So WotC released a statement that they are soon moving to release their new version of DnD, called DnD: One. This is considered by many in the TTRPG community as a new platform to launch DnD 6ed.
GW has all but given us the writing on the wall that 10th will be some time in the next 12-24 months. Given that timeline puts it smack dab in the middle of a competitive buyers market for TT games, do you think GW has considered this, cares, or even realizes it?
Not saying the two fan bases are absolutely the same, but most people who rush out to spend their money on one game series update, will likely hesitate to rush out to spend the same if not more, on a second series update.
This presents me my next observation:
GW fans are by the most part much more financially able to do both. Very few serious players of GW's base find themselves in the lower income bracket.
I would say the opposite of DnD's fanbase. Usually 1 book every couple of months was all I could afford as a kid, or a set of minis. I started (Was given) with a copy of ADnD in 1984. I didn't start actually playing until 1989, in 2nd. At that time I was a teen, and dependent on gifts or chore money. But I was still able to play, if all my friends had player manuals and I had the monster manual/DM guide. 5th revolutionized DnD though. Now you could literally play DnD in any income bracket. Almost everything was free, or easy to access. Player sheets were easily downloaded, or digital. Manuals became digital, or PDF at the least. Or libraries began carrying them.
You can't find that sort of thing for 40k. There is a significant investment hurdle into 40k.
If GW wants 10th to be successful, they need to go full into the digital era, and give people the option. Their app by all accounts is sheer garbage, still. You cannot get over the cost of models. That's inescapable.
However, TLDR; If GW wants 10th to be a success, they need to not release it in the same window as DnD's next edition, like Sony, Nintento, and microsoft do with consoles every year, with the Playstation vs the Xbox v the Nintendo.
I don't think GW should pay attention to what anyone else is doing in the wargames sector, never mind the wider TT/RPG hobby sector. They're not about to make changes that would have massive financial implications just because a company in a tangentially related field decides to put out a new release at roughly the same time.
10th will likely be a success whenever it's released. I'm genuinely confused why you think D&D releases would have any real impact on that, especially given you note yourself the smaller buy-in cost for most D&D players.
They are very different games and related, but separate markets. Furthermore for those already in the hobby, both are basically just a new hardback book.
DnD is fairly light on required purchases so I'd wager most heavily into the GW hobbies can easily afford both in a given year or even a month or two apart.
As for digital I think that its nice to have, but not essential for physical tabletop games. GW have invested so much into "The Hobby" that their market is very physical. They've no need to push for an all digital market of the tabletop game.
DnD is different and the company has never pushed the physical elements so going digital is much easier as its not stepping on the toes of their own physical products all that much. At least not in the same way as it would do so for GW.
GW are also the Juggernaut in their market. They basically don't have to worry about other games releasing a new edition or such. Other games more likely worry about GW release dates of major releases.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: ...Toyota doesn't release their newest lineups at the same time as Ford, etc. It's just shooting yourself in the foot.
Unless D&D One is a return aaaaallll the way back to the Chainmail wargaming roots of D&D, this isn't what's happening. Toyota isn't releasing their lineup alongside Ford, they're releasing it alongside Yamaha.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Fifa '13 is a very different game than Mass Effect 3, but even EA wasn't dumb enough to release those at the same time.
There is such a thing as predictive analytics when it comes to releasing a new product.
Toyota doesn't release their newest lineups at the same time as Ford, etc. It's just shooting yourself in the foot.
You can't compare this at all with a new edition of D&D and Warhammer.
1. Usually the Dungeon Master is the dude with the books. Especially nowadays were you can share all your purchases with your gaming group on D&D Beyond. So there is little to no incentive for anyone in an existing group to buy a book on their own.
2. This means the larger part of every D&D group got no cost at all and is free to spend their money on Warhammer, if they happen to engage in both hobbies.
3. Neither is a product which you buy, take home with you, plug it in and then use it. People usually have set dates every week where they meet up to play them, as they both take alot of time for each session. People's schedules don't suddenly become more relaxed just because there is a new edition of anything. If you are meeting up with your dudes and dudettes once a month to go dungeon crawling, you will still do that.
The only thing you might want to do as either company, is to not release your new mainline product on the same day. Just for the sake of having the most exciting thing happening on that day.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Fifa '13 is a very different game than Mass Effect 3, but even EA wasn't dumb enough to release those at the same time.
There is such a thing as predictive analytics when it comes to releasing a new product.
Toyota doesn't release their newest lineups at the same time as Ford, etc. It's just shooting yourself in the foot.
The difference is that FIFA and ME are both EA products. They don't want to cannibalize their own sales, but they can and will release the games the same year in different launch slots. GW and Wizards are two distinctive entities with a varying playerbase that may or may not intersect and their overall launch slots may differ.
You also ignore that buying a car is on a whole different level than buying a box set/rulebooks for two rather accessible hobbies. Nobody buys both a Toyota and a Ford in the same year unless they are really rich car aficionados or for some esoteric reason that affords them that luxury.
Finally I think you overestimate how many books a DnD group needs. A good group could easily go and buy just a single set of the books with maybe a double of PHB. For a group that's not much. Of my current hobbies DnD is probably the least expensive one.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: To me they're not related, DnD is not really a thing in Germany I think as we have DSA.
Y'all have a government agency restricting TTRPGs? Oof.
Free speech isn't allowed in Germany. You know, to protect against fascism...
Following GW release schedule of the last 7-8 years, 10th will most likely come out in summer of 2023 so this post is kind of pointless anyway IMO. Just for the sake of debate, no I don't think it would matter at all. Maybe 5% of the Warhammer players I know have any interest in D&D. If people want both, they will just buy one with this paycheck and the other one next Friday with the next paycheck. I doubt GW or WotC would lose a single sale by releasing both around the same time.
GW has all but given us the writing on the wall that 10th will be some time in the next 12-24 months.
Have they though?
I know there's been a rumour, but that isn't exactly the same thing, is it?
Either way, to address the main point:
I don't think D&D's release will really affect 40k at all. It's true that a lot of people play both, but the games are of different types, and the settings are radically different. Also, as others have pointed out, D&D is not as much an investment as 40k; at worst, people who have a monthly hobby budget might end up throwing one month's allotment at D&D instead of 40k.
It is, however, a noticeable example of edition churn in both the biggest RPG and the biggest Table-Top Miniature game- a practice which I personally see as the biggest problem facing the industry as a whole. I don't particularly like 5th edition D&D, but despite that fact, I'd rather see them lean into the system they have, expand it and make it work than blow everything up. Given a choice between Darksun for 5th or buying a Player's Handbook AGAIN, Darksun is going to win every time.
I know there's been a rumour, but that isn't exactly the same thing, is it?
yeah, idk where that rumor came from but it certainly didnt come from GW's official communication channels.
If anything, i'd expect a "Psychic Awakening" style release before we get into 10th
I know there's been a rumour, but that isn't exactly the same thing, is it?
yeah, idk where that rumor came from but it certainly didnt come from GW's official communication channels.
If anything, i'd expect a "Psychic Awakening" style release before we get into 10th
Last year(?) they said something vague about the next edition being thought of, but still some ways off. No dates were stated. People assumed it was probably 2023 (or later) as they still had about 1/2 an editions worth of Codices to go. And then we learned that World Eaters & Votaan were also coming....
As for 40k 10e & D&D6e arriving in the same year? It won't affect anything.
*Any D&D players concerned with the release of a new edition have always known it was arriving in 2024. I mean, short of WWIII or another global pandemic sending things off the rails in '24, do you really think WoTC wouldn't capitalize on the games 50th anniversary by dropping a new edition? If the cost is of concern to any of these people? Well, you can see it coming. It's not a secret. So start saving $10/month now....
All right, I bite on the weird joke thread:
No. Irrelevant to GW.
Even beyond the audience, the market, the sales model ($thousands in minis vs a couple books or as WotC seems to want, an online sub to D&D Beyond), we're talking about another token playtest followed by 5.5 edition that's 'backwards compatible'
Short version is its cleaning up a crapload of errata, and fixing the power level of various classes and then trying to pretend it will be a 'living rulebook' if you subscribe to their online app. (though there will be another 3 core rulebooks in 2024).
If one player's handbook and maybe a DMG and Monster manual for the DM somehow equal a Warhammer army, rulebook, codex, glue, paints, etc, you're playing one game (or both) completely wrong
Does a new D&D release even matter all that much? AFAIK most D&D players already have established campaigns and while the release of a new version may get some people to upgrade it's not going to kick off a frenzy of people buying new books and committing to tons of new games ASAP. GW should probably avoid having a major release on the same weekend as the new D&D book but avoiding the entire year would be an absurd level of loss aversion.
(And I'm with PenitentJake on how much edition churn sucks. 5E is already a very solid game that needs, at most, some minor adjustments and balance fixes. Making a whole new edition is stupid and shortsighted greed, nothing more. And we all know GW has a problem with shoveling out garbage as fast as possible to milk the cash cow of book sales.)
Aecus Decimus wrote: Does a new D&D release even matter all that much? AFAIK most D&D players already have established campaigns and while the release of a new version may get some people to upgrade it's not going to kick off a frenzy of people buying new books and committing to tons of new games ASAP.
Committing to new games? No. But new D&D editions _do_ kick off a frenzy of new book buying. Regardless of the state of current campaigns (and a large chunk of D&D interested people don't necessarily have an 'established campaign'). Honestly a lot of people buy just so they can skim the book and complain about all the things that are 'wrong' compared to <insert favorite edition here>.
But we're talking maybe $150 IF you buy all 3 core books*, and Amazon discounts D&D books heavily for release (around 40% off), so maybe 90. For someone who just plays and doesn't DM, odds are they're going to spend about $30-35.
*assuming they do three core books this time. The DMG has been a useless vestige for quite a while now, published because they've 'always had one' (other than the editions that didn't), rather than containing useful information
Sure they are. All that's really involved is a question of how many books you might be buying all at once/in short order depending upon when they drop.
Some of us D&D players will be buying 3 books (PHB/DMG/MM). Others just 1 (PHB)
We 40k players will be buying 1 (the main rulebook) straight away. And maybe, depending upon what army you play, a Codex as well.
So between 2 - 5 books.
ccs wrote: Sure they are. All that's really involved is a question of how many books you might be buying all at once/in short order depending upon when they drop.
Some of us D&D players will be buying 3 books (PHB/DMG/MM). Others just 1 (PHB)
We 40k players will be buying 1 (the main rulebook) straight away. And maybe, depending upon what army you play, a Codex as well.
So between 2 - 5 books.
Except all you need to play DnD is those books. For 40k you kind of need the models, seeing as it is a TTWG. With new DnD players, they might buy some books but due to the group nature of the game they also might never buy a rulebook at all, I know I haven't.
40k players, however, absolutely are buying models, possibly even before they buy the books to use those models seeing as instructions come with basic rules nowadays.
Releasing in the same year is irrelevant. If released in the same month, that can have a minor impact. And by minor impact, I'm thinking somewhere in the four digit range, maybe five if really pushing it. Negligible to million dollar companies, anyway.
People who play both games may simply have to decide which one they spend their hobby money on that month, or save up ahead of time to buy both.
(A)D&D: 6 editions released in ~50 years, while the core gameplay has remained pretty much unchanged with many books/modules from earlier editions easily compatible/converted to use in later editions.
40k: 10 editions released in ~36 years, with at least three of those editions being complete resets of the rules and the prior books often being unusable in later editions (let alone books in the current edition being invalidated or replaced by new versions/seasons).
One is the cash cow of a relatively small UK-based company and the other belongs to Hasbro. Not really a big shock that one gets more stuff put out than the other.
Gnarlly wrote: (A)D&D: 6 editions released in ~50 years, while the core gameplay has remained pretty much unchanged with many books/modules from earlier editions easily compatible/converted to use in later editions.
40k: 10 editions released in ~36 years, with at least three of those editions being complete resets of the rules and the prior books often being unusable in later editions (let alone books in the current edition being invalidated or replaced by new versions/seasons).
Something is not right here.
Yeah GW cant write rules/ write them to sell stuff
Also in terms of resets we have, 2nd was a rewrite of RT, 3rd was a rewrite of 2nd. 3rd ed style rules lasted all the way through 7th with things added on and tweaked, 8th and 9th, and rumored 10th reset.
Then also HH 2.0 basically being 7.5
As some have suggested, D&D is one of those games where the new rulebook coming out can be largely irrelevant. I'm in 3 different D&D groups and we're in established campaigns in all 3, so we don't plan on changing any time soon.
Lots of people still play Pathfinder over 5e D&D anyway just out of their own convenience.
I don't think it will have a lot of impact on GW, outside of potentially displaying that they need to fix their app and go (largely) paperless.
Gert wrote: One is the cash cow of a relatively small UK-based company and the other belongs to Hasbro. Not really a big shock that one gets more stuff put out than the other.
I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that statement.
Hasbro gives very few craps about D&D, to the point that it often didn't even show up in the company's yearly reports. Despite D&D's general name recognition, they bought WotC for Magic, and merely tolerate D&D as long as it doesn't lose money. Wizards execs have tried and failed to make D&D a big money maker (Hasbro has a tier system for properties, Magic is on par with Monopoly, and D&D falls under 'other games'), and honestly the D&D rules development team is probably smaller than GW's at this point (though they use a lot of freelancers for art). Of the very small number of rulebooks they put out for 5th edition (seriously, compare it to 3rd or TSR during 2nd, or even what they planned for 4th before they gave up on that ediition), a good 20% are produced by people outside the company.
Seriously, the exactly _one_ Forgotten Realms sourcebook (Sword Coast Adventures) produced for 5th edition was a joint project mostly done by Green Ronin, a competitor. Compare that to the _hundreds_ of FR sourcebooks produced for second and third editions.
If you add various adventure module hardbacks, you get to maybe... 10? That's wildly conservative for an edition that's 8 years old, and a game that used to produce 50+ books a year, not 50 over the editions 8 year life span (50 including character sheets, multiple gift sets of the same books, DM screen and multiple starter sets, one of which doesn't come out until October, despite the announcement of a new edition). The lack of push on D&D products, despite pop-culture tie-ins like Stranger Things (and a movie!) is honestly baffling.
Its a nostalgia product where the owners are content to sit on it and figure the nostalgia won't make them money.
Gert wrote: One is the cash cow of a relatively small UK-based company and the other belongs to Hasbro. Not really a big shock that one gets more stuff put out than the other.
I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that statement.
Hasbro gives very few craps about D&D, to the point that it often didn't even show up in the company's yearly reports. Despite D&D's general name recognition, they bought WotC for Magic, and merely tolerate D&D as long as it doesn't lose money. Wizards execs have tried and failed to make D&D a big money maker (Hasbro has a tier system for properties, Magic is on par with Monopoly, and D&D falls under 'other games'), and honestly the D&D rules development team is probably smaller than GW's at this point (though they use a lot of freelancers for art). Of the very small number of rulebooks they put out for 5th edition (seriously, compare it to 3rd or TSR during 2nd, or even what they planned for 4th before they gave up on that ediition), a good 20% are produced by people outside the company.
Seriously, the exactly _one_ Forgotten Realms sourcebook (Sword Coast Adventures) produced for 5th edition was a joint project mostly done by Green Ronin, a competitor. Compare that to the _hundreds_ of FR sourcebooks produced for second and third editions.
If you add various adventure module hardbacks, you get to maybe... 10? That's wildly conservative for an edition that's 8 years old, and a game that used to produce 50+ books a year, not 50 over the editions 8 year life span (50 including character sheets, multiple gift sets of the same books, DM screen and multiple starter sets, one of which doesn't come out until October, despite the announcement of a new edition). The lack of push on D&D products, despite pop-culture tie-ins like Stranger Things (and a movie!) is honestly baffling.
Its a nostalgia product where the owners are content to sit on it and figure the nostalgia won't make them money.
Something tells me that your kinda out of touch with current D&D & WoTC/Hasbro.
To start with, there's alot more than maybe 10 books....
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I miss the option "doesn't matter" To me they're not related, DnD is not really a thing in Germany I think as we have DSA.
This. It's rare to find German DnD groups compared to other gaming systems. Heck, I know more people who have played "Plüsch, Power & Plunder" (a P&P system for playing stuffed animals in a nightmarish toy story setting) than people who played DnD. I personally haven't played it (or had the chance to) after moving back to Germany from the US.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: To me they're not related, DnD is not really a thing in Germany I think as we have DSA.
Y'all have a government agency restricting TTRPGs? Oof.
The story is even more hilarious. When DnD "took off" in the US, the German game company with the most German name called "Schmidt Spiele" tried to license it. There are some myths as to what happened exactly, but in the end there was no agreement and the management from Schmidt Spiele was pissed. So they tasked a bunch of translators and nerds to create a not-DnD for them, which did everything a little bit different than DnD did to prevent lawsuits - for example it uses cleverness instead of intelligence, intuition instead of wisdom and reversed the dice scale, so a roll of one is a crit instead of a fumble. Add a rather ridiculous setting (the Arrabian Nights setting is neighbors with dark age Europe, ancient Japan-China, hellenic Greece-Spain, a swamp full of intelligent lizard people and the unholy demon lands, all within a few weeks of travel) combined with a ton of pop culture references, bad jokes and some unique artwork, and DSA (translates to "The Dark Eye") was born.
Due to the reach of Schmidt Spiele which had their games in pretty much every convenient store, DnD was pushed out of the market and never really was a big thing here outside of areas close to American military bases until the internet happened. At that point DSA was well established and till today is still pretty much the default way for Germans to play P&P.
Jidmah wrote: Due to the reach of Schmidt Spiele which had their games in pretty much every convenient store, DnD was pushed out of the market and never really was a big thing here outside of areas close to American military bases until the internet happened. At that point DSA was well established and till today is still pretty much the default way for Germans to play P&P.
Funny you say that. For my perception DSA was always a nearly extinct game that only some older people used to play, while D&D was the prevalent system. My hometown did have a US military base until a few years ever since the end of WW2. I never thought about a correlation here. Interesting.
Add a rather ridiculous setting (the Arrabian Nights setting is neighbors with dark age Europe, ancient Japan-China, hellenic Greece-Spain, a swamp full of intelligent lizard people and the unholy demon lands, all within a few weeks of travel) combined with a ton of pop culture references, bad jokes and some unique artwork, and DSA (translates to "The Dark Eye") was born.
So like XV-XVIth century europe, but with elfs and orks etc? Sounds really fun.
Add a rather ridiculous setting (the Arrabian Nights setting is neighbors with dark age Europe, ancient Japan-China, hellenic Greece-Spain, a swamp full of intelligent lizard people and the unholy demon lands, all within a few weeks of travel) combined with a ton of pop culture references, bad jokes and some unique artwork, and DSA (translates to "The Dark Eye") was born.
So like XV-XVIth century europe, but with elfs and orks etc? Sounds really fun.
More like X-XVII, but yes. They essentially crammed all possible medieval settings into a continent that is roughly twice the size of Germany.
The demon lands used to be the country presenting the be polish/slavic background which was first razed by ogres and then taken over by demon worshippers. Judging from your stories, you'll feel right at home
I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that statement.
40k and DnD aren't comparable because DnD isn't Hasbro's or even WoC's big money maker. 40k has the churn because GW needs it to constantly make money, DnD doesn't need to be making money for Hasbro because Hasbro owns half the toy ranges under the sun, MtG, and most of the biggest board game systems. DnD is more comparable to something like MESBG.
Gert wrote: One is the cash cow of a relatively small UK-based company and the other belongs to Hasbro. Not really a big shock that one gets more stuff put out than the other.
I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that statement.
Hasbro gives very few craps about D&D, to the point that it often didn't even show up in the company's yearly reports. Despite D&D's general name recognition, they bought WotC for Magic, and merely tolerate D&D as long as it doesn't lose money. Wizards execs have tried and failed to make D&D a big money maker (Hasbro has a tier system for properties, Magic is on par with Monopoly, and D&D falls under 'other games'), and honestly the D&D rules development team is probably smaller than GW's at this point (though they use a lot of freelancers for art). Of the very small number of rulebooks they put out for 5th edition (seriously, compare it to 3rd or TSR during 2nd, or even what they planned for 4th before they gave up on that ediition), a good 20% are produced by people outside the company.
Seriously, the exactly _one_ Forgotten Realms sourcebook (Sword Coast Adventures) produced for 5th edition was a joint project mostly done by Green Ronin, a competitor. Compare that to the _hundreds_ of FR sourcebooks produced for second and third editions.
If you add various adventure module hardbacks, you get to maybe... 10? That's wildly conservative for an edition that's 8 years old, and a game that used to produce 50+ books a year, not 50 over the editions 8 year life span (50 including character sheets, multiple gift sets of the same books, DM screen and multiple starter sets, one of which doesn't come out until October, despite the announcement of a new edition). The lack of push on D&D products, despite pop-culture tie-ins like Stranger Things (and a movie!) is honestly baffling.
Its a nostalgia product where the owners are content to sit on it and figure the nostalgia won't make them money.
It's funny you mention all this, because so many of 5th ed books are either "guest works" ala the Stranger Things spin off, the Rick and Morty Spin off, or the literal Magic the Gathering Spinoff, OR they are literal copies of previous works, done with 5e rules. DM guide and players manual use the same art and class descriptions basically. All the spells are copy pasted...etc. The adventure books are just re-hashed versions of old favorites, or attempts to glom off the success of other notable works, such as the completely stupid Harry Potter DLC book. There is very little if anything actually NEW in 5th, with the exception of their hard left turn books (Tashas), that basically undo the last 40 years of DnD. What, you want to play a half orc scholar but you don't like racial bonues? Put them whereever you want!
Then you have the Matt Mercer effect. DnD 5E became cool for the first time when that idiot decided to make a web series out of it. Suddenly everyone wanted to play like critical role, but it was too much to learn. So we dumbed down DnD to such an extent that now stats don't matter, race doesn't matter, and you are given bonuses for "good role play". This then resulted in his works becoming cannonized, further breaking the game. Echo Knights and other edgelord crap that is stupidly unbalanced. But people were buying it so who cares?
Now DnD:One is starting off with a new system that basically completely re-builds character creation, makes race the least important decision, and invalidates all older rule books. So yeah, anyone wanting to play the new DnD will have to, at a minimum, buy the new system "One" which is supposedly an online subscription, and a players manual. So we're looking at $60+Sub fee/system purchase.
This is going to be an expensive hobby for the next few years, until someone finds a way to crack One, and offer it for free, like BattleScribe.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: It's funny you mention all this, because so many of 5th ed books are either "guest works" ala the Stranger Things spin off, the Rick and Morty Spin off, or the literal Magic the Gathering Spinoff, OR they are literal copies of previous works, done with 5e rules. DM guide and players manual use the same art and class descriptions basically. All the spells are copy pasted...etc. The adventure books are just re-hashed versions of old favorites, or attempts to glom off the success of other notable works, such as the completely stupid Harry Potter DLC book. There is very little if anything actually NEW in 5th, with the exception of their hard left turn books (Tashas), that basically undo the last 40 years of DnD. What, you want to play a half orc scholar but you don't like racial bonues? Put them whereever you want!
Then you have the Matt Mercer effect. DnD 5E became cool for the first time when that idiot decided to make a web series out of it. Suddenly everyone wanted to play like critical role, but it was too much to learn. So we dumbed down DnD to such an extent that now stats don't matter, race doesn't matter, and you are given bonuses for "good role play". This then resulted in his works becoming cannonized, further breaking the game. Echo Knights and other edgelord crap that is stupidly unbalanced. But people were buying it so who cares?
Are DnD groups that different from other P&P games? In almost all cases I know, people eventually find a version they like and just stop updating.
Now DnD:One is starting off with a new system that basically completely re-builds character creation, makes race the least important decision, and invalidates all older rule books. So yeah, anyone wanting to play the new DnD will have to, at a minimum, buy the new system "One" which is supposedly an online subscription, and a players manual. So we're looking at $60+Sub fee/system purchase.
This is going to be an expensive hobby for the next few years, until someone finds a way to crack One, and offer it for free, like BattleScribe.
So $132 a year, right? Seems super cheap compared to 40k
Gert wrote: One is the cash cow of a relatively small UK-based company and the other belongs to Hasbro. Not really a big shock that one gets more stuff put out than the other.
I'm honestly not sure where you're going with that statement.
Hasbro gives very few craps about D&D, to the point that it often didn't even show up in the company's yearly reports. Despite D&D's general name recognition, they bought WotC for Magic, and merely tolerate D&D as long as it doesn't lose money. Wizards execs have tried and failed to make D&D a big money maker (Hasbro has a tier system for properties, Magic is on par with Monopoly, and D&D falls under 'other games'), and honestly the D&D rules development team is probably smaller than GW's at this point (though they use a lot of freelancers for art). Of the very small number of rulebooks they put out for 5th edition (seriously, compare it to 3rd or TSR during 2nd, or even what they planned for 4th before they gave up on that ediition), a good 20% are produced by people outside the company.
Seriously, the exactly _one_ Forgotten Realms sourcebook (Sword Coast Adventures) produced for 5th edition was a joint project mostly done by Green Ronin, a competitor. Compare that to the _hundreds_ of FR sourcebooks produced for second and third editions.
If you add various adventure module hardbacks, you get to maybe... 10? That's wildly conservative for an edition that's 8 years old, and a game that used to produce 50+ books a year, not 50 over the editions 8 year life span (50 including character sheets, multiple gift sets of the same books, DM screen and multiple starter sets, one of which doesn't come out until October, despite the announcement of a new edition). The lack of push on D&D products, despite pop-culture tie-ins like Stranger Things (and a movie!) is honestly baffling.
Its a nostalgia product where the owners are content to sit on it and figure the nostalgia won't make them money.
Something tells me that your kinda out of touch with current D&D & WoTC/Hasbro.
To start with, there's alot more than maybe 10 books....
10 Forgotten Realms books. Only IF you include adventures. Compare that to the literal hundreds of FR books from previous editions.
But no, I'm not out of touch, the 50 total products for 5e is taken right from their RPG products page: https://dnd.wizards.com/products?category=tabletop-rpg That's literally it (and a lot are gift sets, filler, or just pure junk products (IMO), with several produced largely by somebody else.)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: This is going to be an expensive hobby for the next few years, until someone finds a way to crack One, and offer it for free, like BattleScribe.
That's honestly laughable. The average player (not DM) can get away with buying zero books and just borrow a book at the table. At most they'll 'need' a player's handbook (and not at all if their subclass is on the online starter rules document), and maybe a class, race or subclass from a later book...if they want it. The monetary outlay for D&D is trivial. Unless your idea of D&D is collecting rulebooks (which is true for some people, including myself- though I mostly toss D&D books on Christmas and birthday gift idea lists). Even then its maybe $200 a year with their current development speed and production schedule.
More like X-XVII, but yes. They essentially crammed all possible medieval settings into a continent that is roughly twice the size of Germany.
The demon lands used to be the country presenting the be polish/slavic background which was first razed by ogres and then taken over by demon worshippers. Judging from your stories, you'll feel right at home
Sounds cool. XVth century was wild around here. Hellenic byzentines, turks and their allias in anatolia, tatars in the Krym region, middle ages style knighly orders in the north, zmudzins running around in furs fighting with stone weapons and horse jaws, while at the same time visiting spaniars and italians are already having their renaissance, while portugal is being all sneaky like and doing exploring around africa. The setting sounds awesome, plus in german I can actualy properly read without a dictionary. There seems to be a ton of material online. Thank you for the information about the setting.
The story is even more hilarious. When DnD "took off" in the US, the German game company with the most German name called "Schmidt Spiele" tried to license it. There are some myths as to what happened exactly, but in the end there was no agreement and the management from Schmidt Spiele was pissed. So they tasked a bunch of translators and nerds to create a not-DnD for them, which did everything a little bit different than DnD did to prevent lawsuits - for example it uses cleverness instead of intelligence, intuition instead of wisdom and reversed the dice scale, so a roll of one is a crit instead of a fumble. Add a rather ridiculous setting (the Arrabian Nights setting is neighbors with dark age Europe, ancient Japan-China, hellenic Greece-Spain, a swamp full of intelligent lizard people and the unholy demon lands, all within a few weeks of travel) combined with a ton of pop culture references, bad jokes and some unique artwork, and DSA (translates to "The Dark Eye") was born.
It's funny you mention all this, because so many of 5th ed books are either "guest works" ala the Stranger Things spin off, the Rick and Morty Spin off, or the literal Magic the Gathering Spinoff, OR they are literal copies of previous works, done with 5e rules. DM guide and players manual use the same art and class descriptions basically. All the spells are copy pasted...etc. The adventure books are just re-hashed versions of old favorites, or attempts to glom off the success of other notable works, such as the completely stupid Harry Potter DLC book. There is very little if anything actually NEW in 5th, with the exception of their hard left turn books (Tashas), that basically undo the last 40 years of DnD. What, you want to play a half orc scholar but you don't like racial bonues? Put them whereever you want!
Then you have the Matt Mercer effect. DnD 5E became cool for the first time when that idiot decided to make a web series out of it. Suddenly everyone wanted to play like critical role, but it was too much to learn. So we dumbed down DnD to such an extent that now stats don't matter, race doesn't matter, and you are given bonuses for "good role play". This then resulted in his works becoming cannonized, further breaking the game. Echo Knights and other edgelord crap that is stupidly unbalanced. But people were buying it so who cares?
Now DnD:One is starting off with a new system that basically completely re-builds character creation, makes race the least important decision, and invalidates all older rule books. So yeah, anyone wanting to play the new DnD will have to, at a minimum, buy the new system "One" which is supposedly an online subscription, and a players manual. So we're looking at $60+Sub fee/system purchase.
This is going to be an expensive hobby for the next few years, until someone finds a way to crack One, and offer it for free, like BattleScribe.
I agree with anything except the last statement. I don't see D&D:One costing me a penny when I can play Pathfinder for free.
I never got into pathfinder personally. I have to admit it was a fun idea, with the company having paid professional DM's that started "adventurer's guilds" and whatnot, but I couldn't get into the world setting. Again, entirely personal, YMMV.
The story is even more hilarious. When DnD "took off" in the US, the German game company with the most German name called "Schmidt Spiele" tried to license it. There are some myths as to what happened exactly, but in the end there was no agreement and the management from Schmidt Spiele was pissed. So they tasked a bunch of translators and nerds to create a not-DnD for them, which did everything a little bit different than DnD did to prevent lawsuits - for example it uses cleverness instead of intelligence, intuition instead of wisdom and reversed the dice scale, so a roll of one is a crit instead of a fumble. Add a rather ridiculous setting (the Arrabian Nights setting is neighbors with dark age Europe, ancient Japan-China, hellenic Greece-Spain, a swamp full of intelligent lizard people and the unholy demon lands, all within a few weeks of travel) combined with a ton of pop culture references, bad jokes and some unique artwork, and DSA (translates to "The Dark Eye") was born.
I think you've just sold me on The Dark Eye.
Take a look at the mechanics first. No judgements, but they're not for everybody, and can get... controversial... among people who get worked up about such things. (And I mean that purely as game mechanics, not politics or 'politics'). I've seen people describe past editions as 'start with AD&D THAC0, drag it through Runequest & Call of Cthulu, throw it in a blender and then translate it from German to English by way of Japanese.'
I don't think its quite that bad, but what I've seen does have a fair amount of book-keeping, and some quirky translation issues.
The story is even more hilarious. When DnD "took off" in the US, the German game company with the most German name called "Schmidt Spiele" tried to license it. There are some myths as to what happened exactly, but in the end there was no agreement and the management from Schmidt Spiele was pissed. So they tasked a bunch of translators and nerds to create a not-DnD for them, which did everything a little bit different than DnD did to prevent lawsuits - for example it uses cleverness instead of intelligence, intuition instead of wisdom and reversed the dice scale, so a roll of one is a crit instead of a fumble. Add a rather ridiculous setting (the Arrabian Nights setting is neighbors with dark age Europe, ancient Japan-China, hellenic Greece-Spain, a swamp full of intelligent lizard people and the unholy demon lands, all within a few weeks of travel) combined with a ton of pop culture references, bad jokes and some unique artwork, and DSA (translates to "The Dark Eye") was born.
I think you've just sold me on The Dark Eye.
Give it a try, it's awesome. There even are some pretty decent video games made from it, the Drakensang series, for example.
Just maybe don't use all of the rules... or half of them. Or even a tenth of them. The Dark Eye is infamous for having ridiculous amounts of rules on literally everything, including whole books for literally playing as a cat, having sex and on how to be faithful to a single specific god.
More like X-XVII, but yes. They essentially crammed all possible medieval settings into a continent that is roughly twice the size of Germany.
The demon lands used to be the country presenting the be polish/slavic background which was first razed by ogres and then taken over by demon worshippers. Judging from your stories, you'll feel right at home
Sounds cool. XVth century was wild around here. Hellenic byzentines, turks and their allias in anatolia, tatars in the Krym region, middle ages style knighly orders in the north, zmudzins running around in furs fighting with stone weapons and horse jaws, while at the same time visiting spaniars and italians are already having their renaissance, while portugal is being all sneaky like and doing exploring around africa. The setting sounds awesome, plus in german I can actualy properly read without a dictionary. There seems to be a ton of material online. Thank you for the information about the setting.
Yes, that sound a lot like how DSA is. Glad to be of help, enjoy
My D&D friend group is entirely different than my 40k group. I'm the only connection between the two
It won't affect most. Many players are either into one and dabble in the other. A new D&D edition isnt nearly as much of a time sink unless your a dungeon master yourself and youre starting a new group.
Voss wrote: Take a look at the mechanics first. No judgements, but they're not for everybody, and can get... controversial... among people who get worked up about such things. (And I mean that purely as game mechanics, not politics or 'politics'). I've seen people describe past editions as 'start with AD&D THAC0, drag it through Runequest & Call of Cthulu, throw it in a blender and then translate it from German to English by way of Japanese.'
Well now I have to see them.
In all seriousness, I appreciate the input. I'll give it a look and see if it's for me (then it'll just be a matter of convincing the rest of my group to try it).
Give it a try, it's awesome. There even are some pretty decent video games made from it, the Drakensang series, for example.
Just maybe don't use all of the rules... or half of them. Or even a tenth of them. The Dark Eye is infamous for having ridiculous amounts of rules on literally everything, including whole books for literally playing as a cat, having sex and on how to be faithful to a single specific god.
Rofl, I'll bear that in mind. Though I regret to say you've inspired me to find the rules for playing as a cat.
Incidentally, is the game improved if I imagine all the rules being shouted in a German accent?
If you want to play as a cat in D&D, vipoid, have a look at Animal Adventures - I think it is available via Steamforged Games, and they've released miniatures for both cats and dogs (and a crab?) in various class roles.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: There is very little if anything actually NEW in 5th, with the exception of their hard left turn books (Tashas), that basically undo the last 40 years of DnD. What, you want to play a half orc scholar but you don't like racial bonues? Put them whereever you want!
How is it a "hard left turn" to make a fairly minor and long-overdue change? Racial bonuses were a relic of D&D's broken early days and only kept around because of irrational resistance to change. Any narrative value they had was far outweighed by the way they locked in various race/class pairs and punished you for taking anything else. Want to play a ranged character? You're an elf, because +1 to hit is better than anything else and playing a non-elf character is crippling yourself right from day one. Playing a sorcerer? If you play a race without +2 charisma you're an idiot. Etc. Getting rid of racial bonuses lets you pick your race based on what feels appropriate for the character instead of what makes your build function.
So we dumbed down DnD to such an extent that now stats don't matter, race doesn't matter, and you are given bonuses for "good role play".
Stats absolutely matter, in fact they matter more in 5E than in previous editions since you have much less ability to make up for low stats by stacking broken feats/magic items/etc. Race matters from a roleplaying point of view as it should. And giving roleplaying XP is a thing any decent DM was already doing because direct incentives to do more than roll your attack dice lead to better games in the majority of groups. So I'm really not seeing how any of this is "dumbed down". The absurd complexity of previous editions is not the same thing as depth.
Now DnD:One is starting off with a new system that basically completely re-builds character creation, makes race the least important decision, and invalidates all older rule books. So yeah, anyone wanting to play the new DnD will have to, at a minimum, buy the new system "One" which is supposedly an online subscription, and a players manual. So we're looking at $60+Sub fee/system purchase.
So, one copy of the online subscription for your group to share? Seems like a pretty cheap transition, especially if someone in Russia or China makes a Wahapedia equivalent and copy/pastes all of the subscription content into a free site.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I never got into pathfinder personally. I have to admit it was a fun idea, with the company having paid professional DM's that started "adventurer's guilds" and whatnot, but I couldn't get into the world setting. Again, entirely personal, YMMV.
Don't worry, you missed nothing. Pathfinder is just a semi-fixed version of 3.5e. They at least try to make martial classes keep up with spellcasters for a while longer but ramp up the rules bloat to an absurd level. And TBH I've never seen anyone playing the official organized play stuff, it's all people who liked 3.5e and didn't make the change to 4e running private home games with the least-bad version of 3.5e.
How is it a "hard left turn" to make a fairly minor and long-overdue change? Racial bonuses were a relic of D&D's broken early days and only kept around because of irrational resistance to change. Any narrative value they had was far outweighed by the way they locked in various race/class pairs and punished you for taking anything else. Want to play a ranged character? You're an elf, because +1 to hit is better than anything else and playing a non-elf character is crippling yourself right from day one. Playing a sorcerer? If you play a race without +2 charisma you're an idiot. Etc. Getting rid of racial bonuses lets you pick your race based on what feels appropriate for the character instead of what makes your build function.
I don't see how a +1 bonus on a given roll is crippling yourself in a cooperative game where the Game Master has to cater to the strengths and weaknesses of their group anyway in order to create an interesting adventure. I played some D&D over the years, starting out with a 2 point difference in your main attribute - while annoying if you want top efficiency - is hardly making your character unplayable.
a_typical_hero wrote: I don't see how a +1 bonus on a given roll is crippling yourself in a cooperative game where the Game Master has to cater to the strengths and weaknesses of their group anyway in order to create an interesting adventure. I played some D&D over the years, starting out with a 2 point difference in your main attribute - while annoying if you want top efficiency - is hardly making your character unplayable.
It's crippling because of how the D20 system works. Even for a basic fighter type +1 to hit is an incredibly powerful bonus when you're hitting on a 15+ or worse, that's 20-50% more damage balanced against some relatively minor lore bonuses. And if you're a spellcaster that's +1 to save DC (a major damage buff) on top of +1 to hit (or better spells per day in older editions) and +1 to a bunch of useful skills. If you cared at all about character optimization by far the primary deciding factor in picking a race was getting the correct racial bonuses. And what do you get in exchange for this balance issue? Some "roleplaying" justification for pushing people into using the same stock character archetypes of the dexterous elf, strong half-orc, etc. Good riddance to that nonsense.
And sure, the DM can adjust things, but that assumes everyone in the group has the same level of optimization. How do you balance the target's AC when you have a well-optimized elf archer with +10 to hit and a poorly optimized halfling fighter with +4 to hit? Either the elf is challenged but the halfling can't hit at all or the halfling is challenged but the elf yawns and rolls another hit.
I'm personally not a fan of every Fantasy Race drifting ever closer to being Humans with Accessories. I feel it's just really diluting the point of having separated fantasy races by having them become mechanically similar.
With 5e balancing, the difference in an Attribute Optimized character and an unoptimized character is... +1 or 2 to hit in their main attack profile.
Thadin wrote: I'm personally not a fan of every Fantasy Race drifting ever closer to being Humans with Accessories. I feel it's just really diluting the point of having separated fantasy races by having them become mechanically similar.
This is a feature not a bug. Race (like gender, height, hair color, etc) should be primarily a roleplaying choice, not a set of dice math buffs. You should play an elf because it fits your character concept, not because +2 dex is a vital dice math buff even though your character's backstory and personality are far more like a human. The old cliche party of a halfling rogue, elf archer, human cleric of a lawful good god, etc, can GDIAF.
With 5e balancing, the difference in an Attribute Optimized character and an unoptimized character is... +1 or 2 to hit in their main attack profile.
Yes, if you consider just attribute optimization it's "only" a 20-50% difference in offense plus various skill bonuses. But the players who pick their race for the correct bonuses are likely to make all of the other choices the same way, resulting in a larger power gap.
I don't see the point of races in fantasy if they're not different enough to merit it. The idea of completely disregarding bonuses due to race is an odd one, because elves and orcs should be more different than they are now. Why is a bonus for playing as a race that's better than another at something, because the gods willed it, a bad thing to have in a roleplaying game? It's like the slow dilution in what races provide from Morrowind to Skyrim. In Morrowind, High Elves were so proficient and sensitive to magic, that they started with 2.5x Intelligence in magicka, and Orcs and humans started with 1x intelligence as magicka, but everyone could be a good mage if they put in the effort. If you pick an Orc mage, play with the starting drawbacks, because it's what you chose. Eventually, or immediately depending on what level you start as, you'll be as good, regardless. I'm tired of RPGs becoming streamlined, boring, and safe.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I don't see the point of races in fantasy if they're not different enough to merit it.
What is the point of hair color in fantasy? Should you not describe your character's hair color unless it gives a 20% difference in damage or skill rolls?
Why is a bonus for playing as a race that's better than another at something, because the gods willed it, a bad thing to have in a roleplaying game?
Because it completely removes character diversity in any game where people aren't 100% committed to ignoring character optimization factors. If the gods have willed that high elves are the best mages then virtually all mages will be high elves because it's the obvious best choice. Even if your character backstory and personality are better suited to being an orc most of the time you're going to handwave it away as "an elf who was raised by orcs and so acts exactly like them but still gets that precious mage buff". And that's what we saw over and over again in D&D: you pick your character archetype, and then you pick one of the 1-2 races that gives the correct racial stat bonuses. Instead of a wide range of races you had a short list of cookie cutter builds made with stock fantasy cliches and a lot of pressure to never deviate from them.
And of course it then skews the demographics of the world when the inevitable supplement bloat happens. Lore-wise the world is mostly human with a good amount of elves and dwaves and some half-orcs and hobbits hiding in the corners. But 99% of adventurers are some obscure race from a supplement because that's the only way to get things like +2 INT and +2 DEX on the same character. So what if there are only 200 of them left in the entire world following the disaster that destroyed their homeland, every wizard you meet is that race because the only thing better than +1 to your spellcasting attribute is +1 to your spellcasting attribute and a +1 AC bonus.
I'm tired of RPGs becoming streamlined, boring, and safe.
Why? RPGs should be roleplaying games, not skirmish-scale miniatures games with really convoluted rules. Streamlining puts more emphasis on the roleplaying instead of character build optimization and tabletop strategy.
Wargamers: I can only play a High Elf Mage because it's the most optimal option. This is a problem in DND.
Roleplayers: High elf mages are cool, I'll play a high elf mage. Or, my idea for a gnome mage is cool, ill play a gnome mage. I've got an idea for a goblin ranger to play.
I don't know if you've actually played DND 5e, but most players don't think like Wargamers.
I'm currently DMing for two parties. Changeling Artificer, Dragonborn Paladin, Elf Druid, Human Cleric and a Dwarf Barbarian, all using default racial attributes.
My other party is Human Fighter, Human Barbarian, Human Wizard, Tiefling Artificer and Kobold Paladin.
The only problem I've had where people were pressed over racial attributes, was when I tried organizing a DND party with some 40k/AoS players. All hung up over the minute little numbers and bonuses that trying to get them to make a Character was such a pain that I decided to disband that effort.
Removing Racial Attributes also doesn't magically make Minmaxing go away. It just shifts things. Now High Elf isn't the best wizard, Tortle is. So on and so forth.
My first character was a Half Orc Cleric. I'm particular towards human sorcerers, with a feat, of course. Remember, removing the difference between races in fantasy does not add choices, it removes choices. Now everything might as well just be a human. Let's go further, why have classes? I play a system without classes and is point buy, and you buy the race you want with points, and I still buy sub optimal races.
Now, why should every race be equally good at everything, and why should that mean people will only pick optimal characters with every single thing being minmaxed? Why does it limit characters?
It enhances characters, immensely, because now your character has more defining them than being a different color human. You can still have a damn good wizard with one less Intelligence, or, god forbid, at most 3 less intelligence.
If your only issue is that people minmax, remove subclasses, feats, and races. You will always pick what suits you best. But, even in a video game where I'm playing solo, I picked Dark Elf as a mage in Morrowind, despite the fact that they are about as optimal as an Orc mid game, and way worse than high elves mid to late game. Why? Because it's fun. I wanted to roleplay a Telvanni mage, and a high elf or breton just didn't do it for me.
Add in multiple players, all in it for RP, and what do you get? Fun and interesting choices for race. Trying to win a campaign in d&d by minmaxing is a fool's errand, and even with racial differences, you can become as good as any other race at something within 4 levels. At the very latest, it can take up to level 8 to make an Orc wizard just as good as any other race.
And, I recently watched a show where green hair was cursed, so hair can matter for RP. If we were playing in a campaign where people with white hair had magic powers, people with black hair had better strength, and people with brown hair were average, I'd expect hair color to matter.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Remember, removing the difference between races in fantasy does not add choices, it removes choices.
Only if you define "choice" in roll-playing terms, where only things that have a direct mechanical effect on your dice rolling matter. In roleplaying terms it's still a significant choice.
Let's go further, why have classes?
Good question. D&D has them because of "legacy code" issues related to its origin as a fantasy hero add-on for a historical wargame. If you're designing a game from scratch and not worrying about people who will complain if you change too much you probably wouldn't lock everything into rigid classes.
You can still have a damn good wizard with one less Intelligence, or, god forbid, at most 3 less intelligence.
You can still have that character if you want. Nobody is forcing you to use any particular combination of attributes, if you want a lower-intelligence wizard then make one. What removing fixed racial bonuses does is remove the problem where, if you care about character optimization at all, you're locked into playing the same 1-2 races that have +2 INT. Or +2 DEX for an archer, +2 STR/CON for a melee fighter, etc.
At the very latest, it can take up to level 8 to make an Orc wizard just as good as any other race.
And a level 8 character that started with +2 INT will be a stronger character than the level 8 orc wizard. That's the problem, getting there eventually doesn't matter if the rest of the party reached that point several levels ago and has now exceeded it. No matter how far you go you'll always be lagging behind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thadin wrote: I don't know if you've actually played DND 5e, but most players don't think like Wargamers.
In your experience. In my experience they do. But maybe this is because I've played most of my D&D in 3.5e/Pathfinder, a system that punishes you brutally if you don't optimize your character build to get +30 on every roll. Maybe 5e attracts a completely different group in general, I've only played it with the same people I played the older systems with. But I doubt it's gone through such a complete culture change that min/maxing and picking races based on getting the right bonuses for your build are as unheard of as you claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, let's remember the context here. This whole discussion came up because of a post making the complaint that removing racial bonuses is some kind of "hard left turn" into woke culture or whatever the right-wing outrage machine wants to call it these days:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: There is very little if anything actually NEW in 5th, with the exception of their hard left turn books (Tashas), that basically undo the last 40 years of DnD. What, you want to play a half orc scholar but you don't like racial bonues? Put them whereever you want!
Whether or not you like racial attribute bonuses there is clearly a reason for removing them that has nothing to do with left-wing politics.
If a choice is "Blue human" or "Red human" or "Elf human" or "Human human", it's a choice of aesthetic, not a choice you have to make for roleplay. Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything" or else there's no reason to use a system. Roleplay involves mechanics, and pretending that they don't matter is disingenuous.
And, honestly, why the hell should you care if someone wants to play efficiently as an elf wizard? What's the big deal? Important choices matter.
Also, while people will be better mages earlier, you'd have covered the drawbacks of being a wizard, by having better constitution and strength, so by level 8, you're just as good a wizard, and have some other benefits. What's the point of races at all if the distinction is nonexistent?
If you have two Wizards in the party, then sure, they'll be compared to each other. And more than Attribute choices, Spell Choice and Subclass choice is going to make one wizard stronger than the other.
But, why would a party have two wizards? If you have one wizard in the party, what does the Orc Wizard perform poorly in reference to? The idea in the orc players mind that he could be stronger if he optimized harder? Any player can think that of their character.
Thadin wrote: If you have two Wizards in the party, then sure, they'll be compared to each other. And more than Attribute choices, Spell Choice and Subclass choice is going to make one wizard stronger than the other.
But, why would a party have two wizards? If you have one wizard in the party, what does the Orc Wizard perform poorly in reference to? The idea in the orc players mind that he could be stronger if he optimized harder? Any player can think that of their character.
I've played in a campaign with like 3 or 4 wizards, and we never cared who was best. One of us was an elf, two humans, and I think one was a dragonborn or something. It was fun. Subclasses do make way more of a difference than race, and an Orc might even make for a better wizard in some scenarios. I know in Morrowind, if I pick an Orc, I can reliably hit someone with a sword if I run out of mana, and resist magicka quite effectively, but if I play as a High Elf, and run out of magicka, I would need to run away.
A magic class in Morrowind considered fairly fun is a Redguard with just Conjuration and Long Blade as skills, and conjuring your weapons and armor.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum:
I keep typing Ork instead of Orc, so I'm sorry if I end up having a typo.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If a choice is "Blue human" or "Red human" or "Elf human" or "Human human", it's a choice of aesthetic, not a choice you have to make for roleplay. Remember, roleplay isn't this nebulous "pretend everything" or else there's no reason to use a system. Roleplay involves mechanics, and pretending that they don't matter is disingenuous.
You know there's more to a RPG than combat, right? And that most social interactions are poorly defined at best in the rules and involve a ton of improvisation and "that seems about right"?
And, honestly, why the hell should you care if someone wants to play efficiently as an elf wizard? What's the big deal? Important choices matter.
I don't. I care that anyone who wants to play an effective wizard is pushed into playing an elf because it's the only way to get the vital +INT bonus. I care that people are encouraged to write the backstory and personality of a human/orc/etc, and then cross out that race and write "elf" at the top of their character sheet without changing anything else about the character. If you play an elf it should be because you want to play an elf, not because you want to play a character with +2 INT.
Also, while people will be better mages earlier, you'd have covered the drawbacks of being a wizard, by having better constitution and strength, so by level 8, you're just as good a wizard, and have some other benefits.
That's not what min/maxing involves. I don't care what strength I have as a wizard. I'd happily play a wizard with 4 STR if it meant putting even more points into INT. Carrying capacity is irrelevant when I don't wear armor, don't need a weapon, and after a few levels can make bags of holding whenever I need them. Melee is irrelevant because I have a tank for that. And if I need strength for a skill check I have an assortment of buff spells to get whatever I need, if I can't just tell the fighter to kick that door down. None of that stuff will ever make up for having a reduced primary spellcasting stat.
What's the point of races at all if the distinction is nonexistent?
What's the point in describing your character's hair color if there are no rules attached?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thadin wrote: If you have one wizard in the party, what does the Orc Wizard perform poorly in reference to?
To other wizards in other games, to the rest of the party, and to the NPCs the party is fighting. People aren't stupid, they know when they're fishing for 20s because their character build sucks and they know the rest of the party isn't.
So, the difference between a functional wizard, and one that sucks and does nothing and needs to fish for 20s, and is immediately recognized as a terrible character and everyone knows they're worthless is... +1 to their spell casting modifier? What hellish DND have you been playing?
A 5th edition, Point Buy base racial modifier Orc can start with 15 INT. A High elf can start with a whopping 16.
Thadin wrote: So, the difference between a functional wizard, and one that sucks and does nothing and needs to fish for 20s, and is immediately recognized as a terrible character and everyone knows they're worthless is... +1 to their spell casting modifier? What hellish DND have you been playing?
Literally fishing for 20s? Maybe not. But if you need a 16+ to hit then +2 DEX/STR is a 20% increase in offense. If +2 INT takes you to another spells per day breakpoint that's potentially 33% more of your best spells. Etc. That's a significant difference, and when you add in other non-optimal choices you can easily get to that fishing for 20s point.
A 5th edition, Point Buy base racial modifier Orc can start with 15 INT. A High elf can start with a whopping 16.
Then why have fixed racial modifiers at all, if 5e has already pushed them to the point of barely being relevant?
You have no idea what you're talking about for 5th Edition. Your posts show a clear lack of understanding about the basic mechanics.
+2 DEX is going up one modifier step. 16 DEX is +3, 18 DEX is +4. Every two points in an attribute raises the chance of success by 5%. Classes don't have spells/day any more. They have spell slots, which increase based on level, not by Attributes.
Racial modifiers are there to show that fantasy races are different. Elfs are naturally predisposed to being lithe and graceful, while High Elves have keener minds in particular. Orcs are typically hulking and tough. Through different upbringings and effort (point buy) they can overcome those differences.
Thadin wrote: Every two points in an attribute raises the chance of success by 5%.
Yes, but that's not what "X% more offense" means. Percent increases are multiplicative, not additive. If you hit on a 16+ you have a 25% chance to hit. If you improve that to hitting on a 15+ you have a 30% chance to hit, which is a 20% improvement in offense. If you did an average of 10 damage per round previously you would now average 12 damage per round.
To make this clear, let's say you have an exceptionally difficult enemy where only a 20 hits. If you add +2 STR/DEX and improve that to a 19+ you have doubled your offensive output. Small modifiers make a huge difference when you're on the tail of the bell curve where most (meaningful) D&D rolls happen.
Racial modifiers are there to show that fantasy races are different.
Lore can do that just fine even when it isn't represented in mechanics.
Thadin wrote: There is no damage per round. You either hit or you don't. A modifier step increases the chance to hit by 5%.
There is damage per round when you recognize the implicit "average" in that statement. If you have a 25% chance to hit with one attack per round and do 40 (average) damage per hit you average 10 damage per round. That's a useful way of comparing the damage output of different characters in a complex system where you can do things like trade accuracy for damage. And if you average 10 damage per round at a 25% chance to hit going to a 30% chance to hit gives you 12 damage per round, a 20% increase in damage output.
Or, to go back to the extreme example: going from a 5% chance to hit to a 10% chance to hit is a 100% increase in offense, literally doubling your chance to hit.
Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.
or else there's no reason to use a system. Roleplay involves mechanics, and pretending that they don't matter is disingenuous.
This would be the "game" part in "RPG".
There are different ways to play RPGs, you are just someone tilting to the more gamey extreme with little roleplay, while others you are discussing with tilt to the opposite side where the system is just tool for conflict resolution that's slightly better than trying to shout louder than your opponent.
Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.
I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.
I find it odd that people are acting like stat bonuses are the only thing that seperated an elf from a human in D&D, and not trance and the innate magic (or the speed & stealthiness Wood Elves have instead, or the ability of Sea Elves to all be Aquaman).
Having races be defined by the cool extra features makes far more sense than the little number that makes you pressured to play that race if you want to play class X or Y.
From reading your posts it sounds like you are coming from an environment where character optimisation is the norm among players. And there is nothing wrong with it, if everybody at the table likes to play this way and the DM provides an adequate challenge.
Disregarding 5e for a moment and only looking at 3.5 / Pathfinder...
If you care about balance between the players in general, some kind of gentlemen agreement is needed before starting to play anyway. The group needs to sit down and talk about how they want to play the game. If you have a newbie playing his Halfling Barbarian and picking whatever he thinks sounds good for classes, skills, feats and attributes, he will be weaker than a mildly focused Wizard player who knows what he does and it won't matter if the Wizard starts with a 16 or 18 in INT.
Even an optimised martial class will struggle inevitably against casters if you reach a high enough level, for that matter.
Having racial bonuses narrows down playable races for people who care more about optimisation than roleplaying or where optimisation is vital for "survival" at the table.
I see nothing wrong with playing an exotic race that only got 200 members left in the whole multiverse. It is a game after all and you play the MC, you can be a boring human in real life every day :p.
Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.
I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.
You put it much better than I would have, thank you.
The reason, for me, at least, mechanics exist is to properly show how your character should/does function. It's one reason why I dislike the idea of taking exactly what I say as what my character says, rather than as a basic overview. My character might be Charisma 16, but I personally stutter and am monotone. Also, roleplay comes from playing a role, which can be easily determined by stats and rolls, not just dialogue. That's the reason I like having decent mechanics, and why D&D doesn't do it for me anymore. If I need a supplement or optional rules to have "I turn my sword to the side and attack through the visor" to mean anything, I'm disappointed.
Also, from earlier, a +2 to intelligence gives you a +1 to hit with your spell. If you use the standard array, with a race that has a -1 modifier to Int, and one that has +2 to Int, and both pick 15 as Int, then it's 14 vs 17. This looks huge, it really does. But, it's a difference of a +1 to hit.
Our focus has been on Orcs, but let's move to Humans. The difference is exactly the same. 15 vs 17 is still a difference of +1 to hit. Make the human have a +1 to Int, if you don't pick a feat, and suddenly the difference between the orc and the human is a +1 to hit and the human vs. the elf is no bonus or penalty.
In addition, you could be a sorcerer. It's charisma based, but Constitution is one of their favored stats, and now Orcs are good casters still.
Just pick the race and class you want, even if it has very, very minor drawbacks that are basically gone in a few levels. I promise, your character will be just as interesting, or more interesting for it. I promise, it won't make your wizard inept.
I forget the proficiency bonus to start, but let's say +3 for now. How different is a +5 to hit vs a +6 to hit? It clearly looks like 20%, but if you fight a goblin, with an Armor Class of 15, you need a 9 to hit for the elf, and a 10 to hit for the orc. Orcs hit 50% of the time, and elves hi 55% of the time. That's a 10% increase in the amount of hits. But now Orcs can move faster, due to bonus action moves, can carry more than double what the elf can, and can have more hit points, due to having a higher constitution. It's still good, just not minmaxed.
P.s. I will die on the hill of Roleplaying Games needing at least some level of mechanics to determine your abilities, but the amount depends on your particular group. My group tends towards crunch rather than fluff. There can be an rpg where race doesn't matter, where nothing really matters, or there can be rpgs where everything matters. In Morrowind, even character sex matters somewhat for beginning stats, but I wouldn't go that far for tabletop games. Point buy is my mistress, where everyone starts with a default, and can customize by spending points. It is my dearly beloved. In GURPS, there are racial templates built by either the books, or by the gm, but they cost points depending on how good they are. If my race is better at magic, I pay for it with points, points that someone can use to be better at magic regardless.
Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.
I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.
I can roleplay as George Clooney or Einstein without any stats at all though.
Roleplay is literally "pretend everything", that's the whole point. You are playing a role. Stats and mechanics are not a role.
I'd argue that stats and mechanics provide a structure to the role - if your character has ended up with CHA 8, you really shouldn't be playing them as George Clooney, say, and if they're INT 8 they probably shouldn't be played like Einstein.
You put it much better than I would have, thank you.
The reason, for me, at least, mechanics exist is to properly show how your character should/does function. It's one reason why I dislike the idea of taking exactly what I say as what my character says, rather than as a basic overview. My character might be Charisma 16, but I personally stutter and am monotone. Also, roleplay comes from playing a role, which can be easily determined by stats and rolls, not just dialogue. That's the reason I like having decent mechanics, and why D&D doesn't do it for me anymore. If I need a supplement or optional rules to have "I turn my sword to the side and attack through the visor" to mean anything, I'm disappointed.
Also, from earlier, a +2 to intelligence gives you a +1 to hit with your spell. If you use the standard array, with a race that has a -1 modifier to Int, and one that has +2 to Int, and both pick 15 as Int, then it's 14 vs 17. This looks huge, it really does. But, it's a difference of a +1 to hit.
Our focus has been on Orcs, but let's move to Humans. The difference is exactly the same. 15 vs 17 is still a difference of +1 to hit. Make the human have a +1 to Int, if you don't pick a feat, and suddenly the difference between the orc and the human is a +1 to hit and the human vs. the elf is no bonus or penalty.
In addition, you could be a sorcerer. It's charisma based, but Constitution is one of their favored stats, and now Orcs are good casters still.
Just pick the race and class you want, even if it has very, very minor drawbacks that are basically gone in a few levels. I promise, your character will be just as interesting, or more interesting for it. I promise, it won't make your wizard inept.
I forget the proficiency bonus to start, but let's say +3 for now. How different is a +5 to hit vs a +6 to hit? It clearly looks like 20%, but if you fight a goblin, with an Armor Class of 15, you need a 9 to hit for the elf, and a 10 to hit for the orc. Orcs hit 50% of the time, and elves hi 55% of the time. That's a 10% increase in the amount of hits. But now Orcs can move faster, due to bonus action moves, can carry more than double what the elf can, and can have more hit points, due to having a higher constitution. It's still good, just not minmaxed.
What you are describing here is a dice fighting game, not roleplaying. It's really no different from playing something like gloomhaven or BSF.
P.s. I will die on the hill of Roleplaying Games needing at least some level of mechanics to determine your abilities, but the amount depends on your particular group. My group tends towards crunch rather than fluff. There can be an rpg where race doesn't matter, where nothing really matters, or there can be rpgs where everything matters. In Morrowind, even character sex matters somewhat for beginning stats, but I wouldn't go that far for tabletop games. Point buy is my mistress, where everyone starts with a default, and can customize by spending points. It is my dearly beloved. In GURPS, there are racial templates built by either the books, or by the gm, but they cost points depending on how good they are. If my race is better at magic, I pay for it with points, points that someone can use to be better at magic regardless.
You are right. If they didn't have mechanics, they wouldn't be Roleplaying Games, but just Roleplaying.
You are merely confusing the two parts.
I think an issue we have here is that words have multiple definitions, and you're using the definition that's just acting like someone else, which I prefer to avoid as a definition, as pretending and acting already cover. Even just looking up roleplay can provide many definitions.
I'll clarify for future posts, when I say roleplay, I mean in reference to a game, with any level of structure, in which it gives mechanics/rules to represent your character. Roleplay, under this scenario is different from roleplay in the sense of acting or pretending.
I'd rather this not turn into an argument similar to water being wet. My definition there leans towards making Call of Duty a roleplaying game, but I feel that it's still better to narrow it down to this degree for the sake of argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What you are describing here is a dice fighting game, not roleplaying. It's really no different from playing something like gloomhaven or BSF.
The only reason I only mentioned combat mechanics was due to the person complaining about minmaxing being the main reason they're against racial bonuses. What, for me, defines an RPG rather than a wargame is the ability to have social statistics included, in which your character's proficiency matters more than your own. For example, in GURPS, I can take disadvantages that limit my character mechanically. I can take a lower IQ. I can have disturbing voice, ugly, overweight, or the opposites, and that all matters more than my own. But when I talk about roleplaying in this discussion, it is purely about roleplaying games.
Without getting off the main topic, I don't have a personal problem with Tasha's. I welcome any policy that says rascism=bad. However, in a game where I routinely cast orcs and demons as "the baddies" it's a little hard to make a sudden shift whereby if I make an orc to be a direct copy of an Orc Nob, I'm suddenly catering to racist sterotypes. Orcs for those of you who don't know DnD lore, are not the orcs of Tolkien(Eastern Elves perverted by dark magic and Morgoth) of , or even WoW (Space people from another realm of existence)they are literally feral creations of the Gods built to war against anything the gods did not like. They are not learned scholars, or benevolent priests. They don't even have a strong grasp of Common, the base language of DnD. They exist to fight and kill, that's all.
But Tasha's came along, and said, no we are now making Orcs a playable race, and we can have Orc Nobles and Orc Wizards, stats and history mean nothing, and then we had the whole painting all orcs as green is blackface crap.
I'm a card carrying left winger who's been arrested for protesting against wars I actively served in, and I think Bill Burr is right. We have to stop worrying about pissing off everyone over every little thing. Who gives a crap that a fantasy race of a game that almost no one plays portrays them as green? Enough. Stop. Go fight actual racism. DnD is not the source of racism, its a convenient thing for lazy woke white people to be pissed at, instead of being pissed at structural racism, inherent racism, or their OWN RACISM.
IIRC, orcs had been playable in some form or another in a variety of the editions through supplements. However, 5e is the first instance I can recall where they, and any of the other races, have no negative penalties to Attributes.
Feel of that what you will, but to my mind, removing Negatives was a good thing as it removes Discouragement of playing a particular way. Bonuses to Attributes doesn't have that same effect. This Fantasy Race isn't good at this class, vs this Fantasy Race is good at this class.
The removal of racial attributes seems to come from a place of applying real world human equality to Fantasy races. Humans already can do everything they set their mind to, and are as equally good at their chosen role as other humans. But why must this apply to different Fantasy Races who have specialized traits? They'll still have their unique racial abilities, but with how the trends have gone, how long until that's gone as well? Well, it's already coming, through the Custom Origin system already in 5e.
It might be because they are shifting the concept of racial traits from stats and into story more so than before.
When you've a race that in story and in stats has a specific bonus toward a certain kind of class, most people will go for that class range. So an ork or half ork always becomes some kind of fighting class and very rarely a mage. Similarly you're unlikely to get that barbarian elf.
Meanwhile the human class was pretty neutral and could do anything they wanted as the base-line faction in the game.
So all they are doing is taking that human approach and starting to place it onto the other races. Probably because in part there's some min-max going on with players so opening up the stats a bit reduces that ;but another is because over the years we've had orks as a certain kind of thing for so long that people have become bored. Meanwhile those who are really interested in them want to see them further developed.
I see it as both good and bad things as I do like the idea of a setting with a strong profile for factions and races. At the same time I find that whenever a franchise lore starts to look beyond the surface of an otherwise role-based faction; you find way more depth within. Once you stop elves just being the haughty mages and actually look at them under the hood; once you get into their society and structure you find room for so many more characters and stories. Having a stats system that's more open to exploring those opportunities and potential elements is no bad thing.
Fair points, I do agree that there's good and bad to it from lore and mechanics. It's why I approved of how Tasha's approached it at first.
Fantasy Races default to these attribute bonuses. If you wish, you can change them. My two current parties haven't chosen to do so, but the option was there.
My Elf is unique, he's a mountain of muscle
vs
Every Elf is Unique.
I have no problem with breaking the mold, it's when you suddenly invalidate all the lore in the established universe in the sake of not offending a fantasy race of human-like creatures. I notice no one stepped up to say defend Hobgoblins, Goblins, Gnolls, or Kobolds? Is it because they aren't "passably humanoid"? It's like if they suddenly declared that all Dwarves and Halflings are now just larger cousins of Fairies, to avoid offending short people.
Remember when PETA wanted to ban DnD because people killed animals in the game?
Thadin wrote: I don't know if you've actually played DND 5e, but most players don't think like Wargamers.
In your experience. In my experience they do. But maybe this is because I've played most of my D&D in 3.5e/Pathfinder, a system that punishes you brutally if you don't optimize your character build to get +30 on every roll. Maybe 5e attracts a completely different group in general, I've only played it with the same people I played the older systems with. But I doubt it's gone through such a complete culture change that min/maxing and picking races based on getting the right bonuses for your build are as unheard of as you claim.
It isn't. 5e (and 4e, and pathfinder 2) have such constrained numbers that you more or less have to max out at least your attack stat or you'll fall behind forever (or at least until level 12 (or 10 in PF2), and WotC and Paizo are more than aware that the majority of campaigns don't get that far- its been repeated subject of polling data and playtesting questions). Its very straightforward to spot and for most players to realize what they need to do. (which admittedly, is an improvement in some ways. Obfuscation of mechanics and trap options is bad design in my book)
People are dismissing a '5% difference' (though often it isn't just 5%, because of the way both point buy and rolled stats work), but it affects so many rolls over the course of the campaign. Players unapologetically make a _lot_ of dice rolls. Of course you feel it. If someone wants to 'RP' an incompetent character, they can knock themselves out. It doesn't need to punishment tied to the mechanics of races of all things. Partly because its been creepy for decades now, but also because there isn't any reason to crap on player ideas with 'oh your character will just be bad at that because you chose the wrong thing at character creation. You should've been a <X> race instead.' That's what really spits on roleplaying.
3e (for all its complexity) at least had classes where you could build around not having your stats matter (particular characters that provide buffs or battlefield control, which the more recent editions have largely killed off or strictly limited). The modern versions never let you get away from the stats because of capped bonuses and the target DCs (which, ironically, at least for 4e and PF2 were mathematically incorrect as well, the published DCs for both systems were too high and had to be revised (multiple times in the case of 4e), because the actual statistics didn't match the designers intent because so few of design team were, uh... 'mathematically competent'). They're omnipresent in the game at all times, and the encounters and monsters are all designed around the assumption that you have the maximum possible at any point. Particularly officially published modules, if you (and your party) aren't built right, you absolutely _will_ TPK, because often (particularly at the beginning of an edition) the designers don't fully comprehend the lethality of monster math vs PC math, and new DMs understand it even less, so encounters can get real ugly without warning or expectation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have no problem with breaking the mold, it's when you suddenly invalidate all the lore in the established universe in the sake of not offending a fantasy race of human-like creatures. I notice no one stepped up to say defend Hobgoblins, Goblins, Gnolls, or Kobolds? Is it because they aren't "passably humanoid"? It's like if they suddenly declared that all Dwarves and Halflings are now just larger cousins of Fairies, to avoid offending short people.
Remember when PETA wanted to ban DnD because people killed animals in the game?
What are you talking about?
5e hobgoblins are just straight up broken at low levels. The monster versions are (effectively) level 3 rogues on top of anything else they are. The player versions lean too close to a creepy 'yellow peril' stereotype.
Gnolls (and orcs) have the worst fluff they've ever had in 5e, they're just straight up always evil (almost cursed) murder-machines. Which was an amazingly regressive step to take, even 8 years ago.
Gnolls in particular are an offensively bad take since there so clearly based on pack animals with complex social behaviors. Its like treating every dog like the worst Rottweiler stereotypes and adding 'always rabid.'
No real lore is being invalidated- it wasn't particularly consistent between editions and settings anyway. Some of the retconned mess they made of the lore with 5th edition will hopefully be banished, because they opted for really lazy absolutes to have 'Easy labelled Evils' to fight
There is a video game coming out this fall called Moon Breaker that looks like a digital version of a tabletop game, if it does well I would expect to see a version of 40k sometime soon. This doesn't stop GW from making miniatures, I feel it's just like World of Warcraft and their Hearthstone game, just cast a wide net and see what happens. People will like it and play it but some will just return to their original game. Just like D&D, there are some excellent apps already out there, but when my group plays we are still heavy old school. Dice, paper maybe miniatures, and we hope everyone showered.
Genoside07 wrote: There is a video game coming out this fall called Moon Breaker that looks like a digital version of a tabletop game, if it does well I would expect to see a version of 40k sometime soon. This doesn't stop GW from making miniatures, I feel it's just like World of Warcraft and their Hearthstone game, just cast a wide net and see what happens. People will like it and play it but some will just return to their original game. Just like D&D, there are some excellent apps already out there, but when my group plays we are still heavy old school. Dice, paper maybe miniatures, and we hope everyone showered.
I'll admit, I hate that they've tied this playtest into the D&D Beyond app (though I suspect folks can work around it).
Speaking of which, I'm watching a live play (Battle for Beyond) which is using D&D Beyond heavily, and I'm disgruntled every time they swap to the screenshots. Apps seem pointless in general, but the layout of D&D Beyond just has me scratching my head.
Important information (like subclass and subclass abilities are just thoroughly buried... somewhere, and important numbers are just down several rows or buried in big pop-up boxes.
English is read left to right and top to bottom. Why AC (which comes up every combat) is the 4th item on the second row is a completely mystery to me, and attack bonuses are in a box that starts on the third 'row' (though at this point there are so many large boxes it isn't a row anymore) and they're on the second line of said box and hidden under multiple tabs, so you've got to swap between tabs in the same box to find different pieces of relevant information. Its like the designers have never even looked at a screen eye placement heat map.
The stats and save boxes also really emphasize that the 3-20 stat range is really pointless. The bonuses are really prominent, the actual stat value is not. For saves, the stat is just left out entirely. Though why stats and saves are separate items rather than a three value column (or row) is a mystery to me. They're derived values, why would you split them up?
----
Moonbreaker does look interesting. Though I'm amused by what you said, because the articles I've read about it compared it more to Warhammer than D&D.
As much as I've been defending racial bonuses and penalties, I feel there should be ways to mitigate them available. In GURPS, if I take a race that has ST+2 for 20 points, nothing is stopping me from taking ST-2 to get 20 points back. My character would be as strong as a normal human, but weaker than a normal person of their fantasy race.
I think this is an advantage of point buy, or whatever you'd call Shadowrun's system, which can be point buy, but is also different. I'm a fan of being able to mitigate a race's bonus or penalties, but I'm not a fan of races not having them. I can especially see not wanting penalties, and just giving varied bonuses. I can even see why you'd want to avoid racial bonuses at all, but I feel transferring it to abilities doesn't change minmaxing, and getting rid of everything besides story implications doesn't mean much unless the GM really cares about those implications. To be honest, there's not much racism in the campaigns I play in, unless it's 40k, in which it's just standard.
I probably won't look much at this thread from here on, though. I probably won't touch D&D again for years, and whatever it's becoming will suit whoever plays it. I doubt fans of older versions will care much either.
WotC buying DnD:B was the death stroke for a perfectly functional app. They should have let it grow into what is was made for, now it's just a digital distrubiton platform with an extremely beta encounter manager. If they'd left it alone there were plans for an integrated VTT plug in, but now that is gone. WotC has NEVER had good online functional programs. Every attempt by them to make DnD an online service as a complete failure. So they let a 3rd party make DnD Beyond, and bought it from them. Now they will screw it up with dumb stuff no one wants. You can already see it in "purchasable" flair for your avatar, extremely expensive DIGITAL DICE, and literal paid back grounds for the web page of your CHARACTER SHEET.
I should point out that paid for digital dice and backgrounds existed before WotC bought Beyond (though the backgrounds were bundled in with your subscription)
WotC may have increased the number of digital dice being released, but they weren't the ones to start it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So WotC released a statement that they are soon moving to release their new version of DnD, called DnD: One. This is considered by many in the TTRPG community as a new platform to launch DnD 6ed.
GW has all but given us the writing on the wall that 10th will be some time in the next 12-24 months. Given that timeline puts it smack dab in the middle of a competitive buyers market for TT games, do you think GW has considered this, cares, or even realizes it?
Not saying the two fan bases are absolutely the same, but most people who rush out to spend their money on one game series update, will likely hesitate to rush out to spend the same if not more, on a second series update.
This presents me my next observation:
GW fans are by the most part much more financially able to do both. Very few serious players of GW's base find themselves in the lower income bracket.
I would say the opposite of DnD's fanbase. Usually 1 book every couple of months was all I could afford as a kid, or a set of minis. I started (Was given) with a copy of ADnD in 1984. I didn't start actually playing until 1989, in 2nd. At that time I was a teen, and dependent on gifts or chore money. But I was still able to play, if all my friends had player manuals and I had the monster manual/DM guide. 5th revolutionized DnD though. Now you could literally play DnD in any income bracket. Almost everything was free, or easy to access. Player sheets were easily downloaded, or digital. Manuals became digital, or PDF at the least. Or libraries began carrying them.
You can't find that sort of thing for 40k. There is a significant investment hurdle into 40k.
If GW wants 10th to be successful, they need to go full into the digital era, and give people the option. Their app by all accounts is sheer garbage, still. You cannot get over the cost of models. That's inescapable.
However, TLDR; If GW wants 10th to be a success, they need to not release it in the same window as DnD's next edition, like Sony, Nintento, and microsoft do with consoles every year, with the Playstation vs the Xbox v the Nintendo.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I have no problem with breaking the mold, it's when you suddenly invalidate all the lore in the established universe in the sake of not offending a fantasy race of human-like creatures.
That seems a bit hyperbolic. Racial stat bonuses are "all the lore in the established universe" in a game that is meant to be a generic rule system with a wide variety of settings, including player-made settings?
And let's be honest here, WOTC's statement about the moral issue is probably just because they expect it will get less complaints than admitting that racial bonuses are an obsolete relic and need to go away for pure game design reasons. WOTC knows a huge part of their market clings to the idea of "true D&D" and insists on keeping old mechanics regardless of their merits, just like GW can't ever change things like the the D6 system or IGOUGO without getting a bunch of outrage that they dared to change the core identity of the game.
No, I feel like you are conflating things that aren't equal.
It would be the equivalent of GW saying that all Space Marines are now 2W. Guess what happened when GW dropped that nugget? The community went apepoop.
It would be the equivalent of GW saying that all Space Marines are now 2W. Guess what happened when GW dropped that nugget? The community went apepoop.
That's a very good comparison actually. Some people were content to discuss the game design issues with making the change: the need to restore some durability to the MEQ stat line in response to offensive power creep vs. concerns that W2 marines would drive further power creep and the inconsistent application of the change across the various marine ranges would create a divide between good marines and bad marines. These were legitimate points to be made and it's unclear that W2 marines were a good change. But some people acted like the world was ending because GW dared to touch the numbers in the MEQ stat line despite those numbers being created in an entirely different game and only being a heavily abstracted interpretation of the lore. I'm sure if you go back and look you can find plenty of hyperbolic comments about GW destroying decades of established fluff by changing that stat line. But it was an absurd thing to say back then and it's an absurd thing to say about D&D making a relatively minor rule change. Don't be in that second group.
Except w2 marines resulted in exponential power creep of weapon power to counter w2 marine durability resulting in needing spiraling changes. Aoc's, -1 dam's, inv save ignoring weapons and inv save ignore ignoring inv saves etc
-1 ap bcame eearly worthless thanks to power creep initldted by w2 marines.
GW has all but given us the writing on the wall that 10th will be some time in the next 12-24 months.
Have they though?
I know there's been a rumour, but that isn't exactly the same thing, is it?
Either way, to address the main point:
I don't think D&D's release will really affect 40k at all. It's true that a lot of people play both, but the games are of different types, and the settings are radically different. Also, as others have pointed out, D&D is not as much an investment as 40k; at worst, people who have a monthly hobby budget might end up throwing one month's allotment at D&D instead of 40k.
It is, however, a noticeable example of edition churn in both the biggest RPG and the biggest Table-Top Miniature game- a practice which I personally see as the biggest problem facing the industry as a whole. I don't particularly like 5th edition D&D, but despite that fact, I'd rather see them lean into the system they have, expand it and make it work than blow everything up. Given a choice between Darksun for 5th or buying a Player's Handbook AGAIN, Darksun is going to win every time.
tneva82 wrote: Except w2 marines resulted in exponential power creep of weapon power to counter w2 marine durability resulting in needing spiraling changes. Aoc's, -1 dam's, inv save ignoring weapons and inv save ignore ignoring inv saves etc
-1 ap bcame eearly worthless thanks to power creep initldted by w2 marines.
Right. There are valid game design arguments against W2 marines, that was the point. Were they an inherently bad idea from the beginning, or was it GW's inability to restrain themselves from further power creep that caused the problems? Or would GW have continued all the other power creep anyway even if marines had stayed at W1? You can argue about these things but it's completely absurd to say "oh noes GW is invalidating all of the lore" as your reason for objecting to the change.
GW has all but given us the writing on the wall that 10th will be some time in the next 12-24 months.
It is, however, a noticeable example of edition churn in both the biggest RPG and the biggest Table-Top Miniature game- a practice which I personally see as the biggest problem facing the industry as a whole. I don't particularly like 5th edition D&D, but despite that fact, I'd rather see them lean into the system they have, expand it and make it work than blow everything up. Given a choice between Darksun for 5th or buying a Player's Handbook AGAIN, Darksun is going to win every time.
I'd quit DnD for Darksun lmao
But like others have said - it's not comparable.
True. Its also not churn in this case (especially compared to GW's 3-4 year cycle). They're promising backwards compatibility (which to me is actually more of a red flag than big changes, because it says they either don't see any real problems or they're brushing them aside) and by the time it comes out in 2024, 5th will be 10 years old. That isn't 'edition churn.' That's a fairly staid revision that's borderline too conservative, not blowing everything up. So far they've made some minor race changes, moved stats to backgrounds, and added feats to backgrounds.
The Dark Sun comparison though.... that's something I'm not just getting. Its not buy a (non-existent) Dark Sun supplement or buy the players handbook. That isn't even a choice you can make.
I can see wanting it more than a Spelljammer, Dragonlance or Planescape book, but whether it came out for 5th or not-6th, you'd need the PH just as much (or as little, because they do make a chunk of the rules and classes free).
I Dunno, I find immersion can be broken if things get too outlandish. If the Fairy Wizard, starts passing more strength checks than the Half Orc Barbarian, simply because anyone can take anything, and racial stats aren't a thing, color me confused. I think the way ADnD did it was best. You roll 4 D6s, 6 times, in ORDER of stat, and then you can pick a class based off your stat roles. So if you rolled a 6 on your charisma, you cannot pick a bard or a Paladin. No matter what race you chose. Gygax hated his players.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: I find it odd that people are acting like stat bonuses are the only thing that seperated an elf from a human in D&D, and not trance and the innate magic (or the speed & stealthiness Wood Elves have instead, or the ability of Sea Elves to all be Aquaman).
Having races be defined by the cool extra features makes far more sense than the little number that makes you pressured to play that race if you want to play class X or Y.
You're right. I'm so glad Elves are differentiated by having innate spells. That really sets them aside from Ardlings, which are differentiated by innate spells. And from Gnomes, which are differentiated by innate spells. And from Tieflings, which are differentiated by innate spells...
To be clear, I don't necessarily object to different races being defined by traits, rather than ability scores. However, this very clearly isn't the direction WotC is going in. Instead of replacing ASIs with more distinct traits, WotC is instead deleting existing traits and replacing them with innate spellcasting abilities that are copy-pasted across half a dozen "different" races.
Though, FWIW, I still think races should factor into ability scores, even if they're not the whole of it. e.g. I've seen suggestions that characters should get +1 to an ability score from their race, +1 from their background and +1 from their class (each could offer a couple of possibilities - so an orc might let you give +1 to Str or Con, while a Rogue might give +1 Dex or +1 Int).
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Without getting off the main topic, I don't have a personal problem with Tasha's. I welcome any policy that says rascism=bad.
Aside, it's hard to consider the changes made in Tasha's as "racism=bad", given that they were made specifically to placate racists.
Shall I remind you of how it came about? I'm going to anyway because it's one of the most bafflingly stupid decisions I've ever witnessed.
It began when some morons on twitter decided that D&D orcs were literally black people. Sounds a bit racist, no? Indeed, if WotC was a sane company, it probably would have either ignored this nonsense altogether or else said something to the effect of 'No, orcs aren't black people. Kindly take your racism elsewhere.'
Instead, WotC took the strange step of completely validating the racists and released a statement to the effect of: "Oh gosh, you're right! Orcs are black people! They're savage and stupid and evil, just like black people! But don't worry, in future we'll make them less savage, less stupid and less evil. That way they'll be less like black people!"
Phew, thank goodness WotC did their bit to fight racism.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I Dunno, I find immersion can be broken if things get too outlandish. If the Fairy Wizard, starts passing more strength checks than the Half Orc Barbarian, simply because anyone can take anything, and racial stats aren't a thing, color me confused.
Why is it a problem that an exceptionally strong fairy can be stronger than an exceptionally weak orc? And how would this even happen in a real game, where the wizard is going to put their points into INT and the barbarian is going to put them into STR/CON? This seems like an absurd hypothetical scenario that can only happen if both players decide to build completely dysfunctional characters just to prove it can be done.
A more reasonable comparison would be a fairy barbarian passing more strength checks than a half-orc wizard, and in that case it's completely appropriate that the character who specializes in feats of strength and has invested heavily into becoming an expert at them will be better at feats of strength than the spellcaster who only grudgingly leaves the library once a month to go in search of new spell components.
I think the way ADnD did it was best. You roll 4 D6s, 6 times, in ORDER of stat, and then you can pick a class based off your stat roles. So if you rolled a 6 on your charisma, you cannot pick a bard or a Paladin. No matter what race you chose. Gygax hated his players.
I will never understand this masochistic fetish for RNG. Oh, you had a cool story idea for a paladin? Too bad, RNG says you're playing an elf ranger with a bow. Deal with it.
(Or suicide characters until you roll one with the stats you actually wanted, because that's definitely the best way to spend the first session.)
Why is it a problem that an exceptionally strong fairy can be stronger than an exceptionally weak orc?
I think it's just one of those things people find immersion-breaking.
A big factor is that Small characters are almost identical (mechanically) to Medium characters. And having a fairy, even a strong fairy, being stronger than an orc about three times the size and mass of said fairy can just feel very wrong.
Bear in mind that, in terms of characters, flaws and weaknesses are often more important and defining than their strengths. When you're small, you should have physical limitations as a consequence of your size. A fairy might be strong for its race, but that shouldn't translate to also being stronger than a much larger and musclebound orc.
That isn't to say the fairy should be worse in every regard, just that it shouldn't be able to rely on physically overpowering its enemies.
I think the way ADnD did it was best. You roll 4 D6s, 6 times, in ORDER of stat, and then you can pick a class based off your stat roles. So if you rolled a 6 on your charisma, you cannot pick a bard or a Paladin. No matter what race you chose. Gygax hated his players.
I will never understand this masochistic fetish for RNG. Oh, you had a cool story idea for a paladin? Too bad, RNG says you're playing an elf ranger with a bow. Deal with it.
(Or suicide characters until you roll one with the stats you actually wanted, because that's definitely the best way to spend the first session.)
Yeah, the above sounds like something you might do for a silly one-off, not a default way to build characters. It was removed for good reason and I have no wish to ever see it return.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I Dunno, I find immersion can be broken if things get too outlandish. If the Fairy Wizard, starts passing more strength checks than the Half Orc Barbarian, simply because anyone can take anything, and racial stats aren't a thing, color me confused. I think the way ADnD did it was best. You roll 4 D6s, 6 times, in ORDER of stat, and then you can pick a class based off your stat roles. So if you rolled a 6 on your charisma, you cannot pick a bard or a Paladin. No matter what race you chose. Gygax hated his players.
... you do realise that even with stat bonuses it's likely that with the "roll in order" method that fairy wizard could indeed be stronger than the half orc barbarian (and also more stupid too?)
I mean sure, I guess not playing a fairy wizard is always an option after seeing where the stats go, but in my mind forcingf a palyer to play something you don't want to because of RNG is terrible game design for a co-operative game.
Gygax hating his players was not a good thing.
To be fair, 4d6 down the line can be fun if you don't have a preconceived character for a campaign and want to see what you can make of the hand fate deals you (think the D&D equivalent of a Random Start mod for a cRPG like Skyrim). It shouldn't be something that a player is forced to do without good reason (eg. it's a oneshot at a con and you only get 15 mins for chargen), but it can be an interesting and enjoyable experience.
It's still better then announcing myself as the DM and instantly getting bombarded with 9000 Hexblade Warlocks that are "Slightly on the evil side" or 8000 (And I'm so sick of this it pisses me off) Warforged Echoknights with a level of Warlock or "Insert stupid broken combo here"
DnD today is hard to introduce to people, because everyone is basically encouraged from jumpstreet to min-max, and forget roleplay. The reason I encourage strict character creation is to prevent the idiots who come to the table with "Dude I promise I rolled this sheet, I couldn't believe it, by the way, can I start off with three extra Feats? How about a Holy Avenger?"
No, everyone rolls their sheets at the same time, in front of the DM. The same way. We can start at advanced levels, but this "I'm level 1, but I'm already a well known hero, it's in my back story that I am a legend" nonsense is gone. You are all nobodies. Worthless Sell-swords and vagabonds who meet in a tavern. None of you possess Wonderous items, or are descended from Bahamut.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The reason I encourage strict character creation is to prevent the idiots who come to the table with "Dude I promise I rolled this sheet, I couldn't believe it, by the way, can I start off with three extra Feats?
So just use point buy like everyone else? I really don't understand this whole thing about clinging to badly designed RNG just because it's the way D&D did it 40 years ago, not when it's been at least 20 years since WOTC provided a much better system.
Yeah, point buy is the way to go. Why shouldn't I play my character and class with the stats I want? What's wrong with having a special background? A good DM can and will work with their players to make the adventure enjoyable for everyone.
Here is your Holy Avenger that you start out with. Due to _reasons_ it lost most of it's innate power and you _think_ you are on a journey of atonement or whatever to restore this holy relic of your god. Weapon, motivation, plot device all in one package. Great!
Point buy is fine, but people start begging for 20s at start, and I frankly love the way One DnD has laid it out now. Race completely doesn't matter. Everyone gets +2, and +1, or 3 +1s. Then you pick a background, a class, and a feat. The end. No broken feats at start either. Everything at level 1 is boring feats, like the new Lucky, or Dungeon Delver. Also, everyone gets 50 gold at start for gear, and that's it. You get to pick your own starting gear, as long as you can afford it. No "Noble" birth where you start with 100G.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Point buy is fine, but people start begging for 20s at start, and I frankly love the way One DnD has laid it out now. Race completely doesn't matter. Everyone gets +2, and +1, or 3 +1s. Then you pick a background, a class, and a feat. The end. No broken feats at start either. Everything at level 1 is boring feats, like the new Lucky, or Dungeon Delver. Also, everyone gets 50 gold at start for gear, and that's it. You get to pick your own starting gear, as long as you can afford it. No "Noble" birth where you start with 100G.
Wait, now I'm confused. You originally said that removing racial modifiers is "destroying 40 years of lore" because of objectionable left-wing politics, now you're saying you love the new system?
(And if you're dealing with players who beg for 20s that the rules don't allow you have a major toxic player problem. I can't imagine continuing to play with that kind of group.)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Point buy is fine, but people start begging for 20s at start, and I frankly love the way One DnD has laid it out now. Race completely doesn't matter. Everyone gets +2, and +1, or 3 +1s. Then you pick a background, a class, and a feat. The end. No broken feats at start either. Everything at level 1 is boring feats, like the new Lucky, or Dungeon Delver. Also, everyone gets 50 gold at start for gear, and that's it. You get to pick your own starting gear, as long as you can afford it. No "Noble" birth where you start with 100G.
Wait, now I'm confused. You originally said that removing racial modifiers is "destroying 40 years of lore" because of objectionable left-wing politics, now you're saying you love the new system?
(And if you're dealing with players who beg for 20s that the rules don't allow you have a major toxic player problem. I can't imagine continuing to play with that kind of group.)
The new system completely removes racial bonuses. My point was that people are using "racism" as a excuse to butcher lore. If on the other hand, the game designers come out and say, Racial stats no longer exist, you are all equal, yeah, that works for me. No more level 1 broken characters, who are basically demi-gods at level 3-5. I prefer a game design where no one can get above an 18 at start, and there are no racial bonuses that are inherently better than another. For instance, a mountain dwarf was for most of 5th, the perfect race. For pretty much anything. Now that is gone. Like, you can't even pick it anymore, it's been removed. Now we all play on equal ground.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Point buy is fine, but people start begging for 20s at start, and I frankly love the way One DnD has laid it out now. Race completely doesn't matter. Everyone gets +2, and +1, or 3 +1s. Then you pick a background, a class, and a feat. The end. No broken feats at start either. Everything at level 1 is boring feats, like the new Lucky, or Dungeon Delver. Also, everyone gets 50 gold at start for gear, and that's it. You get to pick your own starting gear, as long as you can afford it. No "Noble" birth where you start with 100G.
Wait, now I'm confused. You originally said that removing racial modifiers is "destroying 40 years of lore" because of objectionable left-wing politics, now you're saying you love the new system?
(And if you're dealing with players who beg for 20s that the rules don't allow you have a major toxic player problem. I can't imagine continuing to play with that kind of group.)
The new system completely removes racial bonuses.
It moves them, for now, to backgrounds. Which honestly are doing too much heavy lifting and they won't stick (partly because i remember the D&D Next (5e) playtest, and still have the playtest docs. Every couple months they started over, basically from scratch. And the design direction from the beginning did not last at all- it made radical changes in direction over the year+ of the playtest, and from the dev's own mouths, they were frantically trying to finish things by the get-this-to-the-printers deadline).
But anyway, backgrounds are now grossly overloaded. Every farmer in the world now speaks halfling, has +2 Con and +1 Wis, and is Tough (+2 hp per level), and gets Animal Handling and Nature proficiency as well as proficiency in Carpenter's Tools.
Every hermit gets Magic initiate (primal) so gets druid cantrips and a single 1st level druid spell. knows medicine, religion and herbalism kits, can speak to fairies (Sylvan language) and gets +2 Wisdom and +1 Con.
You can also just do a custom (or modified) background and go for +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to stats, 2 skills, a toll proficiency, a language and a feat. There's no reason not to do this, other than speed, because the created backgrounds are really stilted and overly specific (every Charlatan in the world speaks Infernal, for feth's sake), and it feels real bad.
(its also a mathematical mess to cover all the options. Just pairing up all the stat bonuses (+2 str/+1 con, +2 str/+1dex, etc) means writing 30 backgrounds. Adding feats as a variable escalates that by an order of magnitude. Skill pairs becomes another escalation. Its a crazy amount of... not work, but page count. Just letting people pick is far superior to assigning arbitrary combos and writing out each one.
My point was that people are using "racism" as a excuse to butcher lore. If on the other hand, the game designers come out and say, Racial stats no longer exist, you are all equal, yeah, that works for me. No more level 1 broken characters, who are basically demi-gods at level 3-5.
I now don't believe you've ever played 5e. Broken on the player's side is very build dependent (and requires a bizarrely permissive or oblivious DM in 5e), and is practically impossible at level 1, where random 1/2 level mooks and luck can just one shot any character. At 3-5, class features are barely coming online and any sort of class or subclass resources are measured by at most a handful. I really kind of want to see specific examples of what you consider broken or 'demi-god'.
But the stat thing already happened with Tasha's and other books. Everything going forward from that book got handwaved as +2/+1 or +1/1/1, pick whatever. And you could apply it retroactively.
I prefer a game design where no one can get above an 18 at start, and there are no racial bonuses that are inherently better than another.
Uh... Welcome to 5e by default, which involved their weirdly punishing point buy. Getting higher than a 17 was for all practical purposes impossible. Unless you were house ruling and going with rolled stats from older editions.
For instance, a mountain dwarf was for most of 5th, the perfect race. For pretty much anything. Now that is gone. Like, you can't even pick it anymore, it's been removed. Now we all play on equal ground.
Yeah.... mountain dwarves were decent fighters and barbarians. Ok paladins and rangers. (all of which made all of their bonus weapon and armor bonus proficiencies irrelevant). +2 str and +2 con rarely mattered that much over the +2/+1 other races got. They were terrible as primary spellcasters or rogues (which are dependent on finesse ranged weapons) and several ways of building martial classes were strictly better as dex-builds.
There were some melee warlock builds you could cheese out initially, but hexblade (stabbing people with your charisma) made all that irrelevant.
5e was designed around starting with a 16 in your attack stat, a few lower stats and a negative one. If you actually built characters by the rules, that's pretty much how they ended up (though you could go for some medium secondary stats if you tried). Everything was very same-y and mediocre. Mountain dwarves didn't buck that trend (and don't do amazingly in various surveys and analytics over the edition. Solid 4th, consistently, which isn't where I'd expect something 'broken').
D&D and Warhammer of various types have coexisted in parallel but largely separate bubbles (with a small ven-diagram overlap) for as long as Warhammer has existed.
No one who can afford GW will base their D&D purchases on whether or not a new revision of any GW game is is being released and most folks who play D&D don't care about GW.
