A question to the folks who don't want splat book bloat this edition....wtf?

[CyberThread]

So just a question, for the various folks hoping 5th edition doesn't get to many splatbooks and such, and keeps things simple.




Why? So once a product is successful, they make all the basic classes, and they claim to worry about the arms race, and keeping track of all the various things just starts to become to much, why is that an issue?


What should they do with this edition, if it gets as big and popular to warrant a bunch of books to be made and published? Once this magical number is reached for how many splatbooks should be published, should they retire a money making edition, and get to work on a 6th edition ?


What is the proper end game for this edition for such folks?

[Demonic Spoon]

In 3.5, splatbooks changed the game fundamentally. They did a lot of cool stuff, but because they added so many character options, many of which were flat-out superior to core options, you couldn't get away with just having your PHB and building a character.

Unless you wanted to be next to useless next to your party mates, you needed to go scouring through obscure splat books to find that one feat that makes you way better. Get a copy of Complete Adventurer and want to play a scout? Welp, you're going to be substantially less effective unless you are aware of improved skirmish and swift hunter from Complete Scoundrel. Want to play Cleric? Hope you have a copy of Complete Divine, because otherwise you're sitting on a pile of otherwise-largely-useless resources (turn undead uses when you aren't fighting undead). What's that ridiculous new ability your friend at the table has? Oh, he took a 2 level dip in a prestige class found in <obscure splatbook #455).

That said, 3.5 had a lot of good splatbooks. In particular, the ones that stand out are the ones that provide rules and guidelines for running different kinds of games (Heroes of Battle is a good example).

And in truth, I wouldn't mind it if some books contain more classes, subclasses, or character options. However, they need to do it in such a way that I don't feel like I need a particular book, or to dig through every copy of every published book in order to build a competent character.


If they kept their current design paradigms going, I don't think splatbook bloat would be nearly as bad in 5e as it was in 3.5. Still, I'd prefer they focus on things like setting books or rules for running certain types of games (or even alternate rulesets) than "Complete-X" style books.

[SaintRidley]

I'd like fewer splats, though that doesn't mean none at all. Give me a couple really high quality generic splats, two to three a year, and give me good setting books and setting expansions and I'll be quite happy. And monster ecology books in the same style as the Illithiad and Libris Mortis and the Fiendish Codices, as well as new Monster Manuals. It could help extend the lifespan of the edition if there are fewer books overall, but all high quality, as well as relieving some of the sticker shock of trying to keep up with the game if there are fewer major releases as opposed to the old monthly splat models.

[Socko525]

I'd like fewer splats, though that doesn't mean none at all. Give me a couple really high quality generic splats, two to three a year, and give me good setting books and setting expansions and I'll be quite happy. And monster ecology books in the same style as the Illithiad and Libris Mortis and the Fiendish Codices, as well as new Monster Manuals. It could help extend the lifespan of the edition if there are fewer books overall, but all high quality, as well as relieving some of the sticker shock of trying to keep up with the game if there are fewer major releases as opposed to the old monthly splat models.

I completely agree. I'm surprised with this heavy dragon based focus at this point there haven't been any rumors of a 5e Draconomicon, which I would be very interested in seeing.

[Galen]

In 3.5, splatbooks changed the game fundamentally. They did a lot of cool stuff, but because they added so many character options, many of which were flat-out superior to core options, you couldn't get away with just having your PHB and building a character.
Absolutely true. Which is why I would like to see self-contained splats. Something that you either use in your game as a whole package, or don't use completely. Not yet-another-book-to-sift-through-for-options.

Let's say, a Psionic splatbook. It has to be all about Psionics. If a DM uses psionics in his game, the entire book will be his and the players' bread and butter, otherwise it's not used at all. Not something like Complete Arcane, which admittedly had a couple of new interesting classes, but was mostly options to better existing classes.

I would also like to see setting books (Eberron) and environment books (Stormwrack etc), but they should be more geared toward the DM who wants to run a good game then toward players sifting for yet-another-feat-that's-slighting-better-than-the-other-feat.


What is the proper end game for this edition for such folks?
Uhm, to play lots of D&D, I guess?

[Santra]

I'd like fewer splats, though that doesn't mean none at all. Give me a couple really high quality generic splats, two to three a year, and give me good setting books and setting expansions and I'll be quite happy. And monster ecology books in the same style as the Illithiad and Libris Mortis and the Fiendish Codices, as well as new Monster Manuals. It could help extend the lifespan of the edition if there are fewer books overall, but all high quality, as well as relieving some of the sticker shock of trying to keep up with the game if there are fewer major releases as opposed to the old monthly splat models.
This is exactly it. I am hoping for a few settings to be reprinted to fill in gaps.
Ghostwalk, planescape (or at least a manual of the planes thing), and the one that will never happen Al'Quadim

I completely agree. I'm surprised with this heavy dragon based focus at this point there haven't been any rumors of a 5e Draconomicon, which I would be very interested in seeing.

As long as they are better than that travesty of a 4e draconomicon.

[mr_odd]

I'd like fewer splats, though that doesn't mean none at all. Give me a couple really high quality generic splats, two to three a year, and give me good setting books and setting expansions and I'll be quite happy. And monster ecology books in the same style as the Illithiad and Libris Mortis and the Fiendish Codices, as well as new Monster Manuals. It could help extend the lifespan of the edition if there are fewer books overall, but all high quality, as well as relieving some of the sticker shock of trying to keep up with the game if there are fewer major releases as opposed to the old monthly splat models.

Exactly this. As long as the developers maintain the same design philosophy and are more concerned with creating valuable material rather than money, we'll be fine.

[Xefas]

I want thirty Planescape books. And a Spelljammer book.

[Socko525]

This is exactly it. I am hoping for a few settings to be reprinted to fill in gaps.
Ghostwalk, planescape (or at least a manual of the planes thing), and the one that will never happen Al'Quadim


As long as they are better than that travesty of a 4e draconomicon.

Yikes, never saw the 4e one, I was basing this off the 3.5 one.

[AuraTwilight]

Self-contained, quality splatbooks like a Psionics Book, etc. I don't want books that exist just to help me optimize characters; give me subsystems and themes.

Settings books. SETTINGS. BOOKS. ALL THE SETTINGS. DEVELOP THE HELL OUT OF THEM.

Oh and yea publish as many Monster Manuals as you want. Seriously, as long as they're like the MM1 in quality print as many as those bad boys as you want holy hell. I can always use more monsters.

[warmachine]

The issue is that large numbers of splatbooks means poor editorial control. I liked the rich customisation options of 3e but I had to research everything in case I broke the game. I once built a Sorcerer around Arcane Thesis but forgot to check the maths, so it was one-shotting major enemies.

[Theodoxus]

As long as it doesn't become Pathfinder-esque, popping out books every month and having to update your system mastery every time because a new feat, new archetype or new feature came out that alters your build potential (and as a DM, encounters).

I heartily agree with the self-contained thematic books. Don't provide new feats with a psionic book. Certainly don't provide new archetypes for PHB classes. Don't create new classes and shove them into settings books - regardless of how iconic those classes might be to the setting. Anything that has a direct effect on the player should be added to a PHB 2 (3, 4, etc.)

But most importantly, emphasize the optional aspect of anything that is new. Feats are optional, multiclassing is optional. Psionics should be optional, new classes and archetypes for existing ones - optional. If it's spelled out that they're optional, players should ask if they're ok before rolling up a toon and jumping into a game. No surprises, no bloat, no OP synergy that was overlooked.

[MunkeeGamer]

... If it's spelled out that they're optional, players should ask if they're ok before rolling up a toon and jumping into a game. No surprises, no bloat, no OP synergy that was overlooked.

I could have sworn the beginning of every splat book said something like, "this book is an optional expansion to the core rules, discuss with your DM before you use these options."

It might not be explicit in the books but my table knows that every obscure rules addition needs explicit DM permission. Or I can be overridden with group consensus that the rule/book is not game breaking or imbalanced (if such a thing were even necessary). But I don't think I've ever had to veto something outright.

[Theodoxus]

I play Pathfinder almost exclusively, and generally, the idea is 'you can use anything Paizo wrote' for rolling characters. Sometimes it's expanded to everything in the PFd20SRD.

5th PHB is the first core book I can think of that has an entire section denoted as optional. It's a paradigm shift that I don't think has been fully understood - at least from what I've seen/read online.

[Demonic Spoon]

But most importantly, emphasize the optional aspect of anything that is new. Feats are optional, multiclassing is optional. Psionics should be optional, new classes and archetypes for existing ones - optional. If it's spelled out that they're optional, players should ask if they're ok before rolling up a toon and jumping into a game. No surprises, no bloat, no OP synergy that was overlooked.

That implies that a DM will or wants to rigorously examine every character's build for balance issues. It also implies that the initial balance judgements are the DM are going to be fair enough that it's not going to result in completely fair things being thrown out.

[HorridElemental]

What really sucks about splat books is that when they give fantastic options and the group or DM are asshats about it and think they are broken when they are actually more balanced than core material.

Incarnum, Psionics, Pact Magic, andToB. Sure you can make some gnarly stuff using them and they can help break things... But you normally need other already broken things to help them. Cleric + RKV, Wizard (or cleric) + Binder + Anima Mage, or Monk + Swordsage (for 2*wis mod to AC)!!!!.

[Chaosvii7]

I want more options, but I don't want a crapton of things that thematically fit with whatever they're trying to sell but aren't actually balanced against each other. I want new spells, feats, subclasses and races every so often. I don't want things that invalidate an entire set of options or, heaven forbid, a whole other splatbook. I don't mind new classes, but I don't want an overload of them. I think the base 12 are a great skeleton to further expand upon with subclasses, and there's a few niches that can be filled with new classes(Artifice, Psionics, maybe Incarnum and Binding if they get plucky). But otherwise I want the class expansion to be focused upon subclasses. I can take a chapter loaded with new spells so long as the spells aren't just power creep. And of course, I absolutely expect more feats, races, and backgrounds.

[Person_Man]

Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law).

I want my favorite hobby to have supplements. I just don't want those supplements to be garbage. If a team of 1-3ish writers spend months writing a great supplement and another 3-6 months play testing and refining it, then I'm all in favor of it. If they start churning out 1-3 supplements per month with little to no play testing written by committee (1ish WotC writer/editor with a large bench of very poorly paid freelance writers, which is the model they used for most 3.X and 4E supplements) then I am opposed. (Which is not to say that I don't love freelance writers. I just think they should be given more respect and authorial control. Give them real book deals so that they can write coherent and tested rules, don't treat them like serfs).

Also, a big problem with the 2nd edition campaign supplements (Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, etc) was that they were often incompatible with each other. (You couldn't use the crunch from one setting in any other setting because it contained contradictory crunch). WotC mostly avoided this problem in 3.X and definitely avoided it in 4E, and I hope that with the return of the 2E/3E mindset, this issue does not crop back up in 5E supplements. This is the true danger of making tons of "optional" rules. If everything is optional, then players can rarely use the supplements they buy, and thus they'll stop buying supplements, or the game will eventually have so many incompatible optional rules that they become an incomprehensible mess.

[MunkeeGamer]

I play Pathfinder almost exclusively, and generally, the idea is 'you can use anything Paizo wrote' for rolling characters. Sometimes it's expanded to everything in the PFd20SRD.

5th PHB is the first core book I can think of that has an entire section denoted as optional. It's a paradigm shift that I don't think has been fully understood - at least from what I've seen/read online.

Since 2004, I've been homebrewing to some extent, either minor adjustments or all out new systems (most proud of my Eragon system :D). I always call it D&D, it uses the D&D books, but it's always been essentially dependent on creativity. Because of that, I suppose I'm not a suitable opinion for this thread because everything is always optional in my mind. If I wanted to play something restrictive, I'd play video games and enjoy the graphics. D&D has always represented unrestricted imagination and limitless posibilities to me.

Additionally, I couldn't imagine a player ever coming to me and saying, "This book says I can do this, so I'm doing it regardless of DMs arbitration." I would never invite a player like that back to my table.

[edge2054]

I'm looking forward to the Adventurer's Handbook. I like that it's going to be tightly focused on elemental stuff. I hope I can grab it and make elemental based characters for all of the classes. I hope that I can use it to run an elemental themed campaign if I choose. I like that it's focused on themes rather than classes/races.

If WoTC sticks with that style of presentation I will be happy to buy lots of splatbooks. If they go back to the old race/class style I'll pass. I really don't need another book half-full of class options that are thematically inappropriate for the game I'm playing/running.

[Shadow]

The key word in your thread title is bloat.
We're not opposed to splat. We're opposed to bloat. Unfortunately the two traditionally go hand in hand.
We want quality options that keep things balanced. We do not want options for the sake of options with no thought to how they'll compare to existing options.
Quality. Not quantity.
Quantity would be fine as long as they are quality balanced choices.

[JoeJ]

I'd really like to see something analogous to the 2e Historical Reference series; self-contained books offering rules and variant classes for specific settings that are very different from standard fantasy.

[Selkirk]

yeah i want setting material. interesting npc's and locales and some sense of history and place. right now i'm in lmop and intrigued by the red wizards and mentions of neverwinter but i have no context to put them in. there are cool factions that get mentioned (but if your not in adventurer's league i don't think they mean much of anything). and i'm really not even thinking of modules here...just a survey of sword coast or whatever land im in at the moment :D.

i don't really need additional player classes or races(altho duergar should have been in phb :smallcool:)...but setting material is a must.

[MaxWilson]

Also, a big problem with the 2nd edition campaign supplements (Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, etc) was that they were often incompatible with each other. (You couldn't use the crunch from one setting in any other setting because it contained contradictory crunch). WotC mostly avoided this problem in 3.X and definitely avoided it in 4E, and I hope that with the return of the 2E/3E mindset, this issue does not crop back up in 5E supplements. This is the true danger of making tons of "optional" rules. If everything is optional, then players can rarely use the supplements they buy, and thus they'll stop buying supplements, or the game will eventually have so many incompatible optional rules that they become an incomprehensible mess.

Would be interested to have you elaborate here. I never played Planescape but I did play a lot of Darksun and Spelljammer, and don't remember any contradictory crunch between. It's true that Templars didn't exist in Spelljammer, and Athas doesn't exist in any known crystal sphere (IIRC), but that's not a crunch conflict, it's just non-existence problem. If a Templar somehow made his way into Spelljammer you'd know how to run him.

[Shadow]

Would be interested to have you elaborate here. I never played Planescape but I did play a lot of Darksun and Spelljammer, and don't remember any contradictory crunch between. It's true that Templars didn't exist in Spelljammer, and Athas doesn't exist in any known crystal sphere (IIRC), but that's not a crunch conflict, it's just non-existence problem. If a Templar somehow made his way into Spelljammer you'd know how to run him.

How can you claim to have played a lot of Dark Sun and still claim to not remember any contradictory cruch?
Dark Sun is the prime example of the contradictory crunch he referred to, due to the lack of gods and the inherent changes to divine magic because of this lack.
ALL of both the fluff and crunch of divine casters changes in Dark Sun. Your claim makes no sense.

[mephnick]

I'm on board with bigger, self-contained splats, like a Psionic book. As a DM, I don't really have time to research every obscure build, feat or spell players want to use for each specific character. These days I just say 'no' immediately if I haven't heard of it before. With self-contained splats I can just be like "We won't be using A, B, C, but D, and E are fair game."

If there's 100 splats, it's too much work to even list the ones I want or don't want.

[MaxWilson]

How can you claim to have played a lot of Dark Sun and still claim to not remember any contradictory cruch?
Dark Sun is the prime example of the contradictory crunch he referred to, due to the lack of gods and the inherent changes to divine magic because of this lack.
ALL of both the fluff and crunch of divine casters changes in Dark Sun. Your claim makes no sense.

That isn't contradictory crunch at all. That's setting material. It is different crunch, if you will, but there's no case where you don't know what to do when mixing the settings because of a contradiction in the crunch. Templars and elemental clerics are powered by elemental magic, regular clerics are powered by Outer Planes magic.

The closest I can think of to an actual crunch conflicts is the later Dark Sun material on special planes a la The Grey and The Black, which don't match up well with standard inner/outer planes. I think you could reconcile them if you wanted to, but that might count as a crunch conflict. I'm curious whether that's what Person_Man had in mind, or something else.

[Person_Man]

Would be interested to have you elaborate here. I never played Planescape but I did play a lot of Darksun and Spelljammer, and don't remember any contradictory crunch between. It's true that Templars didn't exist in Spelljammer, and Athas doesn't exist in any known crystal sphere (IIRC), but that's not a crunch conflict, it's just non-existence problem. If a Templar somehow made his way into Spelljammer you'd know how to run him.

It's been 10ish years since I've seriously played 2nd ed, and I'm away from my books at the moment. But to elaborate a bit on Shadow's point, my recollection of in 2E Dark Sun (which I loved) is that there true gods did not exist, magic (which defiled/consumed life) worked on an entirely different game mechanic then every other setting, the races had different and more powerful abilities, psionics were extremely common and powerful, metal was extremely scarce and valuable (which had a big impact on weapons and armor), and Non-Weapon Proficiencies were very specific to surviving Athas, and Kits were often specific to using Dark Sun's unique magic rules.

Similarly, big chunks of Spelljammer were rules for the magic flying spelljammer ships, firearms and other technology that would be completely out of place in any other setting were an assumed part of the setting, there were a bunch of Non-Weapon Proficiencies and Kits specifically related to spelljammers and space travel and advanced technology, there was another set of races with an entirely different crunch and feel to them. (I, for one, would love to see a Giff imported into a Dark Sun campaign).

I could go on, but you get the point. Each setting basically had its own cosmology, magic rules, races, Kits, etc, that were sometimes difficult or impossible to import into other settings.

[Shadow]

Kits
Kits were and are the reason that 2e was my favorite edition. The subclasses that 5e has are nostalgic for me in a way, and very very similar to Kits, which is part of the reason that I like 5e so much.
Plus, homebrewing new sublasses is extremely easy, so oyu can literally create any kind of character that you want to with minimal effeort compared to, say, homebrewing a balanced PrC.

[CyberThread]

I could go on, but you get the point. Each setting basically had its own cosmology, magic rules, races, Kits, etc, that were sometimes difficult or impossible to import into other settings.

Which is perfectly fine. Setting books should conflict that is how those settings remain unique. No one wants a bastardzation of what happen to 4e forgotten realms.

Could you point out a specific crunch bit that was not okay? The defile system was great for dark sun but I don't see how that would ruin core or other settings game play. Using the red wizards prc in ebeRon is not the creators fault but rather the dm and player.

[LucianoAr]

Self-contained, quality splatbooks like a Psionics Book, etc. I don't want books that exist just to help me optimize characters; give me subsystems and themes.

Settings books. SETTINGS. BOOKS. ALL THE SETTINGS. DEVELOP THE HELL OUT OF THEM.

Oh and yea publish as many Monster Manuals as you want. Seriously, as long as they're like the MM1 in quality print as many as those bad boys as you want holy hell. I can always use more monsters.

THIS. more setting books. i would love some 5e ravenloft/planescape/etc books coming out.

[BW022]

Why? ...

WotC is in a much different position than when it released 3.5 splat books. 4E heavily fragmented the industry between those who stayed with 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E. WotC is now in the unenviable position of having to fight for market shared for its own game. This isn't easy. WotC themselves have announced that the purpose of 5E is to consolidate the industry. Splat books don't help in this goal for several reasons...

a) It makes it seem like the product is incomplete. 4E left a bad taste in peoples mouths in that the PHB didn't have all the basic classes, races, etc. Folks had to buy multiple books.

b) It makes the product way more expensive. Switching editions isn't cheap -- it is $100-$200 per player and you need to convince all our players to switch. Even hinting that players might need to purchase $200+ worth of splat books can easily turn a few players off switching.

c) It takes resources away from making campaign settings and adventures. Both these make it easier for groups to switch to a new system -- by removing the need to make adventures and in removing the need to convert the edition for specific campaigns such as Greyhawk, FR, Dragonlance, Eberon, etc. which groups might prefer to run campaigns in. Pathfinder was extremely successful in having a single core book, campaign setting, and a ton of modules -- making it easy to get into.

Now... you can see that WotC is already trying to avoid splat books and make switching to 5E as easy as possible. They have free basic rules (I.e. lower the cost of trying the system). The PHB has all the basic classes and races and is as setting neutral as possible. They have basic adventures out before even the MM and DMG were out. etc.

Their next goal would be campaign settings. Republish Greyhawk, a good FR, Eberon, and maybe a Dragonlance setting. No big funky rules, just make it as easy as possible for folks to get back into the 3.x campaigns without any big costs. Then, have a ton of low-cost adventure modules.



What should they do with this edition, if it gets as big and popular to warrant a bunch of books to be made and published? Once this magical number is reached for how many splatbooks should be published, should they retire a money making edition, and get to work on a 6th edition ?


I don't think that is likely to ever come to that. At best, 4E fragmented the industry into 3.x, 4E, and Pathfinder. I think 5E is the rebuilding edition and it will be a much slower process than folks would like.

[JAL_1138]

I want thirty Planescape books. And a Spelljammer book.

Yes. A thousand times yes. If they assume the Factions are still around in Sigil and that nonsense with Vecna never happened, anyway.

[rlc]

so basically, "bloat" is being defined in this thread as releasing stuff just for the sake of releasing stuff, regardless of whether or not it actually adds anything useful to the game or keeps it balanced, which i agree with and don't want, either.
so, op, why DO you want splat book bloat?

[Invader]

Fewer books with a lot more attention to detail between them so there's more balance and less multiple sources for the same spell or feat wouldn't be a bad idea imo.

[MaxWilson]

It's been 10ish years since I've seriously played 2nd ed, and I'm away from my books at the moment. But to elaborate a bit on Shadow's point, my recollection of in 2E Dark Sun (which I loved) is that there true gods did not exist, magic (which defiled/consumed life) worked on an entirely different game mechanic then every other setting, the races had different and more powerful abilities, psionics were extremely common and powerful, metal was extremely scarce and valuable (which had a big impact on weapons and armor), and Non-Weapon Proficiencies were very specific to surviving Athas, and Kits were often specific to using Dark Sun's unique magic rules.

Thanks for explaining. I had a different impression of what you meant by "contradictory crunch," but I think I understand now what you meant.


WotC is in a much different position than when it released 3.5 splat books. *snip excellent remarks* Their next goal would be campaign settings. Republish Greyhawk, a good FR, Eberon, and maybe a Dragonlance setting. No big funky rules, just make it as easy as possible for folks to get back into the 3.x campaigns without any big costs. Then, have a ton of low-cost adventure modules.

I would be pretty likely to spend money on all these things, as long as I bought into the premise of the individual setting. Plus, Monstrous Ecology books, which are a different kind of setting books.

[JoeJ]

I want one-shot adventures that can be easily dropped into a campaign in my own world instead of long APs that hinge on specific details of Forgotten Realms history.

[Shadow]

I want one-shot adventures that can be easily dropped into a campaign in my own world instead of long APs that hinge on specific details of Forgotten Realms history.

I call shenanigans.
There is nothing contained within HotDQ that is so specifically intrinsic and vital to an FR setting that it absolutely *must* remain in the Realms.

Cult of the Dragon? That could be any cult that worships dragons and wants to see them rise to power. Not setting specific.
Tiamat? That could be any one of a dozen specific dragons, only one of which is specific to Faerun. The rest are all world specific, true, but pick your world and we'll tell you what the beast's name is in that setting.

Q: What exactly is it about this AP that must be, without exception, run in the Realms?
A: Nothing. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[JoeJ]

I call shenanigans.
There is nothing contained within HotDQ that is so specifically intrinsic and vital to an FR setting that it absolutely *must* remain in the Realms.

Cult of the Dragon? That could be any cult that worships dragons and wants to see them rise to power. Not setting specific.
Tiamat? That could be any one of a dozen specific dragons, only one of which is specific to Faerun. The rest are all world specific, true, but pick your world and we'll tell you what the beast's name is in that setting.

Q: What exactly is it about this AP that must be, without exception, run in the Realms?
A: Nothing. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Maybe not, but based on what I've seen in the ads I'm certainly not going to shell out $30 in blind hope that it isn't as described. Are you saying that Tyranny of Dragons doesn't involve stopping the return of a dragon deity that's been imprisoned on another plane for a long time?

As for telling me the beast's name in my world, you can't because there is no such beast.

[CyberThread]

Maybe not, but based on what I've seen in the ads I'm certainly not going to shell out $30 in blind hope that it isn't as described. Are you saying that Tyranny of Dragons doesn't involve stopping the return of a dragon deity that's been imprisoned on another plane for a long time?

As for telling me the beast's name in my world, you can't because there is no such beast.


tiamat is a multidimsonal creature, who is not stuck on FR for dragon worship. She lives in the hells , which means that she can have access to your area also. Just like Lloth can expand outside of faerun, and Amedeous can reach other zones.

[MeeposFire]

Tiamat was first used in Greyhawk so she is not even intitally for FR. As for Dragon Deities I think you can find that in most settings and the ones you don't you may have to do a small bit of fluff work.

For instance in Eberron Tiamat is a demon (in the shape of a dragon) so in that one you would make the cult a Cult of the Dragon Below. The biggest hurdle there would be is getting the players to the continent of Argonensan and making that work. Not impossible but it would take a little bit of extra work.

[JoeJ]

tiamat is a multidimsonal creature, who is not stuck on FR for dragon worship. She lives in the hells , which means that she can have access to your area also. Just like Lloth can expand outside of faerun, and Amedeous can reach other zones.

<sigh> What neither she nor Asmodeus can do is fit into my world. The problem isn't that magic can't bring Tiamat and Asmodeus to the World of Battersea, it's the thematically they doesn't belong there. Neither of them fits into my world's cosmology at all. There aren't no deities for specific races; not even dragons. In fact, dragons rarely worship anyone at all. My history and mythology already centers around a different evil god who wasn't a dragon and who is now dead, not imprisoned. If I add in an ancient battle against Tiamat, either it would feel redundant or she'd be a historical footnote that nobody had every heard of.

I'm sure that with a great deal of reworking I could get something out of Tyranny of Dragons. But with the same amount of work I can create something of my own and not have to pay anything. Therefore, I stand with what I said before: what I want is one-shot standalone adventures (not long APs) that I can easily drop into my world. That's not such a big request; the majority of the published adventures for 1st and 2nd edition would fit just fine in my world. From what I've see, it appears that Tyranny of Dragons would not.

[Shadow]

So what you really meant to say was:
I want one-shot adventures that can be easily dropped into a campaign in my own world instead of long APs that easily fit into any campaign history except my own rigid creation that I am unwilling to alter in any way.

And on that note: this is just the first (and currently only) AP that officially exists for 5e. I'm certain that if you're patient enough to wait for maybe.... a second, or a third one.... then you'll be just fine.

[JoeJ]

So what you really meant to say was:
I want one-shot adventures that can be easily dropped into a campaign in my own world instead of long APs that easily fit into any campaign history except my own rigid creation that I am unwilling to alter in any way.

And on that note: this is just the first (and currently only) AP that officially exists for 5e. I'm certain that if you're patient enough to wait for maybe.... a second, or a third one.... then you'll be just fine.

Why the hostility? The question was asked about what people want and I gave an answer. ToD certainly doesn't fit into any campaign except mine, but even if it did, how does that make me wanting shorter, more generic adventures for my elf game invalid?

[MaxWilson]

Why the hostility? The question was asked about what people want and I gave an answer. ToD certainly doesn't fit into any campaign except mine, but even if it did, how does that make me wanting shorter, more generic adventures for my elf game invalid?

FWIW, there are posters who know and agree with what you're saying. One-shot adventures without cosmological implications can fit in more settings. See "The Keep On the Borderlands" for example.

[CyberThread]

<sigh> What neither she nor Asmodeus can do is fit into my world. The problem isn't that magic can't bring Tiamat and Asmodeus to the World of Battersea, it's the thematically they doesn't belong there. Neither of them fits into my world's cosmology at all. There aren't no deities for specific races; not even dragons. In fact, dragons rarely worship anyone at all. My history and mythology already centers around a different evil god who wasn't a dragon and who is now dead, not imprisoned. If I add in an ancient battle against Tiamat, either it would feel redundant or she'd be a historical footnote that nobody had every heard of.

I'm sure that with a great deal of reworking I could get something out of Tyranny of Dragons. But with the same amount of work I can create something of my own and not have to pay anything. Therefore, I stand with what I said before: what I want is one-shot standalone adventures (not long APs) that I can easily drop into my world. That's not such a big request; the majority of the published adventures for 1st and 2nd edition would fit just fine in my world. From what I've see, it appears that Tyranny of Dragons would not.


You know ... I think it would be pretty easy to adopt the rising of some sort of power, and what not to a more.... I don't know. Cthulhu like experience.

[Shadow]

I wasn't disagreeing with the sentiment.
I was simlpy pointing out that HotDQ isn't setting specific in any way that isn't easily modded into almost any other campaign setting. And I personally find it pretty funny tyhat people willing to create entire campaign worlds on their own complain about the fact that we only have one AP available a couple months after the PHB (and before the DMG) launch.
And FWIW, none of that is relevant to the discussion about bloat in any way.

[JAL_1138]

FWIW, there are posters who know and agree with what you're saying. One-shot adventures without cosmological implications can fit in more settings. See "The Keep On the Borderlands" for example.

Ditto. Particularly if you just want a module to drop in to use for a plot point in a larger campaign of your own devising. The cultists in KotB can be members of the order you plan to have setting up schemes everywhere. The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun (doesn't particularly rely on Tharizdun's existence and you can just leave out the bottom rooms to bypass that whole question) can be the location of a MacGuffin, or a place you need to visit to stop the spread of the Iron Shadow if the Tales From the Infinite Staircase module is running too short for your group. Or the location of the only known map to the long-lost Tomb of Horrors.

[rlc]

There aren't no deities for specific races; not even dragons. In fact, dragons rarely worship anyone at all. My history and mythology already centers around a different evil god who wasn't a dragon and who is now dead, not imprisoned. If I add in an ancient battle against Tiamat, either it would feel redundant or she'd be a historical footnote that nobody had every heard of.

a cultist has discovered magic so ancient that even the gods didn't know about it and is using said magic to ressurrect said dead god. change tiamat's name to your now no longer dead god and ensue battle.

[Forum Explorer]

<sigh> What neither she nor Asmodeus can do is fit into my world. The problem isn't that magic can't bring Tiamat and Asmodeus to the World of Battersea, it's the thematically they doesn't belong there. Neither of them fits into my world's cosmology at all. There aren't no deities for specific races; not even dragons. In fact, dragons rarely worship anyone at all. My history and mythology already centers around a different evil god who wasn't a dragon and who is now dead, not imprisoned. If I add in an ancient battle against Tiamat, either it would feel redundant or she'd be a historical footnote that nobody had every heard of.

I'm sure that with a great deal of reworking I could get something out of Tyranny of Dragons. But with the same amount of work I can create something of my own and not have to pay anything. Therefore, I stand with what I said before: what I want is one-shot standalone adventures (not long APs) that I can easily drop into my world. That's not such a big request; the majority of the published adventures for 1st and 2nd edition would fit just fine in my world. From what I've see, it appears that Tyranny of Dragons would not.

Well it's a story about a dragon god, and your setting is lacking gods. So yeah, bad luck for you, cause it's not going to fit.

But I do prefer the larger APs. If I'm buying an adventure then I want to get my money's worth, and I want it to take up a good amount of time. Not just a one-shot.

I could see purchasing a book of one-shots, but doubt I would bother looking for individual one shots.

[JoeJ]

FWIW, there are posters who know and agree with what you're saying. One-shot adventures without cosmological implications can fit in more settings. See "The Keep On the Borderlands" for example.

Keep on the Borderlands is exactly the sort of adventure I'd love to see for 5e. Or Against the Cult of the Reptile God, or Dwellers of the Forbidden City, or Tomb of the Lizard King. None of them have any important historical/cosmological implications that have to be considered, and I can drop any of them into an ongoing campaign without introducing some long story arc.

[CubeB]

Personally, I think Splat Books should do one of two things.

1) Provide the lore and unique subsystems needed to play a specific campaign setting. Races, unique classes. Subsystems.

2) Provide rules for a specific, non-standard subsystem. Psionics. Pact Magic. Incarnum.

Nothing you need, but stuff you may want.

[Selkirk]

i just want more stuff period :D...i can't even place my character in the setting. i mean i know it's fr but when? really confusing to try and dig thru the fr stuff from past editions-just from a lore perspective..what's happening? i like the setting , what little i know of it-generic enough fantasy...but are we all supposed to be creating our own campaigns from scratch?

[Knaight]

So just a question, for the various folks hoping 5th edition doesn't get to many splatbooks and such, and keeps things simple.

Why? So once a product is successful, they make all the basic classes, and they claim to worry about the arms race, and keeping track of all the various things just starts to become to much, why is that an issue?

The core alone will be pushing 1000 pages. A handful of splats to round it out for more specialized things (for me, it's something akin to the complete series, the XPH, and the environments) pretty much cover things. That's probably 2000 pages of material in total, which is a huge amount. It's even more ridiculous if you like to play multiple games - 2000 pages for the one game you play all the time might not seem that high to people, if you've got a dozen RPGs in circulation, it gets excessive.

As for the end game, the end game is that WotC has D&D. They then sell D&D. On the player end, we play D&D. Basically, consider the board game market. From a financial perspective, consider the likes of Monopoly, which has been selling just fine without constant supplements. If you're familiar with more niche board games, consider Pandemic. It has two editions, the second of which was to update some physical parts, rewrite the rules to be better, etc. The second edition also has 1 expansion, which adds a bunch of options. That is Pandemic's end game, a complete product which can continue to be produced.

D&D 5e could easily be something similar, which would be nice.

[Vogonjeltz]

What is the proper end game for this edition for such folks?

If they were to do a campaign setting book, I'd like it to be non-specific.

So perhaps large scale maps of each of the worlds (Greyhawk, FR, Eberron, Dark Sun, etc...) their over-arching conflicts, etc... but all in one book. It would provide comparisons of how each world is distinct from another.

I really like the way the PHB already has explained what things are like in different worlds, and it almost obviates the need for any campaign specific books (adventure modules could always contain explanations of how to modify them for various worlds, along with suggestions on what to do if your world lacks something central to the module; like dragon gods, for example).