Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[Waazraath]

Personally, at the moment I'm not inclined to make the switch to the new (half) edition next year. So I was wondering: who is and who isn't, and why, based on the information and playtest available so far? Maybe I'm missing reasons why making a switch would be an interesting idea.

[2D8HP]

The only heads up information that I’m aware of is that the plan is for all PC’s to now have a feat at first level, otherwise WotC promises “backwards” compatibility with 5e.

I’ll certainly at least buy the new PHB when it comes out, whether I’ll use any of that I don’t know, it kinda depends on which version of D&D I’ll teach my younger son.

[schm0]

I think like a lot of people, I will wait and see what is contained in the final product when it comes out, whenever that is.

[Atranen]

I'm likely to pick up the PHB and run it, because I run community games via AL, and I suspect they will be required to switch to the new ruleset. If not, I'll happily pass, as nothing in the new rules seems worth making the switch for me.

[One Tin Soldier]

I am, because:
-They’re fixing a lot of commonly complained about problems with 5e.
-Basically every class has been improved to be more fun to play.
—They finally figured out what makes bad capstones bad, and are getting rid of them and replacing them with good ones.
—Every single martial class can make interesting tactical decisions in every round of combat if they want to, most of the time free of resources - without making it impossible or bad to “just swing your sword at the bad guy.”
-Players are being given fewer “nova” capabilities and overpowered spells/feats, which means that balancing encounters will be easier as a GM.
-The Monster Manual is being updated, and what they’ve said about the changes sounds very promising.
-The DMG is being updated to improve the layout, and adding some new GM tools (like the Bastion system).
-It really is going to be backwards compatible with like 99% of what‘s been published for 5e.

[Mastikator]

I think like a lot of people, I will wait and see what is contained in the final product when it comes out, whenever that is.

Yeah same. I'll probably also wait until there's a discount as well.

I also won't switch out for any current campaign. Most likely if I start a campaign in 2025 I might use the 2024 version.

[P. G. Macer]

Probably not to be honest; I’km trying to move towards non-D&D RPGs in general, and nothing that I’ve seen has wowed me enough to justify spending so much money on the new core rulebooks. Yes, there are a lot of good rebalances and Quality of Life Improvements, but nothing so spectacular as to justify the expense.

Also, as a paladin main in 5e, what they did to Divine Smite is a gosh-darn travesty; if there was any paladin feature that deserved nerfing, it was Aura of Protection, and that one’s mechanics are unchanged (and no, “just use the 2014 paladin at a 2024 table” is not a viable response here, because that leaves me at the mercy of “DM may I” and the expectation of using a 2014 paladin at a 2024 table will be different from at a 2014 one, because it’ll no longer be the default).

[GooeyChewie]

I was going to, but the rest of my group decided to stick with 5e. I'm sure we will revisit that decision when the books actually release, but I'm not sure revisiting that decision will actually lead to picking up One D&D/5.5. We are actually trying out Pathfinder for our next in-person game, which is something I wouldn't have fathomed a year ago.

[Damon_Tor]

Personally, at the moment I'm not inclined to make the switch to the new (half) edition next year. So I was wondering: who is and who isn't, and why, based on the information and playtest available so far? Maybe I'm missing reasons why making a switch would be an interesting idea.

I'll allow any of my players who prefer 5.5 to build their characters with those rules. And similarly I would allow anyone who prefers 5e to use those. I probably won't allow mixing and matching of game elements between the two. I doubt I'll ever "switch" as such

[Keltest]

I'm really disinclined to spend a bunch of money on content that I basically already own. If I find something that is really egregious, im just going to houserule it, not buy an entire new set of (expensive) books just for the one patch.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'll be buying the PHB, at least. But I buy all kinds of systems, if only to read them and consider what aspects I might be able to use in the games I run. If it's good, I'll probably pick up the MM and DMG later too.

Whether I then run it, in whole or in part, will depend on my players. I like to stay flexible as DM.

[Psyren]

I am, because:
-They’re fixing a lot of commonly complained about problems with 5e.
-Basically every class has been improved to be more fun to play.
—They finally figured out what makes bad capstones bad, and are getting rid of them and replacing them with good ones.
—Every single martial class can make interesting tactical decisions in every round of combat if they want to, most of the time free of resources - without making it impossible or bad to “just swing your sword at the bad guy.”
-Players are being given fewer “nova” capabilities and overpowered spells/feats, which means that balancing encounters will be easier as a GM.
-The Monster Manual is being updated, and what they’ve said about the changes sounds very promising.
-The DMG is being updated to improve the layout, and adding some new GM tools (like the Bastion system).
-It really is going to be backwards compatible with like 99% of what‘s been published for 5e.

All of this, though I'm pretty lukewarm on Bastions so far (I can see the benefit of it for sandboxy campaigns but those aren't really my jam.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Neither I nor any of my play groups have expressed any interest in switching.

Our collective sense is that
1. The problems it claims to fix are not generally problems we have.
2. The way it goes about fixing those problems (even the ones where we agree that there is a problem there) is at best "meh, that's ok but not exciting" and often "why would you do that"?
3. We don't like that it's doubled down on "everything exciting is either a spell or costs a spell slot."
4. We don't trust WotC's understanding of their own game

Overall, there's nothing there worth spending a full book's worth of money on, let alone 3x.

Personally, my WIP knock-off is basically playable at this point. So new campaigns will either be 2014 5e or will use NIH system. I'll play 2024 5e, assuming someone else has the books on hand--it's not outright offensive or obnoxious. Just not worth giving WotC any money for.

[Zevox]

I don't currently expect to, based on what I've seen in the UAs. Many of the changes are lateral moves at best to me, and some I strongly dislike, such as Druid's Wild Shape and Paladin's Smite. There are some improvements, such as the overall Sorcerer and Monk classes (although certain subclasses leave a lot to be desired there, and I dislike the change to Monk ability naming conventions), but far from enough for me to feel it worth adopting the new version wholesale. And Weapon Mastery, while a step in the right direction, I can't see my group ever preferring to use over the Kobold Press Weapon Maneuvers we already use.

So my current intention is to stick to 5e, and house-rule in the best ideas from 5.5e. I may or may not pick up the new PHB at some point just to have the final version of things to comb for those ideas, though unless people who do get it report major changes from what we saw in the UAs I feel like those having given me a good sense of what and where they are. Also possibly for the few legitimately new subclasses like Dance Bard, still unsure if those will be worth it to me or not.

[kazaryu]

Also, as a paladin main in 5e, what they did to Divine Smite is a gosh-darn travesty; if there was any paladin feature that deserved nerfing, it was Aura of Protection, and that one’s mechanics are unchanged (and no, “just use the 2014 paladin at a 2024 table” is not a viable response here, because that leaves me at the mercy of “DM may I” and the expectation of using a 2014 paladin at a 2024 table will be different from at a 2014 one, because it’ll no longer be the default).

i mean, either way you're still stuck with "dm may i" since any table to may join can decide to swap to 2024 regardless of your input.

[Dr.Samurai]

The DM will give us the option in our current campaign, with the caveat that we either have to choose to stay with 2014 completely, or switch over completely, but no taking things from one to add to the other.

I would prefer not to make the change, as all three of my feats are heavily modified in the new version, resulting in the loss of:

1. Disengaging for free when I attack an enemy
2. +10ft of speed (since my character wears Heavy Armor)
3. Attacking as part of a Dash Action
4. Anywhere from 5-35 damage a turn (or more with Action Surge)

The player playing the ranger is ambivalent about switching over to the new ranger (including the new Hunter subclass). The druid player doesn't care. The monk player is super excited (he's been using the new monk for a couple of sessions now and loves it).

We will likely ending up switching over to the new version for the remainder of this game. Then depends on what the next DM wants to do, which will depend on what the final version looks like. If I wind up DMing, it will probably be 2014 base with some 2024 changes.

[Lalliman]

I’ll probably let it mellow for a while and eventually circle around to poaching the parts of it that I like, if I haven’t abandoned running D&D by that point. I definitely won’t use it outright. D&D5’s core merit is that it’s Good Enough and familiar. I’d rather keep running a flawed game that I fully understand, of which I know the flaws and know how to patch the worst ones in a way that works for me and my table, than sacrifice that familiarity for a new system that seems like it’s two-steps-forward-one-step-back.

[Kane0]

Probably not, i dont have the time or money to burn like i used to. I will take and adapt all the free UA stuff though.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Personally, at the moment I'm not inclined to make the switch to the new (half) edition next year. So I was wondering: who is and who isn't, and why, based on the information and playtest available so far? Maybe I'm missing reasons why making a switch would be an interesting idea.

The opposite of switching to 5.5. Technically. Been slowly transitioning to other systems.

5e is ok and there are things I love about it (most of which are all the ideologies they brought over from 4e, simplicity and others) but it was always half finished. It's a mess but a usable one.

Numenera/Cypher System is a broken mess in terms of a lot of things, but like, everyone is a broken mess and on the same page. Also, as a GM, it's tied with 4e with how awesome it is to run a game. For vastly different reasons, but still, lots of fun.

The playtest, and WotC shenanigans, really turned me off from D&D.

[Dalinar]

I'm pretty sold on it from Monk changes alone. The question isn't just about me though, it's about my table, and I wonder how many of those people (who I love more than anything) would see enough upside to running what is essentially Uncanny Valley 5e to justify moving over. It's something I've seen in video games before (it's a long shot bringing it up on this forum, but anyone who was a fan of the Smash Bros mod Project M may have had a similar experience trying to get Melee players into it). In any case, that's a discussion for when the rules are finalized, I guess.

Conversely something like MCDM RPG (whenever that's available) or Fabula Ultima might be different enough to not cross wires, and yes, Not Giving Money to Hasbro/WOTC is also an upside to those.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

...Fabula Ultima might be different enough to not cross wires...

Hmm looks interesting enough.

The name alone screams "Final Fantasy" so it's hitting its intended vibe.

[Envyus]

Almost for sure getting the new books for me and my players. It’s pretty much 5e but improved from my experiences, so I am anxious to see more.

[Silverblade1234]

I'm overall positive on the PhB changes, and optimistic about the changes coming to the other two books given what they've said, so I'm sure I'll be buying the books and using them for the next campaign my group runs. My group hasn't been following the playtest and aren't very engaged with the larger D&D world outside our campaign, but I think they'll be excited by the numerous small buffs and improvements to their favorite classes and whatnot. There will be a small learning period where we get used to some of the rule changes, but I have to remind them of existing rules right now, so I don't think it's going to be any kind of hardship.

[Dalinar]

Hmm looks interesting enough.

The name alone screams "Final Fantasy" so it's hitting its intended vibe.

It's 100% intentional, a self-described "TTJRPG." I haven't had the chance to play it yet, but I've heard good things from other people and it seems up my alley.

[Psyren]

Oh yeah, I've been meaning to give Fabula Ultima a look, thanks for the reminder :smallsmile:

There's a free trial adventure for it called Press Start (https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/411240/Fabula-Ultima-TTJRPG-Press-Start) that I'm reading through currently. It includes basic versions of the rules as well as 4 pregens.

[JonBeowulf]

5e is the final one for me. In fact, I have no plans to buy anything else (unless there's something on Roll20 that I just gotta have).

I may drop some cash on a new game. My son picked up the Dark Souls TTRPG that sits on the 5e chassis. At first glance it looks like they did a good job with it. Time will tell.

[JackPhoenix]

Not me. I'll probably drop 5e completely for other systems, if not, I'll at best take the rare few good changes (which are things that existed homebrew for years before WotC even announced they'll be making their cashgrab attempt "new" edition anyway) and ignore all the way they make the game worse. And even then, WotC won't see a single cent from me.

[rlc]

when i play: maybe, it depends on everybody else.
when i dm: probably.

[tokek]

Some of my play is online on Discord using the Avrae bot. Its likely that Avrae will switch to the new version as its maintained by Beyond developers - so we will switch those games to the new version.

As for my main weekly game we will wait and see.

[Luccan]

I'm not, but it's not really got anything to do with the changes beyond "that's not worth the money". 5e plays fine as is and I know how to account for the most common stumbling blocks

[Lord Ruby34]

5.5 really feels like 5e with some of the issues fixed. I even like most of the fixes, but they just seem like too little. I decided that if I was going to change the rules of 5e, then I'll change them to something that actually inspires me. So I'm going over 5e with a fine toothed comb, retooling the classes and subclasses, and stealing anything I particularly like from 5.5. I might get the books at some point to make that easier, but I'm not going to go out of my way to pick them up.

[paladinn]

At this point, without seeing the finished product, I'd say it's a negative. There are some core mechanical things that need to be tweaked; but I haven't seen evidence that they are going to be addressed by 5.x.

Some of the proposed changes have been possibly good (ranger mods, for example); some have been bad (paladin smites, etc). I think at most, I'll be cherry-picking 5.x features to bring into a 5e game. But even that is predicated on how "compatible" the final product actually is.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

5.5 really feels like 5e with some of the issues fixed. I even like most of the fixes, but they just seem like too little. I decided that if I was going to change the rules of 5e, then I'll change them to something that actually inspires me. So I'm going over 5e with a fine toothed comb, retooling the classes and subclasses, and stealing anything I particularly like from 5.5. I might get the books at some point to make that easier, but I'm not going to go out of my way to pick them up.

It doesn't even feel like issues are being fixed, it feels like things that they were going to do in 5e but didn't get the time to implement them.




At this point, without seeing the finished product, I'd say it's a negative. There are some core mechanical things that need to be tweaked; but I haven't seen evidence that they are going to be addressed by 5.x.

Some of the proposed changes have been possibly good (ranger mods, for example); some have been bad (paladin smites, etc). I think at most, I'll be cherry-picking 5.x features to bring into a 5e game. But even that is predicated on how "compatible" the final product actually is.

I feel like a majority of 5e is fixed with homebrew rather than spending money on a new edition.

It will probably be as compatible as playing 3e/4e with their "half edition" or later splat books... Which in theory they work together but there's a definite "haves and have nots" situation going on with those.

3e Fighter worked in the same game as a Warblade but... Not really. One was clearly better than the other.

4e Warlock worked with Essentials Binder but again, one is clearly better than the other (though, funny enough the early version is better unlike in 3e).

[KorvinStarmast]

I am, because:
-They’re fixing a lot of commonly complained about problems with 5e.
Hardly. They screwed up the Warlock already.

-Basically every class has been improved to be more fun to play.
They nerfed the Paladin and hosed the Monk.

—They finally figured out what makes bad capstones bad, and are getting rid of them and replacing them with good ones.
It's a mixed bag but I am glad they did a rescrub on Capstones.

-The Monster Manual is being updated, and what they’ve said about the changes sounds very promising.
-The DMG is being updated to improve the layout, and adding some new GM tools (like the Bastion system).
-It really is going to be backwards compatible with like 99% of what‘s been published for 5e. I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm really disinclined to spend a bunch of money on content that I basically already own. If I find something that is really egregious, im just going to houserule it, not buy an entire new set of (expensive) books just for the one patch. Likewise. I was excited for the "play test" via the UA and ended up underwhelmed and disappointed.

some I strongly dislike, such as Druid's Wild Shape and Paladin's Smite. Aye.


Probably not, i dont have the time or money to burn like i used to. I will take and adapt all the free UA stuff though. Please stay in touch, you have a lot of good ideas.

Not me. I'll probably drop 5e completely for other systems, if not, I'll at best take the rare few good changes (which are things that existed homebrew for years before WotC even announced they'll be making their cashgrab attempt "new" edition anyway) and ignore all the way they make the game worse. And even then, WotC won't see a single cent from me. I have three 5e groups I'll keep playing with until the campaigns end. I don't see me going to the new edition unless someone else DMs. I may buy a PHB for that.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Hardly. They screwed up the Warlock already.

They nerfed the Paladin and hosed the Monk.

It's a mixed bag but I am glad they did a rescrub on Capstones.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Likewise. I was excited for the "play test" via the UA and ended up underwhelmed and disappointed.
Aye.

Please stay in touch, you have a lot of good ideas.
I have three 5e groups I'll keep playing with until the campaigns end. I don't see me going to the new edition unless someone else DMs. I may buy a PHB for that.

The 3e Binder was peak Warlock design and until we get that back, we won't have a great Warlock. As much as I loved the 4e Warlock, even that paled in comparison. This half-caster stuff could work... But right now it's got no direction.

I'm glad they did the playtest so that I know not to spend my money on WotC products.

[Rukelnikov]

I personally don't get the "switching" idea, incorporate what you like and disregard what you don't, same as any splatbook.

Having said that, I haven't played DnD since early 2021, and this is not nearly exciting enough to make me wanna go back to it.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I personally don't get the "switching" idea, incorporate what you like and disregard what you don't, same as any splatbook.

Having said that, I haven't played DnD since early 2021, and this is not nearly exciting enough to make me wanna go back to it.

It got me to go to Cypher System. So I guess D&D 5.5 is negative exciting?

[TurboGhast]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

[Skrum]

The biggest draw for me is the upgraded monk and weapon mastery.

Besides that there's a bunch of tiny "shuffling around" changes that I'm positive towards when I read them but just aren't big enough changes for me to actually be excited about (grappling, minor feats at first level, backgrounds).

On the negative side, they seem to be trying to write synergy between class abilities out of the game. They're striving to have abilities do exactly what they say they do and nothing more, even when combined with whatever ability from whichever class. That is a huge red flag for my interest in the game.

Of the stuff that's been put out so far, I'd be inclined to incorporate the class changes sans paladin, plus weapon mastery, and leave the rest.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

Subclasses are way too chaotic in 5e and in 5.5 (so far).

Some classes require the subclass to keep up with the game where other classes can ignore their subclass and still be a force of reckoning.


The fighter is a perfect example of a badly designed class/subclass since a lot of the Champion should be the baseline fighter. Legit, Improved Critical should be a baseline fighter feature and have the subclass be something a bit more dynamic (which doesn't mean it can't be simple).

[Envyus]

Hardly. They screwed up the Warlock already.

They nerfed the Paladin and hosed the monk.
How and how? Both Monk and Warlock seem quite improved.

Paladin is a little weaker, but I am fine with that, plus the various Smite Spells have reasons to be used now.

[Envyus]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

Well it’s not out yet.

[rlc]

I don't see myself picking up 5.5 at the moment. From word of mouth, I get the impression that it doesn't fix the flaws I see in 5e (the largest ones being frontline martials not having enough tools for defending allies, and most martials not having enough high level tools overall) and introduces few new problems (most prominently, certain classes suffering ludonarrative dissonance because every subclass starts at 3rd level).

i think they said that they won’t do the 3rd level for every subclass thing because of the survey results.
i kind of think everybody should get their subclass at the same level, though.

[Kane0]

Please stay in touch, you have a lot of good ideas.


Oh of course, i'll still be hanging around!

[TurboGhast]

Well it’s not out yet.

I mean, aren’t we all talking about the preview stuff at the moment? I haven’t heard about a UA bringing back combat challenge from 4e (or adding an equivalent), so I still think fighter’s gonna be missing an ability I find key to its class fantasy in 5.5e.


i think they said that they won’t do the 3rd level for every subclass thing because of the survey results.
i kind of think everybody should get their subclass at the same level, though.

I hadn’t heard about that. Nice for sure, but avoiding one step back isn’t enough for me to be certain the rest will be a convincing leap forward.

[GooeyChewie]

i think they said that they won’t do the 3rd level for every subclass thing because of the survey results.
i kind of think everybody should get their subclass at the same level, though.

Sadly, no. All classes are getting their subclass at level 3. WotC was also looking at making all classes get subsequent subclass features at the same levels, and that’s what they reverted back to 5e standards.

I agree every class should get their subclass at the same level; I just think that level should be 1.

[rlc]

Sadly, no. All classes are getting their subclass at level 3. WotC was also looking at making all classes get subsequent subclass features at the same levels, and that’s what they reverted back to 5e standards.

I agree every class should get their subclass at the same level; I just think that level should be 1.

yeah, level 1 makes sense to me, too, because you can make an argument for every class, honestly.
level 3 really isn’t a deal breaker for me, though. you can still be a cleric of whatever god without having earned enough their power to be considered specialized.

[Salmon343]

Absolutely switching up. So far to me, it's 5e but better.

Weapon Mastery looks like a great addition to the martial kit. And while I think there's a golfbag of weapons problem (I'm really hoping they let us stack masteries on one weapon by default), it's far better than the 5e baseline.

There's been QOL improvements to all classes that make it easier to use your abilities (bonus action Lay on Hands, decoupling Monk ki actions from the attack action), and general improvements to classes (Charisma to attack for Pact Weapons, Indomitable buff). Stuff has been reigned in across the board (no more Action Surge double-cast, Smites now require a bonus action - although they are easier to use now) which makes things way easier as a DM.

Unlike 3.5 to 4e, or 4e to 5e, Ond D&D is really similar to 5e. So I see myself replacing 5e with it entirely (adapting 5e content where it doesn't yet exist in One D&D). It'll be easy to adapt, and I'm not gonna miss anything I drop design ethos wise.

[Asmotherion]

I'm going to give it a try, given I've grown tired of 5e.

[Velaryon]

My plan is to wait and see what the finished product looks like, but at the moment I am very skeptical and would be surprised if I end up adopting 5.5. Based on what I have seen of the various playtests over the last year, I think they've gotten more wrong than right. I'm pleased that they backed off the "Wild Shape is now a generic stat block and you just say it's whatever animal you want" thing, but the last updated idea I saw still looks like a sidestep at best from the 5e version, and doesn't fix the issues I have with it.

I'm going to order copies of the new edition for my public library collection, because they will check out well. The 5e Players Handbook was our second highest-circulating nonfiction book of 2023, beating out books by Prince Harry, Britney Spears, various politicians and pundits, and many others. So once we've gotten copies of the new PHB for the library, I'll look through that before deciding whether to pick one up for myself. If I had to guess, I'd say I'll probably cherry pick some rule changes that I do like, but otherwise stay with 5e for the most part.

[GooeyChewie]

yeah, level 1 makes sense to me, too, because you can make an argument for every class, honestly.
level 3 really isn’t a deal breaker for me, though. you can still be a cleric of whatever god without having earned enough their power to be considered specialized.

For me, it's more about gameplay than the thematic element. Some subclasses have a major impact on how you want to build your character, in terms of what equipment you select and what ability scores you prioritize. For example, one of the issues with the Brawler subclass from UA Playtest 7 is that the subclass wants you to use Unarmed Strikes or improvised weapons, but for your first two levels you either need to take the Tavern Brawler feat (which then becomes largely redundant at level 3) or use real weapons. Or Rogue's Arcane Trickster, you really need to invest in Intelligence at character creation but you have to look ahead to level 3 to make that determination, which defeats the point of delaying the subclass in the first place.

[KorvinStarmast]

How and how? Both Monk and Warlock seem quite improved. Warlock as a half caster if a severe violation. Monk as currently made in 5e is fine, all it needs is an ASI at level 10 like rogue gets and it is nearly perfect - except that Four Elements needed to be redone from the ground up. I'll go check the last UA to see if they unscrewed the stuff that got me to write a blistering negative feedback.

Paladin is a little weaker, but I am fine with that, I am not

plus the various Smite Spells have reasons to be used now.
Yes, that was an improvement. We don't need a new freaking edition to make those spells better, though.

[Jophiel]

My regular group has moved off 5e to a Pathfinder Kingmaker campaign, Mutants & Masterminds and discussion of a Shadowrun campaign. Between that and just not liking some design decisions related to D&D in the past years, it feels unlikely that I'd want to invest in a number of new books. More likely, if we ever did another D&D game, I'd just dust off my 5e 2014 books and crib or homebrew whatever adjustments I felt were needed.

[Zevox]

Warlock as a half caster if a severe violation.
It was, but they dropped that. Warlock's back to Pact Magic. Trouble is the only thing they did to address their low spell slots/short rest dependency issue is give them an ability that lets them regain half their spell slots once per day. So, basically the bare minimum they could've done, since that's 1 spell slot at most levels, and less impactful than actually just giving them +1 spell slot since it doesn't recharge on short rests.

[Silly Name]

Honestly, I haven't seen anything so far that makes me excited or interested in switching over and have to deal with all the little differences and different balance points.

I like 5e, it plays fine for me and my group and we have lots of fun with it. I'll have to put up with learning OneD&D because I'm part of an TTRPG association that partecipates in Conventions and the like and our policy is to always use the currently-supported ruleset (not just D&D, but also CyberPunk, Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, etc. GMs can bring whatever systems and adventures they want, we just have to ensure some standards), but my D&D games will keep being D&D unless my group really insists on switching.

[Theodoxus]

yeah, level 1 makes sense to me, too, because you can make an argument for every class, honestly.
level 3 really isn’t a deal breaker for me, though. you can still be a cleric of whatever god without having earned enough their power to be considered specialized.

My primary issue with having subclasses chosen at 1st level is you basically end up with 48 classes, 3 of which you can't multiclass into. (provided they stick with 12 classes and 4 subclasses for each).

Might as well drop the class/subclass nomenclature at that point and just call each entity by their subclass name.

You're not a Hunter-Ranger, you're just a Hunter. You're not an Oath of the Ancient Paladin, you're just an Ancient Oath-taker. You're not a Abjuration Wizard, you're just an Abjurer...

Granting a subclass at level 2 would solve the issue for me... though that also feels quite soon. But at least it's makes more sense.

[Envyus]

Warlock as a half caster if a severe violation. Monk as currently made in 5e is fine, all it needs is an ASI at level 10 like rogue gets and it is nearly perfect - except that Four Elements needed to be redone from the ground up. I'll go check the last UA to see if they unscrewed the stuff that got me to write a blistering negative feedback.
I am not

Yes, that was an improvement. We don't need a new freaking edition to make those spells better, though.

So you were complaining about stuff you haven’t read. Not a great look.

No we don’t need a new edition to make those spells better, but it’s not just those spells, there are tons of other changes coming that it doesn’t make sense not to make a new book.

[Kane0]

I foresee my table changing from 'any 5e book is fine, UA with DM approval' to 'any 5e and 5.5 book is fine, UA and homebrew with approval'

[GooeyChewie]

My primary issue with having subclasses chosen at 1st level is you basically end up with 48 classes, 3 of which you can't multiclass into. (provided they stick with 12 classes and 4 subclasses for each).

Might as well drop the class/subclass nomenclature at that point and just call each entity by their subclass name.

You're not a Hunter-Ranger, you're just a Hunter. You're not an Oath of the Ancient Paladin, you're just an Ancient Oath-taker. You're not a Abjuration Wizard, you're just an Abjurer...

Granting a subclass at level 2 would solve the issue for me... though that also feels quite soon. But at least it's makes more sense.

I don’t understand this viewpoint at all. You would still have 12 classes, each with four subclasses. The fact that two different Rangers could be a bit more distinct from each other at level 1 than they can under the current rules would not make Hunter-Ranger a different class from Beast Master-Ranger or any other Ranger subclass. Most of your features would still come from your class.

[Pex]

For the games I DM I will stay 5E because that's what we're playing. When they're done if/when I DM another game right after I'll decide then. As a player I'll play 5.5E if that's the game. The games I'm in will probably stay 5E because that's what we're playing.

Every new edition people complain about having to buy new books. Nothing new or special about that. Some people don't want to switch. They're allowed to, but that's not the new version's problem or fault. 3E -> 3.5E I'll say is the exception because it was so soon after and just right after they published a lot of splat books for 3E that became irrelevant. That was bad on the company's part. I suppose ideally it would be nice if there was a game system that was absolutely perfect in every way and doesn't change editions forever. Boardgames do that. However, since editions do change while it's relevant to critique the new rules for their own sake having a change be 10 years since that last one is not egregious.

[KorvinStarmast]

So you were complaining about stuff you haven’t read. Not a great look.
That fact that they did it in the first place was an unnecessary **** up. I have a UA that I have not bothered to open because they have already demonstrated some serious conceptual problems to include the inane druid wild shape grunge. After providing my time and effort in offering constructive criticism from the first UA, and seeing WotC'Bro's response, at some point my time isn't worth wasting on their flailing around. I bill out at a hell of a lot higher than 0 dollars per hour for people who listen to what I offer. For those that can't be bothered to listen, at some point I have to decide that my time will not be wasted on you. That point has been passed.

[paladinn]

Sadly, no. All classes are getting their subclass at level 3. WotC was also looking at making all classes get subsequent subclass features at the same levels, and that’s what they reverted back to 5e standards.

I agree every class should get their subclass at the same level; I just think that level should be 1.

I don't think the first subclass level should be a hard-and-fast. For martial characters it's not bad to get some "basic" features under one's belt before specializing. For clerics, everything about their abilities comes from their relationship with a deity, so the domain should kick in at L1. Back when wizards had to choose opposing schools (not a bad thing), it would be hard to let them grab a couple levels with spells of said school and then to have to give them up.

Just like life as you age: everything Depends.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think the first subclass level should be a hard-and-fast. For martial characters it's not bad to get some "basic" features under one's belt before specializing. For clerics, everything about their abilities comes from their relationship with a deity, so the domain should kick in at L1. Back when wizards had to choose opposing schools (not a bad thing), it would be hard to let them grab a couple levels with spells of said school and then to have to give them up.

Just like life as you age: everything Depends.

And warlocks are defined by their contract--they have nothing without that spark kicking things off. The big split is Source vs Specialization, IMO. Specializations happen later, Sources happen up front.

As I see it, the base 5e classes break down as follows, working from thematic grounds only. Most of this matches the PHB, only paladins really differ. I could see an argument that everyone should be either 1 or 3, without the odd-ball druid/wizard "subclass at level 2" thing.

Artificers specialize.

Barbarians could go either way--I like the idea that their Path is how they unlock their preternatural power--the Berserker focuses on the emotion of rage itself, the totem barbarian channels the ideals/connection to the symbols of the totems, etc.

Bards specialize.

Clerics are defined by their relationship to their deity. Definitely Source.

Druids specialize (differentiating them from clerics)--they draw on nature, but how they do is very different between circles.

Fighters specialize.

Monks specialize--there are common threads and the core idea of inner focus is the real source, while the tradition is about techniques.

Paladins should be sourced, rather than specialized. Their Oath is the whole of the matter.

Rangers specialize, as a hybrid of fighters and druids.

Sorcerers are Sourced. Very obviously. Without their Origin, they don't have power at all.

Warlocks, the same. Without their Pact, they're just ordinary scholars (at best). It's the most common theme--they couldn't do power the "proper" way, so they cheated.

Wizards, obviously, are specialized.

[J-H]

Not me. I've checked out of following the UAs aside from occasionally seeing what's going on via forum threads. They've taken a wrong turn on design. I'm usually the DM, so nobody I'm playing with is likely to switch either. My houserules fix most of what I view as problems with 5e, and I'm content with that.

[JackPhoenix]

Paladins should be sourced, rather than specialized. Their Oath is the whole of the matter.

Paladins not getting their subclass at 1st level is my pet peeve, especially considering how lackluster their 1st level is compared to a fighter. Same proficiencies, but no fighting style and LoH is inferior to Second Wind at level 1.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Paladins not getting their subclass at 1st level is my pet peeve, especially considering how lackluster their 1st level is compared to a fighter. Same proficiencies, but no fighting style and LoH is inferior to Second Wind at level 1.

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.

* Smite
* Lay on Hands
* 1/3 Divine Spellcasting
* Auras at higher levels

The exact spells and aura they get change depending on the oath. Could have specific riders based on their oaths on their smites too.

[Kane0]

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.


Dont you dare. Take that to its own thread.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Dont you dare. Take that to its own thread.

There are plenty of base classes that work as a subclass, these are mostly the hybrid classes though.

I mean, D&D doesn't seem to want a lot of specific classes and this would cut down on a lot of classes. If they did something like this I would be somewhat intrigued in looking at 5.5 again.

[paladinn]

Dont you dare. Take that to its own thread.

I think I have :)

[Kane0]

I think I have :)

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

[Psyren]

Paladins not getting their subclass at 1st level is my pet peeve, especially considering how lackluster their 1st level is compared to a fighter. Same proficiencies, but no fighting style and LoH is inferior to Second Wind at level 1.

Their spellcasting got bumped down to first level to compensate though. I'd much rather have Bless, Shield of Faith, and even Detect Magic at level 1 than a fighting style, especially since they don't even get the best one (Archery).

[Keltest]

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

And thats only because fighters already get fighter as a subclass.

[paladinn]

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

Yeah but we had a lot of fun doing the ranger fighter subclass :)

[Sorinth]

And warlocks are defined by their contract--they have nothing without that spark kicking things off. The big split is Source vs Specialization, IMO. Specializations happen later, Sources happen up front.

As I see it, the base 5e classes break down as follows, working from thematic grounds only. Most of this matches the PHB, only paladins really differ. I could see an argument that everyone should be either 1 or 3, without the odd-ball druid/wizard "subclass at level 2" thing.

Artificers specialize.

Barbarians could go either way--I like the idea that their Path is how they unlock their preternatural power--the Berserker focuses on the emotion of rage itself, the totem barbarian channels the ideals/connection to the symbols of the totems, etc.

Bards specialize.

Clerics are defined by their relationship to their deity. Definitely Source.

Druids specialize (differentiating them from clerics)--they draw on nature, but how they do is very different between circles.

Fighters specialize.

Monks specialize--there are common threads and the core idea of inner focus is the real source, while the tradition is about techniques.

Paladins should be sourced, rather than specialized. Their Oath is the whole of the matter.

Rangers specialize, as a hybrid of fighters and druids.

Sorcerers are Sourced. Very obviously. Without their Origin, they don't have power at all.

Warlocks, the same. Without their Pact, they're just ordinary scholars (at best). It's the most common theme--they couldn't do power the "proper" way, so they cheated.

Wizards, obviously, are specialized.

Agreed but keep in mind source doesn't actually have to mean subclass. So for cleric you could choose the god/domain at level 1 which gives some benefits, but the subclass defines how you serve not who you serve. So the subclasses become something like
Templar - A martial focus with armor, weapons, divine strike, etc... whose role is to fight enemies of the god/domain, protect holy places, etc...
Thaumaturge - A magic focus whose role is to go out in the world and use the magic to spread the ideals of the god/domain
Inquisitor - A skill focus whose role is to keep the faithful "pure"

Warlocks are similar since you can also easily change the subclass from who they serve to how they serve. Sorcerers and Paladins I find harder to come up with good ways to move the subclass from source to specialize but probably could be done.

[Psyren]

And warlocks are defined by their contract--they have nothing without that spark kicking things off. The big split is Source vs Specialization, IMO. Specializations happen later, Sources happen up front.

Warlocks making smaller contracts at levels 1 and 2, followed by the main Contract at level 3, actually makes a lot more sense to me. Why would an archdevil or archfey take an interest in you if you're not even able to demonstrate that you can handle a couple of cantrips and no-prereq-invocations?

And in fact, I was in favor of standardized subclass levels across the board, not just at level 3.

[Rukelnikov]

Agreed but keep in mind source doesn't actually have to mean subclass. So for cleric you could choose the god/domain at level 1 which gives some benefits, but the subclass defines how you serve not who you serve. So the subclasses become something like
Templar - A martial focus with armor, weapons, divine strike, etc... whose role is to fight enemies of the god/domain, protect holy places, etc...
Thaumaturge - A magic focus whose role is to go out in the world and use the magic to spread the ideals of the god/domain
Inquisitor - A skill focus whose role is to keep the faithful "pure"

Warlocks are similar since you can also easily change the subclass from who they serve to how they serve. Sorcerers and Paladins I find harder to come up with good ways to move the subclass from source to specialize but probably could be done.

But that changes the relevancy of the source. If how I serve my god defines me more that which god I serve, then templars of Corellon and Kord are more similar than a Templer and an Theurge of the same god. The narrative impact is there.

[Sindal]

As a dm (when I actually start dming again)

Absolutely. I've seen enough changes I'm more than on board with to update my 'patch notes'.

As a player, I hope to get into games with OneDND rules as I'd like to try out the changes myself. From what we've seen so far and the playtestings that has happened, it's inspired some new character ideas I never thought of before. For thr first time ever in my life I considered playing a fighter earnestly. Which is not to say I never would have before or make a similar character but the newer ruleset sparked ideas in me.

I'm probably real biased becuase my favorite classes are sorceor and ranger and they did work to officially put them out of 2014s versions problem zones. I've been playing monk recently and the monk changed we got in the last pdf just made me go "wow I wish I could use these now on my monk already"

[Sorinth]

But that changes the relevancy of the source. If how I serve my god defines me more that which god I serve, then templars of Corellon and Kord are more similar than a Templer and an Theurge of the same god. The narrative impact is there.

If that's actually a problem then it's one that already exists because gods have multiple domains. As an example Selune has Knowledge and Life as suggested domains, so the Knowledge cleric of Selune will be closer to the Knowledge cleric of Gond then to the Life cleric of Selune despite sharing the same god.

[Rukelnikov]

If that's actually a problem then it's one that already exists because gods have multiple domains. As an example Selune has Knowledge and Life as suggested domains, so the Knowledge cleric of Selune will be closer to the Knowledge cleric of Gond then to the Life cleric of Selune despite sharing the same god.

But those gods have an aspect in common, and since those clerics are devoted to that aspect of their respective god they are similar. With "Service" base subclass, all templars will be very alike, regardless of their gods domains.

[Amnestic]

Pretty sure ive seen it for every class bar fighter at this point.

Rogue should be a Wizard subclass. (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/TAI4zfqr7x12)

(I do think more 'hybrid' subclasses are generally pretty neat though - if Multiclassing weren't a thing I'm sure we'd see more of them)

[Mastikator]

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.

Every class should just be a spell that wizards cast. You get access through them at level 1 and can upcast them for additional class features. Sort of like Tenzer's Transformation, the paladin version lets you smite. The cleric and druid ones just temporarily adds their spell lists.

[Arkhios]

I see even less differences between 5th edition and the OneD&D update than there were between 3.0 and 3.5, and I refuse to call it any other than 5th edition even going forward, unless the devs start doing that as well. I suspect the "switch" from 5th edition to its updated content will take as much effort or attention from me as it took to switch from 3.0 to 3.5, which wasn't a lot.

[Sorinth]

But those gods have an aspect in common, and since those clerics are devoted to that aspect of their respective god they are similar. With "Service" base subclass, all templars will be very alike, regardless of their gods domains.

So a Templar of Correlon and Kord will be very alike and that's bad but a Knowledge cleric of Selune and and a knowledge cleric of Gond will also be very alike but that's somehow different? You'll have to explain that one to me.

[JackPhoenix]

Their spellcasting got bumped down to first level to compensate though. I'd much rather have Bless, Shield of Faith, and even Detect Magic at level 1 than a fighting style, especially since they don't even get the best one (Archery).

Yes, I'm certainly talking about changes I'm not about to use and don't care about and not the issue that's been around since 5e was published.


Warlocks making smaller contracts at levels 1 and 2, followed by the main Contract at level 3, actually makes a lot more sense to me. Why would an archdevil or archfey take an interest in you if you're not even able to demonstrate that you can handle a couple of cantrips and no-prereq-invocations?.

Stupid explanation to try to cover for the idiotic decision to move warlock's patron to level 3. It doesn't work for most of warlock concepts.


And in fact, I was in favor of standardized subclass levels across the board, not just at level 3.

No surprise there.

[Sigreid]

I don't have any plans to switch at this time. 5e doesn't have any problems that negatively impact my game as long as people don't try to break things; and what I've seen in the UA doesn't lead me to believe that it'll positively improve my gaming experience to the value of the price of replacing the books.

[Rukelnikov]

So a Templar of Correlon and Kord will be very alike and that's bad but a Knowledge cleric of Selune and and a knowledge cleric of Gond will also be very alike but that's somehow different? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Because templariness isn't particularly related to Corellon's or Kord's ethos, while Knowledge is for Selune and Gond. So there is a reason in the narrative and won't be true for any 2 gods, only for those whose ethos overlaps.

[KorvinStarmast]

Warlocks making smaller contracts at levels 1 and 2, followed by the main Contract at level 3, actually makes a lot more sense to me. Why would an archdevil or archfey take an interest in you if you're not even able to demonstrate that you can handle a couple of cantrips and no-prereq-invocations? Thus the boon at level 3. The patron offers a nicer gift once the warlock has demonstrated what you mention.

I was in favor of standardized subclass levels across the board, not just at level 3. While mechanically that is appealing, narratively the Warlock and Cleric, in particular, make far better sense to get that at level 1, as does the 'inborn magic' of the sorcerer class. (Which 5e could have done without). And for that matter, once the monk gets ki (at level 2) then why isn't that when they get their sub class as druid and wizard do? All said and done, it all kind of worked out, but the front loading on some classes really stands out.

[Amechra]

Paladin should just be a Fighter subclass.

I hear this and raise you "Clerics should be a Paladin subclass".

[paladinn]

Every class should just be a spell that wizards cast. You get access through them at level 1 and can upcast them for additional class features. Sort of like Tenzer's Transformation, the paladin version lets you smite. The cleric and druid ones just temporarily adds their spell lists.

This is just getting silly

[Mastikator]

This is just getting silly

Getting? I want to short circuit this already silly "discussion" by misty stepping to the conclusion so we can skip 10 pages of "this class shouldn't exist" in a "are you going to switch to 5.5e" thread.

[Theodoxus]

Agreed but keep in mind source doesn't actually have to mean subclass. So for cleric you could choose the god/domain at level 1 which gives some benefits, but the subclass defines how you serve not who you serve. So the subclasses become something like
Templar - A martial focus with armor, weapons, divine strike, etc... whose role is to fight enemies of the god/domain, protect holy places, etc...
Thaumaturge - A magic focus whose role is to go out in the world and use the magic to spread the ideals of the god/domain
Inquisitor - A skill focus whose role is to keep the faithful "pure"

I'm currently working on remaking Cleric subclasses work this way. Though I used 'Priest' instead of Thaumaturge, and added 'Cleric' as a medium armor wearing 1/2 caster. Templar/Crusader being a 1/3 caster, but getting more martial abilities than the 5E cleric. Inquisitor being a light armor wearing 2/3 caster, with specialized weapons and paladin-esque auras. I'm also working on their opposite, the Friar, that is built more like a divine Bard, specializing in group/party support and specialized in the quarterstaff (taking blatant inspiration from the Dark Age of Camelot class).


But that changes the relevancy of the source. If how I serve my god defines me more that which god I serve, then templars of Corellon and Kord are more similar than a Templer and an Theurge of the same god. The narrative impact is there.


If that's actually a problem then it's one that already exists because gods have multiple domains. As an example Selune has Knowledge and Life as suggested domains, so the Knowledge cleric of Selune will be closer to the Knowledge cleric of Gond then to the Life cleric of Selune despite sharing the same god.


But those gods have an aspect in common, and since those clerics are devoted to that aspect of their respective god they are similar. With "Service" base subclass, all templars will be very alike, regardless of their gods domains.


Because templariness isn't particularly related to Corellon's or Kord's ethos, while Knowledge is for Selune and Gond. So there is a reason in the narrative and won't be true for any 2 gods, only for those whose ethos overlaps.

Unless, in universe, only some gods support specific subclasses. Or, more specifically, some domains support specific subclasses (since that seems to be ok in your worldview). So, you can be a Priest/Thaumaturge of Corellon or Mystra or any other god that has Arcane as part of their portfolio, but not a Templar/Crusader. Likewise, following a War domain precludes access to the Priest/Thaumaturge subclass. The quick and dirty conversion would be looking at current subclass armor and weapon restrictions. So, Tempest, Twilight, and War wouldn't have Priests. Forge, Life, and Nature wouldn't have any restrictions. The others wouldn't have Templars.


Rogue should be a Wizard subclass. (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/TAI4zfqr7x12)

(I do think more 'hybrid' subclasses are generally pretty neat though - if Multiclassing weren't a thing I'm sure we'd see more of them)

+1 (I'd love to see an alternate Earth where multiclassing was never thought up and see how the game would be different (better? worse? not sure - but definitely different.)


And for that matter, once the monk gets ki (at level 2) then why isn't that when they get their sub class as druid and wizard do? All said and done, it all kind of worked out, but the front loading on some classes really stands out.

Same for Paladin and Ranger getting spells at 2nd level, but subclass at 3rd. Unless you don't think that spells are as defining for those classes as Ki is for Monk... which is fair, but not something I agree with.


I hear this and raise you "Clerics should be a Paladin subclass".

Paladin should just be another name for Templar/Crusader ;)

[Amechra]

Getting? I want to short circuit this already silly "discussion" by misty stepping to the conclusion so we can skip 10 pages of "this class shouldn't exist" in a "are you going to switch to 5.5e" thread.

Why would you want to leave a conversation that's clearly far more interesting?


+1 (I'd love to see an alternate Earth where multiclassing was never thought up and see how the game would be different (better? worse? not sure - but definitely different.)

I'd be intrigued to see the alternate timeline where multiclassing was based on multiclassing (pre-3e's equivalent to gestalt) and not dual-classing. Or where 5e embraced 4e-style multiclassing (read: it's a feat that gives you goodies from a particular class) — I know that Everyday Heroes (the 5e version of d20 Modern) goes that route, but that game also goes super hard on feats, so...

[2D8HP]

Alright, while probably the answer is “wait for the new PHB to be published and see”, to all y’all who somehow know what’s coming up: what does D&D2024 have that I’d like?

Mostly I play (Champion) Fighters, and (Swashbuckler) Rogues (when I think I can stand the complexity of playing one).

The only details I remember about this (partially) new edition is that for some reason “races” is being renamed “species”, and (annoying) everyone gets a Feat at first level.

What I’d like are rules for simpler to play Paladins and Rangers (‘cause thematically I like those classes), and (if I can dream) rules that spellcasters eventually go insane, their brains get eaten by demons, or something else badass that’s thematically sword & sorcery.

Anything in the new rules I’ll like?


Getting? I want to short circuit this already silly "discussion" by misty stepping to the conclusion so we can skip 10 pages of "this class shouldn't exist" in a "are you going to switch to 5.5e" thread.

@Mastikator,

D&D really only needs one “class”: Fighter.

The rest (especially Wizard) can be in the Monster Manual

[OldTrees1]

I'd be intrigued to see the alternate timeline where multiclassing was based on multiclassing (pre-3e's equivalent to gestalt) and not dual-classing.

We can see a bit of that alternate timeline depending on which playgroup you look at. AD&D Multiclassing (You have 2-3 classes and separate xp tracks for when each class levels up) and AD&D Dualclassing (Stop leveling in class A and switch to leveling in class B) are modeled by the level by level multiclassing of 3E/5E, depending on how the player multiclasses.

In my experience with the playgroups I have been in, "dipping" is non-existent. Instead we saw the ratio multiclassing simplified from multiple xp tracks to a single xp track but keeping the multiclassing ratio. In my current campaign one of the PCs is something like a Crusader/Totemist/Psion that could have been using AD&D Multiclassing with separate xp tracks.

I expect that alternate timeline would have official ratios of 1:1, 1:1:1, and 1:2. There would be common houserules for 1:1:2 and 1:2:2 ratios as well. The forums would discuss imbalance between single class having higher level features vs multiclass having more levels. Unfortunately playable species might be keep very limited, until they had the idea to have monster classes as one of the classes in the ratio. Oh, and 5E would not have sharp tier break points because sudden power spikes (Extra Attack at 5th) don't work as well if half the party won't get them.

[Psyren]

Yes, I'm certainly talking about changes I'm not about to use and don't care about and not the issue that's been around since 5e was published.

I mean, I'm not actually trying to convince you, that's a lost cause :smalltongue: I'm pointing out the other side of the change you mentioned more generally. Paladins and Rangers get spellcasting at level 1 now, so the Fighting Style being level 2 is even more fine than it was before. (Honestly, both classes were pretty lame at level 1 in 2014, probably to keep them from stepping on Fighter's toes.


Stupid explanation to try to cover for the idiotic decision to move warlock's patron to level 3. It doesn't work for most of warlock concepts.

Sure it does. It even solves some prior issues, such as why every single patron regardless of flavor gives Warlocks the exact same laser beam. (Answer - they actually don't.)


Thus the boon at level 3. The patron offers a nicer gift once the warlock has demonstrated what you mention.

The only powers that have to come from the Patron are the subclass features. Everything else including the pact boons are up in the air - they can be from the Patron too, or one of their lesser servants, or they can be the result of Warlock's other deals and general secret-mongering.



While mechanically that is appealing, narratively the Warlock and Cleric, in particular, make far better sense to get that at level 1, as does the 'inborn magic' of the sorcerer class. (Which 5e could have done without). And for that matter, once the monk gets ki (at level 2) then why isn't that when they get their sub class as druid and wizard do? All said and done, it all kind of worked out, but the front loading on some classes really stands out.

I think the narrative is fine. 1st and 2nd-level Clerics are acolytes that haven't earned a Domain yet; 1st and 2nd-level Warlocks aren eophytes subsisting on lesser pacts; 1st and 2nd-level Sorcerers haven't unlocked the true secret of their heritage. And in all three cases there is storytelling potential that didn't exist before - the character who thinks their power source is going to be X when it actually turns out to be Y, where Y could even be a power they find shocking or abhorrent.


Alright, while probably the answer is “wait for the new PHB to be published and see”, to all y’all who somehow know what’s coming up: what does D&D2024 have that I’d like?

Mostly I play (Champion) Fighters, and (Swashbuckler) Rogues (when I think I can stand the complexity of playing one).

The only details I remember about this (partially) new edition is that for some reason “races” is being renamed “species”, and (annoying) everyone gets a Feat at first level.

What I’d like are rules for simpler to play Paladins and Rangers (‘cause thematically I like those classes), and (if I can dream) rules that spellcasters eventually go insane, their brains get eaten by demons, or something else badass that’s thematically sword & sorcery.

Anything in the new rules I’ll like?

Champion and Swashbuckler got a lot of mechanical buffs vs 2014 (primarily from the base class chassis) but it's hard for me to say exactly what you'll like given this list. In particular, Champion has some solid out of combat utility now from Tactical Mind, Remarkable Athlete actually makes them a remarkable athlete, Heroic Warrior and Studied Attacks combo well with their critical enhancements, Tactical Shift gives them fantastic mobility, and the buffs to Second Wind and Indomitable give them much stronger defenses.

[Waazraath]

I personally don't get the "switching" idea, incorporate what you like and disregard what you don't, same as any splatbook.


I don't really get 'same as any splatbook' - a new (half) edition seems more problematic to me to use partly. Maybe it's possible to incorporate new (sub)classes, but either they replace something in use, or you'll have two (sub)classes with the same name. And these new features are balanced with the rest of 5.5 in mind, not with 5e, which might cause balance issues.

But if it's possible, it's cool. If there are a few things that are definitely improvements that I can borrow for my 5e games and the rest of the group agrees, I might even get the PHB. Comparing it to the switch from 3 to 3.5, we did a total switch there, all buying new books and only playing 3.5. I don't see my current group make the same decision now though.


The 3e Binder was peak Warlock design and until we get that back, we won't have a great Warlock. As much as I loved the 4e Warlock, even that paled in comparison. This half-caster stuff could work... But right now it's got no direction.


Yes, that was great. Damn shame they didn't bother to make a class based on that mechanic (and the ToB mechanic, and psionics, and 3e Warlock/dragonfire adept mechanics) in 5e, cause the framework really allows it. And it would have gotten a helluvalot more interesting options than just another "uses spells as mechanic" class. Oh well, that's more for the 'what would you really like in 6e if you could change one thing' thread.

One other thing I consider: the 'sack over 1000 folks just before X-mas and giving the CEO a 9 milion bonus' which Hasbro did is pretty disgusting in my view and yet another reason for rather not spending money on D&D (or MtG for that matter). That, and having an edition that works fine, having years and years of campaign material for 5e lying around, and playing other games instead which is just as much fun (different beast, but similar thematics: we started with Gloomhaven some time ago and that guarantees just as D&D years of fun for evenings in the weekends).

[KorvinStarmast]

One other thing I consider: the 'sack over 1000 folks just before X-mas and giving the CEO a 9 milion bonus' which Hasbro did is pretty disgusting in my view and yet another reason for rather not spending money on D&D (or MtG for that matter). Well now that you put it that way, I think I'll add that as a reason not to. :smallyuk: Problem is, plenty of game companies treat their employees like dirt.

[Atranen]

I think the narrative is fine. 1st and 2nd-level Clerics are acolytes that haven't earned a Domain yet; 1st and 2nd-level Warlocks aren eophytes subsisting on lesser pacts; 1st and 2nd-level Sorcerers haven't unlocked the true secret of their heritage. And in all three cases there is storytelling potential that didn't exist before - the character who thinks their power source is going to be X when it actually turns out to be Y, where Y could even be a power they find shocking or abhorrent.

What if I want my level 1 sorcerer to know the true secret of their heritage? Imagine a member of the Draketooth clan in the comic; they know from birth where their powers come from. Or what if I want my level 1 warlock to have sold their soul, mistakenly, on a whim, and spend the rest of their career dealing with the fallout? (See Eugene Greenhilt for a possible inspiration). In this case, it doesn't make sense for them to double down on their pact at 3.

You can still do these narratives with subclass at 3. But they fit less comfortably with the mechanics.

[Psyren]

What if I want my level 1 sorcerer to know the true secret of their heritage? Imagine a member of the Draketooth clan in the comic; they know from birth where their powers come from.

Yeah, but even if that's the case - knowing that you're descended from draconic sorcerers doesn't mean you immediately get the 13+Dex worth of armored scales though. It's not like draconic sorcerers come out of the womb covered in them.

[Atranen]

One other thing I consider: the 'sack over 1000 folks just before X-mas and giving the CEO a 9 milion bonus' which Hasbro did is pretty disgusting in my view and yet another reason for rather not spending money on D&D (or MtG for that matter). That, and having an edition that works fine, having years and years of campaign material for 5e lying around, and playing other games instead which is just as much fun (different beast, but similar thematics: we started with Gloomhaven some time ago and that guarantees just as D&D years of fun for evenings in the weekends).


Well now that you put it that way, I think I'll add that as a reason not to. :smallyuk: Problem is, plenty of game companies treat their employees like dirt.

It's a rough industry. There are a lot of relatively independent people cobbling projects together in their garages and such, and I've been happy to support those rather than WotC.

[Kane0]

It's not like draconic sorcerers come out of the womb covered in them.

Maybe yours dont.

[Yakmala]

I play primarily in homebrew games but I also DM games for my FLGS that use the AL rules. So while my individual groups may decide to adopt anywhere from some to none of the new rules, or even consider switching systems entirely, if I wish to continue DM'ing for public games and conventions, I'll likely have to adopt the entirety of 5.5.

[Psyren]

On the layoffs, I will say that two of the more prominent laid off employees, Dan Dillon and Eytan Bernstein, have said they plan to keep supporting their colleagues still on the inside and that they're excited about what's to come in the new books.


Maybe yours dont.

Neither do WotC's apparently.

[Waazraath]

Well now that you put it that way, I think I'll add that as a reason not to. :smallyuk: Problem is, plenty of game companies treat their employees like dirt.

It's a rough industry. There are a lot of relatively independent people cobbling projects together in their garages and such, and I've been happy to support those rather than WotC.


Yeah. More in general, in several cultural scenes (be it music or gaming) the downfall starts when so much money is made when the enthusiasts who made their living out of their hobby are bought by companies whose first and foremost interest is pleasing the shareholders and where the people in power have no love for the product. Often (though not always) better to switch to another independent product.

One more thing on the binders and why it might have been difficult to port it over to 5e: the 3.5 binder was for a large part based on / inspired by a real world book a few centuries old on sorcery and demonolgy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lesser_Key_of_Solomon#Ars_Goetia ) - that made it a bit more related to the occult than most D&D products (and even without that kind of stuff D&D has been accused in the past of leading to devil worship in the satanic panic of the 80's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic ). That might be a reason designers or publishers are less enthusisastic for this particular mechanics and flavor.

[Toofey]

I refuse to buy more books from Hasbro after they treated their workers so terribly. My books will continue to function for my game, and I would rather go to a non-Hasbro system than reward their abuse of their employees.

[Lord Ruby34]

Alright, while probably the answer is “wait for the new PHB to be published and see”, to all y’all who somehow know what’s coming up: what does D&D2024 have that I’d like?

Mostly I play (Champion) Fighters, and (Swashbuckler) Rogues (when I think I can stand the complexity of playing one).

The only details I remember about this (partially) new edition is that for some reason “races” is being renamed “species”, and (annoying) everyone gets a Feat at first level.

What I’d like are rules for simpler to play Paladins and Rangers (‘cause thematically I like those classes), and (if I can dream) rules that spellcasters eventually go insane, their brains get eaten by demons, or something else badass that’s thematically sword & sorcery.

Anything in the new rules I’ll like?



@Mastikator,

D&D really only needs one “class”: Fighter.

The rest (especially Wizard) can be in the Monster Manual

Not an answer to your question, but I bet you would really enjoy the Dungeon Crawl Classics rpg. It has pretty much everything you suggested in your post.

[Kane0]

Neither do WotC's apparently.

I'm willing to bet they skip to 3 or 5 'like everyone else' when they play/test.

[Psyren]

I'm willing to bet they skip to 3 or 5 'like everyone else' when they play/test.

If they did then there'd be no reason for them to change the level 1-2 experience. Clearly they're changing that because they play (or have play data from) those levels.



One more thing on the binders and why it might have been difficult to port it over to 5e: the 3.5 binder was for a large part based on / inspired by a real world book a few centuries old on sorcery and demonolgy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lesser_Key_of_Solomon#Ars_Goetia ) - that made it a bit more related to the occult than most D&D products (and even without that kind of stuff D&D has been accused in the past of leading to devil worship in the satanic panic of the 80's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic ). That might be a reason designers or publishers are less enthusisastic for this particular mechanics and flavor.

Eh, that didn't stop them from doing Vestige Pact warlocks back in 4e though. I think it's more that you can essentially fluff Binders using the existing pact magic framework just fine, using just about every pact except Celestial and Fiend.

[Zevox]

I see even less differences between 5th edition and the OneD&D update than there were between 3.0 and 3.5, and I refuse to call it any other than 5th edition even going forward, unless the devs start doing that as well.
Um, that is what the devs are doing. They stopped calling it "One D&D" a while ago and now refuse to give it any distinct name, and are just calling it the "2024 rulebooks" and saying it's still 5th edition.

[Arkhios]

Um, that is what the devs are doing. They stopped calling it "One D&D" a while ago and now refuse to give it any distinct name, and are just calling it the "2024 rulebooks" and saying it's still 5th edition.
Read again. I said Any other than 5th edition.

In other words, I refuse to call the edition a "5.5" or whatever, unless the devs call it that way. Is that better (note, english is only a tertiary language for me)?

On another note, this was the devs' intention from the start, so I seriously wonder why people insist calling it a half-edition upgrade or the next edition when it clearly was not intended as one. I don't care if that's what it seems to be. Offically it's still, for the time being, 5th edition, and that's what counts.

[Psyren]

I'll call it just about anything except 6e (It's not changing enough to be 6e imo.) One, 1DnD, 5.5e, 5R, and 2024 5e are all fine in my book.

[Arkhios]

I'll call it just about anything except 6e (It's not changing enough to be 6e imo.) One, 1DnD, 5.5e, 5R, and 2024 5e are all fine in my book.

5R is a new one for me. I could accept that, to be entirely honest.

But in all honesty, the game has changed quite a bit even before the debacle what was called OneD&D (I'm looking at you TCE's proficiency bonus based PC options) and even then people didn't make a distinction between 5th edition and some other version of 5th edition. The changes to be made to the base rulebooks are really quite small. A new subsystem such as bastions or weapon masteries could've been introduced in just about any supplement under 5th edition and it wouldn't have caused a fuss like this. But now that they're undergoing a series of fixes out in the open (as in, not behind closed doors) for the player's handbook and the rest, it's somehow different. I don't get it. I really don't.

[Psyren]

5R is a new one for me. I could accept that, to be entirely honest.

I've seen it used on the DnDBeyond forums; Revision or Remaster depending on the speaker.


But in all honesty, the game has changed quite a bit even before the debacle what was called OneD&D (I'm looking at you TCE's proficiency bonus based PC options) and even then people didn't make a distinction between 5th edition and some other version of 5th edition. The changes to be made to the base rulebooks are really quite small. A new subsystem such as bastions or weapon masteries could've been introduced in just about any supplement under 5th edition and it wouldn't have caused a fuss like this. But now that they're undergoing a series of fixes out in the open (as in, not behind closed doors) for the player's handbook and the rest, it's somehow different. I don't get it. I really don't.

Me neither. But I will say that WotC's abysmal PR hasn't exactly helped.

[Zuras]

If I ever play a 5.5 game it will be purely because the local play group I enjoy playing with switched.

[Waazraath]

Eh, that didn't stop them from doing Vestige Pact warlocks back in 4e though. I think it's more that you can essentially fluff Binders using the existing pact magic framework just fine, using just about every pact except Celestial and Fiend.

I skipped 4e, but I just checked wiki and isn't that 4e binder warlock without the seals and names from art goethica (and thus without all potential controversial stuff)?

[rlc]

i think the thing i least look forward to is all of the threads titled with some variation of “sell me on 2024’s version of 5e”

[KorvinStarmast]

i think the thing i least look forward to is all of the threads titled with some variation of “sell me on 2024’s version of 5e”
I dislike a lot of the changes for violating the KISS principle.
The new weapons features: too fiddly.
The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive). f
The simple "all attacks are magical for a monk" starting at level six is KISS personified. what D&Done has changed that to is a step backwards. (Some of the other monk changes are OK, but also increase the fiddeliness, and some features of the barbarian come on line way too late.

TBH, I like what they are doing with the Moon Druid, so far as of UA 8. I think I like how they have the star, moon, land and sea circles in terms of thematics. I hate what they did to the conjure animals spell, though. (The conjure celestial and woodland beings and fey are likewise changes that I find to be value reduced. The Tasha's summons spells were a much better attempt at getting a grip on summoning.

The only QOL improvement that I can get behind solidly is that Paladin and Ranger get their spell casting feature at level 1. (Have criticized various paladin nerfs elsewhere, not gonna resurrect that rant).

Something that I liked, from a thematic standpoint, was breaking up the spells into Divine, Arcane, and Primal.
Problem, is, they kept the schools so KISS is badly violated.
I posted the school balance problem vis a vis Primal, Divine, and Arcane (all nine levels) a while back - it illustrates what a mess they have made out of the magic system, een with the best of intentions.

[One Tin Soldier]

The new weapons features: too fiddly.
The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive).

Weapon Mastery is a class feature, not an inherent property of weapons, so NPC statblocks won’t use them unless they are specifically called out as doing so. That said, I do hope that more monsters get similar riders on their attacks. In particular I hope that push effects become much more common.


The simple "all attacks are magical for a monk" starting at level six is KISS personified. what D&Done has changed that to is a step backwards.

The concept of “resistant/immune to nonmagical physical damage” appears to be going away, or at least heavily reduced. Instead it looks like we’ll be getting (fewer?) monsters that are just resistant/immune to physical damage, but changing physical damage to magical damage types is going to be significantly more accessible.


TBH, I like what they are doing with the Moon Druid, so far as of UA 8. I think I like how they have the star, moon, land and sea circles in terms of thematics. I hate what they did to the conjure animals spell, though. (The conjure celestial and woodland beings and fey are likewise changes that I find to be value reduced. The Tasha's summons spells were a much better attempt at getting a grip on summoning.

That’s exactly why they had to change the Conjure spells. The Tasha’s Summon spells are going to be reprinted in the new PHB as the new standard for summons. But backwards compatibility requires that they print a spell worth the same name as every spell in the 2014 PHB, so they had to change the effect of all the problematic Conjure spells too. I think that the general concept of Final Fantasy style conjuring is the right compromise for those spells. Sure, the individual power balance needs to be adjusted for a few, but that’s not the point of the playtest.

[Zevox]

Read again. I said Any other than 5th edition.

In other words, I refuse to call the edition a "5.5" or whatever, unless the devs call it that way. Is that better (note, english is only a tertiary language for me)?

On another note, this was the devs' intention from the start, so I seriously wonder why people insist calling it a half-edition upgrade or the next edition when it clearly was not intended as one. I don't care if that's what it seems to be. Offically it's still, for the time being, 5th edition, and that's what counts.
I did misread what you meant there, fair.

On that last though, two reasons: one, they did start this with a different name for it, One D&D. It was a bad name and dropping it is a good idea, but it was a clear, differentiating name. And two, there should be a different name because these are different things - that's the whole point of releasing new core books - and there will be a need to differentiate between them just to understand which we're talking about in conversation. Yes, the new books are just revisions to 5e's rules, but that's what makes 5.5e a natural option given past D&D naming conventions include 3.5e, the clearest point of comparison for what they're doing here. Even if they didn't want to use that naming convention for some reason, some other name should have been chosen - 5e Revised if you just want to be as basic and straightforward as possible, for example.

Instead, because they refuse to do that and are only using the year they came out to differentiate them, which is clunky, you're going to get fan nicknames like 5.5e, or people continuing to use One D&D despite WotC having dropped it.

[Psyren]

The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive).

I highly doubt every rando goblin and gnoll will get Weapon Mastery, so the DM won't need to track anything related to their weapons. They're warriors, not Fighters.


The simple "all attacks are magical for a monk" starting at level six is KISS personified. what D&Done has changed that to is a step backwards.

"Magic weapon/unarmed attacks do Force" is way more KISS than "sometimes your bludgeoning is resisted and sometimes it isn't, read every statblock that mentions bludgeoning resistance carefully, and repeat that process for piercing and slashing, but don't worry about spells they always count as magical, except when they're summoning something so not always."

[Atranen]

I dislike a lot of the changes for violating the KISS principle.
The new weapons features: too fiddly.
The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive).

The weapon features are one of my least favorite changes as well. They'll bog the game down with extra stuff to track and remember.

[Envyus]

The weapon features are one of my least favorite changes as well. They'll bog the game down with extra stuff to track and remember.
I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah sure probably. It's mostly compatible and there are few neat new features added to some of the classes. If have a gripe it's some subclass levels being moved but that's about it. To be honest, it would be weird to continue to play 3e when 3.5 came out and added a bunch of new content and rules, and I feel the same way about going from 5e to 5.5 or whatever. Most arguments I see against switching over are literal pedantry, misleading, or could be solved by moving a singular digit.


I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.

This. DM's aren't really in charge of keeping track of them. Most of the effects are player tracked (vex, nick), a normal effect (toppling), or happen immediately (cleave, graze). If your fighter player can't do the first, and you're not interested in tracking normal conditions in the games, there is always something easy like the latter effects.

[Psyren]

I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.



This. DM's aren't really in charge of keeping track of them. Most of the effects are player tracked (vex, nick), a normal effect (toppling), or happen immediately (cleave, graze). If your fighter player can't do the first, and you're not interested in tracking normal conditions in the games, there is always something easy like the latter effects.

They think every single monster with a weapon in their statblock (or even just most/many of them?) will be interacting with this system for some reason. Where that came from, I have no idea.


Yeah sure probably. It's mostly compatible and there are few neat new features added to some of the classes. If have a gripe it's some subclass levels being moved but that's about it. To be honest, it would be weird to continue to play 3e when 3.5 came out and added a bunch of new content and rules, and I feel the same way about going from 5e to 5.5 or whatever. Most arguments I see against switching over are literal pedantry, misleading, or could be solved by moving a singular digit.

Agreed - and even if the new PHB doesn't have enough new stuff to justify switching over, they'll be releasing future splats based on its changes that do. At a minimum they'll need to translate the other four wizard subclasses soon after the PHB releases so people can bring their existing core characters over, and while they're doing that, they'll probably come out with new or remixed rogue subclasses that have cunning strike options of their own, they'll likely want to come out with new weapon mastery options eventually etc.

[Atranen]

I very much doubt this from having tested them. They were just a nice bonus.


This. DM's aren't really in charge of keeping track of them. Most of the effects are player tracked (vex, nick), a normal effect (toppling), or happen immediately (cleave, graze). If your fighter player can't do the first, and you're not interested in tracking normal conditions in the games, there is always something easy like the latter effects.

I'm sure they will work for some tables. At my table, the game is slow enough as is. I'm often running community games with large table sizes (6) and often new players. They need simplification, not additional conditions and effects to keep track of.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm sure they will work for some tables. At my table, the game is slow enough as is. I'm often running community games with large table sizes (6) and often new players. They need simplification, not additional conditions and effects to keep track of. Yeah, that's kind of where I'm coming from.
As a player I can take them or leave them, since (1) I pay attention and (2) I get into the game.
If I play in a 5.5 game and have a ranger, I'll certainly pick my weapons mastery with an eye toward tactical utility that fits my character theme. But I do not want to DM this next iteration.

I play with quite a few casual players who don't need added complexity or even want it.

For Psyren: nice try at a goalpost move on Monk magical attacks, not interested.

[Psyren]

The KISS rule was your goalpost, not mine :smallconfused:

[Atranen]

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

[KorvinStarmast]

The KISS rule was your goalpost, not mine :smallconfused: It's my criterion based on their 2014 design goals for the basic game engine, and I don't like how they have departed from it. (And they departed from it about the time Tasha's came out, so this isn't new to D&Done).

As to the monk attacks, current 5e is KISS: once you are level six, all attacks are magical and that more or less ends "is it resistant/immune?" during combat damage resolution. Much simpler than what they are doing with "Oh, yeah, force damage as a rider" currently.


The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. Not gonna disagree. But they did the resistance thing to get away from the DR fiddly bit in 3.x, right?

But does every high CR monster need this?
Short answer is: no.

Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason. A fair critique.
I have gotten used to it, but I also need to do more prep each time I pull out a new monster for the party do interact with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

Yeah. I agree with all of this.

[Theodoxus]

I could get behind the 2024 books being officially called "The 50th Anniversary 5th Edition, Remastered". (Be even niftier if they managed to put a tiny 'zero' between 5 and t in 5th.)

I would love it if they remastered every edition for the 50th Anniversary... but that's a lot of work (and unless they've been secretly working on it outside our purview, way too late in the game for it to occur now)... maybe for the 100th... but I doubt I'll live to 103 to see it!

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Every class should just be a spell that wizards cast. You get access through them at level 1 and can upcast them for additional class features. Sort of like Tenzer's Transformation, the paladin version lets you smite. The cleric and druid ones just temporarily adds their spell lists.

Rage use to be a 3.5 spell, please don't remind WotC.



I hear this and raise you "Clerics should be a Paladin subclass".

Paladins are the ones kicked out of the church for being too extreme but the deities are like "yeah, like, the paladin totally gets it!" but like the deity can't let everyone know this (might lose followers) so they secretly give the Paladin powers but mask it as if the Paladin just has to believe in themselves a whoooole bunch (basically, Green Lanterns).

Paladin (Subclass)


Requirement: (Any Class)

Special: Must have been kicked out of a church for being too extreme (yes, shredding on a skateboard counts).

[Ignimortis]

The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.
Then the already-present 5e issue with "a couple hundred mundane low-level archers can kill literally everything they can hit" gets even more noticeable. I am already very skeptical about 5e's implementation of resistance (honestly, resistance 5, 10 or 20 isn't hard and is about the same complexity as "divide by half", the only issue with it is that 5e doesn't scale damage on hit properly, so not having a magic weapon would shut some people down hard), and that would make things even worse, with HP being even more of a singular indicator of how hard a thing is to kill.


Rage use to be a 3.5 spell, please don't remind WotC.
3.5 also used to have a spell that let you get Fighter bonus feats for a while (something about heroism, IIRC), and Divine Power that got you full BAB, and other stuff. And Polymorph is pretty much beefed-up Wild Shape. Most things that existed in 3.5 had a spell that would let you borrow it, or at least an approximation of it.

And that's the issue with D&D magic - every spell is basically a class feature, some are just less subtle about it.

[titi]

Rage use to be a 3.5 spell, please don't remind WotC.


Paladin (Subclass)


Requirement: (Any Class)

Special: Must have been kicked out of a church for being too extreme (yes, shredding on a skateboard counts).

Shredding on a skateboard is one of the basic requirements to become an oath of glory paladin (the other one is being a gym bro)

[Mindflayer_Inc]

3.5 also used to have a spell that let you get Fighter bonus feats for a while (something about heroism, IIRC), and Divine Power that got you full BAB, and other stuff. And Polymorph is pretty much beefed-up Wild Shape. Most things that existed in 3.5 had a spell that would let you borrow it, or at least an approximation of it.

And that's the issue with D&D magic - every spell is basically a class feature, some are just less subtle about it.

It wouldn't be too bad if the Wizard wasn't allowed to be every type of wizard all at once (because the subclasses are mere blips to them). They would have some sort of limiter to where they couldn't just have all those spells.

If 5.5 said that Wizards now only know a number of spell schools equal to their proficiency bonus (cantrips don't count) or gave us a half-caster wizard (who got class features a la the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer) I would be rather interested in what they were doing.


It's really telling how the Fighter and Wizard are two sides of the same "generic class" coin and yet the fighter gets to know maybe two fighting styles and honestly can only use one effectively unless they went Dex or whatever. Meanwhile the Wizard can just cast any magic spell ever.

[Ignimortis]

It wouldn't be too bad if the Wizard wasn't allowed to be every type of wizard all at once (because the subclasses are mere blips to them). They would have some sort of limiter to where they couldn't just have all those spells.

If 5.5 said that Wizards now only know a number of spell schools equal to their proficiency bonus (cantrips don't count) or gave us a half-caster wizard (who got class features a la the Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer) I would be rather interested in what they were doing.


It's really telling how the Fighter and Wizard are two sides of the same "generic class" coin and yet the fighter gets to know maybe two fighting styles and honestly can only use one effectively unless they went Dex or whatever. Meanwhile the Wizard can just cast any magic spell ever.
Agreed on all points.

I've posted about this a few times, but if Fighter was designed the same way Wizard was, Eldritch Knight would be a full caster that maybe couldn't have Illusion/Enchantment spells but otherwise would perform as a subclass-less Wizard, and all Fighters would be able to make Sneak Attacks, have Expertise in several skills, Rage, fight unarmed as well as with a Longsword, etc - just not all at once, but every morning they'd be able to choose most of that.

Meanwhile if Wizard was designed the same way Fighter is, they'd know three cantrips, one spell per spell level (which would also require spell level/3 rounded down previously known spells of the same school), and would not be able to add spells from scrolls ("learning a spell? why would you be able to do that, if Fighters can't learn a new fighting style by spending some gold and time?").

Re: thread, I see no reason to switch. It's still 5e with all of its' issues, and it's not getting fixes, it's getting bandaids at best.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

Agreed on all points.

I've posted about this a few times, but if Fighter was designed the same way Wizard was, Eldritch Knight would be a full caster that maybe couldn't have Illusion/Enchantment spells but otherwise would perform as a subclass-less Wizard, and all Fighters would be able to make Sneak Attacks, have Expertise in several skills, Rage, fight unarmed as well as with a Longsword, etc - just not all at once, but every morning they'd be able to choose most of that.

Meanwhile if Wizard was designed the same way Fighter is, they'd know three cantrips, one spell per spell level (which would also require spell level/3 rounded down previously known spells of the same school), and would not be able to add spells from scrolls ("learning a spell? why would you be able to do that, if Fighters can't learn a new fighting style by spending some gold and time?").

Re: thread, I see no reason to switch. It's still 5e with all of its' issues, and it's not getting fixes, it's getting bandaids at best.

I think a Fighter that is designed like a Wizard would be a Fighter that is a Fighter, Rogue, Ranger (spell-less), and maybe a magic-less Monk thrown in all-in-one class.

Which people will say it's broken but Wizard and Clerics get to do it.

[Psyren]

It's my criterion based on their 2014 design goals for the basic game engine, and I don't like how they have departed from it. (And they departed from it about the time Tasha's came out, so this isn't new to D&Done).

As to the monk attacks, current 5e is KISS: once you are level six, all attacks are magical and that more or less ends "is it resistant/immune?" during combat damage resolution. Much simpler than what they are doing with "Oh, yeah, force damage as a rider" currently.

But it doesn't end it. If you search for monsters that are resistant to bludgeoning currently, you'll find both magical and nonmagical bludgeoning in that set, and it's even worse if you're not using DDB and trying to do so via PDF. It's worse if you're a Moon Druid because you have four more variations to look through. Meanwhile Force and Radiant resistance have no such demarcation to worry about.


The KISS solution is to do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic. For example, werewolves should be weak to silver, and horcruxes can have a small list of weaknesses.

But does every high CR monster need this? Does it add anything to the narrative? It could, with a proper DM and a game where these creatures are major threats, not encounter #2...but this rarely manifests ime. In practice, the DM has to halve a bunch of numbers for no good reason.

But that's exactly what they're doing. Now high level monsters can simply be resistant to bludgeoning or piercing, and you then switch to Force or Radiant. Scanning statblocks for those is much easier and faster.

[Atranen]

Then the already-present 5e issue with "a couple hundred mundane low-level archers can kill literally everything they can hit" gets even more noticeable. I am already very skeptical about 5e's implementation of resistance (honestly, resistance 5, 10 or 20 isn't hard and is about the same complexity as "divide by half", the only issue with it is that 5e doesn't scale damage on hit properly, so not having a magic weapon would shut some people down hard), and that would make things even worse, with HP being even more of a singular indicator of how hard a thing is to kill.

Isn't the point of bounded accuracy that low level enemies remain a threat? A few hundred low level archers should be able to kill everything they can hit, under that system. Maybe bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for epic level D&D.

Agree that the DR system from 3.5 is easier. Subtraction vs division.


But that's exactly what they're doing. Now high level monsters can simply be resistant to bludgeoning or piercing, and you then switch to Force or Radiant. Scanning statblocks for those is much easier and faster.

"do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic" is what I wrote. That is not exactly what they are doing.

[Psyren]

A few hundred low level archers should be able to kill everything they can hit, under that system.

If you resolve a hundred low level archers using the combat framework, then yes, but that's not the only possible option.



"do away with resistance to nonmagical attacks entirely, except when it is highly thematic" is what I wrote. That is not exactly what they are doing.

Close enough for me.

[2D8HP]

Then the already-present 5e issue with "a couple hundred mundane low-level archers can kill literally everything they can hit" gets even more noticeable it.[…]


That sounds like a good thing to me.

[Atranen]

That sounds like a good thing to me.

Agreed! One of the things 5e got (close to) right imo

[PhoenixPhyre]

That sounds like a good thing to me.


Agreed! One of the things 5e got (close to) right imo

Yeah. For one thing, it means that the setting doesn't need an endless stream of hyper-powered characters just so the high power threats don't nuke everyone--that way leads to superhero settings, none of which make even a tiny lick of sense.

[Ignimortis]

Isn't the point of bounded accuracy that low level enemies remain a threat? A few hundred low level archers should be able to kill everything they can hit, under that system. Maybe bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for epic level D&D.

My general idea of how a dragon should function starts at Smaug vs. the entirety of Lonely Mountain dwarves, then Dale, and eventually Lake-town. It is clear that numbers alone cannot win against this sort of creature. And it is also said that Smaug was not the mightiest dragon to ever live, far from it. 5e does not represent the average dragon in a similar way.

So yes, I'd say that bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for not only epic level D&D, but level 13+ D&D even.


That sounds like a good thing to me.
When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.


Yeah. For one thing, it means that the setting doesn't need an endless stream of hyper-powered characters just so the high power threats don't nuke everyone--that way leads to superhero settings, none of which make even a tiny lick of sense.
For me, it means that the setting doesn't need to have too many high-level threats. If there's a hundred ancient dragons out there, and most of them are malicious, then dealing with one is rather diminished compared to if there was only one or two, and having them be preoccupied enough to not cause problems until it's time for them to do so is also more plausible.

[Arkhios]

When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.

Why though? If a low-level archer can shoot at a powerful creature from 150 feet or farther away, why should they be any less effective than a heroic individual using an exactly same weapon, if they know how to use said weapon and can aim to hit. Why would the weapon be any different for different users?

[Ignimortis]

Why though? If a low-level archer can shoot at a powerful creature from 150 feet or farther away, why should they be any less effective than a heroic individual using an exactly same weapon, if they know how to use said weapon and can aim to hit. Why would the weapon be any different for different users?
If said weapon is non-magical and the heroic individual does not have any special force behind him (even if it would be just their heroic fate making their blows strike true and hard where a lesser man would miss or fail to deal any damage)? Nothing should be different. As 5e does it, a level 20 Fighter just shoots faster and slightly (emphasis on slightly) more accurately than a CR1/8 guardsman, or a CR3 Archer.

However, I do believe that higher-level characters have to have something along those lines (being destined for great things, unnatural luck, etc), even if they lack explicit superhuman powers. And it'd be even better if the game just acknowledged that a level 11+ character can at the very least make problems for things that can threaten kingdoms or even worlds, through sheer personal power.

[Arkhios]

However, I do believe that higher-level characters have to have something along those lines (being destined for great things, unnatural luck, etc), even if they lack explicit superhuman powers. And it'd be even better if the game just acknowledged that a level 11+ character can at the very least make problems for things that can threaten kingdoms or even worlds, through sheer personal power.

Well, level 11+ character is much more likely to have access to supernatural resources such as spells (Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon, for example), quite possibly their own, even, so that's one way to acknowledge it by RAW. Class abilities are another way.

[Theodoxus]

What class abilities does a non-EK Fighter have at 11+ that negates the need for magical weapons?

Say, a ghost wanders into a 12th level Battlemaster's house and attacks him in his sleep. All the Fighter's gear is downstairs. So, the dude is basically fighting barehanded in his skivvies, trying to make it downstairs to his gear. He's slapping it 3 times a round for (1+Str mod)/2... fun!

[Oramac]

Also, as a paladin main in 5e, what they did to Divine Smite is a gosh-darn travesty; if there was any paladin feature that deserved nerfing, it was Aura of Protection, and that one’s mechanics are unchanged (and no, “just use the 2014 paladin at a 2024 table” is not a viable response here, because that leaves me at the mercy of “DM may I” and the expectation of using a 2014 paladin at a 2024 table will be different from at a 2014 one, because it’ll no longer be the default).

This.

For me, I'll wait to see how they treat the paladin in the 2024 PHB. If they print that atrocious excuse for smite that was in the UA, I won't be buying it. If smite is similar to the 2014 version (or the fix Treantmonk proposed (https://youtu.be/q8vPItg7I54?si=zDN46IPuqoS56O4X)), I'll likely buy the 2024 PHB.

[Keltest]

What class abilities does a non-EK Fighter have at 11+ that negates the need for magical weapons?

Say, a ghost wanders into a 12th level Battlemaster's house and attacks him in his sleep. All the Fighter's gear is downstairs. So, the dude is basically fighting barehanded in his skivvies, trying to make it downstairs to his gear. He's slapping it 3 times a round for (1+Str mod)/2... fun!

Well, he's doing three times the amount of damage that a commoner would be doing, even without magical weapons, and even if that commoner was a body builder or something. More likely, the fighter is dealing something like 9 damage a round assuming all attacks connect, compared to the commoner's... 1.

Also he doesnt die in the first round due to being attacked, so theres that.

But lets turn that around. Lets say an owlbear wanders into the home of a 12th level wizard. He spent all his spell slots earlier in the day and is just settling down for a nap. What's he going to do, bonk it on the head for 1d8 bludgeoning damage once a round?

Its a silly question, right?

[Ignimortis]

Well, level 11+ character is much more likely to have access to supernatural resources such as spells (Magic Weapon, or Elemental Weapon, for example), quite possibly their own, even, so that's one way to acknowledge it by RAW. Class abilities are another way.
All of those are external to most character who aren't Monks and maybe some specific subclasses for other classes (usually dealing with getting spellcasting).

One of the things I did for legendary warriors in any games I DM'd without some sort of Automatic Bonus Progression involved was to make it that anything they could pick up and use as a weapon (even a broken bottle or a chair or a huge rock) became magical and dealt at least longsword damage.

What class abilities does a non-EK Fighter have at 11+ that negates the need for magical weapons?

Say, a ghost wanders into a 12th level Battlemaster's house and attacks him in his sleep. All the Fighter's gear is downstairs. So, the dude is basically fighting barehanded in his skivvies, trying to make it downstairs to his gear. He's slapping it 3 times a round for (1+Str mod)/2... fun!
None. And I consider that an issue.



But lets turn that around. Lets say an owlbear wanders into the home of a 12th level wizard. He spent all his spell slots earlier in the day and is just settling down for a nap. What's he going to do, bonk it on the head for 1d8 bludgeoning damage once a round?

Its a silly question, right?
Actually, he's hitting it for 3d10 fire damage every round with his best stat, or whatever offensive cantrip is his go-to.

[Psyren]

Why would a non-EK Fighter leave all his gear downstairs? An adventurer that dumb deserves to exit the lifestyle in dramatic fashion.

[Atranen]

My general idea of how a dragon should function starts at Smaug vs. the entirety of Lonely Mountain dwarves, then Dale, and eventually Lake-town. It is clear that numbers alone cannot win against this sort of creature. And it is also said that Smaug was not the mightiest dragon to ever live, far from it. 5e does not represent the average dragon in a similar way.

So yes, I'd say that bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for not only epic level D&D, but level 13+ D&D even.


When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.


For me, it means that the setting doesn't need to have too many high-level threats. If there's a hundred ancient dragons out there, and most of them are malicious, then dealing with one is rather diminished compared to if there was only one or two, and having them be preoccupied enough to not cause problems until it's time for them to do so is also more plausible.

Yeah, that's a reasonable take on it. Although really with Smaug, it isn't like high level characters have the ability to hurt him and others don't...more like no one can hurt him until the players reveal his hidden weakness. All the characters in the hobbit are under 5th level, with the exception of gandalf (who does not use his full strength ), on a 5e scale.

[Keltest]

Actually, he's hitting it for 3d10 fire damage every round with his best stat, or whatever offensive cantrip is his go-to.

He doesnt have an offensive cantrip. He's a bad adventurer wizard, the same as the fighter who left his sword downstairs, remember?

[Dr.Samurai]

The fighter is in his house. He needs to be fully armed and armored at all times in every room?

[Psyren]

The fighter is in his house. He needs to be fully armed and armored at all times in every room?

"Fully armed and armored at all times," no, but having a dagger or shortsword in his bedroom is pretty reasonable for someone in a dangerous profession. At least, if they care about staying alive in said profession.

[Mindflayer_Inc]

So yes, I'd say that bounded accuracy is the wrong choice for not only epic level D&D, but level 13+ D&D even.


When we're talking about normal creatures that are perfectly killable by sticking them full of steel, like minotaurs or hill giants? Sure. When we're talking about old powerful dragons, demon generals and lords, high elemental forces? I'd disagree.



For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window.

Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes.

So much more plot armor (HP) than a typical member of their race, can run around killing all day, and can do magic (or near magical) abilities.

Want a lot of archers to be a threat? Stay low level. Give the players feats or whatever every so often as a means of growth.

You don't have to actually level out of your comfort range.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, it means that the setting doesn't need to have too many high-level threats. If there's a hundred ancient dragons out there, and most of them are malicious, then dealing with one is rather diminished compared to if there was only one or two, and having them be preoccupied enough to not cause problems until it's time for them to do so is also more plausible.


For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window.

Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes.

So much more plot armor (HP) than a typical member of their race, can run around killing all day, and can do magic (or near magical) abilities.

Want a lot of archers to be a threat? Stay low level. Give the players feats or whatever every so often as a means of growth.

You don't have to actually level out of your comfort range.

Then high-level adventurers don't actually have anything to do (because any other threat is trivial to them and can be handled by lower-power adventurers), and the setting falls entirely apart because they get bored and no one can stop them.

High level adventurers are high-level threats as far as the setting is concerned. A system where only high-level threats can counter high-level threats is a system that cannot have a stable setting. Or cannot have high-level threats. Those are the only options.

[Theodoxus]

"Fully armed and armored at all times," no, but having a dagger or shortsword in his bedroom is pretty reasonable for someone in a dangerous profession. At least, if they care about staying alive in said profession.

Maybe... but the point is that this edition wasn't supposed to be about needing magic (items) to succeed. That's the whole point behind both Concentration and Attunement. So there's a good chance that said dagger or shortsword are also non-magical. You're just boosting that 1 for a punch to a d3 or d6... still not great.

So, if Fighters sans magic are supposed to be able to compete, they need better tools. I don't see this remaster/upgrade addressing that.

[Psyren]

Maybe... but the point is that this edition wasn't supposed to be about needing magic (items) to succeed. That's the whole point behind both Concentration and Attunement. So there's a good chance that said dagger or shortsword are also non-magical. You're just boosting that 1 for a punch to a d3 or d6... still not great.

So, if Fighters sans magic are supposed to be able to compete, they need better tools. I don't see this remaster/upgrade addressing that.

You don't need magic items though, so this edition succeeded at that objective. 5e Ghosts are only resistant to nonmagical attacks, not immune, so the Fighter with mundane gear still has a chance to destroy or ward it off. If this were 3.5 or earlier and that Fighter left their gear in another room for some foolish reason, they would be deader than disco. (I have no idea what 4e ghosts are like.)

[Atranen]

You don't need magic items though, so this edition succeeded at that objective. 5e Ghosts are only resistant to nonmagical attacks, not immune, so the Fighter with mundane gear still has a chance to destroy or ward it off. If this were 3.5 or earlier and that Fighter left their gear in another room for some foolish reason, they would be deader than disco. (I have no idea what 4e ghosts are like.)

They failed at that objective. "You are at half effectiveness (or worse) against the majority of high powered enemies" means that you do need magic items. If your fighter doesn't have a magic weapon at high levels, the party has to either 1) waste spells (and valuable concentration slots) or 2) accept your significantly diminished utility. I can say from experience, if you show up to a Tier 3 or 4 (or even 2) AL table without a magic weapon, people will laugh at you. And be a bit put out that they have to carry your dead weight all night.

Technically you don't "need" it in the sense that you don't "need" more than 1 hit point, but it's so impactful as to be mandatory for high level play.

[Trask]

For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window.

Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes.

5th-level? Really? Considering how fast you get to 5th level and how its only 1/4 of the total levels of the game, 5th-level is the time when characters should break bounded accuracy?

The specter of that "Gandalf is a 5th-level magic user" meme is going to haunt us forever isn't it?

[Atranen]

5th-level? Really? Considering how fast you get to 5th level and how its only 1/4 of the total levels of the game, 5th-level is the time when characters should break bounded accuracy?

The specter of that "Gandalf is a 5th-level magic user" meme is going to haunt us forever isn't it?

It's true. All of it :smallwink:



Ok, maybe it is a little exaggerated. But the same point has been made for 3.5, (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) and I think the general structure of the argument still holds, if not all the specifics. The LotR characters (Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, the Hobbits) are all Tier 1. Past that, you're transitioning into a different kind of story.

[Psyren]

They failed at that objective. "You are at half effectiveness (or worse) against the majority of high powered enemies" means that you do need magic items. If your fighter doesn't have a magic weapon at high levels, the party has to either 1) waste spells (and valuable concentration slots) or 2) accept your significantly diminished utility. I can say from experience, if you show up to a Tier 3 or 4 (or even 2) AL table without a magic weapon, people will laugh at you. And be a bit put out that they have to carry your dead weight all night.

Technically you don't "need" it in the sense that you don't "need" more than 1 hit point, but it's so impactful as to be mandatory for high level play.

I'm not at all saying that you should go on a Tier 3 adventure with purely mundane equipment. But if you're caught off guard by a ghost in your room in 5e with your magic equipment downstairs, that's not an automatic death sentence the way it would be in 3.5, 2e or 1e either.

[Trask]

It's true. All of it :smallwink:



Ok, maybe it is a little exaggerated. But the same point has been made for 3.5, (https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) and I think the general structure of the argument still holds, if not all the specifics. The LotR characters (Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Boromir, the Hobbits) are all Tier 1. Past that, you're transitioning into a different kind of story.

I disagree completely, except for the hobbits. Aragorn & co. could easily be high tier characters that spend most of the story fighting low level enemies. Tolkien is elusive about battle-specifics, but one gets the sense that they slay dozens and dozens of orcs and never suffer any major wounds or casualties, except for Boromir, who alone killed basically a small army of them by himself.

If you pit a 20th level fighter with no magic items against 100 orcs, the orcs will win. Not so in 3.P

Once magic gets involved its not even worth discussing because the way D&D approaches magic is peculiar only to itself.

But the reason I take umbrage is because to my mind, the whole concept of "bounded accuracy" is one of the most innovative and laudable pieces of Fifth Ed's design philosophy, especially coming from years of 3.P. It has let me run campaigns of far better consistency, challenge, and fun all while being easier for me as a Dungeon Master. I can actually do a "evil monsters are invading the land, 1-12 campaign" without having to add class levels and build unique orc "bosses" and use wonky mob rules. I can just have players fight literally, fricken 25 centaurs raiding a gnomish tinker camp in a wide open desert plain with trained wyverns flying overhead, a few stegosaurus battle-beasts in the mix and have a totally epic fight for 12th level characters.

[Atranen]

I'm not at all saying that you should go on a Tier 3 adventure with purely mundane equipment. But if you're caught off guard by a ghost in your room in 5e with your magic equipment downstairs, that's not an automatic death sentence the way it would be in 3.5, 2e or 1e either.

I was responding to this claim:


You don't need magic items though, so this edition succeeded at that objective.

"magic items mean less in 5e than in 3.5" may be true. But that is distinct from "you don't need magic items in 5e".

Incidentally, I've only played 1e a couple times, and BG1/2 for 2e. But my impression from retro clones which I've played more extensively is that magic items are less necessary, because 'resistance to nonmagic xyz' is not as widespread. Or rather, when those immunities do exist, there is typically an in-universe way around it (figure out there is a hole in the dragon's armor!) rather than a "you must be this tall to ride" gating the adventure.

It could just be the lower power level of those games, and YMMV.


I disagree completely, except for the hobbits. Aragorn & co. could easily be high tier characters that spend most of the story fighting low level enemies. Tolkien is elusive about battle-specifics, but one gets the sense that they slay dozens and dozens of orcs and never suffer any major wounds or casualties, except for Boromir, who alone killed basically a small army of them by himself.

If you pit a 20th level fighter with no magic items against 100 orcs, the orcs will win. Not so in 3.P

Once magic gets involved its not even worth discussing because the way D&D approaches magic is idiosyncratic to itself.

I recall there are numbers in the Helm's Deep section, at least. 39 for Gimli vs 40 for Legolas, or something? It has been a while. (A Tier 3 character, felling 1.5-2 a round, would exceed those substantially, imo).

That's a ton to take on in single combat, but not so much to take on one at a time, or from a safe distance, in the middle of a chaotic battle.

I can't think of any actions they take that stand out as 'a Tier 3 character did this'. They are fearful of a Cave Troll, which I'd peg at like a CR 5; that wouldn't be the case for a Tier 3 party, which could kill it in one round.

(I suppose your cave troll may be CR 12 or whatever :smallbiggrin:)


But the reason I take umbrage is because to my mind, the whole concept of "bounded accuracy" is one of the most innovative and laudable pieces of Fifth Ed's design philosophy, especially coming from years of 3.P. It has let me run campaigns of far better consistency, challenge, and fun all while being easier for me as a Dungeon Master. I can actually do a "evil monsters are invading the land, 1-12 campaign" without having to add class levels and build unique orc "bosses" and use wonky mob rules. I can just have players fight literally, fricken 25 centaurs raiding a gnomish tinker camp in a wide open desert plain with trained wyverns flying overhead, a few stegosaurus battle-beasts in the mix and have a totally epic fight for 12th level characters.

Strongly agree!

[Psyren]

I was responding to this claim:



"magic items mean less in 5e than in 3.5" may be true. But that is distinct from "you don't need magic items in 5e".

You don't. Being laughed at, while undesirable (and indicative of a table you're likely better off not playing at, if that's their approach rather than handing you a magic weapon or buff), is fatal to neither you nor your character.


Incidentally, I've only played 1e a couple times, and BG1/2 for 2e. But my impression from retro clones which I've played more extensively is that magic items are less necessary, because 'resistance to nonmagic xyz' is not as widespread. Or rather, when those immunities do exist, there is typically an in-universe way around it (figure out there is a hole in the dragon's armor!) rather than a "you must be this tall to ride" gating the adventure.

It could just be the lower power level of those games, and YMMV.

Again, 4e might have changed this, but Ghosts are definitely immune to mundane physical damage in 3.5 and earlier while they are definitely not in 5e. I was addressing the example directly.

[Trask]

I recall there are numbers in the Helm's Deep section, at least. 39 for Gimli vs 40 for Legolas, or something? It has been a while. (A Tier 3 character, felling 1.5-2 a round, would exceed those substantially, imo).

That's a ton to take on in single combat, but not so much to take on one at a time, or from a safe distance, in the middle of a chaotic battle.

I can't think of any actions they take that stand out as 'a Tier 3 character did this'. They are fearful of a Cave Troll, which I'd peg at like a CR 5; that wouldn't be the case for a Tier 3 party, which could kill it in one round.

(I suppose your cave troll may be CR 12 or whatever :smallbiggrin:)


Perhaps. I think the best evidence for them to be higher level is the fact that they never seem to sustain any real injuries. I may have overstated my case with the 20th level fighter comparison :smalltongue:, but lets afford the Chieftan of the Dunedain the honor of 9th level at least! As for the cave troll, I personally imagine them more on the "huge" side in D&D parlance. So maybe a hill or stone giant? But now I'm getting into the same kinds of misguided comparisons I typically don't like.

[Atranen]

Perhaps. I think the best evidence for them to be higher level is the fact that they never seem to sustain any real injuries. I may have overstated my case with the 20th level fighter comparison :smalltongue:, but lets afford the Chieftan of the Dunedain the honor of 9th level at least! As for the cave troll, I personally imagine them more on the "huge" side in D&D parlance. So maybe a hill or stone giant? But now I'm getting into the same kinds of misguided comparisons I typically don't like.

Hill Giant was the one I had in mind, as they're CR 5 in 5e. I recently ran an encounter where the opponents were a Hill Giant and a dozen orcs, vs the PCs (4 level 3s) and 10 militia soldiers they got from a local town (guard statblock with leather armor). The Hill Giant had quality armor (IIRC, AC = 16?) for narrative reasons.

They ended up losing half of their militia, but none of the PCs went down.

It's not a dead ringer, but, similar enough to 9 fellowship members (1 level N, 4 level 4s, and 4 level 1s) for me to find it plausible.

But, yeah, a lot of variables, there is no proof here. I think 'Aragorn is 9th level' is a defensible position. Mostly I like the argument that he could be only 4 to help reframe expectations for low level play. At AL tables, people often get this idea that their Tier 1 characters are weaklings or 'apprentices' who can't tie their own shoes. But in-universe, they're capable of some mighty deeds.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Non-D&D characters don't map in any sane way to D&D characters. So any comparisons there trying to tease out "what level was Aragorn" or such are just fatally flawed and meaningless and tell nothing about anyone but the one making the comparison.

Levels should be defined in terms of system-internal comparisons only. Definitionally, a level X party is one that can overcome a level X challenge. What's a level X challenge? Could be whatever the system designers say it should be. Level 1 could be "golden age superman" and level 20 "literal gods". Or level 1 could be "peasant" and level 20 could be "slightly stronger peasant." There's nothing intrinsic here to bind those, only choice by designers.

How common are high-CR threats? That's a setting choice. But whatever you choose, bounded accuracy says that the setting can remain stable and doesn't need to go down the Old Woman who Swallowed a Fly route of infinite "need to have an adventuring party to fight the last adventuring party" regress. Without bounded accuracy, you need a constant stable of high-power NPCs to balance those high-power monsters...and then you run into all the issues with such things, specifically that your setting stops making sense to anyone who thinks about it for a second. 3e FR was exactly this. As is the MCU (from a non-D&D perspective).

[Atranen]

Non-D&D characters don't map in any sane way to D&D characters. So any comparisons there trying to tease out "what level was Aragorn" or such are just fatally flawed and meaningless and tell nothing about anyone but the one making the comparison.

Levels should be defined in terms of system-internal comparisons only. Definitionally, a level X party is one that can overcome a level X challenge. What's a level X challenge? Could be whatever the system designers say it should be. Level 1 could be "golden age superman" and level 20 "literal gods". Or level 1 could be "peasant" and level 20 could be "slightly stronger peasant." There's nothing intrinsic here to bind those, only choice by designers.

Hmm. I think that is too far. I think system-internal comparisons are good and meaningful, but translation works at least decently, and is worthwhile to help frame our expectations for 'what kind of stories are we telling with this RPG system'.

For example, we see the deeds the LotR characters do--they are leaders of men and skilled combatants. They aren't blowing Uruk-Hai off the walls of Helm's Deep with fireballs, as strong Tier 2 characters would. They are afraid of things normal people are afraid of, like falling from a large height, whereas a Tier 3 character could laugh the damage off.

Now, you could say "all the orcs are 15th level orcs, all the Rohirrim are 17th level cavalry, and therefore Theoden must be a level 22 fighter in order to lead them". (And the falling damage is scaled up, accordingly!) That's internally consistent.

But, it violates Occam's razor.

Also, while systems can define levels differently, but it's reasonable to assume that things like 'orcs' in D&D, inspired by the 'orcs' in Tolkien, are roughly similar power levels.

[Batcathat]

Hmm. I think that is too far. I think system-internal comparisons are good and meaningful, but translation works at least decently, and is worthwhile to help frame our expectations for 'what kind of stories are we telling with this RPG system'.

For example, we see the deeds the LotR characters do--they are leaders of men and skilled combatants. They aren't blowing Uruk-Hai off the walls of Helm's Deep with fireballs, as strong Tier 2 characters would. They are afraid of things normal people are afraid of, like falling from a large height, whereas a Tier 3 character could laugh the damage off.

Different stories can have very different assumptions though. For example, in D&D becoming more powerful also means you're becoming a lot better at taking damage, but that's not always (or even usually, I think) the case. Yes, we could argue for the rest of the thread exactly what HP represents, but "can take more damage" is usually at least part of it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmm. I think that is too far. I think system-internal comparisons are good and meaningful, but translation works at least decently, and is worthwhile to help frame our expectations for 'what kind of stories are we telling with this RPG system'.

For example, we see the deeds the LotR characters do--they are leaders of men and skilled combatants. They aren't blowing Uruk-Hai off the walls of Helm's Deep with fireballs, as strong Tier 2 characters would. They are afraid of things normal people are afraid of, like falling from a large height, whereas a Tier 3 character could laugh the damage off.

Now, you could say "all the orcs are 15th level orcs, all the Rohirrim are 17th level cavalry, and therefore Theoden must be a level 22 fighter in order to lead them". (And the falling damage is scaled up, accordingly!) That's internally consistent.

But, it violates Occam's razor.

Also, while systems can define levels differently, but it's reasonable to assume that things like 'orcs' in D&D, inspired by the 'orcs' in Tolkien, are roughly similar power levels.

No, I'm saying that only internal consistency matters. Tolkien's characters exist in their context, which can't be translated into a D&D context without losing all the important stuff. You simply cannot compare their deeds to what a D&D character can do and get any useful information out of the comparison. It's a type error. Like comparing the number literal 3 and the string literal "apple".

The underlying assumptions make a huge difference, and are irreconcilably different.

You can abstract out a lot and compare stories, but that doesn't mean that Aragorn is a level X D&D character or that talking about him in those terms adds anything to a conversation.

And the D&D orcs that were inspired by Tolkiens orcs
* were inspired basically in name and vague facial aesthetics only (little to no other details actually are or have ever been the same)
* deviated in power level starting in AD&D and have drifted obscenely far.

And Tolkien's orcs weren't exactly detailed in any detail! So you get out exactly what you put in, nothing else.

[Atranen]

Different stories can have very different assumptions though. For example, in D&D becoming more powerful also means you're becoming a lot better at taking damage, but that's not always (or even usually, I think) the case. Yes, we could argue for the rest of the thread exactly what HP represents, but "can take more damage" is usually at least part of it.

Yeah. The magic system in Lord of the Rings is also quite different than d&d. I think that's important to keep in mind, but doesn't make the comparison useless.


No, I'm saying that only internal consistency matters. Tolkien's characters exist in their context, which can't be translated into a D&D context without losing all the important stuff. You simply cannot compare their deeds to what a D&D character can do and get any useful information out of the comparison. It's a type error. Like comparing the number literal 3 and the string literal "apple".

I get what you are saying, I just disagree with it. The assumptions are different -- but are they so different as to make comparison useless?

Is "assuming the orcs in Tolkien are first level, and using knowledge of how effective the heroes are in that story, what level could the characters be" a meaningless question? I don't think so. They are very clearly not 1, nor are they 20. And we can progress from there.

That adds something meaningful, because it tells us how we can use the system to construct stories like LotR. If we want something similar, we shouldn't use level 20s.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah. The magic system in Lord of the Rings is also quite different than d&d. I think that's important to keep in mind, but doesn't make the comparison useless.


I get what you are saying, I just disagree with it. The assumptions are different -- but are they so different as to make comparison useless?

Is "assuming the orcs in Tolkien are first level, and using knowledge of how effective the heroes are in that story, what level could the characters be" a meaningless question? I don't think so. They are very clearly not 1, nor are they 20. And we can progress from there.

That adds something meaningful, because it tells us how we can use the system to construct stories like LotR. If we want something similar, we shouldn't use level 20s.

Yes. They are that different, at least once you start looking at the details of any comparison. The answer to the question you pose in the second sentence there is "your assumptions dictate the result." If we relax that first assumption (so it doesn't dictate the result), the output is "whatever you want it to be". Because none of the comparison points are actually fixed or detailed enough to determine anything.

The characters in Tolkien, as with all pre-written[1] fiction are entirely authorial fiat. They do not map in any regular, repeatable way onto the characters in a collaborative TTRPG setting.

I'd also disagree that "we can use the system to construct stories like <fiction>" is a meaningful, useful thing to ask for from D&D, specifically. D&D does D&D stories. That's it. It's a self-referential system. It is not, nor does it claim to be, a generic fantasy simulator. It builds specific archetypes and supports those ones (to a greater or lesser degree). Those are not generic pieces to be used to mechanize arbitrary fiction.

[1] ie the story exists in its entirety at the point at which it is consumed and the authors stand outside the fiction with full control over the characters' actions. This differs fundamentally and intrinsically from a collaborative TTRPG, where individual characters are played by different characters and the success/failure of their actions is influenced by forces other than pure authorial fiat (ie the rules, the other players, etc). Elements from one type cannot be imported meaningfully into the other without stripping away anything other than the bare archetypes common to both and rebuilding from the ground up, a process that necessarily includes copious amounts of free parameters chosen at build time without constraints from the source material.

[Atranen]

Yes. They are that different, at least once you start looking at the details of any comparison. The answer to the question you pose in the second sentence there is "your assumptions dictate the result." If we relax that first assumption (so it doesn't dictate the result), the output is "whatever you want it to be". Because none of the comparison points are actually fixed or detailed enough to determine anything.

Disagree. There are better and worse comparison points. Tolkien orcs are clearly not 20th level. 1st level (or CR 1, or 1/2) is a much better estimate.


I'd also disagree that "we can use the system to construct stories like <fiction>" is a meaningful, useful thing to ask for from D&D, specifically. D&D does D&D stories. That's it. It's a self-referential system. It is not, nor does it claim to be, a generic fantasy simulator. It builds specific archetypes and supports those ones (to a greater or lesser degree). Those are not generic pieces to be used to mechanize arbitrary fiction.

Are those D&D stories more or less like other types of stories, like LotR? Suppose you have a new player, and you ask what kind of game they are looking for. They say, "I like LotR and want a game like that". Is it useful to compare how similar different level ranges will feel to that experience? I think so.

[Psyren]

Yes. They are that different, at least once you start looking at the details of any comparison. The answer to the question you pose in the second sentence there is "your assumptions dictate the result." If we relax that first assumption (so it doesn't dictate the result), the output is "whatever you want it to be". Because none of the comparison points are actually fixed or detailed enough to determine anything.

The characters in Tolkien, as with all pre-written[1] fiction are entirely authorial fiat. They do not map in any regular, repeatable way onto the characters in a collaborative TTRPG setting.

I'd also disagree that "we can use the system to construct stories like <fiction>" is a meaningful, useful thing to ask for from D&D, specifically. D&D does D&D stories. That's it. It's a self-referential system. It is not, nor does it claim to be, a generic fantasy simulator. It builds specific archetypes and supports those ones (to a greater or lesser degree). Those are not generic pieces to be used to mechanize arbitrary fiction.

[1] ie the story exists in its entirety at the point at which it is consumed and the authors stand outside the fiction with full control over the characters' actions. This differs fundamentally and intrinsically from a collaborative TTRPG, where individual characters are played by different characters and the success/failure of their actions is influenced by forces other than pure authorial fiat (ie the rules, the other players, etc). Elements from one type cannot be imported meaningfully into the other without stripping away anything other than the bare archetypes common to both and rebuilding from the ground up, a process that necessarily includes copious amounts of free parameters chosen at build time without constraints from the source material.

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.

[Rukelnikov]

Is "assuming the orcs in Tolkien are first level, and using knowledge of how effective the heroes are in that story, what level could the characters be" a meaningless question? I don't think so. They are very clearly not 1, nor are they 20. And we can progress from there.

I've always seen Aragorn Legolas and Gimli being around lvl 9, maybe a bit higher. Gandalf is a DMPC, but if you want to assign him an estimate level, Gandalf the Gray would be around CR 19 (solo'd a Balrog in a double KO), Gandalf the white would be in the epics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.

You can try, but the outcome is fundamentally arbitrary. Basically, your input assumptions about those characters and the transformation determine your outputs, not anything about either the system or the actual inputs.

And anyone can try anything, but it doesn't mean that the system should be defined by those attempts. And that's the important thing. The only way to define an acceptable power level or what an acceptable character or an acceptable story is in a D&D context is internally, with reference to the other things the system gives you and the (arbitrary) designer choices.

A system could be designed to replicate arbitrary (limited or not) fictional characters. Sure. There are many of those that try to do so. BUT D&D IS NOT THAT SYSTEM. Nor does it attempt to be. D&D replicates D&D characters and stories. That's all. Anything else is possible, but not supported. And the difference, when talking about system design, is critical. No one can stop you from using a pitchfork as a shovel. But the manufacturer or retailer is in no way suggesting that you should do so--that's not a supported use.

[Theodoxus]

Even the books inspired by and written with D&D characters had to deviate to the point that it's difficult to recreate characters from the stories as PCs - in any edition.
Partly because of the lack of Social and Exploration abilities of PCs; partly because mapping D&D class/race abilities and spells in such a way that when you read it you say 'ah ha! that's a fireball, or cunning action!' it ends up as a boring descriptor. So authors embellish, and then things no longer map 1:1 and people argue about how Fireballs don't do X or cunning action doesn't actually do Y.

Look at Honor Among Thieves and all the creative licenses the producers had to take to make actual game rules look interesting in live action.

Heck, no LARP - from Vampire to SCA to any of the magi-clones like Amtgard can remotely mirror TTRPGs as much as they try. There is too much math and geometry in TTRPGs that just can't translate over to LARPing, at least not without a lot of electronic wizardry or 15 referees per player...

But as long as the table is having fun, recreating their favorite book characters as closely as they can - and internet nerds get to spend hours arguing over the smallest details... well, what's the harm?

[Pex]

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.

This.

No one expects to play the literal Aragorn or Legolas. You don't play the book stories. You play the book theme. Thinking about what classes the characters are at what level is just a fun thought exercise to chat with your friends and/or strangers on the internet. They are not and never meant to be definitive canon. No one expects to play a fictional character literally, just the archetype.

However, there's no harm in the game helping with the archetype. After Legolas was shown firing two arrows at once in the movies Manyshot appeared as a 3E feat. 5E barbarians adding CO modifier to AC when unarmored is just a game mechanics means to allow a player be like Arnold Schwarzeneggar in a loin cloth. That the game can't exactly match a published fiction is irrelevant and unnecessary. Players want the idea of it.

[Psyren]

BUT D&D IS NOT THAT SYSTEM.

Not everyone cares about fidelity to this degree, including the designers. And that's a good thing.



However, there's no harm in the game helping with the archetype. After Legolas was shown firing two arrows at once in the movies Manyshot appeared as a 3E feat. 5E barbarians adding CO modifier to AC when unarmored is just a game mechanics means to allow a player be like Arnold Schwarzeneggar in a loin cloth. That the game can't exactly match a published fiction is irrelevant and unnecessary. Players want the idea of it.

Exactly. This soft loop of characters informing game informing characters has gotten us some really fun things. Naked barbarians and multishot archers are cool regardless of realism.

[Atranen]

I've always seen Aragorn Legolas and Gimli being around lvl 9, maybe a bit higher. Gandalf is a DMPC, but if you want to assign him an estimate level, Gandalf the Gray would be around CR 19 (solo'd a Balrog in a double KO), Gandalf the white would be in the epics.

Interesting! Balrogs being CR 20 seems too high imo. Why do you place Gandalf so high? He doesn't use many magical abilities that demand that.


You can try, but the outcome is fundamentally arbitrary. Basically, your input assumptions about those characters and the transformation determine your outputs, not anything about either the system or the actual inputs.

No, it isn't. Your input assumptions are not arbitrary. "Orcs are CR20" and "orcs are CR1" are not equally defensible assumptions.


And anyone can try anything, but it doesn't mean that the system should be defined by those attempts. And that's the important thing. The only way to define an acceptable power level or what an acceptable character or an acceptable story is in a D&D context is internally, with reference to the other things the system gives you and the (arbitrary) designer choices.

No one is arguing anything of the sort.


A system could be designed to replicate arbitrary (limited or not) fictional characters. Sure. There are many of those that try to do so. BUT D&D IS NOT THAT SYSTEM. Nor does it attempt to be. D&D replicates D&D characters and stories. That's all. Anything else is possible, but not supported. And the difference, when talking about system design, is critical. No one can stop you from using a pitchfork as a shovel. But the manufacturer or retailer is in no way suggesting that you should do so--that's not a supported use.

Also, not something anyone is arguing. No one has said "WotC suggests you make Aragorn like this".

D&D replicates some fictional characters better than others. It does Aragorn better than Batman. It does Conan better than Darth Vader. And certain level ranges match those characters better than others.


No one expects to play the literal Aragorn or Legolas. You don't play the book stories. You play the book theme. Thinking about what classes the characters are at what level is just a fun thought exercise to chat with your friends and/or strangers on the internet. They are not and never meant to be definitive canon. No one expects to play a fictional character literally, just the archetype.

However, there's no harm in the game helping with the archetype. After Legolas was shown firing two arrows at once in the movies Manyshot appeared as a 3E feat. 5E barbarians adding CO modifier to AC when unarmored is just a game mechanics means to allow a player be like Arnold Schwarzeneggar in a loin cloth. That the game can't exactly match a published fiction is irrelevant and unnecessary. Players want the idea of it.

Yeah, agree with all of this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No one is arguing anything of the sort.

Also, not something anyone is arguing. No one has said "WotC suggests you make Aragorn like this".


This entire sub-thread started off exactly as an attempt to say that bounded accuracy should/should not apply beyond level X/at all because LotR characters were level X....that's exactly trying to define D&D system assumptions by reference to an external fictional source via translating them.

That's what I'm objecting to--it's entirely 100% a non sequitor. It's a bad argument whatever it's deployed for. Arguments about bounded accuracy based on the high-level stories can be ok, but are fundamentally taste-based and thus subjective. Arguments that because Aragorn was level X... are never useful for telling anyone about anything D&D related.

Anyone can say "I created an Aragorn expy by...". Sure. That may be fun for some people. But doing so tells us nothing about Aragorn or what is acceptable in D&D at a system level; only in what you can torture the system into allowing.

[Atranen]

This entire sub-thread started off exactly as an attempt to say that bounded accuracy should/should not apply beyond level X/at all because LotR characters were level X....that's exactly trying to define D&D system assumptions by reference to an external fictional source via translating them.

That's not my reading of the discussion. The argument was that bounded accuracy should break past 5 because characters are no longer mortals at that point, then trask brought in the gandalf article, then I mentioned the Alexandrian one, and we moved to "what level is character X"...but no one ever said "bounded accuracy should stop at 5 because in Lord of the rings"...

The arguments are not "because aragorn was level x, the system should work like y". They are "if you want to replicate aragorn in 5e, you should use level y".

let me know what I'm missing. Feel like there are separate conversations here.

[Trask]

I do think that bounded accuracy concept lends itself to creating more LotR like stories in D&D, without mention to exact fidelity since we can already see such a thing is impossible. I recall that when D&D 5e Next first came out 3.5 returners were calling it "low-magic" and "gritty". That's kind of an amusing descriptor in hindsight, but from their perspective the game was lower magic, lower fantasy, lower power.

I'm not certain what that all adds to the discussion, but after 5e's explosive rise, and in the face of its successor, I think its worth remembering what it promised to bring that was new and worth keeping.

[Psyren]

5e is absolutely lower power and lower magic than 3e and 4e. That doesn't mean much at the end of the day, but still.

[Rukelnikov]

Interesting! Balrogs being CR 20 seems too high imo. Why do you place Gandalf so high? He doesn't use many magical abilities that demand that.

20 may be too high, that's why I said 19, since that's a Balor's CR :P

But if you look at it, what did the Balrog lack that a Balor would have? Death Throes? That's pretty debatable, since almost every time a Balrog is killed it's killer dies too, as was the case with Gandalf the Grey.

The teleport maybe? Well, even if it was capable of teleporting, it would not avail it. It may seem like Gandalf doesn't use much magic, and in large part that's because his "magic" is not usually overt, in that scene for instance, when he states "You cannot pass!", he is determining things, reality will have to accommodate for the fact that Durin's Bane cannot pass that bridge, so even if it was capable of teleporting, he simply cannot pass. If you wanted to have such an effect in DnD as a PC, the closest thing you have is Wish.

[Psyren]

I think they must have teleported. I might regret asking this, but how'd they get from the absolute depths of Moria to a high mountainside? (i.e. where the smoting of the ruin took place, or somesuch.)

[Gurgeh]

They climbed up a very, very tall set of stairs (the Endless Stair, specifically). Gandalf says as much in the book when he recounts the battle in Fangorn forest (the Jackson films understandably don't bother to depict this detail).

[KorvinStarmast]

But it doesn't end it. If you search for monsters that are resistant to bludgeoning currently No, it ends there. This is you moving the goal posts.

"Fully armed and armored at all times," no, but having a dagger or shortsword in his bedroom is pretty reasonable for someone in a dangerous profession. At least, if they care about staying alive in said profession. I have toyed with the idea that Fighters get to add their proficiency bonus, or half of it, to their AC when they are wearing no armor. Half is probably the better move, but we only had one session where we messed with it.


For me, level 5 is about when bounded accuracy should be tossed out the window. I'd say about level 10-12. Sixth level spells is where things really shift.


Your PCs aren't normal mortals at that point, they're effectively super heroes. Yes, at level 10-12.

Non-D&D characters don't map in any sane way to D&D characters. That's what I'm objecting to--it's entirely 100% a non sequitor. While I tend to agree, the D&D Ranger was inspired by Aragorn, who can be safely assumed to be an AD&D 1e Ranger Lord (level 11 or 10) ... but then Rangers became a thing in and of themselves in AD&D 2e up til now, particularly as more spells and beast companions were added. Not inherently a bad thing, but it departed its origin. And insofar as the AD&D 1e Ranger Lord, he had a charisma in the 14-16 Range.

As to Gandalf, if one reads the lore he is a Maia, something like an archangel, which maps roughly to D&D 5e Solar or Planetar with the Change Shape ability. But, I've seen some good cases made that he's a high level Aasimar Lore Bard. :smallbiggrin:

5e is absolutely lower power and lower magic than 3e and 4e. Yay, we agree, but the OP topic is 'who is going to play 5.5' so 3e and 4e don't enter into it.

I am still frustrated that a game of 13th Age that I made a bard for got barely started and then died to the usual RL Scheduling DC being about 35. :smallfurious: I was really looking forward to that.

[JNAProductions]

No, it ends there. This is you moving the goal posts.

It’s really not.

Resistance to some subtypes of bludgeoning but not others is more complex than resistance to bludgeoning but not force.

You can dislike the change, but it’s not adding to mental overhead.

[Psyren]

It’s really not.

Resistance to some subtypes of bludgeoning but not others is more complex than resistance to bludgeoning but not force.

You can dislike the change, but it’s not adding to mental overhead.

Exactly, thank you.


They climbed up a very, very tall set of stairs (the Endless Stair, specifically). Gandalf says as much in the book when he recounts the battle in Fangorn forest (the Jackson films understandably don't bother to depict this detail).

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?

[Keltest]

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?

Yes, actually.

[KorvinStarmast]

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?
It helps to read the books. :smallcool:

Aside: a fly just landed on the edge of my glass of wine and fell in. He then began swimming in the wine. I killed him with a napkin. Five second rule, still sipping the wine.

[Gurgeh]

And now I'm curious - how did they get there? Does that go down into the depths of Moria?
Yep, all the way from the bottom to the top. To quote The Two Towers:


'We fought far under the living earth, where time is not counted. Ever he clutched me, and ever I hewed him, till at last he fled into dark tunnels. They were not made by Durin's folk, Gimli son of Glóin. Far, far below the deepest delving of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he. Now I have walked there, but I will bring no report to darken the light of day. In that despair my enemy was my only hope, and I pursued him, clutching at his heel. Thus he brought me back at last to the secret ways of Khazad-dûm: too well he knew them all. Ever up now we went, until we came to the Endless Stair.'

'Long has that been lost,' said Gimli. 'Many have said that it was never made save in legend, but others say that it was destroyed.'

'It was made, and it had not been destroyed,' said Gandalf. 'From the lowest dungeon to the highest peak it climbed, ascending in unbroken spiral in many thousand steps, until it issued at last in Durin's Tower carved in the living rock of Zirak-zigil, the pinnacle of the Silvertine.

[Psyren]

The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

[KorvinStarmast]

The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

That's you making up stuff based on a game mechanic that was not invented when Tolkien wrote that book.

[Gurgeh]

I think you forgot your blue text, Psyren.

[Psyren]

That's you making up stuff based on a game mechanic that was not invented when Tolkien wrote that book.

Teleportation doesn't predate Tolkien?


I think you forgot your blue text, Psyren.

I did say I'd regret asking, to be fair.

[Gurgeh]

To respond seriously to your assertion: trivially, yes. If you assume someone can teleport then you can of course take any case of moving from one place to another as evidence of teleportation because it's right there in your premises. "A implies A" isn't a very fruitful argument, though.

[Psyren]

I mean, I'm not calling it "evidence," and in fact wasn't being entirely serious - but knew anyway what I'd be getting myself into with Tolkien fans :smalltongue:

Apologies for the digression, back to 5.5. (Or the Ghost subtopic.)

[Rukelnikov]

I think they must have teleported. I might regret asking this, but how'd they get from the absolute depths of Moria to a high mountainside? (i.e. where the smoting of the ruin took place, or somesuch.)


They climbed up a very, very tall set of stairs (the Endless Stair, specifically). Gandalf says as much in the book when he recounts the battle in Fangorn forest (the Jackson films understandably don't bother to depict this detail).

Yeah, and IIRC they fought for either 3 days or an entire week.


The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

TBH I think it may be some sort of planeshift, the place gandalf talks about sounds like something more akin to the Timeless Halls than Arda, "creatures older than even he (Sauron)" ainur are among the very first beings of creation. So personally I think that being represented as some form of planeshift would be fitting, they don't have it in this edition, but have in the past.


I did say I'd regret asking, to be fair.

I don't think its an offense or anything.

[Psyren]

TBH I think it may be some sort of planeshift, the place gandalf talks about sounds like something more akin to the Timeless Halls than Arda, "creatures older than even he (Sauron)" ainur are among the very first beings of creation. So personally I think that being represented as some form of planeshift would be fitting, they don't have it in this edition, but have in the past.

Interesting - thank you!

(As for Plane Shift, it's in 5e (https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm), just higher level than before.)

[Gurgeh]

TBH I think it may be some sort of planeshift, the place gandalf talks about sounds like something more akin to the Timeless Halls than Arda, "creatures older than even he (Sauron)" ainur are among the very first beings of creation. So personally I think that being represented as some form of planeshift would be fitting, they don't have it in this edition, but have in the past.
I don't think The Silmarillion is necessarily a useful resource when discussing The Lord of the Rings, at least at the level of specific facts, precisely because of passages like the one in question. It was edited and published posthumously and in any case is better understood as myth than as history.

[Rukelnikov]

Interesting - thank you!

(As for Plane Shift, it's in 5e (https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planeShift.htm), just higher level than before.)

I meant Balor's don't get it in 5e. However, I checked and they didn't have it in 3.5 either.


I don't think The Silmarillion is necessarily a useful resource when discussing The Lord of the Rings, at least at the level of specific facts, precisely because of passages like the one in question. It was edited and published posthumously and in any case is better understood as myth than as history.

Yes, I don't know if Tolkien ever put thought into where exactly did they go, but given that the idea of existence outside time (and one can imagine at the very least also outside Arda, if not Ea) is also mentioned shortly after when Gandalf tells them he wandered outside time in roads which he will not tell, I don't think it's stretch to think the idea of different planes of existence was already there.

[Brookshw]

The "fled into dark tunnels" bit could involve teleportation...

Sure, the book famously is about a wizard and group of furry footed short people teleporting to a volcano to chuck some old jewelry in, and being home in time for tea :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, the book famously is about a wizard and group of furry footed short people teleporting to a volcano to chuck some old jewelry in, and being home in time for tea :smallbiggrin: The eagles were busy, and their union rep told Gandalf that no, he doesn't get to put them on an overtime schedule.:smallyuk:

[Snowbluff]

No matter how many times you make this point or ones like it, people are never going to stop trying to recreate Aragorn or Conan orArthas or Zorro or Trevor Belmont etc etc in D&D. All you need in order to try is a rough parity of genre and aesthetic between two properties, and sometimes not even that. We might as well explore the possibilities and see how close we can land.
Agreed. I don't really give a heck about the standard setting most of the time. Really the only time I did was for AL, and even then it was a lose association. Honestly this game would suffer if a singular setting was enforced for all home games.



Aside: a fly just landed on the edge of my glass of wine and fell in. He then began swimming in the wine. I killed him with a napkin. Five second rule, still sipping the wine.

I don't think the five second rule applies here, but it would be a shame for wine to to waste. Proceed.

[Theodoxus]

The eagles were busy, and their union rep told Gandalf that no, he doesn't get to put them on an overtime schedule.:smallyuk:
I mean, Gandalf did say 'Fly, you fools'. It's not quite teleportation, but surely better than walking around Mordor and getting stabbed by a spider...

(Sorry for calling you Shirley, Korvin.)

As for fly in wine - I'm sure the alcohol killed whatever ick the fly was carrying anyway...

[KorvinStarmast]

As for fly in wine - I'm sure the alcohol killed whatever ick the fly was carrying anyway... Thank goodness my wife was looking after her mother's cat last night over there. If she'd seen that fly in my wine I'd have been told, rather vigorously, to throw it out.

[goodpeople25]

Teleportation doesn't predate Tolkien?
The concept of instantaneously moving from place to place and the etymology of the term did exist but even a decade after the books were published, terms like teleportation hadn't been fully codified yet.

For instance the first Issue of X-Men has newcomer Jean Gray showing off her amazing ability of teleportation and it's not a matter of early issue weirdness.

[JackPhoenix]

Also, I really don't like the cover art for the players handbook they showed. Hopefully there are going to be alternatives. That Dwarf looks off to me.

I've seen some suggestions it may be touched-up AI art.

[Amnestic]

I've seen some suggestions it may be touched-up AI art.

This was confirmed false. The artist - Nestor Ossandón (a long time MtG artist) - confirmed with WIPs that it wasn't. No generative image tools were used.
https://twitter.com/CHofferCBus/status/1736807876294062518

Evidence here.

Credit goes to Christian Hoffer who did the digging and contacted the artist to verify.

[Psyren]

I've seen some suggestions it may be touched-up AI art.


This was confirmed false. The artist - Nestor Ossandón (a long time MtG artist) - confirmed with WIPs that it wasn't. No generative image tools were used.
https://twitter.com/CHofferCBus/status/1736807876294062518

Evidence here.

Credit goes to Christian Hoffer who did the digging and contacted the artist to verify.

And the poor artist felt compelled to share their WIP painting images to prove their innocence. And there are still people in that thread who are skeptical and scrutinizing every pixel.

At this point they might as well go full blown into AI if nobody is going to believe them when they don't anyway.

[Amnestic]

At this point they might as well go full blown into AI if nobody is going to believe them when they don't anyway.

No, no they shouldn't.

Yeah, it sucks they had to provide WiPs to prove it wasn't generative machine learning stuff, but the answer to skepticism at WotC using it when they objectively did so in the very recent past with Bigby's isn't "they should just use it whole hog to spite people online who ask about it".

Between the OGL debacle and the generative art used recently - which was only removed after a very public callout - WotC's credibility isn't great, and they should probably bear that in mind with upcoming releases. Their PR and marketing teams should probably be on the ball with countering such concerns, instead of it being left up to a third party journalist to dig into.

[Psyren]

No, no they shouldn't.

Yeah, it sucks they had to provide WiPs to prove it wasn't generative machine learning stuff, but the answer to skepticism at WotC using it when they objectively did so in the very recent past with Bigby's isn't "they should just use it whole hog to spite people online who ask about it".

Between the OGL debacle and the generative art used recently - which was only removed after a very public callout - WotC's credibility isn't great, and they should probably bear that in mind with upcoming releases. Their PR and marketing teams should probably be on the ball with countering such concerns, instead of it being left up to a third party journalist to dig into.

They've said they're not. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1642-updated-statement-on-ai) They've also said they're not. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/community-update#OnAIArtGenerationinDD) And did I mention, they've said they're not (https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/generative-artificial-intelligence-tools-and-magic)? And they're still not "on the ball," apparently.

I give it a few more years before the floodgates open.

[Theodoxus]

I kinda side with Psyren on AI... Some (most? all?) people aren't going to believe WotC's PR claims of legitimate meatspace art production. It's going to end up costing WotC/Hasbro more to prove.

And really, it's no one's business beside the artist and the company as to how the art was generated and who was paid, and how much.

If an artist is too busy / swamped in commission hell and decides to utilize AI in whatever capacity, and then sells that art to a business - it shouldn't be the publics' place to try to determine - at least at a legal/punitive level. Make it a drinking game, or a subreddit... Caveat Emptor for the corporation though. If WotC is ok with using AI art - knowingly or not - who are any of us to poopoo the idea?

[Amnestic]

They've said they're not. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1642-updated-statement-on-ai) They've also said they're not. (https://www.dndbeyond.com/community-update#OnAIArtGenerationinDD) And did I mention, they've said they're not (https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/announcements/generative-artificial-intelligence-tools-and-magic)? And they're still not "on the ball," apparently.

I give it a few more years before the floodgates open.

Yes, they said they're not, after being caught on the Bigby's things - notably without a policy prior to being caught and called out on it.

Also two of those links are literally the same announcement on December 19th, just one for D&D and one for MtG with the names of the game and the length of time swapped. That's not really that important, but yes, they're not on the ball about AI if there's public questions about the piece of promo artwork for their new PHB and it's a journo who gets the WiPs and artist statement instead of WotC themselves.




If WotC is ok with using AI art - knowingly or not - who are any of us to poopoo the idea?

I dunno probably the some of the 16000+ artists whose work was stolen to train the models (https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/04/leaked-names-of-16000-artists-used-to-train-midjourney-ai) could poopoo the idea.

You know, same as any profitable plagiarism should get poopoo'd?

[Psyren]

Yes, they said they're not, after being caught on the Bigby's things - notably without a policy prior to being caught and called out on it.

Which wasn't their fault. (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-ai-art-bigbys-giants-book-artist-generators-wotc-1850710496) But they're still the ones being raked over the coals for it, so why bother? Clearly they're damned either way.

If "stopping public questions" is the goal, it's one they'll never reach no matter what they do.



I dunno probably the some of the 16000+ artists whose work was stolen to train the models (https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/04/leaked-names-of-16000-artists-used-to-train-midjourney-ai) could poopoo the idea.

You know, same as any profitable plagiarism should get poopoo'd?

By all means, poopoo away. A few more years.

[Amnestic]

Which wasn't their fault. (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-ai-art-bigbys-giants-book-artist-generators-wotc-1850710496)

Counterpoint: Yes it was. A lack of a strong anti-AI position prior to it being caught (which they admit to) and not adequately checking the work before publication contributed to the situation occuring. The 'artist' caused it, but WotC's failures to catch it and take a stance prior deserve being raked over the coal for. Midjourney was initially released in mid-2022. They had over a year to take a stand. Paizo put out a public statement in March 2023. (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si91?Paizo-and-Artificial-Intelligence) What's WotC's excuse for not following suit to one of their biggest competitors?


Clearly they're damned either way.

Yes, when a corporation fails in multiple ways, especially in a short period of time, people are going to be actively skeptical and it is up to the corporation to then earn back the lost goodwill if they want to enjoy the benefit of the doubt again. That's how it is with any business. A statement of apology has to be backed up by actual, tangible change. So far they're on the right path, but people being skeptical of them is like...yeah, no duh??

"I did a bad thing, and now people suspect I might do a bad thing again" yeah, you have to prove you won't do a bad thing and that you've changed, and that takes time. In the meantime, people will still suspect it. If your response is to go right back to doing the bad thing, then you didn't change, you were just upset you got caught.



If "stopping public questions" is the goal, it's one they'll never reach no matter what they do.


They didn't even try, so this comes across as "we did nothing and we're all out of ideas". I dunno, making a policy where WiPs need to be proactively available would be a good start.



By all means, poopoo away. A few more years.
I don't know what "a few more years" means.

[Psyren]

If goodwill among the wounded fans can be earned back, sure. If it can't, then trying is wasted effort.



I don't know what "a few more years" means.

My previous post:



I give it a few more years before the floodgates open.

[Amnestic]

If goodwill among the wounded fans can be earned back, sure. If it can't, then trying is wasted effort.

Goodwill can always be earned by corpos, even if it shouldn't be. People love brand loyalty as a general rule. You just have to make sure they don't have a reason to lose it.



My previous post:

Right, but I don't know what "Until the floodgates open" means. Is that a good thing? A bad thing?

[Psyren]

I mean that AI fantasy art isn't going anywhere. WotC is gunshy now and won't be the first to move on it (intentionally), but somebody will.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with the 2024 release. To put this subtopic to bed. I agree with you, the books coming out this year don't and won't use any.

[Amnestic]

I was gonna let this lie, I promise, but then I saw this

https://x.com/wizards_magic/status/1743014711820476536?s=20

A piece of promotional work for MtG's Ravnica, from the official MtG twitter account, using generative art. From two days ago. There's other examples in the comments. They say it's not using it, but an inspection of the piece shows it clearly is.

So yeah, when they say "we stand against it"...what, two weeks ago? And then keep using it? No wonder people are asking questions.

The PHB art wasn't, but clearly their apology and process doesn't mean much if it's still being used in their marketing.

[Atranen]

Which wasn't their fault. (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-ai-art-bigbys-giants-book-artist-generators-wotc-1850710496) But they're still the ones being raked over the coals for it, so why bother? Clearly they're damned either way.

I think companies are responsible for the content in the books they produce.


I was gonna let this lie, I promise, but then I saw this

https://x.com/wizards_magic/status/1743014711820476536?s=20

A piece of promotional work for MtG's Ravnica, from the official MtG twitter account, using generative art. From two days ago. There's other examples in the comments. They say it's not using it, but an inspection of the piece shows it clearly is.

So yeah, when they say "we stand against it"...what, two weeks ago? And then keep using it? No wonder people are asking questions.

The PHB art wasn't, but clearly their apology and process doesn't mean much if it's still being used in their marketing.

I came here and thought of this as well. They've broken good faith time and time again in the past year; there is no reason to trust them.

Note that "is it ethical for a company to use AI" is an entirely separate question from "is Wizard's acting appropriately with respect to possible use of AI art". Clearly, a lot of their customer base believes it is unethical, and Wizards are not effectively addressing those concerns. That's a failure, even if we think AI art is fine.

[Kane0]

If we are talking about promises, didnt WotC say they were going to release 3rd ed SRD to creative commons too? One year after the OGL and that hasnt happened yet.

[Theodoxus]

I dunno probably the some of the 16000+ artists whose work was stolen to train the models (https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/01/04/leaked-names-of-16000-artists-used-to-train-midjourney-ai) could poopoo the idea.

You know, same as any profitable plagiarism should get poopoo'd?

Allegedly. And yes you're making my point. Are you an artist on that alleged list? If so, great, have a nut with the lawsuit. I hope you win. If you're not? well, you don't really have standing. Neither do I. Hence my entire point. This is about a corporation who needs to decide for itself. Me? I look at the art in D&D books not caring if it's a no-body, a so called famous artist who I wouldn't be able to name anyway, or AI. I care more if the halfling being represented looks halfway decent and not like it crawled out of some Stephen King novel. YMOV, but I suspect there are far more consumers of TTRPGs who don't care than there are that do.

You obviously think that's bad. In this particular instance, I'm a lot more libertarian in my outlook.

[Amnestic]

Allegedly. And yes you're making my point. Are you an artist on that alleged list? If so, great, have a nut with the lawsuit. I hope you win. If you're not? well, you don't really have standing.

I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

[Brookshw]

I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

/Shrug, musicians weren't replaced by the piano roll despite their outcries. AI is here to stay, if you're work was copied you have recourse, if not then you're trying to assert a non-existing right. Like every other time I'm history there has been a technology shift it's either adapt or be left behind, economical evolution so to speak. I'm pretty tired of hearing that we can't move forward because someone doesn't want deal with a more competitive market.

[Amnestic]

/Shrug, musicians weren't replaced by the piano roll despite their outcries. AI is here to stay, if you're work was copied you have recourse, if not then you're trying to assert a non-existing right. Like every other time I'm history there has been a technology shift it's either adapt or be left behind, economical evolution so to speak. I'm pretty tired of hearing that we can't move forward because someone doesn't want deal with a more competitive market.

No one is complaining about an artist who trains a model on all of their own works. But those models don't exist. All the models that exist are made off of the back of theft, from artists who gave no consent for their works to be plagiarised.

And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on.

[Psyren]

/Shrug, musicians weren't replaced by the piano roll despite their outcries. AI is here to stay, if you're work was copied you have recourse, if not then you're trying to assert a non-existing right. Like every other time I'm history there has been a technology shift it's either adapt or be left behind, economical evolution so to speak. I'm pretty tired of hearing that we can't move forward because someone doesn't want deal with a more competitive market.

Pretty much.


I think companies are responsible for the content in the books they produce.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held responsible. I'm saying sackcloth and ashes have a shelf life.



And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on.

It's not "cheering" to recognize the world as it exists. Cheering and pitchforks are not the only possible reactions to any current event.

[Atranen]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be held responsible. I'm saying sackcloth and ashes have a shelf life.


Which wasn't their fault. (https://gizmodo.com/dnd-ai-art-bigbys-giants-book-artist-generators-wotc-1850710496)

That's an odd way of interpreting "not their fault". Can you clarify?

[Psyren]

That's an odd way of interpreting "not their fault".

What's odd about it? I'm not seeing the inconsistency.

[Atranen]

What's odd about it? I'm not seeing the inconsistency.

Taken together, your statements say "it is not their fault, but they should be held responsible". Typically someone is not held responsible for things that aren't their fault.

How do you want to see them held responsible?

[Psyren]

Taken together, your statements say "it is not their fault, but they should be held responsible". Typically someone is not held responsible for things that aren't their fault.

How do you want to see them held responsible?

"It's not their fault" doesn't mean "they shouldn't do anything about it." Hence the AI policy and review mechanisms they established, which also serve as my answer to your question.

But "they should do something about it" also doesn't mean "their solution needs to be perfect," nor does it mean "they need to ignore this technology at all costs in perpetuity regardless of the business environment." Hence the shelf life comment.

[Brookshw]

No one is complaining about an artist who trains a model on all of their own works. But those models don't exist. All the models that exist are made off of the back of theft, from artists who gave no consent for their works to be plagiarised. Two matters. (1) You're proposing non-existent rights, unless the AI is copying you within the scope of Copyright Laws concern, then its not stealing from you, learning from others is not the same thing as theft; (2) you're conflating a legal concept (theft, or, rather infringement) with a moral one, there's no law against plagiarism.


And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on. Leaving aside that recognizing AI is going to exist and be used in product development is facing reality, nothing more, but if you want to talk creativity, let's not forget this is a hobby where games are constantly made that are clones of one another and widely discussed as such, where people ran screaming for their pitchforks and torches when a company said 'ya know what, we don't really want you using our rules for free to make your own commercial products', and where major companies are just filing off the serial numbers of one another's products and marketing them as their own. "Creativity" in this hobby isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be.

[Atranen]

"It's not their fault" doesn't mean "they shouldn't do anything about it." Hence the AI policy and review mechanisms they established, which also serve as my answer to your question.

Well, there's the disconnect. When I say:


I think companies are responsible for the content in the books they produce.

I mean "it is their fault when things go wrong". If one of the authors they contracted plagiarized some text and it made it into the book, the fault is ultimately WotCs.

When I say "they should be held responsible" I don't just mean they should institute a policy--I mean that they, as the publisher who oversaw production of the book, is ultimately responsible for, and bears fault for, anything inappropriate in the book.

[Envyus]

Also, I really don't like the cover art for the players handbook they showed. Hopefully there are going to be alternatives. That Dwarf looks off to me.

It’s not the PHB cover art, it’s the cover of the Fighter section.

[2D8HP]

No one is complaining about an artist who trains a model on all of their own works. But those models don't exist. All the models that exist are made off of the back of theft, from artists who gave no consent for their works to be plagiarised.

And I am astounded that people in a supposedly creative hobby like this would so eagerly cheer it on.


Except for a very few payed DM’s, we hobbyists are amateur “creatives”, and our class interests aren’t necessarily aligned with paid professional artists.

(I’ll note now that it’s darkly humorous that the 21st century is now automating “creative” jobs away, while ditch-digging and other heavy lifting jobs remain, I wouldn’t have predicted essays and poems by robots, but those now exist).

[Psyren]

Well, there's the disconnect. When I say:



I mean "it is their fault when things go wrong". If one of the authors they contracted plagiarized some text and it made it into the book, the fault is ultimately WotCs.

When I say "they should be held responsible" I don't just mean they should institute a policy--I mean that they, as the publisher who oversaw production of the book, is ultimately responsible for, and bears fault for, anything inappropriate in the book.

I agree they should do something about it, since their policy says they will. But they can't go back in time and stop an artist from lying to them when they submit art they've made with the help of AI.

[Atranen]

I agree they should do something about it, since their policy says they will. But they can't go back in time and stop an artist from lying to them when they submit art they've made with the help of AI.

This is, once again, a misstatement of my point. I am not asking them to go back and time and stop them. I am saying that the responsibility, the fault, ultimately lies with the people who commissioned the work. No more, no less.

Edit: Following up on the AI claim, Wizards has now confirmed (https://www.ign.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coast-confirms-ai-components-were-used-in-magic-the-gathering-marketing-artwork) that they both 1) used a marketing image that was constructed via AI and 2) incorrectly denied that any AI was used.

Perhaps we can be sympathetic that these things are hard to vet, or that it isn't such a bad thing for them to do. But they have done it on several occasions while assuring the fans that they are not doing it. That's sufficient to be upset with them, imo.

[Psyren]

This is, once again, a misstatement of my point. I am not asking them to go back and time and stop them. I am saying that the responsibility, the fault, ultimately lies with the people who commissioned the work. No more, no less.

Edit: Following up on the AI claim, Wizards has now confirmed (https://www.ign.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coast-confirms-ai-components-were-used-in-magic-the-gathering-marketing-artwork) that they both 1) used a marketing image that was constructed via AI and 2) incorrectly denied that any AI was used.

Perhaps we can be sympathetic that these things are hard to vet, or that it isn't such a bad thing for them to do. But they have done it on several occasions while assuring the fans that they are not doing it. That's sufficient to be upset with them, imo.

So what are you asking them to do then, when a contracted artist lies to them? Clearly the policy, apologies, and retractions aren't enough. Self-flagellation maybe? Immolation? Seppuku?

Furthermore, (a) this was for a marketing image, not card or book art, so different review channels, and (b) per your own link, the AI elements came from the tools the artist was using (like Adobe Photoshop). Which raises another fun question for those who revile AI, what happens when every digital art creation tool starts slipping it in? Do we go back to pigments and charcoal? Crayons maybe?

[Atranen]

So what are you asking them to do then, when a contracted artist lies to them? Clearly the policy, apologies, and retractions aren't enough. Self-flagellation maybe? Immolation? Seppuku?

Furthermore, (a) this was for a marketing image, not card or book art, so different review channels, and (b) per your own link, the AI elements came from the tools the artist was using (like Adobe Photoshop). Which raises another fun question for those who revile AI, what happens when every digital art creation tool starts slipping it in? Do we go back to pigments and charcoal? Crayons maybe?

I think people should say it is their fault, rather than that it is not their fault.

[Psyren]

I think people should say it is their fault, rather than that it is not their fault.

It's their fault for being lied to by their vendors, and/or for not having control over the tools their vendors use? You might get some people to say that, but I won't be one of them.

[Amnestic]

It's their fault for being lied to by their vendors, and/or for not having control over the tools their vendors use? You might get some people to say that, but I won't be one of them.

And for not having adequate quality control before publication. People - artists especially - can spot this stuff pretty swiftly. People did, and then they denied it, only backing down days later.

There's not a whole lot of reason, given the repeated missteps, for this to keep happening if they're actually checking it. They clearly aren't, so their apologies and assurances ring a little hollow.

[Atranen]

It's their fault for being lied to by their vendors, and/or for not having control over the tools their vendors use? You might get some people to say that, but I won't be one of them.

Yeah, vetting the vendors they use and ensuring the content is produced ethically is the company's responsibility.

[Brookshw]

Yeah, vetting the vendors they use and ensuring the content is produced ethically is the company's responsibility.

"Ethically"? Now that's a hard pill to swallow, AI art isn't made by sweatshops or victims of human trafficking. There's a debate and a lot of misunderstanding about what it is, and a double standard for a person learning vs. a machine learning. Very, very, few artists have actually pointed to a piece of AI generated art and said 'hey, that's a copy of mine'. What's the ethical objection? Learning, copying or job displacement?

[Atranen]

"Ethically"? Now that's a hard pill to swallow, AI art isn't made by sweatshops or victims of human trafficking. There's a debate and a lot of misunderstanding about what it is, and a double standard for a person learning vs. a machine learning. Very, very, few artists have actually pointed to a piece of AI generated art and said 'hey, that's a copy of mine'. What's the ethical objection? Learning, copying or job displacement?

Yeah, I prefaced my point several posts ago (but no doubt it's buried now) with a caveat. That is, regardless of what we think of the ethics, WotC has expressed to its audience that it is not going to use AI in products. Failures to do so are unethical (misleading customers) even if the act of using AI art itself is ethical.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I prefaced my point several posts ago (but no doubt it's buried now) with a caveat. That is, regardless of what we think of the ethics, WotC has expressed to its audience that it is not going to use AI in products. Failures to do so are unethical (misleading customers) even if the act of using AI art itself is ethical.

Including unknowing or accidental failures?
Because if so, that brings me right back to "they might as go full blown" then.