it is unbearable.
Depends on the style of game. All the watches and such matters if there is actual risk and danger.
Dnd has mostly moved away from its hex crawl roots where wandering encounters, resource depletion, etc etc... All that really mattered. So now people some times go through the motions but without any of the risks or consequence which turns it into minutia.
How often do players deplete their rations while traveling? How often do they go looking for fresh water? What are the actual consequences for not?
The biggest thing in this game is that we may not get a "Long Rest" if we are interrupted by a random encounter that will deplete our resources and weaken us for the next fight.
However, that is an element of gamey-ness that I personally do not appreciate in D&D. If I wanted to play resource management, there are way better games for that. However, it does harken back to D&D's roots, even if I feel the genre of RPGs have moved away from that model.
Some have. Some are invested in it. DnD tries to do it some times (tomb of annihilation) to various degrees of success.
I was just noting that the needing resources and preparation isn't inherently a bad thing. Its dnds current lack of consequence that has turned it into a time wasting bunch of faffing about.
My soft houserule for Long Rests being interrupted is that when an event prompts characters into doing something brief during the 8-ish hour period, I let them complete the remaining time so long as they're not actively doing anything for more than, say, half an hour or so.
If a bunch of Goblins attacks you in the night, and you fight them off in 4 rounds, that's less than a minute of action even with my more generous assumption of turn length (I don't stick to a hard-and-fast 'every round is precisely 6 seconds'). After that brief exertion, if you want to pick up your camp and move a mile or two away to prevent further ambush, fine, you forfiet the benefits of the rest and have to start over, but if you decide to stay put then within reason the rest isn't going to take much longer than it initually would.
I did have a scenario come up last week where, 6 hours into an 8 hour rest, an Elf character who had already completed their Trance rest got knocked out and revived on 3HP in a combat at the camp. There, I gave everyone the option of extending the rest by another 2 hours (ie. everyone gets a Long Rest, with the Elf completing their second Trance of 4 hours) or not, as while the rules technically say something about not benefiting from a Long Rest more than once every 24 hours, at the end of the day going into the next part of the session with most of the party at full strength and that one player at 3HP and half spells just isn't that fun. Doubly so as the Elf trance feature is meant to be a benefit, rather than the strange hindrance it would have been here.
I'm big on consequence for roleplaying, much less so for consequence based on weird rules interactions or micro-managing logistics.
I'm big on consequence for roleplaying, much less so for consequence based on weird rules interactions or micro-managing logistics.
^this.
If "how are we going to manage our resources" is part of the dramatic tension of the story we're trying to tell at this point, then we bring it in and make use of it, and do a bit of quick roleplay to determine who will be doing what and what the consequences of that will be. When we're traveling through an area that makes resource management important, we introduce a mechanic to determine how this will reduce our effectiveness in combat - for example, if we decide that while we cross a desert, my druid will be using create water to keep people hydrated, our ranger will be in charge of keeping our directions and making shelters and the sand will affect our construct party member's body, we mark down that we will be entering the next area with x fewer spell slots, y character at some level of exhaustion, and z character with lowered movement speed.
Lance845 wrote: Some have. Some are invested in it. DnD tries to do it some times (tomb of annihilation) to various degrees of success.
I was just noting that the needing resources and preparation isn't inherently a bad thing. Its dnds current lack of consequence that has turned it into a time wasting bunch of faffing about.
Part of the big problem with the current 'Long Rest' model in D&D is it becomes very binary, and the biggest effect of it is that most/many character classes lose their ability to really contribute because they can't get their resources back (or fear they can't).
This leads to one of several scenarios:
a) the group plays hyper-cautious, which gets boring (and possibly they refuse to consider any activities that might involve a soft timer of some sort). They also shy away from doing cool stuff with their class abilities for fear they won't get it back when they need it.
b) the group exploits the hell out of the rest mechanics.
c) the group overextends and it turns into multiple deaths or even a TPK, because if nothing else, all (non-consumable item) healing is tied to rests. If the group gets interrupted a lot, it rather rightfully feels adversarial on the DM's (not the monsters) part.
Adventure fails/ends because you were tapped out at room #3 just feels bad.
---
To make it worse, a small number of classes don't care about long rests so much (warlock and fighter, and warlock is on a really short stick for a long time, 2 spell slots until level...11???), and can really push for an otherwise exhausted party to get in over their heads. There's something to be said for different kinds of resource management, but the current model is frustrating. And they are somewhat shifting it to per day uses = proficiency bonus (or 2x prof), or a payment mechanic (ki, spell slots) to recharge instead of rests, but not changing it for existing subclasses and they're really inconsistent about it overall.
D&D is in it's roots a simulationist style of game. It's for simulating a fantasy world, rather than for telling stories. The rules don't really do anything to simulate narrative structures, there are a lot of games that do that a lot better, like Blades in the Dark or FATE or whatever.
I play D&D to be immersed in or to create an immersive fantasy world. Some element of resources being important is required for my immersion. I don't try to tell a story with my games, I try to "see what will happen" in a world I have created or a world I am adventuring in. And then later on I'll tell the story of "what happened", whatever it was. In that sense, systems for random events while travelling are good, because they help to simulate a complex world with a lot of things going on.
Of course, these sorts of things have to be used carefully, and when used poorly can produce an unfun or tedious experience. My solution to that would be to go back to the world design phase and design a less tedious world with more interesting things happening in it.
But also, I do recommend people who play D&D but find resource management tiresome to check out games designed with them in mind, because it's likely to be a rewarding experience.
This was actually my main problem with the advice in the 4e DMG, they kept saying "skip to the fun", and what they meant was dramatic scenes and combat. But that's telling me what I find fun, and saying that I don't find navigating a fantasy world and managing my resources fun. I do find that fun, so don't skip it!
Easy E wrote: On session weekly for 3 hours in person. Outside of the session, we do not talk D&D.
However, I am finding that we are sticking to a lot of tropes of D&D about travel, resources, time, NPC interaction, etc that is really bogging down the game for me.
I despise random encounters as a waste of time. Travel between plot points is killing me. RPing pointless NPC interaction is getting on my nerves. Setting and narrating every PCs watch even when nothing happens is sucking away my soul. Each person's dreams being RPed and narrated is driving me bonkers!
However, I get the impression these are the methods they have always done things with the group I am part of, so I don't want to rock the boat too much. Everyone seems to be having fun, and I am having fun; but I can feel the fatigue starting to set in as I just want to get on with it!
Any thoughts on how to handle this?
I started Curse of Strahd when it first came out and abandoned it after a few sessions, pretty much for the reasons you stated. Since then I have run the entirety of Out of the Abyss (OotA) and learned a lot about running campaigns, in particular with the official module. The main thing to keep in mind is that it's still your world. You call the shots. Your party will not care what is official and what is homebrew material if it's engaging. In OotA I routinely cut out sections and NPCs I thought were unnecessary or slowed things down. Sometimes I rolled them into existing characters. A few times I wrote entirely new sections that were not in the book at all (looking at you, Blingdenstone...). I also filled out the Menzoberranzan chapter a lot to fit in adventures related to their backstories.
I completely disposed of random encounters. I despise these as a mechanic. If there isn't a reason for the baddies to be there for the story then they're gone. However, it is perfectly acceptable to use them to grind down your hero's for a tougher boss fight, alter the atmosphere in a dungeon, or because you want to try out your own custom monster in a certain environment. As long as it contributes to the story you're trying to tell! However however my players didn't actually mind them. A lot of the things that rubbed me the wrong way as a DM, the players were totally chill with.
Knowing what I do now I will probably try to go back to Stahdovania or Baronia or whatever magical mistovakia it's called at some point.
Also IIRC whenever Strahd is killed the campaign is over. If you can think of a convenient way for your party to nab that last artifact and get to castle then you're theoretically only a few sessions from ending it. But hoo boy I remember the section on Castle Ravenloft being quite daunting. Then get to homebrewing your next adventure!!
But also, I do recommend people who play D&D but find resource management tiresome to check out games designed with them in mind, because it's likely to be a rewarding experience.
I would love to, but for some reason once you learn how to play D&D, people are loathe to move on or try others. I find this is true for a few reasons:
1. It is not easy to learn D&D and its associated rules and tropes. They want to use that knowledge.
2. After learning D&D, they think ALRPGs have that steep curve and do not want to go up the curve again.
3. They have system mastery and that is comfortable, it is hard to get out of your comfort zone for leisure activities.
4. When they try other games, the "lessons" they learned in D&D do not apply, and this can feel dissatisfying
Yeah, it certainly seems pretty common. Back when I started playing we played lots of different kinds of games so it seems less weird to me to switch systems. That said I really like d&d and what it does, and it's the game I play most of the time. We've been playing a high lethality megadungeon campaign for nearly 2 years, I'm up to my 5th character (though number 4 is still alive, the high lethality has lead to us running a stable of active characters so that we don't have to start from scratch in the event of a tpk. We run them as A team and B team, but A team has been wiped or reduced to one member more than once and the previous B team promoted and a new B team formed). I think if you're running something like this D&D 5e is pretty perfect.
But also, I do recommend people who play D&D but find resource management tiresome to check out games designed with them in mind, because it's likely to be a rewarding experience.
I would love to, but for some reason once you learn how to play D&D, people are loathe to move on or try others. I find this is true for a few reasons:
1. It is not easy to learn D&D and its associated rules and tropes. They want to use that knowledge.
2. After learning D&D, they think ALRPGs have that steep curve and do not want to go up the curve again.
3. They have system mastery and that is comfortable, it is hard to get out of your comfort zone for leisure activities.
4. When they try other games, the "lessons" they learned in D&D do not apply, and this can feel dissatisfying
At least, that is what I have experienced.
I do find conversely that with RPGs that have a less steep learning curve there is a little bit too shallow of a pond to commit to a super long running campaign.with dnd there is at least the perception of near-infinite growth and new things..even if those new things are just the same old things with bigger names and more impressive descriptions
Also its kind of the kleenex of RPG systems, and people who are loathe to switch from dnd often just dont like the rules side of RPGs in general, so even if say pathfinder were easier to pick up they dont care about that anyway.
I can get people into Fate or PBTA super super super fast, but they tend to fall off them a lot quicker than dnd campaigns. I'm hopeful that the upcoming avatar RPG has enough meat on its bones to allow for more progression than the usual PBTA setup, because its got just eeeeeeeeeverything I want in a core gameplay resolution system.
We are all getting our ass-handed to us by a killer tree and some sort of shade thing; which do not appear to be aligned, but are wailing on us anyway. I think my character has been reduced to 0 HP like 3 times in last week's battle, but to be fair I started by doing something pretty aggressive and paid the price.
At the end of the last session, one of our 5th level characters also got hit with a disintegration spell.
Well, we almost had a TPK and only some magical shenanigans (and possibly some DM fudging) allowed us to escape. Only 1 party member disintegrated. The rest of us are close to 0 HP or have been revived from 0 a couple times all ready. Pretty spent resource wise.
.... and then Strahd showed up in the close of the last session, hell bent on reclaiming the Tome of Strahd which is in our possession.
Easy E wrote: How often do you intersperse One-Shots or similar diversions into your long running campaigns?
Usually board games when someone is out, though we did have a side-game based on the old Tower of Doom / Shadow over Mystara arcade games when we knew someone was going to be missing a number of on/off weeks.
We also tried a little In Nomine as a backup game as there were next to no mechanics to remember, players being mis-leveled didn't really matter, and short 'slice of life' games don't need much setup or motivation to get the angels involved or have any large scale lasting concequences of success or failure.
And your Ravenloft game reminds me of why I took a hexblade (3e) the last time I was invited to play in the setting :p
So, I'm playing a necromancer (Wiz7) in our current Strahd game, and I'm finding the sub-class to be... lackluster. By the time I can animate dead, the animated servants are functionally useless, even with my necromancer buffs. I can dish out a ton of damage... as long as I use Evocation spells. My Necromancy spells are effective at debuffing some things, but not the undead, which it seems like a necromancer should be capable of handling preferentially.
It is pretty lackluster. I've seen many try necromancer of the years I've now played. I've rarely seen anyone feel satisfied by it. Many of the Wizard subclasses in general honestly feel meh to me. Most of the fantasy for the class really just comes from the base class itself.
I'd suggest switching to a Warlock if you can. Pact of the Chain, Undead Patron. You'll have less ability to unleash a skeleton army, but you'll feel more like a master of necromantic power/a lich.
Another option is the Circle of Spores Druid, who is basically a Druid Necromancer. Mechanically, they can get an army of minions going, but it takes a DM willing to go along with it in a lot of ways cause the mechanics are a bit wonky.
The shortcut is to just treat minions as a horde. The way several of the summons are written (especially the druid summons) are so annoying. It's easier to just toss what the spell actually says and throw down a 'horde of woodland critters and such. Horde of skeletons. Etc. That way you can treat the summons as a single entity, which makes the action economy and pace of the game easier to manage.
Easy E wrote: Some folks were out, so we played a One-Shot. It was a nice palette cleanser to play something different.
How often do you intersperse One-Shots or similar diversions into your long running campaigns?
Pretty often. We've created a whole ton of super gonzo zany custom level 2 characters with very very loose character creation rules and we tend to use one shots to run those characters.
My favorite is a hexblade warlock with every ability description reworded to create the character of Pippa Gumstocking, Suspiciously Happy-Go-Lucky Orphan Gal.
LordofHats wrote: It is pretty lackluster. I've seen many try necromancer of the years I've now played. I've rarely seen anyone feel satisfied by it. Many of the Wizard subclasses in general honestly feel meh to me. Most of the fantasy for the class really just comes from the base class itself.
I'd suggest switching to a Warlock if you can. Pact of the Chain, Undead Patron. You'll have less ability to unleash a skeleton army, but you'll feel more like a master of necromantic power/a lich.
Another option is the Circle of Spores Druid, who is basically a Druid Necromancer. Mechanically, they can get an army of minions going, but it takes a DM willing to go along with it in a lot of ways cause the mechanics are a bit wonky.
Thanks for the suggestions! I talked it out with my DM, and we're going to homebrew an Artificer sub-class based on the Arcane Defender. I'll let you all know how it goes: we play again this Sunday.
Just curious if anyone is against "counts as" characters. Basically, you use the existing rules as written for something that doesn't belong in the setting as established. For example, you're a cyborg from a scifi setting who somehow got teleported to this fantasy world and you're using a warforged artificer to simulate the tech. Nothing different in the rules but rather just how they're reflected in the game.
I'm doing pretty much that at the moment, using the Bugbear race from Volo's Guide to play as an Ogre. Aside from counting the character as Large (with the mini on a 50mm base) the rest of it is being used as written, with the bonus to carry capacity and the 5ft extra reach just representing the larger stature and the ambusher rule reflavoured as a character trait specific to him rather than a racial tendency (he's a Barb/Rogue, attacks from stealth as hard and fast as possible). It definitely works, only thing I had to actually change/justify was the Languages he spoke, so we just swapped out Goblin for Giant and it all worked fine, without the faff of having to go full homebrew.
Counts as characters I think are fine. Sometimes a class fits what you want mechanically but is the wrong 'class idenity' or theme or whatever. Reflavoring rules isn't that much of a challenge.
warboss wrote: Just curious if anyone is against "counts as" characters. Basically, you use the existing rules as written for something that doesn't belong in the setting as established. For example, you're a cyborg from a scifi setting who somehow got teleported to this fantasy world and you're using a warforged artificer to simulate the tech. Nothing different in the rules but rather just how they're reflected in the game.
It usually depends on where the player plans on going with it.
I had one player who wanted to come from a high magic background in a mid-magic setting game, which was fine until they kept wanting to call in their multiple high-level relatives to solve their problems.
Similarly for the cyborg - it's one thing to be an odd metal man that fell from the sky with only vague memories of their past, it's another if they start scouting out suitable materials for a plasma reactor to power their starport.
A.T. wrote: Similarly for the cyborg - it's one thing to be an odd metal man that fell from the sky with only vague memories of their past, it's another if they start scouting out suitable materials for a plasma reactor to power their starport.
I'm sure to some that are opposed to the idea completely (which is a reasonable stance) that I'm splitting hairs but that's not what I was talking about. That's not using the rules as written and beyond the scope of both the setting and game. In my cyborg example, the character may end up searching for suitable materials for a plasma reactor to power his dormant plasma weaponry built into his body instead... which in game would be represented by the character taking fire spells in his artificer class and casting them when "firing".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: I'm doing pretty much that at the moment, using the Bugbear race from Volo's Guide to play as an Ogre. Aside from counting the character as Large (with the mini on a 50mm base) the rest of it is being used as written, with the bonus to carry capacity and the 5ft extra reach just representing the larger stature and the ambusher rule reflavoured as a character trait specific to him rather than a racial tendency (he's a Barb/Rogue, attacks from stealth as hard and fast as possible). It definitely works, only thing I had to actually change/justify was the Languages he spoke, so we just swapped out Goblin for Giant and it all worked fine, without the faff of having to go full homebrew.
Other than the change in size, I'd say that's a pretty cool use. I suppose you could just use the "powerful build" class ability to count for that as well while still staying technically medium (using a half ogre instead as the background for the character).
warboss wrote: Just curious if anyone is against "counts as" characters.
I love this idea. I should also note that I prefer players roll stats 3d6 in order with no substitutions. So, in a way, all characters count-as using that methodology. If someone, looking at their characters stats rolled up like that, worked out that the PC made sense as some kind of warbot from a sci fi setting, I would be totally stoked.
I'm glad that someone other than me is open to the idea of flavor based "counts as" using the existing rules as written. Honestly, I was expecting a bit more pushback.
Using different monster stat blocks is a good way to throw players off. Take a young red dragon and call it some kind of mutant fire breathing troll. The players think its a really unique monster they are fighting. They don't need to know it's that easy to mix things up for a "unique" encounter.
Need a tough goblin chieftain? Give it orc stats and call it a goblin.
Congrats Easy E! I'm glad that your group has finally made some progress
@Warboss: I'm not against "counts as" either. I think each group and DM is fine to play the way they want, and allow what they want. I'm helping a player have a unique character that is basically a combination of a warforged and a flesh golem. That would probably bother people too.
LordofHats wrote: It is pretty lackluster. I've seen many try necromancer of the years I've now played. I've rarely seen anyone feel satisfied by it. Many of the Wizard subclasses in general honestly feel meh to me. Most of the fantasy for the class really just comes from the base class itself.
I'd suggest switching to a Warlock if you can. Pact of the Chain, Undead Patron. You'll have less ability to unleash a skeleton army, but you'll feel more like a master of necromantic power/a lich.
Another option is the Circle of Spores Druid, who is basically a Druid Necromancer. Mechanically, they can get an army of minions going, but it takes a DM willing to go along with it in a lot of ways cause the mechanics are a bit wonky.
Thanks for the suggestions! I talked it out with my DM, and we're going to homebrew an Artificer sub-class based on the Arcane Defender. I'll let you all know how it goes: we play again this Sunday.
Thanks again!
Seemed to work pretty well, actually! I have a "necromantic defender" that functions basically the same as the Arcane Defender from the canon Artificer sub-class in Tasha's. We went through a monastery, fought a flesh golem, did some poking about... it worked fine. I'm much happier with my character now than when he was a necromancer, even though he lost a lot of combat utility in the switch. It just FITS better.
In episode 38 of Curse of Strahd, (Warning: Slight CoS spoilers ahead!) we had a nice dinner date with Strahd and his harem. My character is a small, passive knowledge cleric who has been overawed and fearful of Strahd in all of our past encounters. However, I had a real drop the mike moment at the end of this RP heavy session that I wanted to share.
Spoiler:
We had managed to go through about half of the Tome of Strahd at this point. In addition, Strahd had given us some backstory. He also confirmed our theories about how death in Barovia works. Starhd is mad at us for breaking his loves' reincarnation cycle by destroying a Tree in his past.
At the end of the dinner party (and session) Strahd says: Give me one good reason why I should not kill you where you stand?
Me: <Starts to outright laugh, and laugh, and laugh, till I have tears of laughter. My compatriots just look at me in shock.>
Strahd: Am I amusing you?
Me: Thank you Count Von Zarovich, for giving me the best laugh I have had since entering this forsaken and blighted land.
I have know folks like you my whole life Strahd. You have your "I am the land" persona, your long, noble lineage, you appear wherever you want, people talk about you in hushed whispers, and you are a powerful wizard. Then you invite us to this dinner. You collect us in a magic coach, bring us to your big castle, give us a big feast, show off your impressive harem of concubines. Clearly, you are attempting to overawe us and impress us with your power.
But at the end of the day, you have no power. By your own admission, you can't get us out of Barovia. You can't even leave. You got your power by dealing with the real heavy hitters of this land. You are no different than the serfs here.
You want us to think you have all this power over us. That we are trapped here with you. But the truth is, you are trapped in here... with us! The Lord of the Land has no clothes.
You can't. get.rid.of.us! Kill us? Our souls will just recycle back into other bodies, and be a pain in your ass all over again, and again.
You think you beat Vasilly? Sergei? Yet, they are still here! You said it yourself, nothing in Barovia can ever leave Barovia. The foes you claim to have bested are still all around you.
<Stands up and looks Strahd in the eyes>
Moments ago you derided us for not knowing as much as we thought we knew, for asking the wrong questions. Yet, here we are; and you are the one asking the wrong questions.
You want to know why you should let us live? That's the wrong question Count. The right question is, why are you wasting our time right now with this show dinner party when we should be out there doing what we do best? Breaking stuff.....
Breaking YOUR curse.
Unless you have something useful or helpful to say I think we are done here.
That was the end of the adventure that night. Mike.... dropped. My whole view on Strahd shifted immediately from frightful BBEG, to powerless, pathetic pawn in an instant. Who knows it that is the right interpretation yet.
Our whole group's strategy is to try to never have to roll initiative, because then we die. If initiative has to be rolled, we have failed and typically need to run for it.
Every time we have had to roll Initiative, I have been reduce to 0 Hp, typically by 1 hit possibly 2 hits. I do everything I can to avoid even being a target, including using disengage, tactical placement and dodge actions. Many times, half our group or more is down at a time, and the end result is typically us running away as best we can.
Maybe that is why we have accomplished so 2 milestones in 120 hours of play, because D&D is not really designed for such an approach? Curse of Strahd seems to lean heavily towards tough foes. Therefore, it makes little sense to try to out fight the module and brains/diplomacy are required more than brawn, which we also appear to be lacking in!
All that being said, we have only had 1 real death which was by disintegration. However, we have all been to 0 HP many times, sometimes multiple times in a single event. I am still unsure how to approach or frame my thinking around this campaign and we are 7-8 months in.
To my mind, a player droppong to 0HP in combat shouldn't be an irregular occurance. In more specfically dangerous fights, half the party to going down is not unreasonable, accounting for the fact that 1HP fights as well as 100HP on their turn and healing is plentiful. Threat creates tension, which is generally a good thing, and even as a very figiving/narrative-over-rules DM, I err on the side of designing high-damage/danger encounters because that's where we have the most fun.
That said (and I don't mean this an attack) your DM seems to be running a really unusual campaign, where you can p[ay that long and only level twice. I get that slow campaigns are a thing (my own current game is significantly slower on a per-session basis that my last one, despite my efforts to speed things along), but it seems to me like they've set the specific milestones ahead of time and are only willing to hand out a level when you hit those specific points (many of which will presumably need you to be more powerful to achieve anyway).
I don't know if that's how the book sets it out, but to my mind Milestone levelling is there to give you freedom to control the pace of progress, not to be bound by a dozen pre-arranged checkpoints. If the group is in a good place and enjoying their current level of power, ease off a bit, and if they're getting frustrated (as you seem to be?). speed things up a bit and arrange for them to level up sooner rather than later by putting things in their path that directly lead to worthwhile progress.
It may be that your DM is stimply running the campaign 'by the book', and thus hasn't considered changing the pace in that way, but it might be worth bringing up if you're not having a good time. Possibly the book is more linear, and your group is taking a more sandbox approach, leading to progress towards lots of objectives but not yet actually achieving many? Or perhaps, as you say, your approach to combat isn't gelling with the tone or mechanics of the game.
Having run a lot of horror games myself, there is something to be said for making monsters seems scarier than they are, while still keeping them within what the players can mechanically manage. But if you're having to run from everything, your DM should definitely be considering that either the party is low-power or more geared towards non-combat solutions and adapting encounters accordingly. It shouldn't matter, as it's on the DM to balance around such things, but what's your party composition? If you've got a Wizard, two Bards and a Rogue for instance, then obviously you're going to be a little squishier than a party with a Barbarian, a Paladin and a Fighter up front, and that does need to be taken into account.
Do you know if the other players having the same frustrations? Might be worth checking in with them and seeing, because from what you've said it feels a little like not everyone is on the same page regarding the tone/pacing of the campaign, which might be easily resolved with some conversation over these issues.
Oh, and that writeup in your last post is awesome!
Yeah, it definitely is the case where there are 17 pre-planned milestones, and the DM estimated we will need to hit at least 7 to have a chance to end the campaign successfully.
Our mix is a ranger, cleric, bard, fighter, and rogue. Our ranger is a distance fighter, our rogue is stealth, our fighter is a close combat person, Bard is the party face with spell casting, and the Cleric is the know-stuff guy. We have a decent amount of healing ability which we use.... a lot. However, we do not have great sponge or damage dealer.
Easy E wrote: Maybe that is why we have accomplished so 2 milestones in 120 hours of play, because D&D is not really designed for such an approach?
It's a DM thing rather than a D&D thing.
High-threat games where combat is a last option are so long as it is structured that the players can advance through the story via their non-combat options rather than banging their heads against walls, and so long as the players know what they are in for before they bring characters that are only useful in combat (similar to how you'd warn a player who wanted to bring a socialite into the tomb of horrors).
That said slow level progress in d&d is sometimes needed just due to the leaps in power spellcasting characters make, some plots will fall on their face when confronted with teleport, passwall, etc. There is even a variant of 3.5 called 'E6' where the character progression stops at level 6 and then just hands out feats (and the occasional bonus feat, skill points, or hitpoints aren't a bad way to break up a long gap between levels).
Had a great villain moment in my campaign yesterday and I wanted to share it with you all.
So at the start of the campaign the party all received a mysterious note tasking them to meet. It was my little necromancer who has been terrorising the local area and seeks a powerful staff which he tasked the adventurers with retrieving. Now they've been battling his followers and helping to restore order to the land for a while and are off to this tomb. Now this necromancer has been trying to locate the artefact for several hundred years and has finally found it. But he knows he can't pick it up without having dragonsblood within him.
Now I'm running this campaign over discord with some very good friends and about 4 months ago I had a fun little idea. I got one of our other friends and his partner to play minor characters that they meet at the entrance of the tomb. A scholarly ancient wizard and his kobold servant. Only in was in fact the necromancer in disguise. I stressed that they play really daft and rather comical characters and they absolutely aced it. I asked them to keep it all a secret and so for 4 months they did just that. Now with seven of us it became so much harder to organise everyone and on top of that the entire dungeon took 3 separate sessions for them to navigate. I made it so that the dragonborn rogue had to be the one to grab the artefact thanks to multiple references in game and the wizard player urging him on.
As the party was fighting the undead defender of the tomb tasked with stopping the artefact being taken the dragonborn raced up the stairs to grab it. I said I'll give you a free action to take it if you like!
I talked up the feeling of raw power that surges through his hands as he picks up the staff.
I made him roll a con save which he promptly failed and he feels a sharp stabbing sensation in his spine, his body locks up and he falls backwards down the stairs and lands on the ground right in front of their friendly wizard. His face and clothes start to shimmer and suddenly they see a face they recognise. The necromancer grabs the staff from the rogue's unfeeling fingers, blasts the tomb guardian with the staff before laughing evilly and departing, with the threat on the town they've been helping now greater than ever. The look on their faces as I was describing it all was just delicious. All that prep and planning finally paid off and it was so worth it. What a game!
As a break from our Curse of Strahd game (session 48 or so), we played a one-shot of 5e and a one shot of Star Wars d6 from West End Games.
It was nice to play something a bit different, and let the CoSGM be a player, and other players to stretch their GM muscles. Our group is lucky as we have 4 alternate GMs in our group of 7.
We are back to CoS tonight, and we are going into month 4 (real life time, with 1 session a week) of being trapped in Castle Ravenloft. I have spent about two months on 4 or fewer hit points. LOL.
I am really looking forward to getting out of the castle at some point.
Easy E wrote: We are back to CoS tonight, and we are going into month 4 (real life time, with 1 session a week) of being trapped in Castle Ravenloft. I have spent about two months on 4 or fewer hit points. LOL.
I am really looking forward to getting out of the castle at some point.
Is that some sort of negative energy effect specific to the adventure that you couldn't heal?
Easy E wrote: We are back to CoS tonight, and we are going into month 4 (real life time, with 1 session a week) of being trapped in Castle Ravenloft. I have spent about two months on 4 or fewer hit points. LOL.
After two months i'd be seriously considering a level of berserker strength barbarian - which explicitly only works at 4 hitpoints or less :p
Easy E wrote: We are back to CoS tonight, and we are going into month 4 (real life time, with 1 session a week) of being trapped in Castle Ravenloft. I have spent about two months on 4 or fewer hit points. LOL.
I am really looking forward to getting out of the castle at some point.
Is that some sort of negative energy effect specific to the adventure that you couldn't heal?
No, just resource exhaustion and no place to rest in the dungeon equals 4 HP for two months!
We managed to escape BUT no long rest yet means I am still at 4 HP! LOL.
This is the minis video from Wizkids but there are others out there from WOTC. Yay? I was always more into the Forgotten Realms both in the novels and the games personally but I'm glad others can get their classic 80s dnd itch scratched. I didn't even know about the giant space hamster but I'm hooked on getting that model.
Lance845 wrote: Well, the only DnD book I have purchased in the last 2 editions has been the Eberron source book. Now I will be buying the Spell Jammer one.
Just as a word of warning, you might want to look into it first.
They... made some pretty significant changes.
Crystal Spheres are gone.
Phlogiston is gone, as you move away from the planetary systems, you just go directly into the Astral Sea (which means effectively just a normal mid/high level D&D planar adventure, but on boat).
A chunk of the 'new' races in the book are Star Frontiers refugees (like the Hadozee and Plasmoids) and have nought to do with Spelljammer at all.
And that's just what I've picked up from the initial preorder coverage. A deep dive will probably pick up more.
Well... That sucks. Maybe it saves me the money. I don't play DnD I just like the fluff and source books for those 2 settings. But if they gutt spell Jammer of what makes it Spell Jammer then whats the point.
They probably don't care. Like Dragonlance, I think these settings have been out of mind for so long the game boys probably don't have much concern about offending the old bloods. People like me are only vaguely aware of them and probably won't be able to notice the differences or absences one way or the other. With how much 5E has expanded the playbase for the game, there's probably a sense of security that fan backlash will be comparatively unimportant.
Other side of the Star Trek/Halo thing for me I guess. I have no prior investment in these settings, so it makes little difference to me :/
An update for anyone who might want Spelljammer 5E.
The books are bad. Very bad. 75$ for next to no content, a lot of rules are straight up nonsensical, the ship combat is way worse than most of us expected it would be. Some of the new Races are straight up busted. Wood Elves dashing move faster than a spelljamming ship. RAW the new Monkey Race is straight up busted with a 150ft per turn move speed.
Bestiary has next to nothing new in it and is quite small. Two writers and one rules writer, but 7 marketers.
I will say one strange thing is that the Adventure. It's actually pretty well written.
Sadly I lost 75$ on this. It's not a total loss. I'll spend the next month trying to homebrew fix it. But it's really insulting how bad the value is here. They literally could have made this a combo PDF on DM's Guild or DriveThru RPG and sold it for 9.99 US and it would *maybe* be worth it.
Just to give some context, here are some of the major problems.
Ship combat is literally almost non-existent. None of the ships have broadside capabilities. Only one ship has cannons, and they're mounted Front and back, fixed. Yet they both can fire 360 arcs because we're apparently playing 8th edition 40K now. Ships have air, but you don't need to breathe in the Astral See and you don't age, require food, drink or sleep. So why do we need the air bubbles then???
A wood elf dashing actually moves faster than the speed of the spelljamming ships themselves.
Easy E wrote: Has anyone looked at the Adventures in Rokugan here? Thoughts?
I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but L5R is heavily invested in the roleplay aspect and 5E is very much not a good fit for that kind of roleplaying. The FFG set is probably much better if you have a good group and GM to run it. I actually have a good number of the FFG books, dice and starter set for sale if anyone happens to be interested in that...
Two years later and we are still playing Curse of Strahd.
That said, we met a very important D&D NPC that we have all heard of. It was particularly noteworthy, as my DM decided to make him talk like a cowboy.... it was gold!
kick starting a Tyranny of Dragons campain tonight, haven't looked up anything and I know it's a little homebrewed. My character's a satyr monk, level 2, aiming for drunken master at 3. He gets into bar fights and such o nthe regular, but only with the people who are annoying everyone. Realised with +4 dex, his headbutt has 100% chance of knocking out a commoner if he hits them, so that's his signature move. He's adventuring because his parents told him to stop drinking and brawling and join the family business, and he refused, so his dad's cut him off until he proves he can make a living. He intends to do so by adventuring!
Sounds exciting and I'm glad you're looking forward to it. I haven't played a monk in any edition so can't really comment on that but the Satyr seems like an interesting tweak. Do monks have any kind of an alignment restriction now like in previous editions?
Does anyone here have experience playing a warlock in 5e for any extended amount of time? I'm curious how they play out. I didn't like the idea of them in 3.5 when they (re)introduced them and skipped 4e mostly. They're obviously half casters so I'm guessing(?) they play like 2e style fighter mages? They get slower spell progression than the dedicated arcane casters but I'm not sure if their abilities (whether class or invocations) make up for the lack of spell diversity as they don't seem to scale well. Admittedly, my first impressions are heavily skewed by blade pact hexblades though.
In general, their ranged blast cantrip is obviously powerful (and moreso with the invocation that boosts it further) but I'm not sure about the rest.
I did a Warlock in 5e and not as a hexblade. From memory I think we did levels 3 - 6 maybe so not too sure scaling above that but it wasn't too bad.
The limit spell slots made me lean more into concentration or utility type ones though recovering them on a short rest isn't that hard to refresh them between encounters. I was definitely relying on Eldritch Blast though or the other cantrips.
I went with the pact of the book or whatever it's called that gets you the extra cantrips and stuff so always had a few random things to hand.
That one seems like the most caster-like of the bunch. Did you feel like you were keeping up with other dedicated casters in the party like wiz/sorc players if any? Or was their ffaster progression, greater variety, and larger pool of slots really sway the balance? I see that warlocks can frequently upcast their spells (when that option is available) but that feels like a bit of a consolation compared with both faster and more numerous slots.
some bloke wrote: kick starting a Tyranny of Dragons campain tonight, haven't looked up anything and I know it's a little homebrewed. My character's a satyr monk, level 2, aiming for drunken master at 3. He gets into bar fights and such o nthe regular, but only with the people who are annoying everyone. Realised with +4 dex, his headbutt has 100% chance of knocking out a commoner if he hits them, so that's his signature move. He's adventuring because his parents told him to stop drinking and brawling and join the family business, and he refused, so his dad's cut him off until he proves he can make a living. He intends to do so by adventuring!
Awesome! A drunken fighter is such an appropriate choice for a Satyr, so I really like your plans for druken master monk. I hope you enjoy the campaign.
Awesome! A drunken fighter is such an appropriate choice for a Satyr, so I really like your plans for druken master monk. I hope you enjoy the campaign.
warboss wrote:Sounds exciting and I'm glad you're looking forward to it. I haven't played a monk in any edition so can't really comment on that but the Satyr seems like an interesting tweak. Do monks have any kind of an alignment restriction now like in previous editions?
Thanks both! Session 1 was a blast, we ended up collecting kobolds which the barbarian is currently carrying around!
Got session 2 tonight, so we shall see if we canmprove on the 8 unconscious kobolds we have, which we plan on using to make a business making alchemical potions for the artificer, offering food & board & safety for them to work for us in a factory we as yet don't own. Probably just a pipe-dream XD
warboss wrote: That one seems like the most caster-like of the bunch. Did you feel like you were keeping up with other dedicated casters in the party like wiz/sorc players if any? Or was their ffaster progression, greater variety, and larger pool of slots really sway the balance? I see that warlocks can frequently upcast their spells (when that option is available) but that feels like a bit of a consolation compared with both faster and more numerous slots.
It was a bit of an odd party so it didn't really come up with a comparrison to a pure caster as we had a bard, a ranger, a fighter and a rogue. The upcasting was pretty useful for the spells but I found it did encourage focussing in on spells that did that so that you'd get the most mileage out of that ability. I had a Fey patron too so I got access to some of the illusion / messing with people type of abilities that helped broaden my utility too.
Awesome! A drunken fighter is such an appropriate choice for a Satyr, so I really like your plans for druken master monk. I hope you enjoy the campaign.
warboss wrote:Sounds exciting and I'm glad you're looking forward to it. I haven't played a monk in any edition so can't really comment on that but the Satyr seems like an interesting tweak. Do monks have any kind of an alignment restriction now like in previous editions?
Thanks both! Session 1 was a blast, we ended up collecting kobolds which the barbarian is currently carrying around!
Got session 2 tonight, so we shall see if we canmprove on the 8 unconscious kobolds we have, which we plan on using to make a business making alchemical potions for the artificer, offering food & board & safety for them to work for us in a factory we as yet don't own. Probably just a pipe-dream XD
Session 2 of Tyranny of Dragons was good fun. No idea how much was homebrewed (and don't want to know, so keep it to yourself!).
Adult Blue Dragon is attacking the town, so we cleared the entrance to the keep and got in. Keep was surrounded, and we interrogated the kobolds we captured to ask why they are here and who the dragon is, got told dragon is called something they shortened to "Larry", I can't remember the full name right now!
Anyway, the Artificer decided to shout the dragon's name, and the dragon came over for a chat - we're level 2, it's worth remembering. Between them the Artificer and the Fighter, through roleplay and some good rolls, convince the dragon that they will pay them the towns bank if they let everyone live. Then, they managed a natural 20 to tell the dragon that all the money in the bank had been moved, and the dragon flew off to go and find it.
We then went through a secret tunnel that led to the river, and were attacked by swarms of rats, then we broke out of the door at the end and were ambushed by koblolds, and Jonah (my satyr monk) almost died as they all (randomly determined by dice) attacked me! Then a kobold poked me with a dagger and he went down, failed the first death save then got healed. He spent the rest of the fight (one more round) with 3hp, lying on the ground and being overdramatic about the whole thing. We finished the session there (we run short sessions as I finish work at 8 and start again at 8 the next morning!). We're currently planning to drag the kobolds and cultists out of sight and then hide in the tunnel for a short rest!
That does sound like good fun. I especially like calling Larry the dragon over to converse (The dragon's name is Lennithon, so I'm surprised it wasn't shortened to Lenny )
I'm glad your character survived getting the random aggro of every kobold, that's rough.
Does anyone here play Pathfinder 2e in addition to D&D5e? I'm curious about the feat progression in that game compared with D&D 3/3.5. I've gone down the PF2e rabbit hole a bit over the past couple of days after not being able to theorycraft a character build to my liking in D&D 5e for a mini that I recently converted and decided to look into the other main fantasy rpg to see if it was possible there (it is btw).
I was a bit surprised to read that you basically get a feat every level in PF2e and that brought me back to the days of 3/3.5. Are the feats generally instead of class features? From my admittedly superficial reading of the online wiki, it seems like most of what I'd classify in D&D as class and/or racial abilities have moved over to feats. Feat/bonus/magic item spam did go (IMO) too far in 3/3.5 but it feels like 5e has had the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction. D&D Uno seems to be addressing this a bit (with a free feat at 1st level) though.
I'm not looking to start an edition/game war but was just genuinely curious how it goes with PF2e in regard to feats. I searched the subforum and didn't see a PF specific thread to bump from the past year and a half so I figured I'd bump this one instead since it's not too active either but at least has some eyeballs.
Having a blast recently with a game I'm running! got 5 players at level 8, and they are bumbling their way slowly through my planned adventure - 3 sessions in and they've completed what I expected to be 1 session of adventure! They've derailed the game by having me quickly homebrew a pitfight in the inn they were travelling to (one players backstory was that their parents owned an inn in the town, so this became ther inn, and their inn had a pitfighting arena), so that took up session 1 - they arrived in town and met Enzo, a gnome nventor who showed them his automated slaughterhouse, using iron golems. Then they went off on the cattle drive and were asked to look after, but not encourage, a NPC called Skye, Enzo's daughter, who is a gnome who's obsessed with becoming an adventurer. She's also a big fan of the party, who are fairly well known.
The party made it to the cattle drive after finding some exploded animals en-route and starting to suspect that there might be Slaad, as they looked like something came out of them. They also noticed that all of them were predatory animals. They found the cattle, and the herd was way bigger than anyone expected - and the cows are enormous. They find the matriarch and decide to pursuade her to come with them, by tazing her with the monk's elemental strikes. The damage causes a chunk to come off her rump, and it rapidly grows into another matriarch! They then experiment with different damage types, and cause a further 5 matriarchs to spawn, all the while getting her to run out of the herd. Then they find a cultist in the woods, clutching a satchel, and in it they find the book of Emmental Evil, which featured in the last Steepfield game. Everyone who was there before reacts to stop the monk from opening it. The cultist claims to be responsible for the cows multiplying, saying that all shall succumb to their ways now. The party returns to camp and tells the herders not to hurt any of the cattle, and to keep them away from steepfield. Then they head back toward steepfield, where they are ambushed by a pack of Goblins on Worgs, which were going to help them discover the cows multiplied if they hadn't worked it out for themselves. The fight is short and brutal, and the goblins are all slain (except one, which will probably never stop running). The party makes camp, and one of the character tries to befriend a badger, but fails. That's where we left it.
The game is going brilliantly, my foreshadowing and red herrings worked a treat, and the look of dawning realisation when they put it all together (too many cows, exploded predators, and then the cows are healing) was simply brilliant. We're set up to have a game every other Monday now, and it looks like it might evolve into a campaign once this adventure is done!
Next stop for them is uncovering a cult in Steepfield, and then finding out what spell was cast on the cattle!
Has anyone purchased additional static cling terrain pieces for use with the DnD Campaign Case Terrain? I am enjoying the kit (admittedly I didn't pay full price), but I'd like to find some additional clings for ponds, springs, rivers, etc to use with the wilderness side.
Also, whats everyone's choice for a favorite wet erase marker set that stays well but comes off clean without staining?
Loke Battle Mats do some cling sticker sets, which I'm pretty sure you can buy separately (I got them as KS addons, but I ssume they sell them regularly) with various themes, offering a good variety of sizes and designs. They do start to rollvup after a while if you're not careful, but are really nicely printed and stick down well.
warboss wrote: Does anyone here play Pathfinder 2e in addition to D&D5e? I'm curious about the feat progression in that game compared with D&D 3/3.5. I've gone down the PF2e rabbit hole a bit over the past couple of days after not being able to theorycraft a character build to my liking in D&D 5e for a mini that I recently converted and decided to look into the other main fantasy rpg to see if it was possible there (it is btw).
I was a bit surprised to read that you basically get a feat every level in PF2e and that brought me back to the days of 3/3.5. Are the feats generally instead of class features? From my admittedly superficial reading of the online wiki, it seems like most of what I'd classify in D&D as class and/or racial abilities have moved over to feats. Feat/bonus/magic item spam did go (IMO) too far in 3/3.5 but it feels like 5e has had the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction. D&D Uno seems to be addressing this a bit (with a free feat at 1st level) though.
I'm not looking to start an edition/game war but was just genuinely curious how it goes with PF2e in regard to feats. I searched the subforum and didn't see a PF specific thread to bump from the past year and a half so I figured I'd bump this one instead since it's not too active either but at least has some eyeballs.
I'm actually a Venture Agent for Paizo, so feel free to bug me about PF2 all you like!
And yeah, a lot of what might be considered class features in 1E are now class feats, along with a wide variety of feats in general. There are still a bunch of class features for everyone, but they tend to be more along the lines of how your proficiencies scale, as well as more universal abilities for that class (like Fighters being resistant to fear, barbarians becoming harder to damage, etc.). Feats in general also don't tend to increase your power precisely, but instead give you more things to do with your actions every turn, or more action efficient ways to do things.
And yeah, it's hard to find concepts you can't do in Pathfinder 2e. Currently, I'm greatly enjoying my gladiator lawyer PC, and I'm also kicking around some ideas regarding a several thousand year old sin mage who replaced his body with a golem's in order to survive an apocalypse.
So, we are in the endgame of the Curse of Strahd game we have been playing for about 65+ sessions now from level 3 to level 13. Anyway, we faced off against a group of big bads, and the most notable part was a lone Champion Fighter managing to hug a lich pretty much to death with almost no support from the rest of the party. The rest of the party were busy elsewhere.
Wow, that's exciting that you are approaching the end. If I recall, your group wasted a lot of time. If they hadn't how many sessions do you estimate it would have taken to get this far? Best of luck
Half the time. We spent a lot of time trying to bend the adventure to the win conditions we wanted, instead of the standard win conditions. Way too much time.
I think we are hoping to wrap this up going into the new year.
We went from 3 to 13. However, the first 40+ some sessions were like 2 levels, and the remaining 8 levels cascaded faster and faster as we went up in session #. Once we got higher up, other milestones became easier to unlock. However, the first two milestones took us forever!
If that makes any sense. I am not sure if I typed it clearly.
I understand what you posted but it seems like an odd progression to have such little progress on milestones until basically the dam collapses and the levels come flooding in. Regardless, I hope it was fun!
Hi guys, I'm a new 5th Edition DM (new to 5th anyways) whose been painting up miniatures the last few months for my own homebrew. Thought I would share my painting blog.
I have paid minor attention, but I have not been following it that close.
The concept of moving D&D to a subscription service I have seen floating around makes me very, very, very, sad.
I really do not like this trend in gaming to make the game AS product, instead of the game IS the product. Game as product seeks to monetize all aspects of the game like subscription access, prop dice, selling the rules piece meal, etc. Meanwhile, companies that sell the Game IS the product sell you a complete game all at once. However, the gaming market needs to be "disrupted" I guess?
Well, I guess to add some context to this from what I have seen, there are really 2 major pieces to this.
The first is that WotC (probably under the direction of Hasbro) wants to make DnD a "lifestyle brand" similar to Harley Davidson (this has been stated directly with HD as an example in leaked internal stuff).
Part of that is Wizards acquisition of DnD Beyond which they have plans to merge with and incorporate DMs Guild into.
Part of THAT includes changes to the digital marketplace and changes to the OGL.
Basically, they want you to play online, and they want you to publish and buy online through their store front.
The second half is the changes to the OGL and what that means for 3rd party support.
Whats been leaked or talked about has been pretty grim. Stuff like by publishing on the DMs Guild you lose all rights to your work. WotC could republish your classes/spells/items/monsters/adventures into a book and you won't see a cent. They own it the moment you published it there. Further, if they decide to discontinue to the OGL at any point you would be required to scrub your content from all places and never sell it again. I have seen talks about certain stipulations that would harm even the podcast live play community. Critical Roll released a book for 5E. Well... now Critical Roll no longer own their own IP.
Those are just a couple of the bullet points.
Basically it's the 4th ed changes to the OGL dialed up to 11. And when this happened with 4th Pathfinder got created.
Over all I think this is a good thing. DnD and wizards own too big a slice of the market pie. There are so many companies producing 3rd party content for 5e. And if this happens and those companies go make their own games the resulting innovations to differentiate themselves from each other should result in better games.
It's bad for DnD. It's the best thing we can hope for for TTRPGs.
Some of the changes make it sound more like the 4e GSL (?) than a truly "O"GL.
I don't recall to be honest if this was a part of prior gaming licenses but the part where they (WOTC) can simply take your published content whole cloth AND revoke your own personal license to publish it wouldn't encourage me if I were a content creator. You make an awesome class or game module? They can literally order you to stop selling it and destroy all remaining copies within 30 days if this is true and then turn around and sell it themselves without compensating you. Of course that would be monumentally stupid and kill the 3PP cottage industry that has grown up around D&D since 3e (much like the GSL did in 4e) but worse things have happened in gaming so it's possible.
edit: For those that care, the video source is a big time Pathfinder proponent/content creator. I don't think he's letting that sway him too much towards hyperbole but figured I'd mention it regardless. I don't know what Paizo's equivalent to the OGL is either (assuming that they have one even).
It gets worse... I hadn't considered the effect this might have potentially on OGL, Pathfinder, and other spinoffs. I thought the original OGL had a "permanent use it forever" clause but admittedly I'm not a lawyer. Additionally, the "leaked" new version is of course not officially confirmed yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: I imagine this will bring much moaning and gnashing of teeth online, and that is about it.
Most definitely. For companies whose business model depends on the prior OGLs, I suspect more concrete action may be necessary to stay alive assuming the leak is true.
Over all I think this is a good thing. DnD and wizards own too big a slice of the market pie. There are so many companies producing 3rd party content for 5e. And if this happens and those companies go make their own games the resulting innovations to differentiate themselves from each other should result in better games.
It's bad for DnD. It's the best thing we can hope for for TTRPGs.
warboss wrote: It gets worse... I hadn't considered the effect this might have potentially on OGL, Pathfinder, and other spinoffs. I thought the original OGL had a "permanent use it forever" clause but admittedly I'm not a lawyer. Additionally, the "leaked" new version is of course not officially confirmed yet.
It does have that clause, although that doesn't mean WotC won't try to renege on it anyway.
Also, Kickstarter's head of gaming has confirmed the leak is genuine on Twitter.
I can't guarantee its truth, but I have heard that current 5E stuff will be left alone, and that its the new stuff coming out for OneD&D that has all these new rules. I hope that's true. I really don't like the direction that Hasbro seems to be going. To me, D&D is about the experience created around the table by the DM and players. I've tried some of the online D&D gaming and really don't like it. I will happily just keep playing the old 5E stuff. I have enough to last for decades.
I just saw a couple of odd bits on twitter and I don't know enough about it. I came to this thread hoping for a bit more info. From what little I've seen it seems pretty crap. I follow a few "big name" dnd streamers that are fairly vocal on their negativity. I hope that this will give wotc pause for thought.
Syro_ wrote: I can't guarantee its truth, but I have heard that current 5E stuff will be left alone, and that its the new stuff coming out for OneD&D that has all these new rules. I hope that's true. I really don't like the direction that Hasbro seems to be going. To me, D&D is about the experience created around the table by the DM and players. I've tried some of the online D&D gaming and really don't like it. I will happily just keep playing the old 5E stuff. I have enough to last for decades.
Even the 5e stuff has weird stipulations. Like, you can't make sub class/specializations for non core classes. Thats why nobody produces new sub classes for the artificer. Because it's not "core" so isn't free for tweaking by the community. You cannot reference spells and abilities outside of core stuff in your modules. So no monsters can have abilities from the non core stuff. You can't have a spell book or a new creature with spells from other "non-core" books.
That being said. When they left the 3rd ed OGL alone and did their new deal for 4th it spawned Pathfinder arguably their biggest competition and a major driver for 4th ed falling on it's face. If they learned anything from that they will take steps with 5e to prevent the continued support of the old OGL, probably by not creating a new one for OneDnD but instead by modifying the existing one to kill 5e support.
Over all I think this is a good thing. DnD and wizards own too big a slice of the market pie. There are so many companies producing 3rd party content for 5e. And if this happens and those companies go make their own games the resulting innovations to differentiate themselves from each other should result in better games.
It's bad for DnD. It's the best thing we can hope for for TTRPGs.
I hope you are right about this one Lance.
I mean, the last time this kind of thing happened there was only really Pazio as a major 3rd party publisher and they hit the ground running with Pathfinder.
Now there are WAY more companies doing the 3rd party thing. And I have seen talk that many of them are already turning attention towards what developing their own game would look like. They are hoping for the best but planning for the worst seeing what is coming.
Again. Good.
I don't anticipate that all their games will sell well or be good. I doubt we will get 9 more Pathfinder level games out there. But I hope we get 3? 4? If each one starts to push away from DnD and Pathfinders cores and branch out into better more innovative designs... Great. Now all those DnD players who never tried another game will have easier bridges into trying more of whats out there.
Again, I think it's great for the industry even if it means going through some growing pains.
Especially if that means making their OWN games. Less D20 system based. Pathfinder was good for the community. But it wasn't different enough and didn't do as much good as it could have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Olthannon wrote: I just saw a couple of odd bits on twitter and I don't know enough about it. I came to this thread hoping for a bit more info. From what little I've seen it seems pretty crap. I follow a few "big name" dnd streamers that are fairly vocal on their negativity. I hope that this will give wotc pause for thought.
This system that we live in really sucks eh?
The fact that WotC has this much control of the market is the root of the problem. It's not a monopoly but it has a lot of the bench marks of the issues with one. Spreading the market out in WotC gaking of their own bed is a win.
Everyone (not just in this thread but the people on the youtubes and stream and podcasts) should be looking to the health of the industry instead of the health of DnD. TTRPGs can survive without DnD.
D&D is like the GW gateway into wargaming. It is often the "first" experience people have with TTRPGs, and they are reluctant to move away from it for a lot of reasons.
Syro_ wrote: I can't guarantee its truth, but I have heard that current 5E stuff will be left alone, and that its the new stuff coming out for OneD&D that has all these new rules. I hope that's true. I really don't like the direction that Hasbro seems to be going. To me, D&D is about the experience created around the table by the DM and players. I've tried some of the online D&D gaming and really don't like it. I will happily just keep playing the old 5E stuff. I have enough to last for decades.
Even the 5e stuff has weird stipulations. Like, you can't make sub class/specializations for non core classes. Thats why nobody produces new sub classes for the artificer. Because it's not "core" so isn't free for tweaking by the community. You cannot reference spells and abilities outside of core stuff in your modules. So no monsters can have abilities from the non core stuff. You can't have a spell book or a new creature with spells from other "non-core" books.
That being said. When they left the 3rd ed OGL alone and did their new deal for 4th it spawned Pathfinder arguably their biggest competition and a major driver for 4th ed falling on it's face. If they learned anything from that they will take steps with 5e to prevent the continued support of the old OGL, probably by not creating a new one for OneDnD but instead by modifying the existing one to kill 5e support.
Ah, I didn't know about those things. That sucks about messing with 5e too. I appreciate the info, thanks. I have also heard that part of with 4th edition did so poorly was that WotC designed it, planning to use it mostly with a digital tabletop that they didn't complete in time. Do you know the validity of that?
Unrelated, but how many of you have heard about that new "Dungeon 23" trend of a bunch of people trying to making a room a day over the course of a year for their own mega dungeon? It seems like a fun idea to try.
Ah, I didn't know about those things. That sucks about messing with 5e too. I appreciate the info, thanks. I have also heard that part of with 4th edition did so poorly was that WotC designed it, planning to use it mostly with a digital tabletop that they didn't complete in time. Do you know the validity of that?
I can confirm that. I was a yearly gencon attendee at the time and they were very optimistic about the online component when talking about it one year and I even got a rubber stress ball brain of it as a promo item. It was called Gleemax. I'm not kidding... someone in marketing decided on that name and the rest of the people apparently just nodded.
Easy E wrote: D&D is like the GW gateway into wargaming. It is often the "first" experience people have with TTRPGs, and they are reluctant to move away from it for a lot of reasons.
This is true. But t's also the problem. There are WAY better wargames than anything GW produces. GWs market share is nuts and a collapse could/should spread things out. The difference being scale. Wargaming is way more niche than TTRPGs. Especially over the last like... 6 years? with the podcast/liveplay/pop culture boom.
Although the OGL 1.0 agreement saw many updates and tweaks since its publication, WotC revealed it would create a version 1.1 when it announced One D&D last year. Notably, it emphasizes that the new OGl cancels out previous agreements made under the original and requires content makers to sign an agreement on the new one if they wish to publish "on or after January 13, 2023." Because this is a leaked draft that WotC initially intended to publish on Jan. 4, it's unclear if that date still stands.
According to the new OGL, it "only allows for creation of roleplaying games and supplements in printed media and static electronic file formats. It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes." WotC also notes that creators can still engage with these activities, but only to the extent that the company's Fan Content Policy allows or through a separate agreement between the maker and Wizards.
By WotC's definition, fan content includes "fan art, videos, podcasts, blogs, websites, streaming content, tattoos, altars to your cleric's deity, etc." It's unclear how this might impact popular lets plays like Critical Role or Dimension 20. WotC's new OGl also explicitly prohibits content that contains anything bigoted, racist, homophobic, transphobic or discriminatory.
Those who profit from content for Dungeons & Dragons fall into three revenue tier sets that determine whether the publisher has to pay royalties to WotC. Most creators don't have to worry about that possibility, as WotC estimates that only around 20 unofficial content publishers fall into this category. The Initiate Tier includes anyone with at least one licensed product that earned $50,000 or less, while the Intermediate Tier ranges from above that to $750,000. Those making more fall into the Expert Tier and must pay 20% or 25% in royalties for anything above that $750,000.
Members of the Expert Tier that use Kickstarter pay 20% in royalties above that $750k threshold, while those using other crowdfunding sites must pay 25% in royalties. Publishers who don't make a profit or even lose money on their crowdfunding attempt that exceeds $750K still owe WotC royalties.
So yeah. Critical Roll, DnD is for Nerds, Dungeons and Daddies, Roll for Initiative...
I suspect these podcasts may be moving to new game systems.
But further, depending on if big daddy Hasbro wants to take Pazio to court, even Pathfinder could need to make a 3rd edition abandoning it's dnd trappings.
Now some of this is just flat out unenforceable. You cannot stop people making fan art of the most generic fantasy things ever. But you COULD stop something like DnD is for Nerds or Critical Roll from producing TV series, tee shirts and merch, and other such stuff. In order for them to maintain their business while avoiding a court case they may need to find another game.
I think that much like GW and Warhammer+ Hasbro is after the online/stream market. They probably don't care about Tim selling handmade pictures of characters to people at SomewhereCon, but if Tim and Co manage to fund a succesful KS for online art, or manage to get a beefy stream of money through donations on Twitch then Wizards willl want their share of the pie.
Picked this up at Christmas there and I have to say I’m really enjoying it.
Me and the kids are playing all sorts of exciting games in outer space. It’s dead quick to just throw the book open and toss some minis and objectives on and just go for it.
Loke Battle Mats make dungeon themed ones, castles and catacombs, steam-punk… lots to chose from in various sizes too. Highly recommended.
Lance845 wrote: But further, depending on if big daddy Hasbro wants to take Pazio to court, even Pathfinder could need to make a 3rd edition abandoning it's dnd trappings.
This is extremely unlikely. Paizo designers have said in interviews that the OGL isn't necessary for Pathfinder, especially 2E, and that they mainly use it to put their *own* content out as usable under the OGL. They stripped out pretty much all of WotC's copyrightable stuff when Golarion was first released as a setting closing on two decades ago, and could cut out the OGL at any time they want.
Now some of this is just flat out unenforceable. You cannot stop people making fan art of the most generic fantasy things ever. But you COULD stop something like DnD is for Nerds or Critical Roll from producing TV series, tee shirts and merch, and other such stuff. In order for them to maintain their business while avoiding a court case they may need to find another game.
I found quite notable in the first series of Critical Role on prime, that they studiously avoided using D&D terms for races and suchlike. I expect Amazon Prime lawyering is more advanced than Hasbro.
Now some of this is just flat out unenforceable. You cannot stop people making fan art of the most generic fantasy things ever. But you COULD stop something like DnD is for Nerds or Critical Roll from producing TV series, tee shirts and merch, and other such stuff. In order for them to maintain their business while avoiding a court case they may need to find another game.
I found quite notable in the first series of Critical Role on prime, that they studiously avoided using D&D terms for races and suchlike. I expect Amazon Prime lawyering is more advanced than Hasbro.
I am not so sure how that would work. Vox Machina is now a book produced by Wizards.
To go so far as to have official books probably allows them to keep on keeping on with some other not OGL agreement. But it also probably means Wizards is already taking a slice of their profits.
Now some of this is just flat out unenforceable. You cannot stop people making fan art of the most generic fantasy things ever. But you COULD stop something like DnD is for Nerds or Critical Roll from producing TV series, tee shirts and merch, and other such stuff. In order for them to maintain their business while avoiding a court case they may need to find another game.
I found quite notable in the first series of Critical Role on prime, that they studiously avoided using D&D terms for races and suchlike. I expect Amazon Prime lawyering is more advanced than Hasbro.
I watched some interesting videos over the past couple of days that noted other differences like not referring to gods by their dnd names but rather general titles instead. They were positing that if this current season (?) of the series ends with the gods being swapped or dying only to be replaced with new ones then that would be the last real vestiges of OGL in the shows. I don't actually watch them so can't confirm nor deny it though.
I hope they don't mess with it too much unlike what they did with Halo. With how wide open D&D is with the various settings, I hope they find that freedom to be enough to tell whatever story they want.
New systems are all well and good, but his whole OGL mess is still a kick in the teeth for 5e fans. Both Kobold Press and MCDM have routinely been putting out better 5e content than WOTC for a long time, and it'll be a shame to see that dry up for those of us planning to stick with 5e going forward. I admit I have half a horse in this race, as later this year I was planning to begin putting out content under the OGL, but even simply as a player and DM, I had hoped that while OneDnD inevitably took over the mainstream (as the newest edition of the biggest game always will) these fantastic third party publishers would keep the lights on for 5e.
I was already deeply unenthused by many of the proposed changes in the OneDnD playtest, but the OGL changes are the final nail in the coffin for me. I think it makes it pretty clear that the intent behind the new edition isn't to update or improve the game as it stands, but to tighten WOTC/Hasbro's grip on the brand and set the stage for a more GW-esque ecosystem where customers aren't ever encouraged to look beyond their own products or be creative in their own right. This is of course anethema to DnD and to the TTRPG hobby as a whole, but I imagine Hasbro really won't give a damn until it hits them in the wallet, which I kind of doubt it will; for all the talk online about this, and things like the #OpenDnD open letter picking up tens of thousands of signees, the vast majority of players aren't using much if any third party or indie stuff, even fewer have aspirations of creating their own work and publishing it, so this change won't really affect them.
I had hoped that some of the larger third party publishers would have come together on a joint project with its own open license, as I figured that was the best chance of 'doing a Pathfinder' and coming out with an actual comeptitor to OneDnD, based as closely on the D20 System as possible so their all their existing products would remain compatible. Instead, while I imagine all these new games will be well-designed, supported and open in their own right, I don't think any one publisher is going to be in a position to take on WOTC's market share with any real chance of sucess. Getting players to jump to a new game is always tricky, and if anything I think these projects will ultimately do little more than fracture chunks of the 5e fanbase rather than see widespread adoption. All power to them to design what they like, of course, and I'll be keeping a very close eye on MCDM's game in particular as I find Matt Colville's design work to very much align with the kind of things I want in a game/product, this does seem to be the end of the line for large-scale 5e support.
In other words, WOTC has basically killed that entire aspect of the industry overnight, for what will amounts to a tiny increase in their profits in exchange for a huge loss of support and goodwill (great timing two months before their flagship movie too ( ) and that's bloody awful. The fact they can do it is one thing, the fact they chose to is shortsighted, greedy and a massive middle finger to many of their most dedicated and enthusiastic players, supporters and fans. Feth WOTC, feth Hasbro and feth the OGL1.1.
If anyone else feels as strongly about this as I do, here is the aforementioned open letter to WOTC. It won't make any difference, I imagine, but it at least lets them know how many people are aghast at this debacle. https://www.opendnd.games/
Matt Colville of Critical Role now doing the same.
Random nitpick- Colville isn't part of Critical Role. He just talked about it a bunch.
But announcing just starting design work based on 'cinematic AND tactical' and 'weird dice' is a bad start. And weird dice is an annoying thing to tie to a theoretically open system, as you're inherently tying something you can limit the production of to an open system.
Paradigm wrote: New systems are all well and good, but his whole OGL mess is still a kick in the teeth for 5e fans. Both Kobold Press and MCDM have routinely been putting out better 5e content than WOTC for a long time, and it'll be a shame to see that dry up for those of us planning to stick with 5e going forward. I admit I have half a horse in this race, as later this year I was planning to begin putting out content under the OGL, but even simply as a player and DM, I had hoped that while OneDnD inevitably took over the mainstream (as the newest edition of the biggest game always will) these fantastic third party publishers would keep the lights on for 5e.
I was already deeply unenthused by many of the proposed changes in the OneDnD playtest, but the OGL changes are the final nail in the coffin for me. I think it makes it pretty clear that the intent behind the new edition isn't to update or improve the game as it stands, but to tighten WOTC/Hasbro's grip on the brand and set the stage for a more GW-esque ecosystem where customers aren't ever encouraged to look beyond their own products or be creative in their own right. This is of course anethema to DnD and to the TTRPG hobby as a whole, but I imagine Hasbro really won't give a damn until it hits them in the wallet, which I kind of doubt it will; for all the talk online about this, and things like the #OpenDnD open letter picking up tens of thousands of signees, the vast majority of players aren't using much if any third party or indie stuff, even fewer have aspirations of creating their own work and publishing it, so this change won't really affect them.
I had hoped that some of the larger third party publishers would have come together on a joint project with its own open license, as I figured that was the best chance of 'doing a Pathfinder' and coming out with an actual comeptitor to OneDnD, based as closely on the D20 System as possible so their all their existing products would remain compatible. Instead, while I imagine all these new games will be well-designed, supported and open in their own right, I don't think any one publisher is going to be in a position to take on WOTC's market share with any real chance of sucess. Getting players to jump to a new game is always tricky, and if anything I think these projects will ultimately do little more than fracture chunks of the 5e fanbase rather than see widespread adoption. All power to them to design what they like, of course, and I'll be keeping a very close eye on MCDM's game in particular as I find Matt Colville's design work to very much align with the kind of things I want in a game/product, this does seem to be the end of the line for large-scale 5e support.
In other words, WOTC has basically killed that entire aspect of the industry overnight, for what will amounts to a tiny increase in their profits in exchange for a huge loss of support and goodwill (great timing two months before their flagship movie too ( ) and that's bloody awful. The fact they can do it is one thing, the fact they chose to is shortsighted, greedy and a massive middle finger to many of their most dedicated and enthusiastic players, supporters and fans. Feth WOTC, feth Hasbro and feth the OGL1.1.
If anyone else feels as strongly about this as I do, here is the aforementioned open letter to WOTC. It won't make any difference, I imagine, but it at least lets them know how many people are aghast at this debacle.
https://www.opendnd.games/
While individuals feel this as a kick in the teeth now, it's still better for the industry as a whole. You and all the people who feel hurt will win out when the dust settles and we all have more better variety to pick from.
More variety is great, can't argue with that. We're going to see some really innovative design, cool new settings, new opportunities in game development and new voices in the industry, and that is all fantastic! In ten years time we could be looking at a thriving industry with dozens of new and exciting games... which will all have a playerbase a tenth of the size of any given edition of DnD, sadly. Short of something like Critical Role adopting and promoting a new system, or publishing their own, none of these companies are going to move the needle on DnD's dominance of the space no matter how good they are.
Lance, you and I have gone back and forth plenty of times here about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of 5e or D20 in general as a system, so I won't repeat all that, but the point I was making is that the rug is being pulled out from under the people who are perfectly happy with things they way they are. Those of us who play and enjoy 5e on its own merits are suddenly going to lose out on any kind of ongoing support or content if this goes as badly as it seems like it will, with no recourse for any publishers to pick up where WOTC leaves off (as we had been assuming they would under the OGL 1.0).
For better or worse, DnD 5e is by a great margin the most played TTRPG out there right now. It has the most exposure, the most accessible rules info (between the SRD/Basic Rules being free, DnDBeyond offering shareable content and tools, and the wealth of articles, podcasts and video content on every facet of playing and running the game) and if someone wants to get into the hobby, 9 times out of 10 it's what they're going to end up playing unless they already know a GM who is a big fan of another system and brings them into that game. That community is undoubtedly going to lose a lot of players when OneDnD rolls around, just as any edition before it, but the wealth of third party content gave me some hope that we'd see ongoing support and engagement even after WOTC pulls everything 5e related. Maybe a fool's hope, but it was something I genuinely thought we'd see before this OGL 1.1 fiasco.
Thing is, 5e may be far from a perfect system, but it's a very useful one, and that usefulness alone means it's hard for me to pivot wholesale into any of these alternative systems coming along, no matter how smart or original they might be. I run games for multiple groups multiple times a week, and while I have some players that are experienced and invested enough that they'd happily dip their toes into another game, I also have plenty for whom learning 5e has taken a lot of their limited time and effort, and for me as GM to suggest that they go and pick up a new game from scratch when 5e still has plenty they want to play with is a bit too much of an ask. Likewise, all my games are online and with people who are strangers at first, and finding players for any form of DnD is still an order of magnitude easier than for even things like Pathfinder or V:tM.
There's also the question of a game system's merits versus those of an individual instance of a game that someone plays. I happily concede that Fantasy Adventure Game XYZ might be more original, more dynamic or smarter than 5e, and starting from nothing, it'd be foolish not to play that. But s a DM that homebrews about 85% of what I use session to session, it would take me years to get as comfortable and familiar with a new system to do that like I do for 5e. This is where the 'just play/run/write for something else' arguement I've seen a lot over the last week falls down for me. Fantasy Adventure Game XYZ might be a better system, but I guarantee you the game I can run you right now with 5e is better than the game I can run you right now with that, because I know 5e like the back of my hand and understand its mechanics, systems, structures and style well enough to create high-quality content that in turn leads to a better play experience, because the homebrew monsters and magic items and feats and such work well within and alongside what already exists. One day, I might feel comfortable doing that for another system, but for the games I'm running at the moment I need that firm foundation of knowledge and experience to keep the quality up.
This is another reason the annihilation of 3rd oarty 5e stuff sucks. WOTC's books of late have been very underwhelming, but the stuff coming out from MCDM or Ghostfire or Kobold Press does interesting things with what most people are already playing, and are a great source of inspiration. I admit I don't often use their content wholesale, but nonetheless it's so valuable as a game designer (which all GMs who don't run purely by the book are, to some extent) to have a thriving community of third party content that can inspire with a new take on a system, or a new way to interact with a mechanic when creating content. For WOTC to pull the plug on that when their own output is increasingly bland and unimaginative is deeply annoying. It looks like Kobold's is going to be at least somewhat compatible, and MCDM still have things like their monster book for 5e in the works (unless this situation changes the development of that radically), but soon enough that well is going to dry up.
Apologies if this is all a bit ranty, folks! I feel very strongly about this and apparently I have A LOT of thoughts on the matter! I can't shake the feeling that Hasbro are throwing the baby out with the bathwater in pusuit of a tiny increase in profits and a tighter stranglehold on the consumers, and as someone who derives a great deal of joy and mental wellbeing from the games I run each week, and the community around them, this is all very frustrating. Sure, the industry as a whole might get better for the die-hard TTRPG veterans, but for a lot of people (speaking more for the people I run for than myself, perhaps), DnD is the hobby and a nosedive like this is going to leave a lot of people mad. In many ways I hope that in a couple of years something has come along with ease of access, visibility and a toolset to rival WOTC, but at the moment it's hard to imagine
Paradigm wrote: More variety is great, can't argue with that. We're going to see some really innovative design, cool new settings, new opportunities in game development and new voices in the industry, and that is all fantastic! In ten years time we could be looking at a thriving industry with dozens of new and exciting games... which will all have a playerbase a tenth of the size of any given edition of DnD, sadly. Short of something like Critical Role adopting and promoting a new system, or publishing their own, none of these companies are going to move the needle on DnD's dominance of the space no matter how good they are.
That all depends on how badly DnD Burns their own bridges. A huge factor in their success is the podcasts and live plays. THOSE groups have created a massive in flux of players. When/if those groups switch to other game systems because they are incapable of monetizing their podcast content any more we are going to see a massive amount of free advertising for other systems. THAT will move the needle. Take them off the top? Maybe not. Take a huge chunk? I think so.
Case in point, my main ttrpg podcast comes from the Sans Pants network, DnD Is For Nerds. The GM Adam, has a horror series he runs called Beyond The Map where he uses Chronicles of Darkness 2nd Ed (the system isn't advertised, I just recognized the mechanics). But on Reddit and Discord I have seen multiple people asking about the game he was using because they wanted to try it. That is exposure to new systems simply because people were listening to the stories.
What happens when Critical Role stops playing DnD? How much of their listener base who hear them having a good time want to try the new game?
Lance, you and I have gone back and forth plenty of times here about the relative merits (or lack thereof) of 5e or D20 in general as a system, so I won't repeat all that, but the point I was making is that the rug is being pulled out from under the people who are perfectly happy with things they way they are. Those of us who play and enjoy 5e on its own merits are suddenly going to lose out on any kind of ongoing support or content if this goes as badly as it seems like it will, with no recourse for any publishers to pick up where WOTC leaves off (as we had been assuming they would under the OGL 1.0).
I am not going to debate that people are going to feel hurt or some pain from this. Individuals absolutely will.
But I am going to argue these 2 points.
1) You still have the massive content library you already have. You can keep using it.
2) What is good for the industry in the long run is more important than the pain of the individual in the short term. It just simply doesn't matter if individuals have to suffer through some hard times over the next 6 months to a year. The shake up is going to pay off over and over again as we move forward.
I can't link to Paizo's website because, well, the announcement has caused it to crash, so I'll repost the text here:
Paizo wrote:PAIZO ANNOUNCES SYSTEM-NEUTRAL OPEN RPG LICENSE
For the last several weeks, as rumors of Wizards of the Coast’s new version of the Open Game License began circulating among publishers and on social media, gamers across the world have been asking what Paizo plans to do in light of concerns regarding Wizards of the Coast’s rumored plan to de-authorize the existing OGL 1.0(a). We have been awaiting further information, hoping that Wizards would realize that, for more than 20 years, the OGL has been a mutually beneficial license which should not–and cannot–be revoked. While we continue to await an answer from Wizards, we strongly feel that Paizo can no longer delay making our own feelings about the importance of Open Gaming a part of the public discussion.
We believe that any interpretation that the OGL 1.0 or 1.0(a) were intended to be revocable or able to be deauthorized is incorrect, and with good reason.
We were there.
Paizo owner Lisa Stevens and Paizo president Jim Butler were leaders on the Dungeons & Dragons team at Wizards at the time. Brian Lewis, co-founder of Azora Law, the intellectual property law firm that Paizo uses, was the attorney at Wizards who came up with the legal framework for the OGL itself. Paizo has also worked very closely on OGL-related issues with Ryan Dancey, the visionary who conceived the OGL in the first place.
Paizo does not believe that the OGL 1.0a can be “deauthorized,” ever. While we are prepared to argue that point in a court of law if need be, we don’t want to have to do that, and we know that many of our fellow publishers are not in a position to do so.
We have no interest whatsoever in Wizards’ new OGL. Instead, we have a plan that we believe will irrevocably and unquestionably keep alive the spirit of the Open Game License.
As Paizo has evolved, the parts of the OGL that we ourselves value have changed. When we needed to quickly bring out Pathfinder First Edition to continue publishing our popular monthly adventures back in 2008, using Wizards’ language was important and expeditious. But in our non-RPG products, including our Pathfinder Tales novels, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, and others, we shifted our focus away from D&D tropes to lean harder into ideas from our own writers. By the time we went to work on Pathfinder Second Edition, Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content was significantly less important to us, and so our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics. While we still published it under the OGL, the reason was no longer to allow Paizo to use Wizards’ expressions, but to allow other companies to use our expressions.
We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).
The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.
In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius, Green Ronin, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.
The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).
Of course, Paizo plans to continue publishing Pathfinder and Starfinder, even as we move away from the Open Gaming License. Since months’ worth of products are still at the printer, you’ll see the familiar OGL 1.0(a) in the back of our products for a while yet. While the Open RPG Creative License is being finalized, we’ll be printing Pathfinder and Starfinder products without any license, and we’ll add the finished license to those products when the new license is complete.
We hope that you will continue to support Paizo and other game publishers in this difficult time for the entire hobby. You can do your part by supporting the many companies that have provided content under the OGL. Support Pathfinder and Starfinder by visiting your local game store, subscribing to Pathfinder and Starfinder, or taking advantage of discount code OpenGaming during checkout for 25% off your purchase of the Core Rulebook, Core Rulebook Pocket Edition, or Pathfinder Beginner Box. Support Kobold Press, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Roll for Combat, Rogue Genius Games, and other publishers working to preserve a prosperous future for Open Gaming that is both perpetual AND irrevocable.
We’ll be there at your side. You can count on us not to go back on our word.
Good on them and I hope that they don't have to defend it in court. That being said... they're probably the only company that is "big" enough to do so against a behemoth like Hasbro and not immediately go out of business though I don't doubt it will still hurt their bottom line. That being said... if they don't stand up and instead cave if WOTC/Hasbro press the issue, their business is likely done for regardless.
Lance845 wrote: Good for them. Though i don't understand why there is so much investment in a new open license when creative commons exists and is super modular.
Creative Commons is just a generic open licence anyone can use, but it has no foundation in any one setting.
The idea of DnD is a common core set of rules, structure and building blocks. So an open RPG system establishes a unified style of play and mechanics. Everything else bolts onto it. So its like Creative Commons, but with it being attached to a specific set of building blocks.
Lance845 wrote: Good for them. Though i don't understand why there is so much investment in a new open license when creative commons exists and is super modular.
Creative Commons is just a generic open licence anyone can use, but it has no foundation in any one setting.
The idea of DnD is a common core set of rules, structure and building blocks. So an open RPG system establishes a unified style of play and mechanics. Everything else bolts onto it. So its like Creative Commons, but with it being attached to a specific set of building blocks.
I understand why DnD made the OGL. I don't understand why Pazio and these other companies would create the ORC when it's system neutral and doesn't unify anything. Creative Commons already has them covered.
Because they're a competitor and they see an opportunity for free (literally) good will.
A cynic would say that they're just doing it to draw new customers to themselves, but I think that they're genuine about this, partly because, as they say, some of Paizo's people are people who worked on the original OGL and don't want to see their idea sullied, partly because it does draw in new customers (and why not?), partly because what WotC is proposing could hurt them, and partly because they've got a bunch of other gaming studios jumping on board.
It's one thing to have competitors. It's another to do something that causes all your major competitors to rally against you and go "No thanks!".
Yes, but, instead of the presumably expensive ORC that they need to find a home for, they could have drafted a version of the creative commons that does all the same things in the way they wanted it and posted it on their site to be copied and used by all.
It is PR and does unify people in an act of good will. But it's also not free and those lawyers are definitely getting paid.
The investment is creating for themselves an open market system whilst being at the forefront.
Basically they see how Wizards have done well with the original licence and DnD and they are going to emulate that model in their own way. They know that many customers only go for the official stuff or the main company stuff and never look far outside of it.
Even those that do, the vast majority will begin their journey with the core business.
They can see that they can emulate Wizards position with DnD, by being the powerhouse behind the creation of a new system.
It's also a passion to recreate the open licence and nature of the RPG market in general. This is a market where many working within it do so because its a passion. Sure they earn a living and they want a good wage at the end of the day; but they chose to work in a creative industry that provides a purely luxury entertainment to the world.
So they likely want to re-create it because its what they grew up with; its what they helped create the first time and they want that back.
Wizard's have put up their own statement, starting with a mealy-mouthed "We just wanted to protect you guys from racism and NFTs!".
Uh-huh. Can't unring a bell, idiots. You got caught trying to steal the cookie jar, and are now engaging in some borderline gas-lighting about it just being a draft and that "We really wanted feedback, and we got that, so we all won!" nonsense.
Lol. They were just trying to fight istaphobes, fellow gamers! We swear it was all in the name of social justice! I can't recall ever seeing any actually racist content in d20 or OGL reported on other than the insane re-definition that WOTC themselves thrust upon their own work in the last couple of years.
It isn't a terrible statement as such things go. Real sincerity isn't an achievable goal in such things (many will never believe it), so publicly backing down is pretty much the only reasonable option.
Its going to be an internet gaslighting adventure in both directions for the next couple months but will ultimately largely be forgotten. (By all but the most riled).
The immediate effects are that for the next couple months, the D&D One playtest feedback is going to be absolute garbage.
A predictably pathetic and patronising statement from WOTC, then, but a statement nonetheless.
Seems at least that they're backing down on the royalties, the ability to apply the new license to previously published products, and most importantly the clause where they can claim ownership or anything made under the OGL, be it a $2m dollar kickstarter supplement or a pay-what-you-want PDF. I think there is still a need to be wary, and to scrutinise the new license to hell and back when it does emerge to make sure they're held accountable, but still this is a rare and somewhat inspiring example of a community fightback against a corporation succeeding. I'm sure the only thing they paid any heed to was the vast number of people cancelling DnD Beyond subs, but even then it's cool to see people putting their money where their mouth is and actually forcing a positive change.
One could argue that between all the new plans and products announced by various third party publishers over the last week of radio silence, they've still got exactly what they want with regards to diverting or eliminating direct 'competition' (in the loosest sense of the word), but it's still good to have these assurances on paper for when the license does come through, so we as a community can make sure they follow up on this and don't just assume we'll all forget. They've burned a lot of bridges and a lot of trust, and despite their rhetoric in the announcement, this is a win for us, and absolutely a defeat for them.
According to the new leaker, this is a stalling tactic to (Hopefully) get the fans to even forget this ever happened, and then do it on the sly in 2-3 months. I will remain un-subbed until I see the new system put out by Kobold Press.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: According to the new leaker, this is a stalling tactic to (Hopefully) get the fans to even forget this ever happened, and then do it on the sly in 2-3 months. I will remain un-subbed until I see the new system put out by Kobold Press.
Why "until"?
Lets be real here. This isn't wizards first attempt at this it won't be their last. Under what circumstances do you feel like resubbing to wizards or giving them any more of your money is even an option compared to what made you unsub in the first place?
When, ever, is DnD worth any more of your investment instead of all these other companies that make better games with less bs?
I guess this is one of the things that upsets me. Am I legally allowed now to download PDF copies of all my books that I purchased? Because Beyond doesn't allow me to, I have to go through other methods.
Paradigm wrote: and most importantly the clause where they can claim ownership or anything made under the OGL, be it a $2m dollar kickstarter supplement or a pay-what-you-want PDF.
But, but, but they swear the thought never crossed their minds The drunk lawyers forced them do it, your honor!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I guess this is one of the things that upsets me. Am I legally allowed now to download PDF copies of all my books that I purchased? Because Beyond doesn't allow me to, I have to go through other methods.
If you already paid for it, don't feel bad at all about the other methods. They are changing the deal on you. You are not doing anything morally wrong taking your books and going home.
Well, the latest "leaks" which were "confirmed" by several people in the dev team via twitter, state that:
- DnD:B is going up to 30$ USD per month, for even basic users
- Basic users will have no access to homebrew anything, it is locked away behind the upper tiers
- They will be rolling out AI Dungeon masters, which will have tiered functionality. Meaning you can use their VTT as a single player, but only with very limited options.
- Content of all users will no longer be "sharable".
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Well, the latest "leaks" which were "confirmed" by several people in the dev team via twitter, state that:
- DnD:B is going up to 30$ USD per month, for even basic users
- Basic users will have no access to homebrew anything, it is locked away behind the upper tiers
- They will be rolling out AI Dungeon masters, which will have tiered functionality. Meaning you can use their VTT as a single player, but only with very limited options.
- Content of all users will no longer be "sharable".
Whelp, this is OGL 2.0, and it's DoA
Just to be clear, the $30 per month is rumored to be the ultimate tier price that includes some monthly DLC and not for basic users. It's still bonkers ridiculous but just not to that extent.
Honestly if you want a proper RPG experience as a singleplayer I can't help but feel that an actual RPG game is going to be FAR more entertaining than an "AI" one.
And at $30 a month you can get a good number of big full content RPG games in a year for that same amount.
DnD B sounds like they are taking a game aid system and online play support software and turning it into a full game with micro transactions and high monthly costs and all.
It's not an upgrade, its an entirely different bit of software and business direction.
Locking people out of free and custom content is also really really baffling at the low end because, well, custom stuff is what DND is built on.
It would be like Games Workshop banning your own paint schemes in games.
I mean, World of Warcraft is only 15/month, and offers far more playability than Beyond currently is slated to do. I think WoW numbers went down over covid because people got bored. If I were at the top levels of Blizz, I'd take a long hard look at attracting some of this fallen base.
Locking people out of free and custom content is also really really baffling at the low end because, well, custom stuff is what DND is built on.
It would be like Games Workshop banning your own paint schemes in games.
Thats... pretty dubious. In my experience, house rules rarely left the basement they were used in, and in the TSR days and previous editions under WotC, the sheer quantity of official material swamped 'custom stuff.' There wasn't as much of drive for it. And lots of recruitment ads for players started with 'Looking For Group - No 3rd Party Products.' DMs didn't want to spend the time figuring out if the latest published homebrew was horribly under or over powered.
I DM a 5E game and I currently use D&D Beyond for combat tracking, etc for my in-person game.
I also use the custom content creation thing there as I have a lot of custom monsters (Most are making higher level versions of current monsters - Alphas or giving them class levels) and use that to drop them into the encounter tracker there. Not being able to do that without paying a premium would annoy me and cause me to find a different method.
I only ever used beyond to give my players access to all the content options. I had to use a lot of 3rd party support to make it sync with my VTT Foundry. This is the only point in which I am willing to give points to WoTC. They are absolutely right. I was one of 7 people who ever paid money for the materials. 90% of the player base never pays anything.
Right, but that is ALL. Compare that with the DMs who need the DM guide, the Monster Manual, the published adventures, the actual paid account on DnD:B, and all the extra books to bring the extra options on line.
Point being only 1 out of 5 players ever spends more then 30-50 dollars on this game. Which is a broken system for monetization. If you want money, you need all 5 players to do some form of investment. Being more than just 1 book, if that.
Most of the people I've DMd for don't even have the players manual, they get it the free starter manual from DnD:B and go from there to the character creation screen, which already has the options unlocked.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Right, but that is ALL. Compare that with the DMs who need the DM guide, the Monster Manual, the published adventures, the actual paid account on DnD:B, and all the extra books to bring the extra options on line.
Point being only 1 out of 5 players ever spends more then 30-50 dollars on this game. Which is a broken system for monetization. If you want money, you need all 5 players to do some form of investment. Being more than just 1 book, if that.
Most of the people I've DMd for don't even have the players manual, they get it the free starter manual from DnD:B and go from there to the character creation screen, which already has the options unlocked.
Thats why they make decks of cards for class abilities. Player note books. Minis.
All that gak is incentives for players.
Doesn't help the online play/market. But that crap sells for players doing physical games.
Yeah there's mountains of accessories you can sell to players. Plus a lot of them theme around things like your class and your character and game race and such. So if you roll up a new character there's temptation to get new accessories to go with that new character. Esp if the games you play often have you preserving your character for long periods of time.
Plus don't forget sometimes game groups operate like clubs. You might have only 1 customer on the books buying stuff (likely the DM) but the money they are spending is pooled from the group. So on stats that managers review what might appear like 1 customer could in fact be 5 or 10 customers as a play group just buying through one person/club system.
So that's going to complicate the stats when managers are reviewing them to consider their sales patterns and plans.
It's an interesting watch. So the OGL in any variant can only ever cover the expression of the rules.
What this means is you can fully use rules that are the same to DnD, but as long as the layout of the rules is different and you don;t call it DnD then they cannot do anything.
So write your own campaign, and build it around it being compatible with DnD and not DnD itself they cannot do anything.
What actual court has shown precedent that a corporation CANNOT enforce copywrite restrictions on it's own IP? Corporate law is 90% on the side of the major corporations in the US, which is why Apple is allowed to do Apple things, John Deere is allowed to block "right to repair" bills, and Candy Crush is allowed to sue small time devs for over 100mil just for making a similar game. Also, most corporate judges got where they are by playing ball. The US patent law system is a joke designed to keep capitalists in charge, and the small indy devs down.
There is no chance WoTC faces an actual litigation threat if they push this through. I mean, people cancelling is nice and all, but I'm willing to be this goes live, and people don't bat an eye. Of sure, YT "Content" creators will get massive click bait videos screaming about the maddness of it all, but it will get forgotten and pushed aside in less than 2 years. Look at the dustup over Activation's pay-to-win monetization of games, or Blizzard making Diablo Immortal.
Nerds love to get their panties in a twist like this every year, but rarely does it ever have even the slightest change. And that is what WoTC is banking on.
I hope I'm proven wrong on this, but I expect we'll still be paying WoTC for the privilege of using their system in 2025.
The big difference here is that Wizard didn't just annoy customers, they annoyed the entire 3rd party market.
Those expansion books that hit $100K on Kickstarter fairly regularly; all those twitch and youtube play and streaming and clip channels; all those expansion packs and tokens; all the model makers.
Sure customers will forget fairly fast, but those who chose to make their job and life's role in making RPG content will not forget.
Not only will they remind customers regularly; but they will also change their product focus. They will start pushing toward other game formats and systems.
Basically Wizards feel a pinch now, but the real damage is the massive loss of being the potential market leader in years to come as they've opened the floodgates to competition.
Before this change part of the reason DnD was the market leader is because everyone was following DnD. Why fight to make your own RPG system when you can piggyback off DnD and DnD benefitted from the core sales and marketing that helped generate.
Now Wizards are kicking the 3rd parties out so they've every reason to want to go elsewhere. That they are already forming up around a major single open licence for a new system means that DnD might well have just handed the position of Market leader to another company in the future. Or at least a major competitor.
Short term and long term the results from this could be very different. Short term it might sting, but they can recover. Long term and bridges have been burned and the way set for DnD potentially losing a chunk of its hold.
It's akin to how GW under Kirby kept axing games; kept doing unfriendly marketing moves etc... It didn't kill them overnight; but it set them up to bleed and opened more of the market and more customers up to alternatives. Heck before Privateer Press had their own series of mistakes, they were sell set to rise up higher and higher and rival GW proper.
The difference here is that Wizard didn't do a slow burn; they did a flashfire.
Yeah, the times have changed in the decade since the last time WOTC tried to tie a restrictive license with a digital tabletop in 4e... and even back then they failed spectacularly with Paizo's Pathfinder 1e becoming the highest selling (by the only industry metric we have... ICV2) and most popular (by attendance at major cons) for several years for really the first time in D&D's history.
And all that happened organically with the fanbase simply saying "no" in days prior to influencers that seem to be driving the current d&d craze. Obviously the inferior (ymmv!) 4e rules had alot to do with that and if 6e really will be backward compatible to a significant degree then that won't likely be an issue. But streamers who regularly have thousands to tens of thousands of watchers making statements about why they're potentially switching systems (like Criticial Role did from Pathfinder to 5e) will sway some not-insignificant number of casual watchers/players.
In any case, we won't know until WOTC officially releases their emergency redone OGL 2.0 in response to the backlash. Their promises are meaningless given their attempt to undo what the entire industry and fanbase considered the legally binding permant earlier version.
warboss wrote: Their promises are meaningless given their attempt to undo what the entire industry and fanbase considered the legally binding permant earlier version.
Which is the other issue. This isn't just a firm suddenly defending their IP after years of just not defending it in certain market sectors. This is a firm who as one of their formal legal foundations, setup an open licence to use large portions of their IP and such. That's a huge thing if things go to court, especially when the original writers of that legal contract are still alive today and have already spoken out against the new legal contract.
It's an interesting watch. So the OGL in any variant can only ever cover the expression of the rules.
What this means is you can fully use rules that are the same to DnD, but as long as the layout of the rules is different and you don;t call it DnD then they cannot do anything.
So write your own campaign, and build it around it being compatible with DnD and not DnD itself they cannot do anything.
I don't think most 3rd party devs use the OGL because they think they need it to make compatible materials. They use it because it's marketing. Saying 5e compatible on the cover and including the OGL ensure the customer and adds to your promo materials.
They conceed to the OGL for what they get out of it.
Easy E wrote: I am not an expert, but it was my thought that game mechanics can not be copywritten, but unique terms and IP creations can be.
Therefore, you can use a roll 20 mechanics all you want. You just need to change the naming conventions.
However, I am not an expert or an attorney so what do I know?
Even if that is 100% true, you still have to have the time and money to defend it in court likely for years before a resolution is reached. Outside of an initial summary judgement and dismissal immediately in their favor, that's just not feasible for all but Paizo and even for them would be very risky financially. Hasbro/WOTC can afford to kick the can down the road even if they ultimately lose if it means that in the intervening years the 3rd party industry folds and their revenue goes up.
Easy E wrote: I am not an expert, but it was my thought that game mechanics can not be copywritten, but unique terms and IP creations can be.
Therefore, you can use a roll 20 mechanics all you want. You just need to change the naming conventions.
However, I am not an expert or an attorney so what do I know?
Technically true. However, the trouble is that those naming conventions are the very things that make third party content compatible with DnD viable. While this has never really been tested and no one seems exactly sure where the line is, it is possible that terms like 'armor class' or 'ability score' are considered expressions of those mechanics, and are therefore protectable.
So yes, you can go and write a game or expansion with every name changed, where 'Strength score' become 'Might Value', 'armor class' becomes 'defence factor' and 'saving throw' becomes 'roll to make a bad thing not happen', but that becomes basically incompatible with an existibg game, which is the main selling point of OGL content. As a distinct product it might stamd up to legal scrutiny, but no one is going to buy (or write) a monster book or adventure that, while technically compatible with 5e, requires you to re-translate every single line of rules text and reverse engineer every stat block to decipher how it actually functions for the game you're already playing.
As I say, no one's sure where the line is, and you could probably/possibly get away with some of the terms being generic enough, but at the same time WOTC only has to lawyer up and win one challenge and you've got to rework or halt your entire project, if you can even afford to contest it in the first place. The whole point of the OGL was to be a standing agreement that they wouldn't come after you over these edge cases, and that seems to be the main thing they want to change.
Even if the fans have won the first round, the inent won't have changed, and I wouldn't be surprised if Hasbro aren't looking to possibly take one of these edge cases to court and set some manner of precedent once the current OGL is gone. That itself might backfire a la GW and Chapterhouse, but I suspect Hasbro would be slightly more careful in what exactly they try and contest or claim ownership of. It's not going to be 'attack toll' or 'saving throw', but it might well be 'spell slot' or 'subclass' as those are possibly a little less generic.
At the same time even if they went to court and won the damage would be done. No one in the 3rd party market would want to work anywhere near them and game making is a really niche market in terms of skilled people.
It would just add fuel to the fire of the other firms pushing away from DnD.
Which I think is also part of why their response has shifted dramatically (at least in that open letter we still have to wait till Friday to see the new draft). The speed at which Paizo has setup a potential competing brand and the larger 3rd parties that have united very quickly together behind it I think showed the managers of Wizards that they could have serious competition on their hands in a very short span of time.
DnD enjoys its market dominance, but its an exceptionally fragile market dominance.
Always irritates me stuff like this where they apologise and say "oopsie doodle we got it wrong". You didn't think it was wrong at the time, just you reckoned on getting away with it. Shouldn't have got that far in the first place and they are only contrite because it costs them income. It's never the little pricks who make those decisions that apologise either, it's some other sod further down the line who didn't get a choice in the decision anyway.
TL;DR: Still working on it. Next version published this Friday with two weeks of UA/One style feedback surveys.
Nice try at scapegoating while trying to gain some breathing room, and focus all the criticism in a small self contained space until the storm blows away.
Olthannon wrote: Always irritates me stuff like this where they apologise and say "oopsie doodle we got it wrong". You didn't think it was wrong at the time, just you reckoned on getting away with it. Shouldn't have got that far in the first place and they are only contrite because it costs them income. It's never the little pricks who make those decisions that apologise either, it's some other sod further down the line who didn't get a choice in the decision anyway.
At least their intentions were noble. They were just trying to fix social injustice at the low, low price of 25% of other people's money and the collapse of the third party industry. Just think of all the exposure new creators would have gotten with WOTC republishing their works too! It's a win-win for all! [/sarcasm]
TL;DR: Still working on it. Next version published this Friday with two weeks of UA/One style feedback surveys.
Nice try at scapegoating while trying to gain some breathing room, and focus all the criticism in a small self contained space until the storm blows away.
M.
Yeah, a video I watched noted that the survey process is a safe way of funnelling angry feedback into a private channel that can be ignored until it's out of people's systems as opposed to expressing it in forums/reddit/social media/videos/groups/etc where everyone can see it and have it feed upon itself to grow.
Predictions on "worst excessive monetization" and GO:
Specific spells are paywalled. Starting with Healing Word.
Specific weapons are paywalled. Starting with Greatswords.
higher tiered players on the VTT can get customizable emotes and fonts for their name. Each one costs 2 USD.
TL;DR: Still working on it. Next version published this Friday with two weeks of UA/One style feedback surveys.
Nice try at scapegoating while trying to gain some breathing room, and focus all the criticism in a small self contained space until the storm blows away.
M.
Yeah, a video I watched noted that the survey process is a safe way of funnelling angry feedback into a private channel that can be ignored until it's out of people's systems as opposed to expressing it in forums/reddit/social media/videos/groups/etc where everyone can see it and have it feed upon itself to grow.
Yes and no - it can channel feedback, but at the same time if there's enough ire people will write their complaint and then reinforce it by spreading their comments online too.
Plus this situation isn't going away like many customer based complaints. Because its not just customers who are hit, in fact this hits customers as a secondary impact, its primary impact is on 3rd party companies. Many of which have good reason to remind their customers of the problems with licences and to keep attention and pressure on Wizards and Hasbro.
OGL 1.2 beta is up. They can still cancel your livelihood at their sole discretion under the guise of hate/harassment with no recourse (legal or otherwise) and 1.0a is still gone.
Yes and no - it can channel feedback, but at the same time if there's enough ire people will write their complaint and then reinforce it by spreading their comments online too.
Plus this situation isn't going away like many customer based complaints. Because its not just customers who are hit, in fact this hits customers as a secondary impact, its primary impact is on 3rd party companies. Many of which have good reason to remind their customers of the problems with licences and to keep attention and pressure on Wizards and Hasbro.
I'm hoping that the wakeup call to the 3rd party industry will be the deciding factor now that they realized that WOTC can and, more importantly, will destroy their livelihood if it suits them and they feel that they can get away with it.
Yup. I don't particularly want to trade one homogeneous monolith for another one, but the systems in use by that group are at least of some variety. If it gets more people trying more games, good.
Specific spells are paywalled. Starting with Healing Word.
Specific weapons are paywalled. Starting with Greatswords.
higher tiered players on the VTT can get customizable emotes and fonts for their name. Each one costs 2 USD.
I look forward to the D&D equivalent of "Loot Boxes" and adding in Microtransactions into the VTT.
I expect your character will only have 2-3 generic clothing options and one armor skin per armor type unless you buy more cosmetic variants. And don't forget the limited edition time gated holiday spell effects and stickers!
Best yet... just like with online MTG, they can take it away from you at any second at their sole discretion with no recourse if they don't like your viewpoints out of game! Just think of the added excitement that brings to every purchase/post...
That would be awesome! Maybe they can add more advanced disease and poison mechanics only at the free tier for DNDBeyond with the cure being DLC! Now that's a memorable loot box if the cure is randomized in DLC!
Everyone should be moving away from Wizards and DnD regardless of anything they do. This is the second time they tried this. Anyone seriously think there won't be a third attempt?
Everyone should be moving away from Wizards and DnD regardless of anything they do. This is the second time they tried this. Anyone seriously think there won't be a third attempt?
Depends, if this move results in even more people leaving then it reinforces the view that the new licence was the correct move to make in the eyes of the managers.
If, instead, they see return and increased profits then it reinforces the idea, to the managers, that they made the right choice.
Honestly I'd had to see DnD die and its important that we should remember that the creative staff were likely not involved in this choice at all from the start and that this is a manager thing; likely from Hasbro direct.
What I'd like to see from this is DnD return to its stable position, which helps them and many 3rd party firms who are bound to them (even if they want to shift away now, many still have ongoing projects that rely on DnD and its popularity); but also an increase in the market in competition. Which I'm sure its going to happen. I think we will enter a new age in a half to years time where DnD will have a competing brand and system on the market with its own open licence and system.
I'd rather see two healthy firms competing and giving the customers more choice, more quality and being pushed to compete.
It looks like it's for the SRD 5.1. I assume that the 5th edition version and won't include the upcoming 6e/One stuff that might suddenly become less compatible now despite earlier promises?
Everyone should be moving away from Wizards and DnD regardless of anything they do. This is the second time they tried this. Anyone seriously think there won't be a third attempt?
There will be... but it's still a reason to celebrate for now. Regardless, if I won the lottery and started up an RPG company (amongst other things), I wouldn't focus on 3rd party D&D stuff though.
What I'd like to see from this is DnD return to its stable position, which helps them and many 3rd party firms who are bound to them (even if they want to shift away now, many still have ongoing projects that rely on DnD and its popularity); but also an increase in the market in competition. Which I'm sure its going to happen. I think we will enter a new age in a half to years time where DnD will have a competing brand and system on the market with its own open licence and system.
For some portion of the industry, they'll go back to business as usual mostly because it's the only feasible way for them to exist. For another portion, their eyes have been opened to what Hasbro/WOTC is willing to try and do regardless of the consequences/contracts/law and they won't be shut again with them moving away from D&D related content.
Everyone should be moving away from Wizards and DnD regardless of anything they do. This is the second time they tried this. Anyone seriously think there won't be a third attempt?
Depends, if this move results in even more people leaving then it reinforces the view that the new licence was the correct move to make in the eyes of the managers.
If, instead, they see return and increased profits then it reinforces the idea, to the managers, that they made the right choice.
Personally, I don't care if they learn any lesson. It doesn't matter what they learn or don't learn. WE should have learned after 4th what they wanted to do. And now that they tried to do a similar thing a second time WE should learn that this wasn't/isn't a one off. The question isn't if they will try to do this stuff again. It's when. And next time they will be more secretive about it.
Honestly I'd had to see DnD die and its important that we should remember that the creative staff were likely not involved in this choice at all from the start and that this is a manager thing; likely from Hasbro direct.
There are passionate decent people working for a terrible company and by all accounts under terrible working conditions. That, ultimately, doesn't matter.
What I'd like to see from this is DnD return to its stable position, which helps them and many 3rd party firms who are bound to them (even if they want to shift away now, many still have ongoing projects that rely on DnD and its popularity); but also an increase in the market in competition. Which I'm sure its going to happen. I think we will enter a new age in a half to years time where DnD will have a competing brand and system on the market with its own open licence and system.
DnD being in a stable position is a black hole for content creators. They eat up such a large portion of the market share that it normalizes the majority of content created into being about this one system. A more even distribution allows for more innovation and a better spread of products for us all. It's better for the 3rd party creators to not rely on DnDs monolith. It's better for us as players to not have DnD be a monolith. It's better for the entire industry to spread it out. It's exactly like Games Workshop eating up such a large chunk of the Miniature War Game market. It's bad for everyone.
I'd rather see two healthy firms competing and giving the customers more choice, more quality and being pushed to compete.
Well, at this point its up to those theoretical '20 or 50 firms' (the latter is a number that frankly seems unreasonable for the size of the RPG industry) to be successful.
Game developers AND customers have to be willing to move away from D&D. If WotC keeps them at this point, its because they want to be kept.
I mean honestly, WoTC has destroyed what was the DnD I grew up with in the 80s and 90s. They shot it, pissed on it, and then told us it was our fault. I'll keep playing DnD, but this is the end of my support. From now on it's a pirates life for me, or I'll just homebrew it. But never giving WOTC another dollar of my money for a service, or even a model. Literally everything about DnD sucks now, including the player base. I'm sorry, but they opened the tent too wide during covid, and now I have people trying to literally include rape fetish under the guise of "Roleplay" or people who can't do the math without Beyond adding all the scary numbers together.
I'm donating my 5th ed books to the local library and going back to Paizo/PF 1
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I mean honestly, WoTC has destroyed what was the DnD I grew up with in the 80s and 90s. They shot it, pissed on it, and then told us it was our fault. I'll keep playing DnD, but this is the end of my support. From now on it's a pirates life for me, or I'll just homebrew it. But never giving WOTC another dollar of my money for a service, or even a model. Literally everything about DnD sucks now, including the player base. I'm sorry, but they opened the tent too wide during covid, and now I have people trying to literally include rape fetish under the guise of "Roleplay" or people who can't do the math without Beyond adding all the scary numbers together.
I'm donating my 5th ed books to the local library and going back to Paizo/PF 1
I understand not wanting to give WoTC any more money. If they have lost you as a consumer that's fine. But as far as saying the player base sucks for DnD. That's nothing to do with WoTC. Anyone has aright to play the game. If you have people wanting to include illicet and illegal activites at the table then you need to find new people. WoTC cannot be held acocuntable for that.
But on that same coin you cannot dictate how others find their fun. Many people still enjoy 5e. That's okay. It's all about finding the table that is right for you and setting clear understanding about what everyone wants and is comfortable with.
I had a player, name rhymes with mall. He was adamant we play 5e like 2e. He wanted long rests to not restore HP. He wanted magic to be a certain way. He was very controlling and very hard to play with because he would game on behalf of other players. We didn't tell him he can't play that way, because although not for us that is how he enjoyed the game. So instead we helped him find another group of similar minded individuals and we carried on.
We don't need to turn this againt players.
And if like you say "everything sucks" about DnD then that's fine don't play. But we can't be telling others they can't play either. Everyone has a right to choose. We need to be supporting players rather than keeping them at bay.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I mean honestly, WoTC has destroyed what was the DnD I grew up with in the 80s and 90s. They shot it, pissed on it, and then told us it was our fault. I'll keep playing DnD, but this is the end of my support. From now on it's a pirates life for me, or I'll just homebrew it. But never giving WOTC another dollar of my money for a service, or even a model. Literally everything about DnD sucks now, including the player base. I'm sorry, but they opened the tent too wide during covid, and now I have people trying to literally include rape fetish under the guise of "Roleplay" or people who can't do the math without Beyond adding all the scary numbers together.
I'm donating my 5th ed books to the local library and going back to Paizo/PF 1
Play what makes you happy both at the table and away when it comes to the company's corporate practices... but I can't see blaming the company for the actions of a wayward player as the logical companion to that. If WOTC is guilty of anything as of late, it would instead be bending the knee to overly sensitive players/creators looking really hard for anything minor or imagined to be offended by and not for placating people trying to actually incorporate very objectionable things into sessions.
So where do we go when WOTC says as justification for their actions, "We are trying to preserve the wholesomeness of the game!"
There hasn't been a game I've played in 5th from a published source that hasn't included racist tropes, or dog whistle to murder hoboing.
WoTC was very clearly catering to a specific player in 5th. ORKS are big dumb stupids that smash, kill on sight. Same with Goblins, Kobolds, and pretty much anything from CR2 and down in the Monster manual.
They didn't start the whole, "Orks are people too!" until Tashas, which came out during covid, and that was when everything really went weird. Now Drow aren't a created race of an evil god, they are misunderstood edge lords. Now any ork with less than 10 intelligence is a racist caricature.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So where do we go when WOTC says as justification for their actions, "We are trying to preserve the wholesomeness of the game!"
There hasn't been a game I've played in 5th from a published source that hasn't included racist tropes, or dog whistle to murder hoboing.
WoTC was very clearly catering to a specific player in 5th. ORKS are big dumb stupids that smash, kill on sight. Same with Goblins, Kobolds, and pretty much anything from CR2 and down in the Monster manual.
They didn't start the whole, "Orks are people too!" until Tashas, which came out during covid, and that was when everything really went weird. Now Drow aren't a created race of an evil god, they are misunderstood edge lords. Now any ork with less than 10 intelligence is a racist caricature.
In the words of Ghraham Chapman "TOO SILLY"
Think of the adventures as more guide lines. They are written to be basic and simple for DM's to follow and structure. But it's fairly well known you are encouraged as a DM to change and adapt their adventures to suit your party needs or views etc.
Tashas was a way to allow new players who came in during covid to find their own niche if they so choose. Which is allowed, have fun however you want. This is why Tashas still remains as an "optional" thing to choose. You don't have to apply Tasha's. Merely if you want to play an Ork because rule of cool, but you want the race trait to go into int cos they be a wizard. It's the attitude of, "have fun" and thats how it should be. Again WoTC cannot be held accountable for how players choose to play their game. Are Rockstar accountable for people going full murder hobo in Red Dead Online? no.
You can create your own world and play however you like. Just remember the most important rule. Have Fun
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So where do we go when WOTC says as justification for their actions, "We are trying to preserve the wholesomeness of the game!"
There hasn't been a game I've played in 5th from a published source that hasn't included racist tropes, or dog whistle to murder hoboing.
WoTC was very clearly catering to a specific player in 5th. ORKS are big dumb stupids that smash, kill on sight. Same with Goblins, Kobolds, and pretty much anything from CR2 and down in the Monster manual.
They didn't start the whole, "Orks are people too!" until Tashas, which came out during covid, and that was when everything really went weird. Now Drow aren't a created race of an evil god, they are misunderstood edge lords. Now any ork with less than 10 intelligence is a racist caricature.
In the words of Ghraham Chapman "TOO SILLY"
Are you more angry about orcs being "big dumb stupids" initially or the more recent retcon of them as misunderstood race of paleo artists and poets standing in for real world racial groups? You seem to be railing against both sides of the coin in one post. If you don't like the latter, I'd probably suggest looking at OSR style games that don't pander to modern ridiculousness. If you don't like the former, you should stick in D&D and enjoy the new carefree loveable fey bugbears and hobgoblins that are now the baseline. If you dislike both, I'm afraid there isn't a happy ending for your hobby interests.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SeanDavid1991 wrote: Think of the adventures as more guide lines. They are written to be basic and simple for DM's to follow and structure. But it's fairly well known you are encouraged as a DM to change and adapt their adventures to suit your party needs or views etc.
Yes but the official products also set the baseline expectations for the shared experience and you're typically penalized for deviating from it in terms of attendance/participation unless you find multiple like minded people. It's just like incorporating 3rd party products or trying to run an older edition game is simply just more difficult than the current one with only official sources. I'm not saying I like it but that's just my experience with it.
If I am getting Fezzik right it isn't the content that is the issue on either side of the spectrum. It's wizards shallow attempt at placating either side. Or trying to take credit for doing something they never actually tried to do.
Wizards never built a product for inclusivity. They saw a chance to do a shallow PR move and made it.
I will go further down this rabbit hole. 5th brought Mercer and his show to the forefront. Which in turn brought a whole horde of Normies to the tables. Which forced us to literally dumb down the game to appeal to the slowest runner in the group. A game designed around statistical math and role-playing (Things usually despised and looked down on until 5 years ago) were suddenly chic and hip. Mercer was talked about at work lunch rooms by people who had shoved nerds into lockers.
DnD was suddenly a chance for people who wanted to be chic to demand that DnD be exactly like they saw on the last Episode of "Mercer throws math rocks and talks in silly voices"
Point was, and Mercer has already admitted this, his effect on DnD likely killed what DnD meant for a lot of people. I'm sick and tired people who'd be better served playing Halo, telling me I'm running the game wrong, or arguing about the Rule of Cool, allowing them to break the game.
Maybe I'm just tired of DnD, maybe I'm tired of other people. Point is, this game is now very dead to me, and 5th was the last fart of corpse gas.
Maybe I'm just tired of DnD, maybe I'm tired of other people. Point is, this game is now very dead to me, and 5th was the last fart of corpse gas.
There's always more gas somewhere in the corpse but I get your point and have been there myself. I went from twice weekly D&D of some flavor for years during 3/3.5 (two bi-weekly campaigns and a weekly D&D minis night) to nothing for 12+ years because of my distaste for 4e (we tried Pathfinder and it was good but I think I was burnt out and discouraged by that point). I'd still recommend trying other systems in the same genre though as they don't attract the same publicity and the people that come with it.
I both started and ended D&D on 5e. It was initially sad to lose the want to play it. But, honestly, it opened the rest of the world of tabletop games to me. I got to try Savage Worlds, GURPS, Cyberpunk, FATE, GURPS, Delta Green, some weird self made rpg, Dark Heresy, and The Fantasy Trip.
It really is an eye opener to all the games out there.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: "5th Edition was the greatest edition of DnD ever, if you don't count literally any other version of DnD." - Reddit user DrowSux6969xxx
I get that you're looking for reasons to be mad at WOTC over your local community being toxic but 5th has been the greatest edition of D&D for at least the past 25 years. If not 5th then what else would be?
3rd/3.5/Pathfinder was a bloated mess that makes 40k look straightforward, with characters constrained to a very narrow subset of the available content if you ever wanted to keep up and reliant on careful planning to make sure you got all of your feat chains and class prerequisites lined up correctly. Don't like digging through countless pages of material spread across multiple books to find the one broken thing that makes your class work, buried among option after option after option after option that is completely dysfunctional and should never be taken? Don't want to play a full caster in every game that gets beyond about 5th level? Too bad. And that's not even getting into the actual character optimization stuff where you could completely break the game and literally become a god at 1st level.
4th was tabletop WoW with stripped-down and homogenized classes built around rigid WoW-style parties of healer/DPS/tank, cooldown abilities, etc, and designed to be little more than a rule set for the D&D miniatures line. Oh, and everything was paywalled behind the subscription system, including former core classes being removed from the PHB so WOTC could sell them back to you as day one DLC. Good job WOTC, you made people nostalgic enough for the 3.5e degeneracy that you spawned an entire competing company dedicated to supporting the previous edition and nearly killed off the official game.
5th was the game that finally fixed things and made it playable out of the box. Enough class diversity that it isn't pandering to the WoW players, but with a short enough list of content and strictly bounded dice math that it didn't turn into degenerate 3.5e style character optimization nonsense. It was the first edition in at least 20 years where you could come up with a character concept, select the appropriate rules, and jump right into playing with a reasonable expectation that you'd have a good time. And who cares if WOTC did some silly things with the setting, any decent GM is making up their own world anyway so none of that stuff matters.
So I don't know, maybe 2nd edition was the platonic ideal of a good RPG. I wasn't around for that era so I admit that I could be missing something. But given the lack of people still playing it I'd be surprised. Even Pathfinder, a completely broken and barely playable game, has more of a presence than 2nd edition and earlier D&D.
And with that post we now have double the amount of hyperbole in the thread. Congrats, I guess? The sad thing is that you actually made some good points in between the vastly exaggerated ones.
Pathfinder is broken and unplayable? Since when? Have you ever played it? Also, 4th was just Babies first DnD, where everyone is Either Goku or Majin Buu, and everything else is Yamcha. As Corville put it:
"4th edition was specifically designed to appeal to the VTT community, who wanted more of a video game than a TTRPG."
3rd was a super complicated mess that required a law degree to get past character creation.
3.5 was literally Paizo saying lets just make this but with more Role Play.
5th was Hasbro and WoTC saying lets remake 2nd, but with the same goals as 4th.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Pathfinder is broken and unplayable? Since when? Have you ever played it?
Yes, I've played it. I actively play it now even. My main RPG group is using Pathfinder and the game succeeds despite the broken system, not because of it. The rules bloat is insane, unbounded modifier stacking makes encounter balance and balance between PCs a nightmare, and you pretty much have to have a rule that you can rebuild your character each time you level up because otherwise people get screwed over by not realizing they needed to take a specific feat four levels ago to make their chain of prerequisites work. Paizo took all the problems 3.5e had with sheer volume of rule content and made all of it even worse. And that's on top of the inherent balance issues where full casters make every other class obsolete. Need a tank? Summon monster or play a druid. Need a rogue? There's a spell to give you trapfinding and a variety of scouting spells. Need DPS? Got plenty of that at every spell level. Need a healer? Probably not, but just in case you do the cleric has a full load of normal spells and can convert them to healing at will. Need a face for the party? Good thing sorcerers have CHA as their primary spellcasting stat, wizards can use INT for diplomacy and bluff, and there's a variety of buff spells for social situations. There's a reason the best known wizard guide has a whole section on how to not win the encounter outright and use debuff spells to let the fighter pretend to be useful with his 1d6+5 damage per round.
3.5 was literally Paizo saying lets just make this but with more Role Play.
Um, no? 3.5 was WOTC. Paizo published Pathfinder and didn't do so until WOTC released the 4th edition disaster.
5th was Hasbro and WoTC saying lets remake 2nd, but with the same goals as 4th.
Not really. The goal of 4th was to make a skirmish-scale miniatures game with familiar WoW archetypes and rigid role definitions for each character. The goal of 5th was to make a more elegant game than 3/3.5/Pathfinder but with a reasonable level of depth and character customization. They're superficially similar in that both avoided the absurd rules bloat of 3/3.5/Pathfinder but they had very different goals beyond that.
Every edition of DnD is a skirmish scale miniatures game. That was the entire point of them making it.
And every idea they bought to the table with 4th is present in 5th. They just hid it behind some RP fluff in 5th and didn't bother to do it in 4th. Do you like spending hit dice during a rest? Those were called healing charges and were introduced in 4th. Do you like having At Will abilities? I mean Cantrips with no limits on casting them. 4th.
5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: 5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.
Yeah, it sounds very much like your problem is not the rules published by WOTC in any particular edition, it's that you're playing with an incredibly toxic group of people that will ruin the game no matter which rule system you use. Do you happen to live in Poland?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: 5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.
Yeah, it sounds very much like your problem is not the rules published by WOTC in any particular edition, it's that you're playing with an incredibly toxic group of people that will ruin the game no matter which rule system you use. Do you happen to live in Poland?
Agreed with that. All the usual hyperbole and incoherence (its new but also introduced in 1976...?) And besides was an official mechanic (under a different name- hero points) in 4e as well, and an optional rule in 3rd and lots of third party games.
'Problematic' showboating for in-game bonuses is very late 1990s/early 2000s game design- see Exalted and a lot of related games.
In fact, I think the old TSR Marvel Superheroes RPG (1986 or so) is one of the earliest games for 'stunting for bonuses'
Also there is zero need to use inspiration as a DM if you don't want to. I use it very sparingly myself, I give it out if I'm particularly proud of something my players do.
Hell it even says in the DM guide that it's optional. Definitely sounds like an issue with your group.
Olthannon wrote: Also there is zero need to use inspiration as a DM if you don't want to. I use it very sparingly myself, I give it out if I'm particularly proud of something my players do.
That's true, too. I've seen a lot of groups simply not use it at all.
Inspiration is a meta currency, and I tend not to like them, but it's just advantage. I don't think you'll lose nay friends based on something you can get for many, many, many other reasons.
Lance845 wrote: Every edition of DnD is a skirmish scale miniatures game. That was the entire point of them making it.
I'll grant that this is a subjective thing but there's a difference between "roleplaying game where you can use miniatures to track things if you want" and "rules support for this specific line of miniatures we just introduced".
And every idea they bought to the table with 4th is present in 5th. They just hid it behind some RP fluff in 5th and didn't bother to do it in 4th. Do you like spending hit dice during a rest? Those were called healing charges and were introduced in 4th. Do you like having At Will abilities? I mean Cantrips with no limits on casting them. 4th.
Not true at all. The two things I hated most about 4th were not at all present in 5th: the stripped-down classes with rigid party roles out of a WoW raid, and the day one DLC.
4th strongly pushed you to play a stock character archetype based on conventional WoW roles. Fighters take damage, rogues deal damage, clerics heal the fighter, wizards debuff or add DPS. Don't go outside that because it isn't well supported, and don't even think about multiclassing. 5th went back to a more balanced middle ground where yes, it has fewer options than the absurd bloat of the 3rd edition era, but each class has multiple archetypes built in and it's rare that I can think of a character concept that won't be supported by the rules. And on a party level there's much less expectation that every party follow the conventional WoW raid duties of DPS/tank/healer/debuff, you can choose your character based on the story and things are way more likely to work out.
4th also stripped out content from the core books so WOTC could sell it back to you as day one DLC. Want to play a druid (IIRC), a class that has been in the game for decades and is a traditional part of the core books? Too bad, buy the subscription service if you want access to those rules. 4th on launch day felt very much like an incomplete game where the expensive paper books were just a preview for the subscription service you were expected to buy if you wanted to actually play the game. 5th, on the other hand, is a more complete game out of the box and paid rule supplements are rare. You have options for buying pre-built campaign settings if you want to play in those worlds, a thing D&D has always had, but if you're playing in your own world you don't need to buy anything beyond the core three books.
And I don't think I'm alone in this. 4th was so unpopular it created Pathfinder and allowed Paizo to steal most of WOTC's customer base with a game built on the incredibly flawed 3.5e system. 5th has swung that back entirely. So clearly there's something about 5th that works for people in a way that 4th didn't.
The class roles (Called the trinity btw) are present in 5th edition as well. You just have more options for each class to be built to fulfill different roles. And sometimes, those options are just different fluff flavors of fulfilling the same role. There is no version of the sorcerer in the PHB that isn't a DPS for instance.
BTW selection of your Bard College or Druid Circle or all those different options available for every class. In 4th when that was introduced for every class it was called "Paragon Paths". And the PHB came with 4 for every class (with the exception of the warlock who had 3). In 4th you picked this paragon path at level 10, and then an epic destiny at level 20. In 5th you pick you "archetype" or whatever at level 3.
You don't think you have DLC in 5th? Go crack open the PHB and play with ONLY those options. Look at the actual abilities and see what roles in the trinity it places the player into. One of the first books released within the first year was Xanathars Guide to Everything which effectively doubled the options of the PHB. Yes. 4th had less classes in the book. But those classes had the rules for playing to level 30 instead of just 20 right in the core PHB. So while yes. It had less classes in the core book (8 instead of 3rd eds 11) Each class had 150% the content of 3rd (Effectively 12 classes worth). So while you may be here calling it a "more complete" game it's not really true. Just because an option you liked wasn't there in the page count day 1, doesn't mean the book you had lacked for content and wasn't just as playable.
Again, they are just hiding it better in 5th and as a result you have been sucked in by it.
People did hate 4th. That had as much to do with their PR as anything else. Including during the run up to 4th some messages often quoted from the design team saying things like "DnD isn't about fairy rings. It's about kicking down the doors in a dungeon, killing monsters, and getting loot!" and people saying stuff like "I literally was in a fairy ring last week..." in response.
4th ed is no worse than any other edition of dnd. It has ALL the same failings. It just did a worse job of hiding it.
Another aspect might well be that its not that 5th is "hiding" things better but that things established in 4th are simply being reinforced and the "shock of change" is less of an impact.
Rather like how when a game goes from £30 to £40 for the sequel its a huge increase everyone hates but when the 3rd game comes out at £40 its much more accepted. Even though its still £10 more than the first game was.
Lance845 wrote: One of the first books released within the first year was Xanathars Guide to Everything
Xanathar's came out 3 years after the release of 5e... You're probably thinking of the Sword Coast Adventurer's guide which came out a year later and... generally is considered one of the worst of the supplemental 5e content
I wonder if the 4e mechanics would be better received nowadays. I only played it about 6 months before we gave up so my memory of it is foggy at best. My biggest remembered complaint was how grindy the combat was even at low levels. We played an official adventure and we came across either goblins or kobolds with a big pool of HP each for the non-minions and I remember the straw that broke the camel's back for me was realizing there was no way for us realistically to lose the fight but there was also no way of winning it without slogging on in combat for another hour. It was the tabletop equivalent of bullet sponges. Did that ever change later on in the edition?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: 5th introduced one key thing and that was Inspiration, where DMs made and lost close friends based entirely on who was decided to have RP'd the best, causing people to showboat or take over entire interactions for a chance at a sweet extra dice to roll at will. It was mentioned by Gygax in an interview back in 76, but they made it an official game mechanic in 5th, and now it's a key aspect of DNDne.
Ummmm...There was a similar mechanic introduced in 2nd edition for Planescape. You could earn a reroll by playing your character.
In my game, I don't use Inspiration. Inspiration sucks as a mechanic...You have to choose to use it before you roll and you can only have one at a time. What I do is each player gets one re-roll to use each session.
warboss wrote: I wonder if the 4e mechanics would be better received nowadays. I only played it about 6 months before we gave up so my memory of it is foggy at best. My biggest remembered complaint was how grindy the combat was even at low levels. We played an official adventure and we came across either goblins or kobolds with a big pool of HP each for the non-minions and I remember the straw that broke the camel's back for me was realizing there was no way for us realistically to lose the fight but there was also no way of winning it without slogging on in combat for another hour. It was the tabletop equivalent of bullet sponges. Did that ever change later on in the edition?
Yeah, they released another Monster Manual that addressed a lot of the monster design issues in the initial one.
Lance845 wrote: One of the first books released within the first year was Xanathars Guide to Everything
Xanathar's came out 3 years after the release of 5e... You're probably thinking of the Sword Coast Adventurer's guide which came out a year later and... generally is considered one of the worst of the supplemental 5e content
You probably know better than me on this. The point being that the PHB doesn't offer the flexibility in classes people claim 5e has. The "DLC" is responsible for it.
Lance845 wrote: Every edition of DnD is a skirmish scale miniatures game. That was the entire point of them making it.
I'll grant that this is a subjective thing but there's a difference between "roleplaying game where you can use miniatures to track things if you want" and "rules support for this specific line of miniatures we just introduced".
The wargames from which Dungeons & Dragons evolved used miniature figures to represent combatants. D&D initially continued the use of miniatures in a fashion similar to its direct precursors. The original D&D set of 1974 required the use of the Chainmail miniatures game for combat resolution.[60] By the publication of the 1977 game editions, combat was mostly resolved verbally. Thus miniatures were no longer required for game play, although some players continued to use them as a visual reference.[61]
In the 1970s, numerous companies began to sell miniature figures specifically for Dungeons & Dragons and similar games. Licensed miniature manufacturers who produced official figures include Grenadier Miniatures (1980–1983),[62] Citadel Miniatures (1984–1986),[63] Ral Partha,[64] and TSR itself.[65] Most of these miniatures used the 25 mm scale.
Periodically, Dungeons & Dragons has returned to its wargaming roots with supplementary rules systems for miniatures-based wargaming. Supplements such as Battlesystem (1985 and 1989) and a new edition of Chainmail (2001)[66] provided rule systems to handle battles between armies by using miniatures.
You are being upset because 4th ed, an edition marketed as getting back to dnds roots, got back to it's roots.
Yeah, they released another Monster Manual that addressed a lot of the monster design issues in the initial one.
Thanks. By that do you mean a reprint of the original MM or a subsequent one like the MM3 with completely different creatures?
After posting the initial question, I've gone down the 4e rabbit hole a bit to see what I missed. I remember seeing the "Essentials" line in stores but I really did quit dnd cold turkey and wasn't familiar with it. Was it a 3.5 style revamp of the 4e rules or just a cheaper entry point with streamlined content for new players?
Yeah, they released another Monster Manual that addressed a lot of the monster design issues in the initial one.
Thanks. By that do you mean a reprint of the original MM or a subsequent one like the MM3 with completely different creatures?
After posting the initial question, I've gone down the 4e rabbit hole a bit to see what I missed. I remember seeing the "Essentials" line in stores but I really did quit dnd cold turkey and wasn't familiar with it. Was it a 3.5 style revamp of the 4e rules or just a cheaper entry point with streamlined content for new players?
I BELIEVE it was a MM 2 with new monsters. The edition didn't last long enough for them to really redress old content. But many people took the templates from MM2 and used it to adjust the content from MM1. I don't have first hand experience with this btw. I played a little bit of 4th and ran a very brief Eberron bit in 4th. But I kept tabs on the general vibe of releases and the design aspects of the edition.
Lance845 wrote: There is no version of the sorcerer in the PHB that isn't a DPS for instance.
Unless you read the spell list and pick spells that do something other than DPS. That has always been where arcane casters get most of their diversity, your class rules merely give a buff in a particular direction.
And I admit that WOTC continues to struggle with how to make the sorcerer not just a wizard with a different primary attribute but that says more about the weird "legacy code" issue of having them be two separate classes than about the game system itself. Look at other classes and things are much better. Want to play a fighter? You can do damage, you can buff/debuff, or you can even play a hybrid fighter/mage without multiclassing. Want to play a cleric? Yeah, you can still heal but you can also choose damage spells, sneaky spells, or even just grab a weapon and start smashing people. Want to play a rogue? Assassin, thief, or half-mage. Add in the background choices and it's very rare that I've seen a story concept for a character that can't be represented in the rules.
Also, don't underestimate the importance of 5th edition's much stricter bounding on dice math. Adding +2 from your proficiency bonus or rolling twice and picking the better result, both of which are easier to get on things outside your core class role than in 4th, is way less of an advantage than adding +30 to your best things like you could stack up in previous editions without even trying very hard. This means that even if the rules don't quite work perfectly for the character you're trying to play it's not a crippling disadvantage, and you have to worry much less about taking sub-optimal choices for story reasons and making your character unable to compete.
In 4th when that was introduced for every class it was called "Paragon Paths".
Highlighted the important part. Maybe 4e added some stuff later on, but only after the initial release had nearly killed the game and driven everyone to Pathfinder. I'll admit that I stopped keeping up with it after that point though, so if you want to argue that late edition 4th was finally a better product I can't really dispute that claim.
You don't think you have DLC in 5th? Go crack open the PHB and play with ONLY those options.
Done it, it works fine.
And yeah, XGtE exists. As was pointed out it was released years later, not held back to be day one DLC. And outside of setting books 5E has had what, two books that add to the core rules? Three? Over the entire life of the edition that's nowhere near a "buy a monthly subscription to have the full game" business model.
But those classes had the rules for playing to level 30 instead of just 20 right in the core PHB. So while yes. It had less classes in the core book (8 instead of 3rd eds 11) Each class had 150% the content of 3rd (Effectively 12 classes worth). So while you may be here calling it a "more complete" game it's not really true.
That's not comparable and you know it. Extended levels don't count as "effective classes" because not all levels are the same. Most campaigns exist purely in the lower end of the level range and D&D (of any edition) has major scaling issues beyond 10th level or so. Who cares if you have 10 extra levels beyond the point where the game has degenerated into "kill the monster of the week" combat with massive stat inflation when most people are playing the game at level 1-5 and occasionally getting to 5-10. Having a wider range of options at lower levels is worth far more to the majority of players.
Just because an option you liked wasn't there in the page count day 1, doesn't mean the book you had lacked for content and wasn't just as playable.
It does when the option in question is a traditional PHB class that has been in that role for decades and it's removed to be sold as day one DLC.
People did hate 4th. That had as much to do with their PR as anything else. Including during the run up to 4th some messages often quoted from the design team saying things like "DnD isn't about fairy rings. It's about kicking down the doors in a dungeon, killing monsters, and getting loot!" and people saying stuff like "I literally was in a fairy ring last week..." in response.
It's almost like their messaging aligns very neatly with my complaints about the system. Marginalize non-combat aspects of the game, push everyone into stock WoW archetypes with abilities that will be safe and familiar to WoW players, and push the idea that your games should be defined by which miniatures you buy.
Lance845 wrote: There is no version of the sorcerer in the PHB that isn't a DPS for instance.
Unless you read the spell list and pick spells that do something other than DPS. That has always been where arcane casters get most of their diversity, your class rules merely give a buff in a particular direction.
And I admit that WOTC continues to struggle with how to make the sorcerer not just a wizard with a different primary attribute but that says more about the weird "legacy code" issue of having them be two separate classes than about the game system itself. Look at other classes and things are much better. Want to play a fighter? You can do damage, you can buff/debuff, or you can even play a hybrid fighter/mage without multiclassing. Want to play a cleric? Yeah, you can still heal but you can also choose damage spells, sneaky spells, or even just grab a weapon and start smashing people. Want to play a rogue? Assassin, thief, or half-mage. Add in the background choices and it's very rare that I've seen a story concept for a character that can't be represented in the rules.
Also, don't underestimate the importance of 5th edition's much stricter bounding on dice math. Adding +2 from your proficiency bonus or rolling twice and picking the better result, both of which are easier to get on things outside your core class role than in 4th, is way less of an advantage than adding +30 to your best things like you could stack up in previous editions without even trying very hard. This means that even if the rules don't quite work perfectly for the character you're trying to play it's not a crippling disadvantage, and you have to worry much less about taking sub-optimal choices for story reasons and making your character unable to compete.
In 4th when that was introduced for every class it was called "Paragon Paths".
Highlighted the important part. Maybe 4e added some stuff later on, but only after the initial release had nearly killed the game and driven everyone to Pathfinder. I'll admit that I stopped keeping up with it after that point though, so if you want to argue that late edition 4th was finally a better product I can't really dispute that claim.
Highlighted the important part. Maybe you should read the entire post before responding and not cherry pick out a sentence without reading it's context. Paragon Paths and Epic Destinys were in the first printing of the first players handbook. This gak was the core mechanics of the game on day 1 of the editions launch. Now apply that to your answer above. Mix in a repeat of me saying they hid the mechanic better behind a layer of fluff. And let me add in that one of DnDs main problems is the fact that spells can solve every damn problem in the world. Which is why yes, picking your spells allows for such a wide variety of builds and when you start giving options for fighters and rogues to get spells that their roles in the party start expanding greatly. DnDs magic is, and basically always has been, so versatile that it's broken. That should be viewed as a problem. A bug. But you are singing it's praises as a feature.
You don't think you have DLC in 5th? Go crack open the PHB and play with ONLY those options.
Done it, it works fine.
And yeah, XGtE exists. As was pointed out it was released years later, not held back to be day one DLC. And outside of setting books 5E has had what, two books that add to the core rules? Three? Over the entire life of the edition that's nowhere near a "buy a monthly subscription to have the full game" business model.
But those classes had the rules for playing to level 30 instead of just 20 right in the core PHB. So while yes. It had less classes in the core book (8 instead of 3rd eds 11) Each class had 150% the content of 3rd (Effectively 12 classes worth). So while you may be here calling it a "more complete" game it's not really true.
That's not comparable and you know it. Extended levels don't count as "effective classes" because not all levels are the same. Most campaigns exist purely in the lower end of the level range and D&D (of any edition) has major scaling issues beyond 10th level or so. Who cares if you have 10 extra levels beyond the point where the game has degenerated into "kill the monster of the week" combat with massive stat inflation when most people are playing the game at level 1-5 and occasionally getting to 5-10. Having a wider range of options at lower levels is worth far more to the majority of players.
It's completely comparable.
As to your other points. 1) You're right. DnD is a garbage game that completely falls apart the moment players start to make any progress. 2) There is no point where the game hasn't always been "kill the monster of the week".Thats DnD. Thats the entire game.
Just because an option you liked wasn't there in the page count day 1, doesn't mean the book you had lacked for content and wasn't just as playable.
It does when the option in question is a traditional PHB class that has been in that role for decades and it's removed to be sold as day one DLC.
No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.
People did hate 4th. That had as much to do with their PR as anything else. Including during the run up to 4th some messages often quoted from the design team saying things like "DnD isn't about fairy rings. It's about kicking down the doors in a dungeon, killing monsters, and getting loot!" and people saying stuff like "I literally was in a fairy ring last week..." in response.
It's almost like their messaging aligns very neatly with my complaints about the system. Marginalize non-combat aspects of the game, push everyone into stock WoW archetypes with abilities that will be safe and familiar to WoW players, and push the idea that your games should be defined by which miniatures you buy.
All of which is just as true in Basic. And ADnD. And 3rd. And 5th.
Name a class built around non-combat aspects of the game? It's dnd. It's about combat.
Lance845 wrote: 1) You're right. DnD is a garbage game that completely falls apart the moment players start to make any progress.
Then why are you even here if you hate all editions of D&D? Do you enjoy arguing about which version you hate in slightly different ways? Or are you here purely to argue for the sake of arguing?
Lance845 wrote: 1) You're right. DnD is a garbage game that completely falls apart the moment players start to make any progress.
Then why are you even here if you hate all editions of D&D? Do you enjoy arguing about which version you hate in slightly different ways? Or are you here purely to argue for the sake of arguing?
Ah right, the classic "Why are you discussing something if you have criticisms of it". As though the only valid reason to be involved in a discussion is to sing it's praises.
Here is my answer, because I want to. The only reason anyone needs to do anything. Any answer beyond that is none of your business. Maybe you should answer the points being made or concede instead of some straw man bs.
Lance845 wrote: Maybe you should answer the points being made or concede instead of some straw man bs.
You mean like this?
Ah right, the classic "Why are you discussing something if you have criticisms of it". As though the only valid reason to be involved in a discussion is to sing it's praises.
Do you not see the difference between criticism of parts of something you also like ("4th edition is bad, I like 5th edition instead") and a blanket rejection of the entire thing as garbage ("D&D is a garbage game")? I get why someone who likes 2nd but hates 5th would argue that 5th sucks and promote 2nd instead, I don't understand why someone who calls all of D&D a garbage game would continue to argue about which edition of D&D is better, or at least less bad.
Lance845 wrote: Maybe you should answer the points being made or concede instead of some straw man bs.
Do you not see the difference between criticism of parts of something you also like ("4th edition is bad, I like 5th edition instead") and a blanket rejection of the entire thing as garbage ("D&D is a garbage game")? I get why someone who likes 2nd but hates 5th would argue that 5th sucks and promote 2nd instead, I don't understand why someone who calls all of D&D a garbage game would continue to argue about which edition of D&D is better, or at least less bad.
You are misunderstanding my arguments then. I never said 4th was "less bad". 5th IS better. (But better than what? The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.) I said all of 4ths ideas are in 5th. 5th is just 4th but they refined everything 4th introduced and hid it behind a layer a fluff to make it more palatable. That was the thing I said right from the beginning.
Further, you don't NEED to understand why I am doing what I am doing. But here it goes. My degree is in game design. I am a game designer. I study systems and mechanics for fun. Understanding what works and what doesn't and why is important to me and a passion for me. That fact is entirely irrelevant to the points being made in the discussion. And again, you don't need to understand it to have the discussion.
You mean like this?
Ah right, the classic "Why are you discussing something if you have criticisms of it". As though the only valid reason to be involved in a discussion is to sing it's praises.
So no. Not like this at all. This was me responding to the dumb straw man thing you said for the sake of pointing out what a dumb straw man thing it was. Feel free to get back on topic at any time.
No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.
What is the "day one dlc" being referred to? I preordered the core books as a set and don't recall additional offerings at the time whether digital or physical (other than maybe the usual accessories like sheet packs and dm screen maybe). Did they offer the missing core classes and races on their website?
Sleeping on the question of 4e overnight, I remembered one other big complaint I had was that most if not all the powers for classes were strictly grid based combat powers with little to none for social or skill RP encounters. Am I remembering that correctly and did either WOTC or the limited GSL third party scene fix that later on?
No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.
In 1st Edition, they were their own class.
But not a "core one". They were added later after the introduction of the theif. It would be "dlc" according to him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: What is the "day one dlc" being referred to? I preordered the core books as a set and don't recall additional offerings at the time whether digital or physical (other than maybe the usual accessories like sheet packs and dm screen maybe). Did they offer the missing core classes and races on their website?
No. They released phb 2 later which added back in everything but the monk and some new stuff and phb 3 added the monk.
Sleeping on the question of 4e overnight, I remembered one other big complaint I had was that most if not all the powers for classes were strictly grid based combat powers with little to none for social or skill RP encounters. Am I remembering that correctly and did either WOTC or the limited GSL third party scene fix that later on?
You are not misremembering. They referred to all abilities and movement distances in Squares but did note that each square was 5 ft. So exactly like 3rd and 5th but reversing the priority. You don't move 30 ft. You move 6 squares. A cone impacted a 1 x 4 cone instead of "a cone x ft long and y ft wide at the end". Just dropping the in game measurements for out of game visual elements.
For social encounters they introduced the idea of skill challenges. That players needed x number of successes. They could attempt intimidate and if they got a success they could try again for another success. If not they needed to try a different skill to keep going. 4th introduced assigning CR to these and traps based on difficulty and awarding experience for them treating them as encounters in and of themselves.
No. They released phb 2 later which added back in everything but the monk and some new stuff and phb 3 added the monk.
Yeah, I heard they came back eventually and looked it up on a 4e wiki but I don't consider that day one DLC if it comes out months or (preferably) over a year later. I obviously don't agree with them removing it in the first place though. I personally would have preferred if they had just taken each class up to the tradition 20th level and left that last tier of up to 30 for a separate book. YMMV.
You are not misremembering. They referred to all abilities and movement distances in Squares but did note that each square was 5 ft. So exactly like 3rd and 5th but reversing the priority. You don't move 30 ft. You move 6 squares. A cone impacted a 1 x 4 cone instead of "a cone x ft long and y ft wide at the end". Just dropping the in game measurements for out of game visual elements.
For social encounters they introduced the idea of skill challenges. That players needed x number of successes. They could attempt intimidate and if they got a success they could try again for another success. If not they needed to try a different skill to keep going. 4th introduced assigning CR to these and traps based on difficulty and awarding experience for them treating them as encounters in and of themselves.
Coming off of 3/3.5 and D&D minis, I was fine with the grid and defining spell effects like that but it was the relative exclusion of social/RP rules that bothered me more. Both are key to a satisfactory personal experience and synomymous with the feel of D&D in most sessions. I tried looking it up on a wiki but they don't print the "spells"/powers but something as simple as the charm spell is either missing or a combat ability IIRC in 4e. I would have expected things like that to be "utility" powers and/or feats and they largely missing at least at low levels with the starting books. I'd have hoped that either WOTC themselves or the sliver of 3rd party creators left would have addressed that.
I took a quick look at what the 4e SRD is/was and it's thread bare compared with 3/3.5/5e. It references alot of things but doesn't actually define them (I'm assuming in an attempt to enforce the purchase of the core books in 4e instead of the wholesale reprinting in the earlier 3/3.5).
Automatically Appended Next Post: How crunchy was 4e? Coming off of the modifier-a-palooza that was 3.5, I recall it having less but I don't have a fresh recollection to compare it with 5e and it's relative paucity of modifiers (largely replaced with adv/disadv). Just looking at the BAB/proficiency bonus, 3.5 went up to +20 at 20th level, 4e had +10 at 20th (1/2 level), and 5e has +5 at 20th. Was 4e somewhere in between when it comes to modifier spam as well?
No. They released phb 2 later which added back in everything but the monk and some new stuff and phb 3 added the monk.
Yeah, I heard they came back eventually and looked it up on a 4e wiki but I don't consider that day one DLC if it comes out months or (preferably) over a year later. I obviously don't agree with them removing it in the first place though. I personally would have preferred if they had just taken each class up to the tradition 20th level and left that last tier of up to 30 for a separate book. YMMV.
Yeah, I mean my personal favorite class in 3rd/3.5 where I started playing TTRPGs was druid. So it not being in the first release was a bit of a bummer personally, I think (That was so long ago).
You are not misremembering. They referred to all abilities and movement distances in Squares but did note that each square was 5 ft. So exactly like 3rd and 5th but reversing the priority. You don't move 30 ft. You move 6 squares. A cone impacted a 1 x 4 cone instead of "a cone x ft long and y ft wide at the end". Just dropping the in game measurements for out of game visual elements.
For social encounters they introduced the idea of skill challenges. That players needed x number of successes. They could attempt intimidate and if they got a success they could try again for another success. If not they needed to try a different skill to keep going. 4th introduced assigning CR to these and traps based on difficulty and awarding experience for them treating them as encounters in and of themselves.
Coming off of 3/3.5 and D&D minis, I was fine with the grid and defining spell effects like that but it was the relative exclusion of social/RP rules that bothered me more. Both are key to a satisfactory personal experience and synomymous with the feel of D&D in most sessions. I tried looking it up on a wiki but they don't print the "spells"/powers but something as simple as the charm spell is either missing or a combat ability IIRC in 4e. I would have expected things like that to be "utility" powers and/or feats and they largely missing at least at low levels with the starting books. I'd have hoped that either WOTC themselves or the sliver of 3rd party creators left would have addressed that.
I took a quick look at what the 4e SRD is/was and it's thread bare compared with 3/3.5/5e. It references alot of things but doesn't actually define them (I'm assuming in an attempt to enforce the purchase of the core books in 4e instead of the wholesale reprinting in the earlier 3/3.5).
Yeah. The 4th ed stuff made huge moves to attack the OGL and reclaim ownership of the game. That more than anything was the reason for Pathfinder. The player base outrage just fueled the departure. Just like it's doing now for Project Black Flag.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How crunchy was 4e? Coming off of the modifier-a-palooza that was 3.5, I recall it having less but I don't have a fresh recollection to compare it with 5e and it's relative paucity of modifiers (largely replaced with adv/disadv). Just looking at the BAB/proficiency bonus, 3.5 went up to +20 at 20th level, 4e had +10 at 20th (1/2 level), and 5e has +5 at 20th. Was 4e somewhere in between when it comes to modifier spam as well?
So 4th got rid of individual skills and changed the differently scaling BAB to a proficiency bonus that was equal to half your level rounded down that was added to everything. It introduced that you just checked off having proficiency in skills which both gave you a bonus and sometimes expanded usage (You know. that thing 5th ed does).
My recollection of 4th is that it was written in "crunchy" plain text. Everything was described in dry rules language which made it appear more gamey and "crunchy" than 3rd while actually reducing a lot of the math and complexity heading in the direction of 5th. A lot of bloat and illusion of choice was gone. The sheer volume of abilities for wizards was reduced initially in PHB 1 (with more options coming back later) while options for Fighters expanded so everyone kind of sat relatively equal with some at will abilities (cantrips) encounter abilities (big hits you can do once a fight) and daily abilities (needing a long rest to recharge). So melee classes were not just running forward and cleaving all the time through a complex system of feat selection that was mostly illusion of choice. Instead they had some at will taunts, armor breaks, and maybe a power attack, while they had encounter cleaves and bleeds and whatever.
Yeah, I mean my personal favorite class in 3rd/3.5 where I started playing TTRPGs was druid. So it not being in the first release was a bit of a bummer personally, I think (That was so long ago).
Coincidentally, that was actually the class that I looked up this morning on the wiki, lol. It came out in the PHB2 with later "subclasses" or whatever they were called in one of the Essentials books.
So 4th got rid of individual skills and changed the differently scaling BAB to a proficiency bonus that was equal to half your level rounded down that was added to everything. It introduced that you just checked off having proficiency in skills which both gave you a bonus and sometimes expanded usage (You know. that thing 5th ed does).
That part I was actually a fan of as I was GM'ing Star Wars Sage Edition at the time which they full on admitted was a test bed of mechanics/ideas for 4e. While SWSE had its issues (the force was ridiculously overpowered for a tabletop game), I actually liked the baseline steady progression of offense/defensive derived from level (you added your level or half your level to attack, damage, and your various AC equivalents based on the 3.5 saves). SWSE to me was a much better 4e than actual 4e was as the latter threw out the baby with the bathwater and cranked everything up to 11.
My recollection of 4th is that it was written in "crunchy" plain text. Everything was described in dry rules language which made it appear more gamey and "crunchy" than 3rd while actually reducing a lot of the math and complexity heading in the direction of 5th. A lot of bloat and illusion of choice was gone. The sheer volume of abilities for wizards was reduced initially in PHB 1 (with more options coming back later) while options for Fighters expanded so everyone kind of sat relatively equal with some at will abilities (cantrips) encounter abilities (big hits you can do once a fight) and daily abilities (needing a long rest to recharge). So melee classes were not just running forward and cleaving all the time through a complex system of feat selection that was mostly illusion of choice. Instead they had some at will taunts, armor breaks, and maybe a power attack, while they had encounter cleaves and bleeds and whatever.
Yeah, that was our impression. Full casters were downgraded and everyone else was just bumped up mechanically/thematically to the same level and it wasn't a bug but the expressed feature of the system. It all felt too samey and there was no "simple" class option for people to play. I think incorporating a healthy amount of noncombat abilities into powers would have gone a long way to addressing that feeling.
No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.
In 1st Edition, they were their own class.
But not a "core one". They were added later after the introduction of the theif. It would be "dlc" according to him.
They were a core class in the original AD&D (IE 1st edition) Players' Handbook.
No. It doesn't. It only takes a quick google search and you too can find out that Druids in 2nd Ed were a "sub class" or specialization of clerics. They didn't become their own class until 3rd edition. These "decades" you are talking about were 8 years.
In 1st Edition, they were their own class.
But not a "core one". They were added later after the introduction of the theif. It would be "dlc" according to him.
They were a core class in the original AD&D (IE 1st edition) Players' Handbook.
No they were not.
Edit: sorry amendment. The class was cleric. Druid was a "sub class" of cleric in adnd 1rst. I am leaving the old text here because it is otherwise accurate.
That class was called Priest and functioned like clerics in 3rd edition picking "domains". Under priest in that book were 2 example/sub classes. One was called cleric, and the other was druid. And the druid, being a sub class, functioned exactly like a cleric with the changed restriction of needing to be neutral and the "no metal" thing.
Druid in AdnD 1rst has it's closest analog to what would later be prestige classes in 3rd edition. It was an adjustment and tweak to an already existing class. And it's the reason why when 3rd came around druids used the same stats and did "divine magic" for their stuff. They were/are an off shoot of clerics.
There were numerous differences between the Cleric and the Druid in 1st edition AD&D, not just the neutral and no metal thing (Which only applied to armor). There was no 'Priest' class in AD&D. Just Cleric and Druid. There were no domains for Clerics. It was as distinct from a Cleric as it was in 3rd edition.
It's like saying that the Ranger and Paladin were sub-classes of Fighters.
Yes, in 2nd edition AD&D, Druids were specialty priests. But that is NOT true in 1st edition AD&D.
Just because something is similar does not make it a sub-class or not it's own distinct class.
The 1st edition AD&D PHB was published in 1978, with Druids having their own class entry. So yes, that does go back decades.
I am saying its a sub class because the words in the book are its a sub class.
Pg 20 bottom right hand corner of the page.
The Druid
The druid is a sub-class of clerics. They are the only absolute neutrals (see ALIGNMENT), viewing good and evil, law ond chaos, as balancing forces of nature which are necessary for the continuation of all things. As priests of nature, they must have a minimum wisdom of 12 and a charisma of 15; both of these major attributes must exceed 15 if a druid is to gain a 10% bonus to earned experience.
Further when, you look at the classes in a list in the table of contents. It says cleric. Then below it and indented it says druid. Because the druid is a sub class of the cleric.
No, the bard is the closest thing to a prestige class as it required other classes to be taken first.
The only thing similar between a druid and a cleric is that they use Wisdom as a casting stat. The abilities, armor and weapon proficiencies, and the spell lists are completely different. Just like in 3rd edition. They are very much mechanically distinct classes.
It's like claiming that the Paladin wasn't a 'real' class in 1st edition AD&D either.
skyth wrote: They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.
Cool opinion bro. The book specifically says otherwise.
Like i said, the closest thing to what the druid was in adnd is a prestige class in 3rd.
Not really. Prestige classes could only be taken later, and didn't have to be related at all to the starting classes.
You are right that they were called subclasses (of cleric, just as rangers and paladins were fighter subclasses (until cavalier happened in Unearthed Arcana, and then the paladin got moved under them) and illusionist was a magic-user subclass).
Druids had their own full spell list. Spell domains (mostly) didn't matter in 1e. At the end of the edition domains got broken out of the spell list for dragonlance adventures (which was a precursor to several 2e rules), in an effort to make clerics of different gods feel different (and lower the overall power of the cleric so they didn't have access to all of the spell list, which kept expanding with more books and supplements). This rolled over into 2nd edition when they got big on defining godly portfolios.
Druids look more distinct than they actually were because they had their own spell list, experience table and class abilities they gained as they leveled. They looked really unique, but yes, were a subclass.
2e defined the main class divisions better than 1e did, but they were there, though by and large the distinction didn't matter- where it came into play was determining thac0 and saving throws.
Now, in the 'other' D&D game (the Mentzer revision, with basic, expert, companion and master boxed sets) druids, rangers, paladins and etc were all variants that you picked up at higher levels (based on alignment, mostly), and everyone started in the 'core class.' Well, humans, anyway. The demihumans' race was their 'class,' and they stopped levelling properly earlier.
I am not saying it was a one for one equivalency with prestige classes. I said it was the closest thing. There are, of course, differences. It's not like ADnD functioned even remotely like 3rd+ for classes and levels.
I was saying that Druid was a sub-class, as called out directly by the book itself.
This was all a fairly minor point in comparing what 4th ed was to what 5th ed is.
skyth wrote: They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.
Cool opinion bro. The book specifically says otherwise.
Like i said, the closest thing to what the druid was in adnd is a prestige class in 3rd.
It’s not his opinion. It’s truth.
While there was a blurb that said that at the beginning of the class description for Druid, in 1st edition PHB, the Druid class was a separate entry with its own experience table, spells, abilities, etc.
You’re citing a sentence at the beginning of the class description page as ‘rules’. It was a blurb. Not rules.
It’s the same as saying that Rangers and Paladins were a subclass of Fighters. Or that Assassin was a subclass of Thief. They were not. All of those Classes has separate entries, tables, etc. For those Classes.
They were not a sub-entry under Fighter, Thief or Cleric. They were all their own Classes.
This isn’t me reading off of a wiki page either. It’s what was actually in the books and how they were laid out.
And that’s because I’ve actually played every edition but 4th.
Lance845 wrote: Further, you don't NEED to understand why I am doing what I am doing.
Sure I do. There is a difference in how you handle someone who is a fan of a thing making a good-faith argument about the subject vs. how you handle someone who has no personal stake in the conversation and is purely there to treat online arguments as an e-sport.
Perfect example: your nitpicking over how exactly druids worked in the old rules and ignoring the point that 4th edition removed a core class to sell it back to you as day one DLC. Whether druids were technically a class or a sub-class or a variant class or whatever is irrelevant because they still existed. 4th didn't move them back to being a sub-class, WOTC removed them from the PHB entirely and did so for monetization reasons.
skyth wrote: They were still their own class. As much as they were in 3rd edition.
Cool opinion bro. The book specifically says otherwise.
Like i said, the closest thing to what the druid was in adnd is a prestige class in 3rd.
It’s not his opinion. It’s truth. While there was a blurb that said that at the beginning of the class description for Druid, in 1st edition PHB, the Druid class was a separate entry with its own experience table, spells, abilities, etc. You’re citing a sentence at the beginning of the class description page as ‘rules’. It was a blurb. Not rules.
It’s the same as saying that Rangers and Paladins were a subclass of Fighters. Or that Assassin was a subclass of Thief. They were not. All of those Classes has separate entries, tables, etc. For those Classes. They were not a sub-entry under Fighter, Thief or Cleric. They were all their own Classes. This isn’t me reading off of a wiki page either. It’s what was actually in the books and how they were laid out. And that’s because I’ve actually played every edition but 4th.
Picture is a little small but I would like you to look at that table in the bottom right hand corner. That is the prestige class assassin in 3rd ed.
1) It is a separate entry from the rogue. 2) It has it's own spells 3) It has it's own abilities 4) etc...
I feel like you guys don't remember how prestige classes were set up. They were levels in their own "class". They had all the features of an actual class, but tended to be a more specialized version of their parent class/es. If 3rd ed kept the non standard amounts of exp per level the prestige class would have it's own exp costs per level. 3rd ed did away with that nonsense for exp per character level instead of class level.
I am not reading off a wiki. I am reading off a PDF of the original document.
On pg.3 you can see the indented "sub classes" of their parent classes on the table of contents. Interesting. Notice that under races Half Elves are not indented under elves as a "sub species" of elves. Interesting.
On pg.18 you can see the Racial Preference Table. No entry is indented under the others.
On pg.19 you can see 2 tables with the classes and in the entries the "sub classes" are indented in from and listed under their parent classes. Interesting.
On pg.21 You can see a table called Druids (Clerics) Table 1. Isn't it weird how that table that is for an entirely different base class called druids mentions an entirely different base class called clerics right in the title? Interesting. fething wild man. What a typo.
Lance845 wrote: Further, you don't NEED to understand why I am doing what I am doing.
Sure I do. There is a difference in how you handle someone who is a fan of a thing making a good-faith argument about the subject vs. how you handle someone who has no personal stake in the conversation and is purely there to treat online arguments as an e-sport.
Perfect example: your nitpicking over how exactly druids worked in the old rules and ignoring the point that 4th edition removed a core class to sell it back to you as day one DLC. Whether druids were technically a class or a sub-class or a variant class or whatever is irrelevant because they still existed. 4th didn't move them back to being a sub-class, WOTC removed them from the PHB entirely and did so for monetization reasons.
What a complete load of bs.
You don't need to understand me to be dismissive of the arguments you don't agree with. You are just looking for any reason you could point to to justify your strawmans and ad hominems.
Nit picking on the definition of sub-class when it's as much a sub-class in practice in 1st and 3rd is bad faith arguing.
Also, you don't seem to understand what a prestige class is. It's a class that has other classes as a pre-req. Druid, you could take at level 1. Closest thing to a prestige class is, in fact, the Bard from 1st edition.
skyth wrote: Nit picking on the definition of sub-class when it's as much a sub-class in practice in 1st and 3rd is bad faith arguing.
Also, you don't seem to understand what a prestige class is. It's a class that has other classes as a pre-req. Druid, you could take at level 1. Closest thing to a prestige class is, in fact, the Bard from 1st edition.
I understand the difference. I did not claim that Druid was a prestige class in ADnD. I said it was closer to a prestige class than the base class that Aecus Decimus was claiming the druid had been "for decades". A statement that is factually untrue and just catastrophizing nonsense to give his lack of argument the illusion of added weight. THAT is bad faith arguing.
In practice, it's been a full class since the 1st edition PHB back in the 70's. It is a complete class all by itself and doesn't need anything from any other classes.
skyth wrote: In practice, it's been a full class since the 1st edition PHB back in the 70's. It is a complete class all by itself and doesn't need anything from any other classes.
Thats cool. In fact, it was not a "core/base" class until 3rd edition and so only held that position for 8 years before 4th edition moved it into the PHB 2. It later returned to a "core/base" class in 5th edition.
"Fighters have always had the highest HP totals in DnD."
"Thats not true. Starting in 3rd edition Barbarian had a higher hit die than fighters so their HP was greater."
"Yeah, but thats just nitpicking wording and isn't productive. In practice Fighters have always always had the highest because I think so and that makes it a basis in reality."
Regardless of the nature of the class, the point being made is that in 1st edition you can play a druid with the core rules purchase. You don't need to make a second purchase to play as a druid.
With 4th edition you had to make a second purchase to play as a druid.
The concept of a druid class was removed from the core purchase and placed into a secondary optional purchase.
That's all people are saying. Arguing over what kind of class it was, what the nature of it was and such is indeed nit picking around the concept of a druid. The fact is you can play a druid with the core purchase and then in 4th edition that option became something you had to pay an additional cost for.
What might be better is how much content there is for the Druid - did it go from 1 page in 1st edition to 20pages in 4th? Ergo was it so much greater that it was worth paying extra? Or was it an example of where a company takes something that was once core and once possible with 1 purchase and split it into two purchases, knowing that many would be pressured into buying the expansion to continue the type of character and game that they'd played before in previous editions. Rather than keeping the core similar and using the expansion to add new original content or flesh out lighter original content into a deeper/greater amount.
Overread wrote: Regardless of the nature of the class, the point being made is that in 1st edition you can play a druid with the core rules purchase. You don't need to make a second purchase to play as a druid.
With 4th edition you had to make a second purchase to play as a druid.
The concept of a druid class was removed from the core purchase and placed into a secondary optional purchase.
That's all people are saying. Arguing over what kind of class it was, what the nature of it was and such is indeed nit picking around the concept of a druid. The fact is you can play a druid with the core purchase and then in 4th edition that option became something you had to pay an additional cost for.
What might be better is how much content there is for the Druid - did it go from 1 page in 1st edition to 20pages in 4th? Ergo was it so much greater that it was worth paying extra? Or was it an example of where a company takes something that was once core and once possible with 1 purchase and split it into two purchases, knowing that many would be pressured into buying the expansion to continue the type of character and game that they'd played before in previous editions. Rather than keeping the core similar and using the expansion to add new original content or flesh out lighter original content into a deeper/greater amount.
Thank you, I appreciate this actually meaningful contribution to the discussion.
This is going off memory and I am having troubling finding any sources from the devs/company discussion at the time of 4th. But I think the devs said something along the lines of
1) The druid was a class that sat in a weird place. It's 3rd ed implementation was a sort of 3 classes in 1 that didn't really fill any role particularly well. With 4ths focus on the tactical build side of things and a clear placement of classes/builds into the trinity they saw the druid sitting too center. Trying to do everything and only kind of succeeding in each.
2) As a result they wanted the core rule book to focus on the classes that truly fulfilled a single role with maybe a secondary role in there. Paladins are front line fighters and tanks with a little heal support. Fighters are front line tanks with a little dps potential. etc etc...
Which resulted in 3) the push of the class along with some of the others that used to be core classes (Monk, Bard, Barbarian) was due to too much overlap with other classes along with the page count. They wanted REALLY tight functioning roles with the classes they did have right in the first book, and that would also buy them time to work out how to give these other classes a unique space to live in while still feeling like the classes people had fond memories of.
I don't know if anyone else has vague memories of that kind of messaging coming from them back then or not. bs PR? Maybe. Probably at least a little bit. But if you look at the classes in 4th PHB it lines up. They define 4 roles (their version of the trinity: Defender Strikers Leaders Controllers).
Role: In battle, do members of the class act as defenders, strikers, leaders, or controllers? (See Chap- ter 2 for an explanation of these roles.) Each class has a role associated with it. Different classes approach their role in different ways, and many classes include limited elements of one or more other roles as well. For example, both the fighter and the paladin are defenders, but the fighter adds some aspects of the striker to his repertoire, while the paladin has some abilities often associated with leaders, such as healing.
Why have 2 melee based Defender/Strikers in the Fighter and Barbarian? How is the Druid not all of these?
In terms of volume of content. I mentioned earlier that the core PHB had rules for levels 1-30 for every class + the 4 (3 for warlock) paragon path options at level 10 for each class + epic destines for level 20. The content for each class in the PHB was greater than what was offered in any previous edition.
Was wild shape just cosmetic in 4e? I don't have the books so am going off of the wiki but it seems like the "power" was just a vehicle to access other wild shape only powers.
warboss wrote: Was wild shape just cosmetic in 4e? I don't have the books so am going off of the wiki but it seems like the "power" was just a vehicle to access other wild shape only powers.
This discussion has had me tracking down PDFs of all this gak.
Wild Shape
As a druid, you have the ability to channel the primal
energy of beasts into your physical form and trans-
form into a beast. You have an at-will power, wild
shape, that allows you to assume the form of a beast,
and many druid powers have the beast form keyword
(page 219) and therefore can be used only while you
are in beast form.
The wild shape power lets you assume a form of
your size that resembles a natural or a fey beast,
usually a four-legged mammalian predator such
as a bear, a boar, a panther, a wolf, or a wolverine.
Your beast form might also be an indistinct shape
of shadowy fur and claws, an incarnation of the
Primal Beast of which all earthly beasts are fractured
images. You choose a specific form whenever you use
wild shape, and that form has no effect on your game
statistics or movement modes.
Your choice of Primal Aspect might suggest a
specific form you prefer to assume, and certain beast
form powers specify changes to your form when you
use them. You might also resemble a more exotic
beast when you’re in beast form: a reptile such as a
rage drake or a crocodile, or a fantastic beast such as
an owlbear or a bulette.
Wild Shape Druid Feature
You assume an aspect of the Primal Beast or return to your
humanoid form.
At-Will ✦ Polymorph, Primal
Minor Action (Special) Personal
Effect: You change from your humanoid form to beast
form or vice versa. When you change from beast form
back to your humanoid form, you shift 1 square. While
you are in beast form, you can’t use attack, utility, or feat
powers that lack the beast form keyword, although you
can sustain such powers.
You choose a specific form whenever you use wild
shape to change into beast form. The beast form is your
size, resembles a natural beast or a fey beast, and nor-
mally doesn’t change your game statistics or movement
modes. Your equipment becomes part of your beast
form, but you drop anything you are holding, except
implements you can use. You continue to gain the ben-
efits of the equipment you wear.
You can use the properties and the powers of imple-
ments as well as magic items that you wear, but not the
properties or the powers of weapons or the powers of
wondrous items. While equipment is part of your beast
form, it cannot be removed, and anything in a container
that is part of your beast form is inaccessible.
Special: You can use this power once per round.
Level 1 Daily power.
Savage Frenzy Druid Attack 1
In a blur of claw and fang, you strike out at nearby enemies.
Daily ✦ Beast Form, Implement, Primal
Standard Action Close burst 1
Target: Each enemy in burst you can see
Attack: Wisdom vs. Reflex
Hit: 1d6 + Wisdom modifier damage, and the target is
dazed and slowed (save ends both).
Miss: Half damage, and the target is slowed until the end of
your next turn.
Yeah... looks like it's just switching to a different attack bar.
I appreciate you doing the legwork. Yeah, that's a pretty sad way to use an otherwise awesome abilitiy in theory. I'd hope that animal companion would be better. From the wiki, they seem mutually exclusive for subclasses; you either have one or the other. If wildshape is that lame, I'd rather have a bear buddy assuming that is an actual creature and not another cosmetic power excuse.
warboss wrote: I appreciate you doing the legwork. Yeah, that's a pretty sad way to use an otherwise awesome abilitiy in theory. I'd hope that animal companion would be better. From the wiki, they seem mutually exclusive for subclasses; you either have one or the other. If wildshape is that lame, I'd rather have a bear buddy assuming that is an actual creature and not another cosmetic power excuse.
Small look at them, it looks like their lvl 10 paragon paths amount to.
Wild Shape ground predator big boosts.
Wild Shape flying predator big boosts.
Damage caster
Control/support caster.
Lance845 wrote: "Fighters have always had the highest HP totals in DnD."
"Thats not true. Starting in 3rd edition Barbarian had a higher hit die than fighters so their HP was greater."
"Yeah, but thats just nitpicking wording and isn't productive. In practice Fighters have always always had the highest because I think so and that makes it a basis in reality."
Barbarians existed in 1st edition with a d12 hit die as well.
And quite frankly, mechanical things are a completely different thing from a classes status.
Lance845 wrote: "Fighters have always had the highest HP totals in DnD."
"Thats not true. Starting in 3rd edition Barbarian had a higher hit die than fighters so their HP was greater."
"Yeah, but thats just nitpicking wording and isn't productive. In practice Fighters have always always had the highest because I think so and that makes it a basis in reality."
Barbarians were introduced in 1st edition in Unearthed Arcana and had a d12 hit die….
warboss wrote: I appreciate you doing the legwork. Yeah, that's a pretty sad way to use an otherwise awesome abilitiy in theory. I'd hope that animal companion would be better. From the wiki, they seem mutually exclusive for subclasses; you either have one or the other. If wildshape is that lame, I'd rather have a bear buddy assuming that is an actual creature and not another cosmetic power excuse.
Small look at them, it looks like their lvl 10 paragon paths amount to.
Wild Shape ground predator big boosts.
Wild Shape flying predator big boosts.
Damage caster
Control/support caster.
Were those subclasses level 10 and up? I just figured they were from the start as variants of the druid in general. That sucks even more if you have to unlock them 1/3 of the way through the full progression just to get what amounts to what I'd personally consider iconic druid abilities.
warboss wrote: I appreciate you doing the legwork. Yeah, that's a pretty sad way to use an otherwise awesome abilitiy in theory. I'd hope that animal companion would be better. From the wiki, they seem mutually exclusive for subclasses; you either have one or the other. If wildshape is that lame, I'd rather have a bear buddy assuming that is an actual creature and not another cosmetic power excuse.
Small look at them, it looks like their lvl 10 paragon paths amount to.
Wild Shape ground predator big boosts.
Wild Shape flying predator big boosts.
Damage caster
Control/support caster.
Were those subclasses level 10 and up? I just figured they were from the start as variants of the druid in general. That sucks even more if you have to unlock them 1/3 of the way through the full progression just to get what amounts to what I'd personally consider iconic druid abilities.
Yeah, the sub classes of 5th were an evolution of the paragon paths from 4th. In 5th you pick one at level 3. In 4th you pick them at level 10.
You do however have little things you pick right from the beginning. EXTREMELY minor things.
Like the druid picks.
Primal Aspect Druidic lore speaks of the Primal Beast, the first
spirit of the world’s noble predators. A formless thing
of shadows, fur, feathers, and claws, this creature
appears in many druids’ visions, and they speak of
channeling the Primal Beast when using their wild
shape and beast form powers. As a druid, you choose
which aspect of the Primal Beast you most strongly
manifest with your powers.
Choose one of these options. Your choice provides
bonuses to certain druid powers, as detailed in those
powers.
Primal Guardian: While you are not wearing
heavy armor, you can use your Constitution modifier
in place of your Dexterity or Intelligence modifier to
determine your AC.
Primal Predator: While you are not wearing
heavy armor, you gain a +1 bonus to your speed.
I don't really see any powers that are effected by it oddly enough...
I do see looking through the powers that they have a bunch of daily ones that modify the Wild Shape. So like.. one of them makes you a tiny creature like a mouse or snake or whatever and then for the rest of the encounter you can use wild shape to shift between this, another form, or back to humanoid. And THAT provides bonuses to sneak and stealth etc... Another makes you a dire wolf and you gain bonuses against prone enemies and your attacks have a chance to knock enemies prone.
So there is generic wild shape with a bunch of wild shape powers that are at will or encounter and then daily powers that allow tweaked wild shapes that modify your stats and skills and perks of the form.
Lance845 wrote: I understand the difference. I did not claim that Druid was a prestige class in ADnD. I said it was closer to a prestige class than the base class that Aecus Decimus was claiming the druid had been "for decades". A statement that is factually untrue and just catastrophizing nonsense to give his lack of argument the illusion of added weight. THAT is bad faith arguing.
Bad faith arguing is you continuing to nitpick over whether druids in earlier rules were technically a "class" or a "sub-class" or "variant class" and ignoring the substance of the argument: that a core piece of the game was removed from the PHB so WOTC could sell it as day one DLC. It's the kind of thing you do when you're treating the argument as an e-sport and have no personal stake in it, where identifying an error scores points even if that error is minor and unrelated to the actual point being made.
Lance845 wrote: I understand the difference. I did not claim that Druid was a prestige class in ADnD. I said it was closer to a prestige class than the base class that Aecus Decimus was claiming the druid had been "for decades". A statement that is factually untrue and just catastrophizing nonsense to give his lack of argument the illusion of added weight. THAT is bad faith arguing.
Bad faith arguing is you continuing to nitpick over whether druids in earlier rules were technically a "class" or a "sub-class" or "variant class" and ignoring the substance of the argument: that a core piece of the game was removed from the PHB so WOTC could sell it as day one DLC.
Ive laid out pretty clearly the sheer volume of content that was given in PHB 1 in 4th edition. You brushed that content off as "not for you" and ignored it's actual existence because you didn't think you would use it.
YOU ignored that fact to continue to argue in bad faith about your OPINION on why it was removed. You also continue to argue in bad faith calling it "day one DLC", even though people asked you if it was released x months/year later or if it was literally released day one. I suspect you ignored their question because the answer would showcase the catastrophizing bs that is your argument.
I am going to repeat the thing that kicked this all off. 5th edition is just 4th edition with a bunch of fluff wrapped around the mechanics to hide it. All of 4ths ideas are present in 5th. And your impotent anger at it because you didn't like that they just laid out how bad a game dnd is in plain rules text instead of hiding it behind the fluff is just that. Your ignorance becoming nonsensical anger.
I don't really see any powers that are effected by it oddly enough...
I do see looking through the powers that they have a bunch of daily ones that modify the Wild Shape. So like.. one of them makes you a tiny creature like a mouse or snake or whatever and then for the rest of the encounter you can use wild shape to shift between this, another form, or back to humanoid. And THAT provides bonuses to sneak and stealth etc... Another makes you a dire wolf and you gain bonuses against prone enemies and your attacks have a chance to knock enemies prone.
So there is generic wild shape with a bunch of wild shape powers that are at will or encounter and then daily powers that allow tweaked wild shapes that modify your stats and skills and perks of the form.
Are those powers that change your stats/bonuses available right away or are they level gated to 10+ like the subclasses you posted? The discussion here of 4e initially made me want to see if 4e was "fixable" as I also watched some videos talking about its relative strengths/innovations at the time (like skill challenges, ease of creation and variety of encounters) but more of the bugbears keep coming out. I was actually going to post a thread asking specifically that question (Could it have been saved?) but I think I've answered it again 14 years later.
You mentioned that monsters were changed in later books/manuals; do you know what changes they made? I saw a combat explanation of 4e on youtube and it was lauding the exact scenario that I detested in that there was a level 1 fighter fighting against a low tier goblin (obviously not a minion) and the gobbo had almost 30 hp (so did the fighter) as a sample combat example. That was the grindy mess that broke our group in that the big finale fight of the session had a couple of those types of goblins and a few minions. We cleared out the minions and after two rounds were left with just at will powers to chip away at the gobbos' health. With miss chances on the hit roll, smart tactics, and average damage factored in, it would have taken over an hour at a minimum of real time just doing the same basic at will attacks to take out the goblins. And those weren't solos in 4e parlance as there were multiple we were facing (I think one less than the number of party members).
One thing I like about Forbidden Lands is that the basic enemy mook is still a viable threat even to experienced characters with lots of skills and traits; you're only one good attack/bad defence roll away from being taught a lesson even by a lowly goblin but you can always do the same back as well. Full PCHP and 3.5/5e low HP for starting enemies simulate that to some degree as well though less elegantly.
Are those powers that change your stats/bonuses available right away or are they level gated to 10+ like the subclasses you posted? The discussion here of 4e initially made me want to see if 4e was "fixable" as I also watched some videos talking about its relative strengths/innovations at the time (like skill challenges, ease of creation and variety of encounters) but more of the bugbears keep coming out. I was actually going to post a thread asking specifically that question (Could it have been saved?) but I think I've answered it again 14 years later.
The paragon paths are in addition to your base class. So you are a druid and gain druid abilities from level 1-30. But at level 10 you also pick a paragon path and gain additional abilities as you continue to level up based on the paragon path.
The adjusting your stats looked like they were basically all daily powers (so each form you get you can use once per long rest) and you gain them starting at...lvl 2. Which would be the sneaky small animal one.
You mentioned that monsters were changed in later books/manuals; do you know what changes they made? I saw a combat explanation of 4e on youtube and it was lauding the exact scenario that I detested in that there was a level 1 fighter fighting against a low tier goblin (obviously not a minion) and the gobbo had almost 30 hp (so did the fighter) as a sample combat example. That was the grindy mess that broke our group in that the big finale fight of the session had a couple of those types of goblins and a few minions. We cleared out the minions and after two rounds were left with just at will powers to chip away at the gobbos' health. With miss chances on the hit roll, smart tactics, and average damage factored in, it would have taken over an hour at a minimum of real time just doing the same basic at will attacks to take out the goblins. And those weren't solos in 4e parlance as there were multiple we were facing (I think one less than the number of party members).
I am mostly working off of what I remember from discussions in designer circles from back then. It was that the distribution of health/stats/whatever made the monster stat blocks in the second MM were better balanced for a more interesting encounter. Finding a small guy stats you could just call a goblin was then easy.
I mean, it's still dnd. So it's still always escalating HP pools that don't do anything until you hit zero. Thats just baked into the D20 mechanics.
One thing I like about Forbidden Lands is that the basic enemy mook is still a viable threat even to experienced characters with lots of skills and traits; you're only one good attack/bad defence roll away from being taught a lesson even by a lowly goblin but you can always do the same back as well. Full PCHP and 3.5/5e low HP for starting enemies simulate that to some degree as well though less elegantly.
Yeah. The smaller tighter numbers means the world always feels dangerous but so do you. Forbidden Lands is just a better over all game. Not perfect. But better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So on a scale of 1-10, where does everyone currently place their marker for "trusting WOTC" and going back to DnD:B?
But to be fair you didn't like DnD before the event
That said I expect a majority will resume their DnD Beyond accounts over time and that the next edition marketing will bring a fresh wave of users to their game. Both new to RPG gaming and those returning from previous editions to the new system.
DnD is still the juggernaught in the market and those 3rd parties didn't fight to abandon the DnD content they produce, they fought to keep it and to keep going. Sure some might change course now; some might well splice out into other game systems; but many will continue with DnD systems.
Overread wrote: But to be fair you didn't like DnD before the event
Very Fair
That said I expect a majority will resume their DnD Beyond accounts over time and that the next edition marketing will bring a fresh wave of users to their game. Both new to RPG gaming and those returning from previous editions to the new system.
DnD is still the juggernaught in the market and those 3rd parties didn't fight to abandon the DnD content they produce, they fought to keep it and to keep going. Sure some might change course now; some might well splice out into other game systems; but many will continue with DnD systems.
My hope is that the podcast market picks up new games and that as a result the people THEY were bringing to DnD will be spread to other systems. I don't think the podcast/live play guys impact can be underestimated.
I mean, it's still dnd. So it's still always escalating HP pools that don't do anything until you hit zero. Thats just baked into the D20 mechanics.
FWIW, I think we were second level for that encounter and the gobbos with 30ish hp were the lowest non-minion entries. YMMV but I kind of expect a different feel at the lowest levels myself and they used the excuse of minions (which I like the addition of mechanically!) to bulletsponge everyone else MMO style. The key difference being that in an MMO your character makes two attacks every couple seconds automatically and you can just watch (and enjoy?) whereas on the tabletop it's 5 seconds of activity followed by 10-20 minutes of inactivity before you get to do anything again.
Yeah. The smaller tighter numbers means the world always feels dangerous but so do you. Forbidden Lands is just a better over all game. Not perfect. But better.
Agreed. I just like both on tabletop and in video games when your character noticeably improves but doesn't being a demigod compared with when you start. It's just a personal preference though.
I went from a 0 to a 0. I am not a big fan of D&D, but play it to get in some TTRPGs as the people around me are fans.
That said, I have noticed a bit of a shift in my local fanbase thanks to the OGL, but it is too soon to tell if it will drive them to other games.
I think their eyes have been opened a bit as we play L5R, and the next GM in line wants to play Avatar: The Last Airbender game instead of going back to D&D.
3/10. Up from 0 before the creative commons release but down from 6 before the unnecessary OGL drama and "undermonitized" comments came to light (it was 7 two years ago before they accelerated their production schedule pushing out substandard books like Hogw... I mean Strixhaven and Spelljammer came out).
I had hoped that years of prosperity under 5e had convinced them that their goals with 4e and the GSL were short sighted and harmful. I was wrong. Very wrong. My current 3 is tentative and only that high because they can't backtrack out of the creative commons; it also indicates my pessimism regarding 6e.
I think their eyes have been opened a bit as we play L5R, and the next GM in line wants to play Avatar: The Last Airbender game instead of going back to D&D.
Is the L5R campaign planned as a limited run to begin with?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So on a scale of 1-10, where does everyone currently place their marker for "trusting WOTC" and going back to DnD:B?
0 and 10 (most likely). Never playing D&D again probably means never playing tabletop RPGs again- at some point D&D will come up - common ground is pretty inevitable for group activities, especially without a permanent group that exactly mirrors your own preferences..
But trusting a company is dumb and completely unnecessary to boot. It has nothing at all to do with playing a game.
And this little snafu hasn't changed either of those numbers. I wouldn't trust the WotC devs to successfully cut grass, and that's been true since ex-devs starting talking about playtesting and design decisions for 3.0. How they pushed playtesters to just play fighters, wizards, clerics and thieves over the other classes, how the devs knew different feats were worth more than others (and some intentionally added 'trap options' to the list), and how the sorcerer was punished with getting higher level spells a level later because Skip Williams simply hated the class and wouldn't budge on it.
I think their eyes have been opened a bit as we play L5R, and the next GM in line wants to play Avatar: The Last Airbender game instead of going back to D&D.
Is the L5R campaign planned as a limited run to begin with?
Yes, I wrote it for 1 adventure per season. So a Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter adventure. Each adventure is 1-3 sessions each, so about 10-12 sessions total to play through. Each session is designed to showcase a unique aspect of L5R. It also (theoretically ends) ends in such a way that we can return to the campaign again if we want to later.
Once it is done, we will rotate out to Avatar. Then, when that is done, we will decide what to do next. Maybe it will be L5R again, but maybe it won't be? After Avatar, we may have 1 or 2 GMs take a rotation before my turn comes up again, and I will probably want to do something else by then.
warboss wrote: 3/10. Up from 0 before the creative commons release but down from 6 before the unnecessary OGL drama and "undermonitized" comments came to light (it was 7 two years ago before they accelerated their production schedule pushing out substandard books like Hogw... I mean Strixhaven and Spelljammer came out).
I had hoped that years of prosperity under 5e had convinced them that their goals with 4e and the GSL were short sighted and harmful. I was wrong. Very wrong. My current 3 is tentative and only that high because they can't backtrack out of the creative commons; it also indicates my pessimism regarding 6e.
The core problem is the way Hasbrow/Wizards/Shareholders are aiming to manage things IS short term.
They are doing the same thing with Magic the Gathering, riding it hard whilst its popular and over-producing to generate more sales and more profit in the short term at the expense of the long term. Even to the point where they released something like 45 special cards (that you can't use in regular magic) for £1000. They weren't gold plated, they were just regular cards of exclusive old popular designs with a unique back design to them.
They are copy-catting the 90s comicbook investment boom where they made as many comics as they could with as many covers to satisfy the investor collector and to generate as much profit as they could. Again we saw that short term it generated a LOT of money and then the bubble burst and the market has suffered from those choices since.
The move with DnD was the same; the intention being to monetize the heck out of it and part of that was a new licence that allowed Wizards to collect royalties and take copyright content from 3rd parties against the original open licence. Short term that would have generated a lot of money for them; the long term cost is that many of those 3rd parties would have shut down or moved out of DnD entirely because of those terms and because those terms would likely have changed (eg Royalties were based on going over a certain income threshold which they would likely have lowered - plus it was based on turnover not profits so could easily hit many firms that turnover a lot of money, but aren't highly profitable).
Again its all short term fast growth economics designed to bleed something as fast as you can. That drives up the profits, drives up the stock price and, for a time, you maintain that insane constant rise. Then you get out fast and sell up before that bubble bursts and everything tumbles down.
Long term health, sustained growth, managed expansion, re-investment are all things they really didn't want to do or consider.
Sure they'd like long term survivability, they just aren't banking on it and working within that model. If they get it that's a bonus.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So on a scale of 1-10, where does everyone currently place their marker for "trusting WOTC" and going back to DnD:B?
0/10. 5e is the best D&D can do and I see no reason to move on to a new system. And I certainly see no reason to pay for a subscription service when printed books work just fine. It's not about trust, even without the SRD debacle that business model is not appealing at all. I'd only consider moving to 6e if the rules look good and it's possible to play with 100% paper books.
If I were a publisher I would trust WOTC 0/10 on this. They may not be able to revoke the licenses for the existing content but they can certainly move to a more restrictive license going forward and I expect them to do exactly that. It's time to start diversifying away from D&D so that when the market of people still playing older editions is no longer enough to support a business there's already a new customer base.
If I were a publisher I would trust WOTC 0/10 on this. They may not be able to revoke the licenses for the existing content but they can certainly move to a more restrictive license going forward and I expect them to do exactly that.
That's what I've been saying as well. I honestly believe their intent was to make 6e backward compatible for the most part with 5e (just like 3.5 was with 3) but that was when the larger business plan was to crush the third party industry, drive their sales into beyond, and hear the lamentations of other VTTs and crowdfunders. Now that those parts have changed, I expect 6e to significantly deviate while also under a completely new license.
Can everyone take a second and see what came after the colon? It was "B" as in "Beyond". The digital app that WoTC has pushed heavily as the future path of DnD:One. Basically that's the platform they are launching their digital VTT on. I cancelled my sub on it last month, and won't be going back. Anyone else still using Beyond? That was my question. Not what system are you using...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can everyone take a second and see what came after the colon? It was "B" as in "Beyond". The digital app that WoTC has pushed heavily as the future path of DnD:One. Basically that's the platform they are launching their digital VTT on. I cancelled my sub on it last month, and won't be going back. Anyone else still using Beyond? That was my question. Not what system are you using...
It's kind of the same question given the chances that 6e is heavily integrated with the official app for monetization purposes.
The best thing about the Creative Commons solution is that it removes the need to trust WOTC. I have no doubt that with One DnD they will pursue aggressive monetisation, limit third party content as much as possible and continue with their attempts to create a GW-esque closed ecosystem, but 5e is ours now and they have no way to undo that now, whether they want to or not (which os why I was so astonished to see it go under CC at all!). Things like Project Black Flag can go ahead on very firm legal footing, the various products in development at MCDM, Kobold, Paizo or Ghostfire et al are no longer under threat, and 5e stands poised to become the community edition long after WOTC rolls out One DnD.
In the long run, I personally am leaning towards going all-in on the MCDM RPG, as the stuff coming out of their early playtesting/design reports seems really fresh and innovative, and very much caters to the kind of game I enjoy. However, thanks to the CC license and the potential for pngoing support being restored, I shall likely also stay playing 5e for a good long while, expanding it as needed with third party stuff and my own ever-growing library of homebrew content. I will continue to use DnD Beyond's free tier for character sheet management when I play for as long as it sticks around (though I don't foresee it continuing to support 5e characters once One launches, especially now, so hopefully a community-created alternative pops up before then.), but WOTC won't be getting any money from me besdies the odd Nolzur's mini going forward.
Paradigm wrote: (which is why I was so astonished to see it go under CC at all!)
I suspect the gamble was that WOTC knew anything less was going to be insufficient to silence the backlash against the license changes but hopefully (from their point of view) most customers would be moving on to 6e and its more restrictive licensing anyway and the value of the CC content would fade out naturally over time. Sacrifice a bit of control, minimize the PR damage to the product WOTC intends to make their money from.
If they make 5E and all it's content open forever, I MIGHT be enticed to come back to DnD Beyond, just for easy access to my materials. But the rest of the app is hot garbage. Even the encounter creator, that's been in alpha for over 2 years, still doesn't function properly. The UI is atrocious, and has no quick search function STILL.
Even then only monster manuals for toilet reading.
It's funny. I've been playing off and on for the last 30 years, and I've never realized I've been playing the game wrong until I read Sly Flourish's book on how to DM. DnD has fostered the idea for so long that the GM needs to be exhaustively prepping constantly at all hours, for what amounts to a weekly board game with friends. DnD has been teaching us to play the game wrong. Just a few hours and access to my charts and rolodex of character/random NPCs and encounter ideas. Done.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Can everyone take a second and see what came after the colon? It was "B" as in "Beyond". The digital app that WoTC has pushed heavily as the future path of DnD:One. Basically that's the platform they are launching their digital VTT on. I cancelled my sub on it last month, and won't be going back. Anyone else still using Beyond? That was my question. Not what system are you using...
Ah. I assumed you were trying for an emote. Words are better than jargon and acronyms, especially for niche computer programs.
Beyond is a terrible system that was never worth using in the first place. It puts information in the wrong order (not even in the natural flow of eye-movements across websites) and has far too many sub-menus.
Personally, I can't figure out why I would want it over a piece of paper that I can annotate and arrange in a functional way.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If they make 5E and all it's content open forever, I MIGHT be enticed to come back to DnD Beyond, just for easy access to my materials. But the rest of the app is hot garbage. Even the encounter creator, that's been in alpha for over 2 years, still doesn't function properly. The UI is atrocious, and has no quick search function STILL.
Honest question: why were you paying for this garbage up until the SRD debacle?
And fortunately 5E is open forever no matter what. The CC license makes that official and it's a very thoroughly litigated document with no room for WOTC to try to change their mind.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If they make 5E and all it's content open forever, I MIGHT be enticed to come back to DnD Beyond, just for easy access to my materials. But the rest of the app is hot garbage. Even the encounter creator, that's been in alpha for over 2 years, still doesn't function properly. The UI is atrocious, and has no quick search function STILL.
Honest question: why were you paying for this garbage up until the SRD debacle?
And fortunately 5E is open forever no matter what. The CC license makes that official and it's a very thoroughly litigated document with no room for WOTC to try to change their mind.
I believe he is referring to his purchases of official D&D products like books on beyond and not the selectively carved out portions of the original trio of core books that make up the SRD. The SRD 5.1 is free forever now but they can disown your purchases on beyond immediately if that's what the TOS you agreed to when purchasing allows.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If they make 5E and all it's content open forever, I MIGHT be enticed to come back to DnD Beyond, just for easy access to my materials. But the rest of the app is hot garbage. Even the encounter creator, that's been in alpha for over 2 years, still doesn't function properly. The UI is atrocious, and has no quick search function STILL.
Honest question: why were you paying for this garbage up until the SRD debacle?
And fortunately 5E is open forever no matter what. The CC license makes that official and it's a very thoroughly litigated document with no room for WOTC to try to change their mind.
Honest question: Why does every post of yours take the form of an attack?
Because I have a ton of content, and my players don't. I can't lend out my 1 Tashas to 3 different players every time they level up. Beyond makes sharing super easy. Now everyone can use the character maker (The only good thing) with the exact books I want to allow. Leveling and checking spells is also easy. Finally, due to covid in the past 3 years, I don't physically sit next to a lot of my players, so instead of calling them a liar on their dice, I can make them roll on the interface.
Finally, I bought the year sub BEFORE WoTC took over. They only recently took over and started making the "giant debacle."
It was a handy thing to have for checking my player's sheets while on break at work or whatnot.
Beyonds greatest strengths is easy, searchable, and access to information for the entire party on the hand held device they all have; including other players sheets when they are out.
Beyond that, I am not sure what it really offers right now.
I am interested to see how the AI DM works going forward. To be honest, it sounds interesting but in reality it will probably be awful.
Easy E wrote: Beyonds greatest strengths is easy, searchable, and access to information for the entire party on the hand held device they all have; including other players sheets when they are out.
Beyond that, I am not sure what it really offers right now.
I am interested to see how the AI DM works going forward. To be honest, it sounds interesting but in reality it will probably be awful.
For the AI DM, I'd quite like it to be a math bot tbf. I like the human aspect so I'd hate it if its gunna be running games.
But if it's a case of DM wants to put players through a dungoen but struggle with balancing combat for example. The AI DM could read their character sheets and the Human DM says I want a combat featuring undead and I want it "Easy, Medium, Challenging, Deadly, Unwinable".
The AI DM will then recommend an encounter to run.
OR
It recommends puzzles/traps to place in a dungeon.
If its an assistance tool for the DM's out there who find that aspect of building and balancing harder then great.
You could have just said that instead of complaining about the valid question of why you were paying money for a product you called "hot garbage", "atrocious", etc.
PS: why are you playing with people if you can't trust them to be honest about their dice?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: I am interested to see how the AI DM works going forward. To be honest, it sounds interesting but in reality it will probably be awful.
I think it will depend on your game type. If you want a straightforward "kick the door down, kill the monsters, take the loot" it will probably be fine. That kind of game is just a skirmish-scale wargame with stat advancement and it's pretty simple to script the behavior for each monster. RNG a grid of rooms, RNG a level-appropriate set of monsters behind each door, auto-generate some generic descriptive text and if it occasionally has some phrases that don't make sense it's no worse than the kind of DM that typically runs that game. If you want a game that is heavy on long-term story elements, character interactions, and NPCs with motives beyond "assign a quest to kill X monsters for Y GP at location Z" it's probably going to suck. Current AI is great at superficial stuff but it usually fails to hold up to a closer inspection and it's very bad at keeping a coherent train of thought through an extended sequence. It knows that A is often followed by B, and that B is often followed by C, but it struggles with nuances like B is usually followed by D instead of C if A happened along with E way back up the chain. So the longer you try to hold it on a specific sequence the more likely it is that the AI misses a point where a human would have known to break from the standard pattern and go in a different direction, or that the AI follows a false cue down a nonsensical path.
) and that's bloody awful. The fact they can do it is one thing, the fact they chose to is shortsighted, greedy and a massive middle finger to many of their most dedicated and enthusiastic players, supporters and fans. Feth WOTC, feth Hasbro and feth the OGL1.1. 
The drunk lawyers forced them do it, your honor!
ne.
