TheRPGSite

Just posted this on my blog:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/11/tasha-and-d-5e-is-for-experts-and.html

Will paste the entire thing here because I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly what is bothering me, and I want to hear other people's opinions.

I tried to keep optimistic.

I hope this is allowed and that my rant makes some sense. The original has links to other posts (about railroads and "bad hexcrawls" in 5e).

EDIT: this thread has a similar sentiment, I think.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/just-saw-a-flipthrough-of-tasha-s-big-bucket-of-unearthed-arcana-on-youtube/

---
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is the latest D&B 5e book.

I'm probably skipping this one. And maybe a few more. Here is why.

Hint: is not the reprinting of material I already have (like the Artificer class, which I kinda like).

By the way, this is a bit of a rant. Yo'uve been warned...


Tasha's is mostly a book of players options, from what I've seen. And some new DM toys - magic items, group patrons, etc.

But does anyone NEED more character options?

Well, certainly. WotC is selling well, and 5e is popular.

But how? There are more than 30 subclasses in the PHB, more than a dozen races and subraces*, and other customization options (feats, spells, items, fighting styles, backgrounds, etc.). My players haven't tried nearly half of that, nor are they willing to change class and race at every game. Books like Xanathar's and Volo's expand their options significantly, and, to be honest, I let them use whatever race they find on the internet with some adaptations.

(* If you're not familiar with 5e, it is worth mentioning that decent class/race combinations are a lot more numerable nowadays - which I like).

In fact, I have the opposite problem - the amount of choice feels overwhelming for me as a DM, and the players get lost.

Well, more choice is always good. But to require more choice at this point you'd have to be some kind of expert 5e player, haven played dozens of campaigns so far, to at have at least TRIED some of these options for half a dozen levels. None of my players have... nor have I.

The alternative would be someone deep into character optimization and theory-crafting... People who have fun creating mechanically cool characters. And that's is fine, but not our cup of tea. It is also not role-playing. Role-playing begins when the game starts.

On the other hand... Tasha contains some REALLY basic-level stuff. Things like "what is session zero", "you can actually TALK to monsters before killing them", or "you know, if your elf character was raised by dwarves, you could give him proficiency with battleaxes instead of longswords (two nearly identical weapons, BTW)". I'm paraphrasing here, of course.

Do you notice something strange?

How can people play through dozens of campaigns without knowing what a "session zero" is... or realizing they can make their own rules and create their own stuff? It is in the DMG, after all!

When 5e was released, I thought it had a decent amount of crunch... too much for my taste, but not enough to overwhelm me. I got excited with the idea of having an "OSR inspired" D&D being the most popular RPG around!

But mainstream D&D seems to be going in a strange direction... where people are familiar with dozens of "official" builds but are shy to change the rules. Where everyone knows who Volo is, but the idea of a pointcrawl is a complete mystery, hexcrawls are misunderstood, and lots of railroading is acceptable. Where beholders are common but the ideas on spells are still catching up to DCC RPG.

I'm not sure how to put that... but 5e has become too "official". It feels like it is written for people who only know and play D&D 5e and nothing else. Something very specialized... maybe comparable to a decent chef who cooks nothing but good pizza.

There is enough 5e homebrew stuff online for me to know 5e players can be very creative, BTW. Maybe it is a matter of focus. Should we focus on creating new spells, or making magic more interesting? And so on.

And I know this sounds like a criticism of 5e, but it is not. D&D 5e is one of my favorite RPGs EVER. Certainly in the top 10.

Maybe it is just this book that is not for me.

Or maybe it is me - I like lighter systems, rulings over rules, "minimalism", etc. Perhaps I'm a minority among 5e players. I... I have more books than time by this point. Maybe that's just my age speaking.

On the other hand... maybe I should have seen this coming, as many people might have noticed before me.

Anyway, I'm not giving up on 5e yet.

I would buy a new campaign (maybe Icewind Dale...), but please, make it easier to run and less railroad-y. I am tired of having to go to The Alexandrian or to the DM's Guild to fix things.

By the way, that's is WHY I still play a lot of 5e: I know that if I find something I disliked, it is very easy to find someone who "fixed" it online, usually for free. It is just the amount of information I have to deal with that is overwhelming.

Oh, and apparently they fixed the beastmaster ranger. Yay!

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2020, 02:03:56 PM

I'm not sure how to put that... but 5e has become too "official". It feels like it is written for people who only know and play D&D 5e and nothing else. Something very specialized... maybe comparable to a decent chef who cooks nothing but good pizza.

While D&D 5e has said it goes with "rulings, not rules" and that it can be "everyone's D&D," it seems to be going farther and farther into "there is one true way, and that way better match our organized play rules" with every year. As for it being "written for people who only know and play D&D 5e and nothing else," well...that's what they want to be true, so if they keep repeating it long enough, maybe it will be true in the next generation of gamers.

Quote from: HappyDaze on November 28, 2020, 02:11:43 PM
As for it being "written for people who only know and play D&D 5e and nothing else," well...that's what they want to be true, so if they keep repeating it long enough, maybe it will be true in the next generation of gamers.

I'm not sure man. I've been getting the feeling we are a minority among 5e players.

If you have a problem with 5E's approach, I'm guessing you didn't much like 4E, or 3E for that matter. 5E actually de-tangled itself (somewhat) from rulings over rules, if only through having a lighter rules system. It isn't quite OSR, but a lot of folks who didn't like the "new school" of 3E/4E, liked 5E enough to rejoin the fold. Some folks (such as myself) like and use the 5E rules, but port over stuff from different places, be it actual TSR stuff, OSR stuff like Hyperborea, or "retro-vibeish" games like Forbidden Lands.

I'm also not picking up Tasha's, mostly because it doesn't strike me as a book I "need" to won, especially considering that I'm not actively playing right now, and even if and when I start a campaign up again (planned, but delayed by Covid), I probably won't need it for awhile as there are plenty of options for players in the PHB and Xanathar's.

Tasha's is just another toolkit. Even the whole separation of ability bonuses and races thing, while some are complaining that it smacks of wokism, it is--as far as impact at the game table--just another variant approach that individual groups have freedom to embrace (or not). Meaning, it doesn't enforce anything or take anything away, just provides more options. Similarly with everything else. None of it is required.

And it is hardly the case that WotC is glutting the market with splats. They publish 4-5 hardcovers a year, 1-2 of which are adventures, 1-2 settings, and 1 rules supplement of some kind, usually monsters of players options. This is the first players options book since Xanathar's in 2017, so one new such book every few years isn't overwhelming, especially when they are optional.

So my suggestion is that the whole enforcement of one true way to play is largely a mirage. Even if WotC is getting behind wokism and advocating for a more woke approach, there is still the freedom to make the game you want with the 5E rules. You don't have to change the way you want to play or use books and rules you don't want to use.

Now if they publish a revised set of rulebooks in 2024 with the 50th anniversary that change the default significantly, which is possible, that will be a different matter, although the same basic idea will hold true: D&D, and RPGs in general, are infinitely customizable and can be played however we want to play them.

Quote from: Mercurius on November 28, 2020, 03:18:48 PM
If you have a problem with 5E's approach, I'm guessing you didn't much like 4E, or 3E for that matter. 5E actually de-tangled itself (somewhat) from rulings over rules, if only through having a lighter rules system. It isn't quite OSR, but a lot of folks who didn't like the "new school" of 3E/4E, liked 5E enough to rejoin the fold. Some folks (such as myself) like and use the 5E rules, but port over stuff from different places, be it actual TSR stuff, OSR stuff like Hyperborea, or "retro-vibeish" games like Forbidden Lands.

You are right. I didn't much like 4E, or 3E for that matter, and like you I "rejoined the fold" with 5e... kinda.

And yes, I am running a SIGNIFICANTLY simplified 5e at this point.

Quote from: Mercurius on November 28, 2020, 03:18:48 PM
I'm also not picking up Tasha's, mostly because it doesn't strike me as a book I "need" to won, especially considering that I'm not actively playing right now, and even if and when I start a campaign up again (planned, but delayed by Covid), I probably won't need it for awhile as there are plenty of options for players in the PHB and Xanathar's.

Tasha's is just another toolkit. Even the whole separation of ability bonuses and races thing, while some are complaining that it smacks of wokism, it is--as far as impact at the game table--just another variant approach that individual groups have freedom to embrace (or not). Meaning, it doesn't enforce anything or take anything away, just provides more options. Similarly with everything else. None of it is required.

And it is hardly the case that WotC is glutting the market with splats. They publish 4-5 hardcovers a year, 1-2 of which are adventures, 1-2 settings, and 1 rules supplement of some kind, usually monsters of players options. This is the first players options book since Xanathar's in 2017, so one new such book every few years isn't overwhelming, especially when they are optional.

So my suggestion is that the whole enforcement of one true way to play is largely a mirage. Even if WotC is getting behind wokism and advocating for a more woke approach, there is still the freedom to make the game you want with the 5E rules. You don't have to change the way you want to play or use books and rules you don't want to use.

Now if they publish a revised set of rulebooks in 2024 with the 50th anniversary that change the default significantly, which is possible, that will be a different matter, although the same basic idea will hold true: D&D, and RPGs in general, are infinitely customizable and can be played however we want to play them.

I'm not that concerned with "woke" stuff, since I don't learn politics (or economics etc.) from role-playing games. What bothers me is the idea that someone would need WotC's authorization to change stuff around (or, worse, would need an "official" printed book to say that).

You make a great point about the number of books they publish... Yeah, we had nothing like that since Xanathar's, and I'm glad they are publishing adventures.

I also agree there is not "one true way", but it bothers me to think of people never bothering to read any other RPGs except 5e.

Especially if they are publishers, I guess.

One more thing. I don't know how old you are, but the cold, hard truth is that a lot of folks who are getting the feeling of "This game isn't being marketed to me anymore" tend to be Gen Xers (40s-50s), with the stray Boomer (60+) still holding onto his tattered copy of the Efreet DMG, grunting "From my cold, dead hands!" Meaning, if that's how you feel, well, you're justified, because it is true. WotC still wants you to buy their books, but you're not their primary market.

The bulk of 5E players are now Millenials or Z, and WotC is adjusting to that. They don't really need to cater to us anymore. Sure, a best-case scenario for them is that everyone is happily playing D&D, but the player base has gotten so much larger--and younger--over the last six years, that they no longer have to appease grognards to profit, because Gen Xers and Boomers make up a much smaller fraction of the market than they did even a decade ago.

And more to the point: WotC's biggest concern is growth. While you might get the occasional Gen Xer running across an article about D&D in Salon, thinking, "Hey, I used to play that in college!" and dusting off their old polyhedrals, the number of older players remains relatively stable and isn't where potential growth is, which is younger folks. And, well, Millenials are simply more woke, so WotC is taking that demographic seriously (aside from their personal socio-political views). Gen Zers...well, it remains to be seen as the oldest cohort are only now in high school.

All that said, I'm not as pessimistic as some in this forum in that I think the pendulum will swing back. A bit, at least. The current woke cancellation trend will eventually simmer down, just like the Satanic Panic of the 80s quieted (or at least became marginalized and not taken seriously). But unlike the Satanic Panic, there is actually a positive element to wokism in that it does ultimately want to make D&D more inclusive, just in an extremist and over-the-top way. But as these woke warriors mature, they might relax a bit and realize that fantasy orcs aren't black people, and killing things and taking their stuff isn't tantamount to distributing small pox blankets to Native Americans.

I lived in a college town until recently, and many of the college age kids I encountered had only ever played 5e. Furthermore many of them, when asked if they had tried any other rpgs, would answer to the affect of "Like a sci-fi game?"

There is a large influx of new players in the last couple years and many of them have not matured enough as a gamer to branch out yet, especially when all the other gamers they know are also playing 5e, or they were exposed by something like Critical Role.

Lastly, these kids do NOT play 5e with any OSR sensibilities. It is almost always a straight up Superhero Soap Opera.

I think someone in another thread summed 5e up best; that it is the McDonalds of RPGs in every sense (good and bad). It's okay, but not great, food that's readily available everywhere with a menu just broad enough that you can get everyone to agree to go there if there's not a strong vote for something else.

And because it's so ubiquitous, it's also a really good floor... if your food can't measure up to McDonalds fair there's no point in even being in business.

The problem is that D&D doesn't just want to be a floor; it wants to be the ceiling. It doesn't want you going down the street to that Mom & Pop joint that charges a little extra and their fries are nothing special, but makes their patties fresh, char-grills them and tops them with real cheese, fresh leaf lettuce, tomatoes and red onions.

So it does everything it can to convince their customers to never even look beyond those Golden Arches; constant ads, billboards, ever changing deals to make you feel like there's always something new... why go and try that Mom & Pop place down the road when there's always some new deal to try at McDonalds?

That's 5e in a nutshell; the 800 pound soulless corporate gorilla of RPGs doing everything it can to keep their audience from noticing any alternatives.

And why it's not working for you is that you're aware enough of other alternatives to realize that they're not really selling a game/food anymore. They're selling a "lifestyle brand" where the goal is to just keep you on the hook and not even seeing that alternatives are out there.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2020, 03:35:28 PM
I'm not that concerned with "woke" stuff, since I don't learn politics (or economics etc.) from role-playing games. What bothers me is the idea that someone would need WotC's authorization to change stuff around (or, worse, would need an "official" printed book to say that).

You make a great point about the number of books they publish... Yeah, we had nothing like that since Xanathar's, and I'm glad they are publishing adventures.

I also agree there is not "one true way", but it bothers me to think of people never bothering to read any other RPGs except 5e.

Especially if they are publishers, I guess.

Maybe ignore my second post, then. It will be hard to avoid the woke issue on this forum ;).

Anyhow, I hear you. It also bothers--or at least, baffles--me. I think it is a carry-over from 3E and 4E days (in different ways) in which the rules systems were so complex and tightly bound that it was harder to diverge and customize. Also, I think the increasing role of the internet and online discourse over the last 25+ years is a major factor: we're more aware how everyone else is playing, so there is more debate about how it "should" be done.

But it isn't only younger players who have this adherence to RAW and the default mode in the rulebooks, whether rules or lore. Even in a place like ENW, which is mainly inhabited by older folks, there are endless discussions which simmer down to what the default of the game lore should be.

While we can always play the game as we want it, I do understand why it matters to some what the official version of the game states. But in a way, caring too much is just a corollary to adhering to RAW.

Quote from: Chris24601 on November 28, 2020, 03:46:07 PM
I think someone in another thread summed 5e up best; that it is the McDonalds of RPGs in every sense (good and bad). It's okay, but not great, food that's readily available everywhere with a menu just broad enough that you can get everyone to agree to go there if there's not a strong vote for something else.

I definitely agree with this, when I first moved my group to DCC and then eventually BX a few years ago this is one of the main discussions we had, only we used the Marvel Movies as our example.

They need to hit the widest possible audience, and be just good enough that if you don't really have a strong preference it is easier just to stick with 5e.
However, they don't do the 2 styles of play my group usually sticks to particularly well: those being Super Crunchy Battle Titans (Where they want all the splat books to make the most ridiculous characters they can) or OSR Dudes in Dungeon.

Between the characters being just a little bit to powerful by mid levels for really solid OSR play, and not having enough crazy crunch to let you do dumb 3.x stuff it is likely to leave you in this bland middle zone.

Because of how I have seen other run 5e, and Critical Roles huge influence I have taken to calling this style of play Supes & Soaps.
People seem to want to focus on having these narrative focused stories that revolve around their characters, but also want some sluggem out combats (where they always win of course). It is a lot like a comic book.

Now if that's the kinda game you want to play then 5e seems to be great for that. But If I want to be Conan, or a buncha dudes trying to make it rich in a dungeon, or play it like we are all badass anime characters 5e can't do any of those particularly well.

I agree with the OP.  I said something similar in the other thread.

I think the game and the 5E community have been going in the wrong direction - which wouldn't matter so much but if feels at time so predominant that it's strangling everything else around it.

The McDonalds analogy is...limited. I mean, I get that 5E appeals to a wide range of people while not appealing to any one group or style as well as any number of other games. But McDonalds is crap. It is lowest common denominator junk food. 5E is, at least, well designed and incorporates bits and pieces from (when it first came out) four decades of game development.

If we must stick to fast food chains, I think Chipotle or Five Guys is a better analogy. Both are good for fast food, but you can get a better burrito or burger elsewhere, especially if you know how to cook. But the vast majority of people will like Chipotle or Five Guys just fine.

The OSR critique seems to often boil down to: "But it isn't barbeque! I want barbeque, and anything other than barbeque is crap!" 5E has barbeque sauce, but doesn't actually barbeque the food.

McDonalds is a good analogy, I think, but what I'm trying to express does not have much to do with quality... it is more like ubiquity + ignorance. How people can be experts in 5e without ever hearing about DCC (or CoC or GURPS for that matter). And, look, I cannot say any of those games are 100% better than 5e. I just think it is incredibly USEFUL to learn about RPGs, not only 5e D&D.

Heck, even reading Moldvay's Basic - a 50ish-page book - sounds infinitely more useful than getting a 200+ page book with new ideas on how to use your bonus action. If you want something more current, Shadow of the Demon Lord, DCC RPG...

The campaigns bother me the most, because I tried running them, and it is a hassle. While the character options are somewhat balanced and play-test (but yes, there is some power creep and caster supremacy gets worse and worse), there are essential parts of the campaigns that have obvious mistakes (railroading, misunderstanding hexcrawls, etc.). But, I mean, people are still running them and enjoying, so...

EDIT: here is another analogy: a body-builder with strong arms who refuses to train his legs... ever. Nice arms, but training your legs would be really helpful overall.

Quote from: Mercurius on November 28, 2020, 03:48:49 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2020, 03:35:28 PM
I'm not that concerned with "woke" stuff, since I don't learn politics (or economics etc.) from role-playing games. What bothers me is the idea that someone would need WotC's authorization to change stuff around (or, worse, would need an "official" printed book to say that).

You make a great point about the number of books they publish... Yeah, we had nothing like that since Xanathar's, and I'm glad they are publishing adventures.

I also agree there is not "one true way", but it bothers me to think of people never bothering to read any other RPGs except 5e.

Especially if they are publishers, I guess.

Maybe ignore my second post, then. It will be hard to avoid the woke issue on this forum ;).

Anyhow, I hear you. It also bothers--or at least, baffles--me. I think it is a carry-over from 3E and 4E days (in different ways) in which the rules systems were so complex and tightly bound that it was harder to diverge and customize. Also, I think the increasing role of the internet and online discourse over the last 25+ years is a major factor: we're more aware how everyone else is playing, so there is more debate about how it "should" be done.

But it isn't only younger players who have this adherence to RAW and the default mode in the rulebooks, whether rules or lore. Even in a place like ENW, which is mainly inhabited by older folks, there are endless discussions which simmer down to what the default of the game lore should be.

While we can always play the game as we want it, I do understand why it matters to some what the official version of the game states. But in a way, caring too much is just a corollary to adhering to RAW.

You make some good points (in your other posts too, I'll avoid endless quotations).

Definitely 5e is aimed at younger folks at this point (although I'm not a true grognard; I played some Black Box and 2E, but never really "got" 3e, disliked 4e, and only really "dove" into D&D with OSR and 5e).

But yeah, people will defend AD&D being a very simple game with the same ferocity that 5e when I say any of the two have unnecessary rules.

Quote from: Mercurius on November 28, 2020, 04:32:13 PM
The McDonalds analogy is...limited. I mean, I get that 5E appeals to a wide range of people while not appealing to any one group or style as well as any number of other games. But McDonalds is crap. It is lowest common denominator junk food. 5E is, at least, well designed and incorporates bits and pieces from (when it first came out) four decades of game development.

I don't think either Chris or I were really zoning on on the quality of McDonalds specifically, it is just the go to representation of fast food. If you want to replace McDonalds, with Five Guys, that works.

Quote from: TJS on November 28, 2020, 04:29:37 PMI think the game and the 5E community have been going in the wrong direction - which wouldn't matter so much but if feels at time so predominant that it's strangling everything else around it.

Yeah, that's how I feel too.

Quote from: Ghost Planet on November 28, 2020, 04:58:05 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on November 28, 2020, 04:32:13 PM
The McDonalds analogy is...limited. I mean, I get that 5E appeals to a wide range of people while not appealing to any one group or style as well as any number of other games. But McDonalds is crap. It is lowest common denominator junk food. 5E is, at least, well designed and incorporates bits and pieces from (when it first came out) four decades of game development.

I don't think either Chris or I were really zoning on on the quality of McDonalds specifically, it is just the go to representation of fast food. If you want to replace McDonalds, with Five Guys, that works.

TBH I barely knew Five Guys until a couple of years ago, so I like the McDonalds analogy, but I get what you're saying.

Maybe something like a "Starbucks barista" would fit: that guy who loves Starbucks and knows every detail of the menu, but refuses to try other types of coffee (TBH, I'm not an expert, maybe Starbucks is trash too).

Another thing to consider... It didn't HAVE to be this way, EVEN IF they want to attract new players.

WotC could just HIRE some great game designers* and have the best books around. Something like GURPS splatbooks, things that are useful even if you don't play the "core" system. Maybe some awesome NEW settings.

* freelancers, I guess. I am amazed they "lost" Robert J. Schwalb somehow, SotDL is superior to 5e in many points IMO.

I heard the 4e DMG 2 was full of great ideas... and believe me, I'm no 4e fan.

I'm probably being a stickler here. But things like the ToC in Tomb of Annihilation (or the lack of distances in CoS) should not happen, IMO.

I thought the McDonald's analogy was pretty good.  I remember in one of my marketing classes there was a statement by a McDonald's exec, roughly, that "We're a real estate company, not a food company."  In other words, their product is good enough that you'll eat it when you're hungry, but no better, and their real goal is to be right there when you want some food right now.  Similarly, 5E is, IMO no more than an okay game (feel free to disagree if you like, that's not what I'm arguing at the moment) but if you want a game right now, you can find one.  It makes business sense for WOTC to focus resources on making 5E pervasive rather than trying to make it a better game.

I picked up Tasha's and read through it.

Maybe if Xanathar's hadn't come out, I'd have a greater sense of value with  Tasha's. Xanathar's seems to have a lot more value for everyone and, at least to me, fill in some holes. I wish that Tasha's did have a bit more 'system' to it when it came to the obvious psionics sub-classes.

Quote from: TJS on November 28, 2020, 04:29:37 PM
I agree with the OP.  I said something similar in the other thread.

I think the game and the 5E community have been going in the wrong direction - which wouldn't matter so much but if feels at time so predominant that it's strangling everything else around it.

5E and its community have been trying to kill off anything not 5E through their Organized Play in FLGS for years now.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2020, 02:03:56 PMHow can people play through dozens of campaigns without knowing what a "session zero" is... or realizing they can make their own rules and create their own stuff? It is in the DMG, after all!

Recalling from years ago when I was browsing that epic thread at Enworld where Gary Gygax was answering questions: the subject of the world of Greyhawk came up. I forget his exact words, but they were to the effect that he was surprised by how successful it was, and that before someone else suggested it, the idea of trying to sell a pre-made campaign world had never even occurred to him, because he just took it for granted that everyone would want to make their own.

Those of us who like to tinker with rules and make own own stuff might always have overestimated how popular that aspect of the hobby is.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2020, 04:54:50 PM
McDonalds is a good analogy, I think, but what I'm trying to express does not have much to do with quality... it is more like ubiquity + ignorance. How people can be experts in 5e without ever hearing about DCC (or CoC or GURPS for that matter). And, look, I cannot say any of those games are 100% better than 5e. I just think it is incredibly USEFUL to learn about RPGs, not only 5e D&D.

Heck, even reading Moldvay's Basic - a 50ish-page book - sounds infinitely more useful than getting a 200+ page book with new ideas on how to use your bonus action. If you want something more current, Shadow of the Demon Lord, DCC RPG...

The campaigns bother me the most, because I tried running them, and it is a hassle. While the character options are somewhat balanced and play-test (but yes, there is some power creep and caster supremacy gets worse and worse), there are essential parts of the campaigns that have obvious mistakes (railroading, misunderstanding hexcrawls, etc.). But, I mean, people are still running them and enjoying, so...

I hear you and feel your pain - but again, you and I are not the drones WotC is looking for. They're looking at their new Millenial player base, and upcoming Gen Zers who know nothing of Moldvay or THACO or the OSR. They might eventually.

In that sense, the McDonalds analogy might work insofar as both McDs and D&D are the "gateway drugs" to fast food and RPGs, respectively.

Many people stop at McDonalds because it is cheap and, frankly, tasty in a junk food way. Some try other fast food joints and restaurants, perhaps gradually fine-tuning their tastes. A smaller percentage get into cooking and start making their own burgers.

But the majority of people stop somewhere before that, and settle on their "brand" - be it McDonalds, Five Guys, or D&D. It is a small percentage that get into boutique games or even creating their own.

So while I agree that people are only enriched by going deeper than D&D (or 5E), I also understand why they--especially casual players--just stick with the official material.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2020, 04:54:50 PMEDIT: here is another analogy: a body-builder with strong arms who refuses to train his legs... ever. Nice arms, but training your legs would be really helpful overall.

I don't think that quite works, because it implies that 5E-only folks are "doing it wrong." Or rather, if we want to use the analogy of body-building, I think the equivalent is someone who just goes to the gym 2-3 times a week for 45 minutes to maintain a decent physique, but doesn't get into it in any great depth.

Honestly, I think it's less a matter of 5e players "playing it wrong" as it is the 5e development team is "teaching it wrong" (and perhaps deliberately so).

I mean "session zero" and "you can change the rules" is stuff that should be front and center in the core books, not in a supplement released five years after the fact.

I mean, 4E gets a lot of flak, but one of the things it's generally gotten praise for is it's DMG and the solid advice it offered new DMs on things like player motivations (how to recognize, engage their interests and what to watch out for), lots of guidance on how to improvise (including the famous Page 42) and other issues commonly run into when getting a campaign off the ground.

That they knew how to do it for 4E and then set that aside for the anemic effort to teach new DMs in 5e implies a deliberate effort to change the way DMs set up and run campaigns and the way players approach the rules that might be great for keeping people hooked on buying your adventure paths and using only official options rather than homebrewing what you need.

I think the problem isn't with the content as such, but the general idea that these are considered player options rather than DM options. I'm of the view that the DM creates the world and the players play within it. If the DM's world only has humans and elves then those should be the only options on the table. Ideally, the DM should pick the races, the gods, the classes, the magic items, the spells, and so on. Obviously the DM should take player preferences into account when pitching the game. But letting the players pick and choose from all the options always seems to result in a party that looks like the cast of Fraggle Rock, with every size shape and colour of the rainbow.

To be fair, presuming that anything in the core book is allowed isn't unreasonable and presenting new races and classes as player options has been the standard in D&D for 20 years now.

Conceptually, they're player options because they're rule elements players will be interacting with if the DM allows their use. This is why it made a lot of sense in 4E where it continued 3e's magic mart approach to buying/crafting magic items to have moved the magic item section to the PHB instead of having it in the DMG (whereas 5e's choice to go back to AD&D's approach to magic items made it sensible to put it back in the DMG... basically, 3e was the only edition where magic items were presented in kinda the wrong place).

Also, to be fair, not every group ends up with a freakshow menagerie even if those options are available. My ruleset includes options for everything from sprites to giants to dragons; but the vast majority of playtesters have chosen humans, dwarves and elves with only a few picking less traditional options (and even then mostly in the fairly typical options from other games; malfeans/tieflings, orcs, a golem/warforged and, while it's rare for D&D, a Palladium fan picked a wolfen beastman, which is a basic race in Palladium Fantasy).

That might just be the nature of the people playtesting, but when a solid 75% are picking races even OSR purists would be allowing (human, elf, dwarf) and 20% of the rest have appeared in at least one PHB (or other fantasy system equivalent) in the last 20 years... it's hard for me to put much stock in the "unless we ban it we'll get a freakshow" mentality.

The 4E DMG was the worst book of the three!  The advice was what sunk it. It gave advice on two broad fronts, both mutually incompatible with each other and the way 4E is meant to be played.  Basically, it was Robin Laws hired to write his usual "make it up as you go" pablum mixed with old-style but excessively dry and phoned-in D&D boilerplate--as if someone scanned the 1E DMG and reduced it to a Power Point slide for a product that didn't conform to the original.

The DMG should help the DM run the game.  Not D&D in general, but the game as presented in the PHB and the MM.  The 5E DMG isn't great.  (It's quite uneven, being notably useful in a few places, completely worthless in others, and just odd most of the way through--better content but even more than normal WotC lousy writing.)  Still, it is a vast improvement on the 4E DMG for the simple reason that it is more focused on 5E than the 4E guide was on 4E.

And yet the people I know who first game DMing a go during 4E all found the guidance very helpful to them. Maybe because just about everything outside of the combat engine in 4E was geared very much towards "make it up as you go along."

The 4E DMG presented the idea that you only need rules detailed enough for the task at hand. For combat that meant unless it was a set piece battle, it was suggested that a one-sided mook fight be resolved with a check or two (we traditionally used one to see if we could dispatch them stealthily and one to see if we lost any hit points while doing so) or even just hand waved as nothing more than a bit of flavor text.

It left most social interaction and exploration to simple ad hoc rolls and GM improvisation because as any OSR GM knows... that's all those sections really need and, generally, the less mechanics are involved on the player end, the more engaged the players will be. This was how everyone in my area ran it to great effect.

What DIDN'T mesh with the advice given were the early adventure modules which were still being written with a 3e mindset. If you're judging "meant to be played" off of those then I could see the disconnect.

But I don't know of a 4E fan who considers those adventure modules to be anything other than garbage and most definitely NOT indicative of how 4E was meant to be played. Fortunately the 4E DMG made setting up your own adventures a snap so we just created our own adventures and settings in line with the DMG's advice.

I think part of the reason why D&D players are so reluctant to change 5e, so fixated on having an "official" ruling for everything is an extended hangover from 3rd edition.  3rd edition really suffered from one of the worst cases of "House of Cards" game design I have ever seen.  tl;dr; 3rd made it really hard to go in and change anything in the system because all of the rules were co-dependent. The knock on effect was that groups were very heavily punished for doing any part of the rules "wrong."

I still like 5e even if I'm likely going to give "Tasha's Big Book of Things the Playerbase" figured out years ago a pass.

4 years ago, I returned to the hobby after a longggg hiatus.  D&D 5E was already 2 years into its run, and I was complaining that they hadn't already released a MM2.  People kept telling me how great it was that WOTC had embraced a slow release schedule.  It was seen as being some kind of noble endeavor.  Well, 4 years later; we are now 6 years into D&D 5E, and it's grown into a pretty big edition of D&D.  Eventually, it happened anyway.

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 01, 2020, 12:53:37 AM
Well, 4 years later; we are now 6 years into D&D 5E, and it's grown into a pretty big edition of D&D.  Eventually, it happened anyway.

In terms of overall quantity of material released, it is still a small edition of D&D. In comparison with other game lines released in the last 10 years (excepting Pathfinder), it is a fairly big line. However, some Modiphus lines can challenge it, and even Torg Eternity has 14 hard cover books (and 4 more set to drop this month) released since 2017.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 30, 2020, 08:12:17 AM
The 4E DMG was the worst book of the three!  The advice was what sunk it. It gave advice on two broad fronts, both mutually incompatible with each other and the way 4E is meant to be played.  Basically, it was Robin Laws hired to write his usual "make it up as you go" pablum mixed with old-style but excessively dry and phoned-in D&D boilerplate--as if someone scanned the 1E DMG and reduced it to a Power Point slide for a product that didn't conform to the original.

Robin Laws was not involved in the 4E DMG. James Wyatt was principal author. AFAIC, 4E's DMG, is the best DMG written to actually teach a DM how to run the game. 5E, 3E, 2E, and even 1e (though my personal fave) all pale in comparison in this regard. And generally the best parts of the 5E DMG, are lifts (sometimes word for word) from the 4E DMG.

Robin Laws contributed to the 4e DMG2.

I think they'd be better off writing guidelines on how to create your own new classes, races, magic items, and so on rather than just splatting out pre-baked variations. It's the same problem in every edition.

Quote from: JeffB on December 01, 2020, 08:49:27 AM
AFAIC, 4E's DMG, is the best DMG written to actually teach a DM how to run the game. 5E, 3E, 2E, and even 1e (though my personal fave) all pale in comparison in this regard. And generally the best parts of the 5E DMG, are lifts (sometimes word for word) from the 4E DMG.

It's really a shame how many people allow their absolute hatred of 4E to convince themselves that absolutely everything in the Edition was wretched and should be rejected not on its own merits, but just because it was a part of 4E.

There are a LOT of good things that 4E came up with worth preserving and the DMG's  "DM advice" is definitely one of those things. Which, as mentioned, 5e lifted and tried to pretend was it's own innovation.

5e did a lot of that. I still remember that article from Monte Cook's when he signed on early in 5e's development where he tried to sell Passive Perception as this revolutionary new thing they'd only just come up with... that had been part of 4E from Day 1. It got him roundly mocked, but was  also one of the earliest indicators that the 5e dev team intended to fully throw 4E under the bus and claim that anything that was lifted from 4E was first invented by the 5e team.

Honestly, the part I miss most from 4E was the extensive work it did on reimagining a lot of the fluff to create a much more useful default setting than the standard D&D setup.

Even there it was such good work the 5e team cribbed from it. The 4E World Axis cosmology was so effective that even 5e stole the primary aspects of it (the 5e Great Wheel is basically 4E's World Axis with the Great Wheel dropped into the Astral Sea in place of an archipelago of islands/divine realms (that were the great wheel planes just not in a wheel formation).

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 01, 2020, 10:19:32 AM

Quote from: JeffB on December 01, 2020, 08:49:27 AM
AFAIC, 4E's DMG, is the best DMG written to actually teach a DM how to run the game. 5E, 3E, 2E, and even 1e (though my personal fave) all pale in comparison in this regard. And generally the best parts of the 5E DMG, are lifts (sometimes word for word) from the 4E DMG.

It's really a shame how many people allow their absolute hatred of 4E to convince themselves that absolutely everything in the Edition was wretched and should be rejected not on its own merits, but just because it was a part of 4E.

There are a LOT of good things that 4E came up with worth preserving and the DMG's  "DM advice" is definitely one of those things. Which, as mentioned, 5e lifted and tried to pretend was it's own innovation.

5e did a lot of that. I still remember that article from Monte Cook's when he signed on early in 5e's development where he tried to sell Passive Perception as this revolutionary new thing they'd only just come up with... that had been part of 4E from Day 1. It got him roundly mocked, but was  also one of the earliest indicators that the 5e dev team intended to fully throw 4E under the bus and claim that anything that was lifted from 4E was first invented by the 5e team.

Honestly, the part I miss most from 4E was the extensive work it did on reimagining a lot of the fluff to create a much more useful default setting than the standard D&D setup.

Even there it was such good work the 5e team cribbed from it. The 4E World Axis cosmology was so effective that even 5e stole the primary aspects of it (the 5e Great Wheel is basically 4E's World Axis with the Great Wheel dropped into the Astral Sea in place of an archipelago of islands/divine realms (that were the great wheel planes just not in a wheel formation).

You'll get no argument from me. I'm one of those old bassturds who started in the 70s with the LBBs, but 4E is my fave edition from Wizards. It was a massive breath of fresh air after 30 years of the SoS in lore, and mechanics. Frankly 4E brought out more creativity from me than any edition since B/X hit the shelves. And I'd rather run it than any other D&D edition save perhaps my OD&D homebrew. I did make many simplifications for my ToTM style.

I get that it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I had tons of fun running the exact same type of adventures and worlds I started with and have been doing since 1977- an episodic, "story game" style in the manner of Conan or F&GM S&S short tales*


*Which many luminaries in the OSR ( who are younger than I am and started later than I did), have explained to me that my original group  was doing it "wrong" back then, and I've continued to follow in these erroneous ways all these years.   :'(

I loved 5E and DMed it for years. At first I thought it was THE edition. As time went on however, I started to see more and more of its warts and added more and more house rules to fix it. Until I had a small book of house rules and even then they added so much to the game that went against the direction I felt like the game needed to go.

I NEVER felt 5E was Old School at all. I just do not see it. Sure you could make it Old School by adding tons of house rules and chopping it up. Default though it is as modern as they come.

As time went on I just got more and more dissatisfied. I just got the new rule book for 5E on the same day I got my copy of Old School Essentials Rules Tome. 

Within hours I started my new Old School Essentials game. Granted it's still early days for my game but I have not felt this happy about rpg's in many years.

I have not played a single edition of D&D that I didn't like, but not every edition have I loved for sure.

I enjoyed 4E for what it was.  Ran a very successful, multi-year campaign with it.  I managed that by ignoring all the advice in the DMG.

When you equate "criticism" with "hatred" is says more about you than the target.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 01, 2020, 01:08:17 PM
I enjoyed 4E for what it was.  Ran a very successful, multi-year campaign with it.  I managed that by ignoring all the advice in the DMG.

I ran Dark Sun with 4e, and liked it well enough. It helped that that edition of Dark Sun incorporated a lot of the fixes for issues that early 4e had.
And yeah, first step was to toss the DMG advice. Though the setting book had some good stuff in it.

Mostly 4e got me into running the game with miniatures, which I continued with other games and editions.

If 5E releases a Dark Sun hardcover, I hope they do the setting justice.

But then again, slavery and cannibalism are parts of the setting.   I don't see WOTC having the stomach to go there, in this climate.

Quote from: JeffB on December 01, 2020, 08:49:27 AM
AFAIC, 4E's DMG, is the best DMG written to actually teach a DM how to run the game. 5E, 3E, 2E, and even 1e (though my personal fave) all pale in comparison in this regard. And generally the best parts of the 5E DMG, are lifts (sometimes word for word) from the 4E DMG.

I just dont get this.  If it was the best to teach a DM how to run a game then why was it not more successful?

Quote from: Shasarak on December 01, 2020, 02:32:36 PM

Quote from: JeffB on December 01, 2020, 08:49:27 AM
AFAIC, 4E's DMG, is the best DMG written to actually teach a DM how to run the game. 5E, 3E, 2E, and even 1e (though my personal fave) all pale in comparison in this regard. And generally the best parts of the 5E DMG, are lifts (sometimes word for word) from the 4E DMG.

I just dont get this.  If it was the best to teach a DM how to run a game then why was it not more successful?

I never really got into 4e, but assuming that the DMG was that good, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it wasn't more successful because the game itself sucked. And you can make the greatest DMG in the world, but if the system you're making it for sucks (or simply doesn't get enough traction with its target audience) then the game itself is still gonna flop no matter how good the DMG supposedly is.

Quote from: Shasarak on December 01, 2020, 02:32:36 PM

Quote from: JeffB on December 01, 2020, 08:49:27 AM
AFAIC, 4E's DMG, is the best DMG written to actually teach a DM how to run the game. 5E, 3E, 2E, and even 1e (though my personal fave) all pale in comparison in this regard. And generally the best parts of the 5E DMG, are lifts (sometimes word for word) from the 4E DMG.

I just dont get this.  If it was the best to teach a DM how to run a game then why was it not more successful?

Seems pretty simple to me. The majority of the fanbase rejected the game mechanics. The DM advice is gold no matter the edition.

Quote from: JeffB on December 01, 2020, 05:29:48 PM
Seems pretty simple to me. The majority of the fanbase rejected the game mechanics. The DM advice is gold no matter the edition.

I dont know how much time I spent trying to get skill challenges to work only to find out in the end that the advice was actually gold all along.

Quote from: jeff37923 on November 29, 2020, 08:17:34 AM

Quote from: TJS on November 28, 2020, 04:29:37 PM
I agree with the OP.  I said something similar in the other thread.

I think the game and the 5E community have been going in the wrong direction - which wouldn't matter so much but if feels at time so predominant that it's strangling everything else around it.

5E and its community have been trying to kill off anything not 5E through their Organized Play in FLGS for years now.

WOTC has been pulling that stunt since at least 2000. Its nothing new and Games Workshops been doing long before.

There was a reason I skipped 3e and not just because the system just didnt grab me. And that was because WOTC was killing off FLGS deliberately and then started locking their stores out to anything but WOTC approved media, Magic and maybe D&D depending on the store. Which lead to the WOTC stores demises. Good riddance.

This 'helped' by GW doing the same before them, but mostly targeting minis heavy hobby shops then any FLGS. And they too had lockdowns on what you could play in your store, eg: only GW product. Nothing from other companies. That is assuming they didnt kill off local FLGS deliberately as well. The death of the GW Store will be a time to celebrate.

Quote from: VisionStorm on December 01, 2020, 04:52:16 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on December 01, 2020, 02:32:36 PM

Quote from: JeffB on December 01, 2020, 08:49:27 AM
AFAIC, 4E's DMG, is the best DMG written to actually teach a DM how to run the game. 5E, 3E, 2E, and even 1e (though my personal fave) all pale in comparison in this regard. And generally the best parts of the 5E DMG, are lifts (sometimes word for word) from the 4E DMG.

I just dont get this.  If it was the best to teach a DM how to run a game then why was it not more successful?

I never really got into 4e, but assuming that the DMG was that good, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it wasn't more successful because the game itself sucked. And you can make the greatest DMG in the world, but if the system you're making it for sucks (or simply doesn't get enough traction with its target audience) then the game itself is still gonna flop no matter how good the DMG supposedly is.

Over on BGG board gamers and storygamers loved 4e to to near fanatical levels for its "balance". That was the word most often used to describe why 4e was the pinnacle of RPG design.

I remember the 4e DMG 2 having some cool ideas, but do not remember anything special about the DMG 1.

Could anyone give me some examples?

The 5e DMG is pretty meh. While the AD&D DMG talked about bell curves, the 5e prefers to ignore the math to make things easier. They no longer assume an average D&D player can learn the very basics of dice statistics.

EDIT: I played quite a lot of 4e and found the game very boring (very "character sheet focused"), but there is PLENTY of good stuff in there. The warlord, bloodied, some fluff, some monsters, the Dark Sun reboot, etc. Even the melee weapons are more interesting than 5e IIRC.

I find myself contemplating Pathfinder 1 for my next game (and I haven't play 3.5 for 15 years).

I just want some real choices.  I'm starting to feel that 5E is played out, already in the current game some of the players struggled not to repeat themselves and to find something new to play and this is only the 3rd set of characters they've played.

Plus Pathfinder has the slow progression XP track to keep the PCs from rushing into high levels and enough variant classes to avoid some of the disparities in classes - And I can just tell insist that primary casters need to take a level or two of expert at certain points in order to slow down their progression.

Playing 5E, however, has reminded me of how good some of those early 3.0 games were that I ran (and how much more tools I had to work with).  I mostly burnt out on it as a player in other people's games.

Quote from: TJS on December 04, 2020, 05:14:59 PM
I find myself contemplating Pathfinder 1 for my next game (and I haven't play 3.5 for 15 years).

I just want some real choices.  I'm starting to feel that 5E is played out, already in the current game some of the players struggled not to repeat themselves and to find something new to play and this is only the 3rd set of characters they've played.

Plus Pathfinder has the slow progression XP track to keep the PCs from rushing into high levels and enough variant classes to avoid some of the disparities in classes - And I can just tell insist that primary casters need to take a level or two of expert at certain points in order to slow down their progression.

Playing 5E, however, has reminded me of how good some of those early 3.0 games were that I ran (and how much more tools I had to work with).  I mostly burnt out on it as a player in other people's games.

For fantasy, I find myself looking at WFRP 4e. It's got the slow, broad character growth down, I prefer the overall power level of WFRP over D&D 5e, and I like the setting better than any published D&D 5e setting.

I didn't approach D&D 5E until 2016, after it was 2 years into its run.  I watched tons of videos, by many different creators.  I also watched a plethora of videos about all editions of D&D, and much of the OSR.  5E seemed very approachable, via the Core 3 books.

In a short amount of time, I became frustrated by the lack of a MM2.  Then Volo's was released, and it was only Half a MM2.  So, I turned to buying a bunch of the awesome Bestiaries for Pathfinder 1st Edition.  This in turn, led to me buying many other books for PF 1E.  Might as well have enough to run it, as an option?  However, I stuck with 5E because it was easier to grasp and keep up with. 

Then Xanathar's was out, and it offered some cool options; such as an improved Ranger Class.  Probably one of my favorite 5E books.  I just consider it to be on the table, period.

Then I realized I didn't like the concept of feats, period.  It seems like super heroes, not heroic fantasy.  Then OD&D, via White Box FMAG was a breath of fresh air.  It reminded me of playing AD&D, but with one small simple rules book.

I return to D&D 5E now, and it's starting to look a little like 3.0 / 3.5 / PF, if you allow anything and everything.  I see so many things going on now.  So many possibilities.  A DM can't just be casual about running a game.  They have to approach it like a job.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2020, 06:21:49 PM
For fantasy, I find myself looking at WFRP 4e. It's got the slow, broad character growth down, I prefer the overall power level of WFRP over D&D 5e, and I like the setting better than any published D&D 5e setting.

What's the setting like?

Quote from: Aglondir on December 04, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2020, 06:21:49 PM
For fantasy, I find myself looking at WFRP 4e. It's got the slow, broad character growth down, I prefer the overall power level of WFRP over D&D 5e, and I like the setting better than any published D&D 5e setting.

What's the setting like?

You're really not familiar with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's "Old World" setting? Ok, where to start...

https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page (https://whfb.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page) should get you everything you need to know, but it will take a good while to dig through.

The good stuff in the 4e DMG is actually verbatim from the book "3e Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies"...

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 04, 2020, 10:00:19 PM
I didn't approach D&D 5E until 2016, after it was 2 years into its run.  I watched tons of videos, by many different creators.  I also watched a plethora of videos about all editions of D&D, and much of the OSR.  5E seemed very approachable, via the Core 3 books.

In a short amount of time, I became frustrated by the lack of a MM2.  Then Volo's was released, and it was only Half a MM2.  So, I turned to buying a bunch of the awesome Bestiaries for Pathfinder 1st Edition.  This in turn, led to me buying many other books for PF 1E.  Might as well have enough to run it, as an option?  However, I stuck with 5E because it was easier to grasp and keep up with. 

Then Xanathar's was out, and it offered some cool options; such as an improved Ranger Class.  Probably one of my favorite 5E books.  I just consider it to be on the table, period.

Then I realized I didn't like the concept of feats, period.  It seems like super heroes, not heroic fantasy.  Then OD&D, via White Box FMAG was a breath of fresh air.  It reminded me of playing AD&D, but with one small simple rules book.

I return to D&D 5E now, and it's starting to look a little like 3.0 / 3.5 / PF, if you allow anything and everything.  I see so many things going on now.  So many possibilities.  A DM can't just be casual about running a game.  They have to approach it like a job.

I assume that you have the Kobold monster books? Some consider them the best monster books for 5E, and there are now three of them. Plus, the digest-size is very handy.

Quote from: Mercurius on December 07, 2020, 12:23:06 PM

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 04, 2020, 10:00:19 PM
I didn't approach D&D 5E until 2016, after it was 2 years into its run.  I watched tons of videos, by many different creators.  I also watched a plethora of videos about all editions of D&D, and much of the OSR.  5E seemed very approachable, via the Core 3 books.

In a short amount of time, I became frustrated by the lack of a MM2.  Then Volo's was released, and it was only Half a MM2.  So, I turned to buying a bunch of the awesome Bestiaries for Pathfinder 1st Edition.  This in turn, led to me buying many other books for PF 1E.  Might as well have enough to run it, as an option?  However, I stuck with 5E because it was easier to grasp and keep up with. 

Then Xanathar's was out, and it offered some cool options; such as an improved Ranger Class.  Probably one of my favorite 5E books.  I just consider it to be on the table, period.

Then I realized I didn't like the concept of feats, period.  It seems like super heroes, not heroic fantasy.  Then OD&D, via White Box FMAG was a breath of fresh air.  It reminded me of playing AD&D, but with one small simple rules book.

I return to D&D 5E now, and it's starting to look a little like 3.0 / 3.5 / PF, if you allow anything and everything.  I see so many things going on now.  So many possibilities.  A DM can't just be casual about running a game.  They have to approach it like a job.

I assume that you have the Kobold monster books? Some consider them the best monster books for 5E, and there are now three of them. Plus, the digest-size is very handy.

I have the first Tome of Beasts, for D&D 5E.  I agree, it is a very good Monster Manual.  That makes 4 total, that I have for D&D 5E; plus 5 total for Pathfinder 1E; plus 4 Total for D&D 4E; plus the original AD&D Monster Manual.  I have slowed down a bit, on acquiring Monster Manuals.

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 07, 2020, 01:04:43 PM

Quote from: Mercurius on December 07, 2020, 12:23:06 PM

I assume that you have the Kobold monster books? Some consider them the best monster books for 5E, and there are now three of them. Plus, the digest-size is very handy.

I have the first Tome of Beasts, for D&D 5E.  I agree, it is a very good Monster Manual.  That makes 4 total, that I have for D&D 5E; plus 5 total for Pathfinder 1E; plus 4 Total for D&D 4E; plus the original AD&D Monster Manual.  I have slowed down a bit, on acquiring Monster Manuals.

Yeah, these are good if you're looking for Monster Manuals. The Creature Codex is a good one if like ToB.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/252157/Creature-Codex-for-5th-Edition

I have my own Monster book for OSR/5e, but it aimed at creating your own monsters, and PDF only.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317448/Teratogenicon?src=hottest_filtered

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 07, 2020, 01:42:29 PM
I have my own Monster book for OSR/5e, but it aimed at creating your own monsters, and PDF only.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317448/Teratogenicon?src=hottest_filtered

Oooo that does look neat. :)

Quote from: Aglondir on December 04, 2020, 10:17:50 PM
What's the setting like?

Faux-medieval/Renaissance Europe, but with elves and dwarves and halflings, all distrusted minorities in the human empire.  Sure do seem to be lots of stories of murderous homicidal halflings too.   

Kind of game where you start off as a ratcatcher (it's what it sounds like) or a guy who covers a branch with tar and seed in hopes of luring birds to perch and get stuck (which you then rip off the branch, since sparrow legs don't have much meet anyway).  Then you work your way up to a lowly guard or apprentice scribe.  Maybe someday, with a lot of luck or work, you might actually become a spellcaster or nobleman, but you'll probably also develop some insanity or corruption (or syphilis) along the way. 

Gods are real, but don't do much.  Except the Ruinous Powers, who do a lot.  And it's all bad.

Undead, beastmen, Chaos dwarves, greenskins (orcs and goblins), and other critters are out there, but they're like extremist terrorists: sure they're out there, but they're waaay out there, and you'll never see them.  Unless they come attack your home.  Which happens.  A lot more than anyone wants to admit.  And of course, your GM is liable to make adventures dealing with them.  It's so uncertain and frightening, that some people say there's even an entire underground nation of hidden ratmen that are hiding everywhere.  But any sane and respectable person will be quick to calm your nerves at such lies. 

Magic is real, and unpredictable, and simultaneously as impressive as it is in an average D&D game yet not as common.  Your characters may -never- get a magic item more impressive than a potion of healing.  Wizards have impressive spells, but not very many. 

Put another way: it's the kind of game where your characters explore a sewer, fight a bunch of crazy Chaos cultists, find a magical amulet on the cultists' leader, and then mutate into an insane gibbering abomination due to the corruption radiating from the amulet over the span of the next three or four adventures.  Oh yeah, and everyone gets typhoid from being in those sewers and has to roll to see how much permanent health they lose, because WFRP loves them random rolls that give or take from your character (it's a feature for the game, not a flaw).

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on December 07, 2020, 04:40:23 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on December 04, 2020, 10:17:50 PM
What's the setting like?

Faux-medieval/Renaissance Europe, but with elves and dwarves and halflings, all distrusted minorities in the human empire.  Sure do seem to be lots of stories of murderous homicidal halflings too.   

Kind of game where you start off as a ratcatcher (it's what it sounds like) or a guy who covers a branch with tar and seed in hopes of luring birds to perch and get stuck (which you then rip off the branch, since sparrow legs don't have much meet anyway).  Then you work your way up to a lowly guard or apprentice scribe.  Maybe someday, with a lot of luck or work, you might actually become a spellcaster or nobleman, but you'll probably also develop some insanity or corruption (or syphilis) along the way. 

Gods are real, but don't do much.  Except the Ruinous Powers, who do a lot.  And it's all bad.

Undead, beastmen, Chaos dwarves, greenskins (orcs and goblins), and other critters are out there, but they're like extremist terrorists: sure they're out there, but they're waaay out there, and you'll never see them.  Unless they come attack your home.  Which happens.  A lot more than anyone wants to admit.  And of course, your GM is liable to make adventures dealing with them.  It's so uncertain and frightening, that some people say there's even an entire underground nation of hidden ratmen that are hiding everywhere.  But any sane and respectable person will be quick to calm your nerves at such lies. 

Magic is real, and unpredictable, and simultaneously as impressive as it is in an average D&D game yet not as common.  Your characters may -never- get a magic item more impressive than a potion of healing.  Wizards have impressive spells, but not very many. 

Put another way: it's the kind of game where your characters explore a sewer, fight a bunch of crazy Chaos cultists, find a magical amulet on the cultists' leader, and then mutate into an insane gibbering abomination due to the corruption radiating from the amulet over the span of the next three or four adventures.  Oh yeah, and everyone gets typhoid from being in those sewers and has to roll to see how much permanent health they lose, because WFRP loves them random rolls that give or take from your character (it's a feature for the game, not a flaw).

Just reading that makes me want to play WH again (though my group will never go for it).  Nothing combines ridiculous with grimdark like WHFRP!

Quote from: Thondor on December 07, 2020, 03:39:12 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 07, 2020, 01:42:29 PM
I have my own Monster book for OSR/5e, but it aimed at creating your own monsters, and PDF only.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317448/Teratogenicon?src=hottest_filtered

Oooo that does look neat. :)

Thank you!

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2020, 11:13:48 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on December 04, 2020, 10:17:50 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2020, 06:21:49 PM
For fantasy, I find myself looking at WFRP 4e. It's got the slow, broad character growth down, I prefer the overall power level of WFRP over D&D 5e, and I like the setting better than any published D&D 5e setting.

What's the setting like?

You're really not familiar with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's "Old World" setting? Ok, where to start...

I missed it somehow. Same with HackMaster.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 07:49:14 PM
Just reading that makes me want to play WH again (though my group will never go for it).  Nothing combines ridiculous with grimdark like WHFRP!

It does sound fun. Much more so than 5E. Would it be fair to say WHFRP is Game of Thrones + some old school D&D stuff?

Quote from: Aglondir on December 07, 2020, 11:47:02 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 07:49:14 PM
Just reading that makes me want to play WH again (though my group will never go for it).  Nothing combines ridiculous with grimdark like WHFRP!

It does sound fun. Much more so than 5E. Would it be fair to say WHFRP is Game of Thrones + some old school D&D stuff?

And German, lots of German.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 08, 2020, 01:07:10 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on December 07, 2020, 11:47:02 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 07:49:14 PM
Just reading that makes me want to play WH again (though my group will never go for it).  Nothing combines ridiculous with grimdark like WHFRP!

It does sound fun. Much more so than 5E. Would it be fair to say WHFRP is Game of Thrones + some old school D&D stuff?

And German, lots of German.

Well, German through British eyes perhaps, but it's safe to more generally call it European. Compared to D&D's take, it's noticeably different.

Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 08, 2020, 01:07:10 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on December 07, 2020, 11:47:02 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 07, 2020, 07:49:14 PM
Just reading that makes me want to play WH again (though my group will never go for it).  Nothing combines ridiculous with grimdark like WHFRP!

It does sound fun. Much more so than 5E. Would it be fair to say WHFRP is Game of Thrones + some old school D&D stuff?

And German, lots of German.

Its more Holy Roman Empire than modern Germany

Yeah not modern Germany of course. I'm no expert here. I played a little with friends recently and couldn't help but notice all the German-sounding place and people names.

I don't believe the Artificer class presented in 5E, fits in very well with the more traditional classes?

I've watched a few reviews on Y tube; and the descriptions of the mechanics of the class and its bag of tricks, causes me to lose focus on the traditional D&D fantasy tropes that I enjoy in gaming.  Whereas the presence of an Alchemist wouldn't?   I believe I'd prefer Alchemist, over Artificer.

QuoteIt does sound fun. Much more so than 5E. Would it be fair to say WHFRP is Game of Thrones + some old school D&D stuff?

No. Not really. Like totally not.
Imagine world which is faux Reneissance Earth (mostly Europe though various other cultures have other equivalents) - like Chaos Dwarves are high-tech ancient Babylon, or Tomb Kings are necromantic Egypt - which exists sort of in two itterations grimdark over the top dark heroic wargame, and more down to Earth semi-heroic very grottesque, and humorous in English style (that's why there is no real fake England) let's say Pratchett, or Allo Allo or Monthy Python.

Skill based, no levels, professions decides what skills and talents you can advance.
Skill-base basically exclude it from OSR connection.

Way to over-the-top and humorous and high-magic (even though very dangerous magic) for Game of Thrones, though paradoxically it probably emulates Reneissance better than GoT emulated real european medieval period.

QuoteI've watched a few reviews on Y tube; and the descriptions of the mechanics of the class and its bag of tricks, causes me to lose focus on the traditional D&D fantasy tropes that I enjoy in gaming.  Whereas the presence of an Alchemist wouldn't?   I believe I'd prefer Alchemist, over Artificer.

Well if we compare core classes - Pathfinder 2 lacks warlocks, but have alchemists over artificers. But then artificer in 5e can be alchemist so dunno.

Quote from: Mercurius on November 28, 2020, 03:40:54 PM
One more thing. I don't know how old you are, but the cold, hard truth is that a lot of folks who are getting the feeling of "This game isn't being marketed to me anymore" tend to be Gen Xers (40s-50s), with the stray Boomer (60+) still holding onto his tattered copy of the Efreet DMG, grunting "From my cold, dead hands!" Meaning, if that's how you feel, well, you're justified, because it is true. WotC still wants you to buy their books, but you're not their primary market.

The bulk of 5E players are now Millenials or Z, and WotC is adjusting to that. They don't really need to cater to us anymore. Sure, a best-case scenario for them is that everyone is happily playing D&D, but the player base has gotten so much larger--and younger--over the last six years, that they no longer have to appease grognards to profit, because Gen Xers and Boomers make up a much smaller fraction of the market than they did even a decade ago.

And more to the point: WotC's biggest concern is growth. While you might get the occasional Gen Xer running across an article about D&D in Salon, thinking, "Hey, I used to play that in college!" and dusting off their old polyhedrals, the number of older players remains relatively stable and isn't where potential growth is, which is younger folks. And, well, Millenials are simply more woke, so WotC is taking that demographic seriously (aside from their personal socio-political views). Gen Zers...well, it remains to be seen as the oldest cohort are only now in high school.

All that said, I'm not as pessimistic as some in this forum in that I think the pendulum will swing back. A bit, at least. The current woke cancellation trend will eventually simmer down, just like the Satanic Panic of the 80s quieted (or at least became marginalized and not taken seriously). But unlike the Satanic Panic, there is actually a positive element to wokism in that it does ultimately want to make D&D more inclusive, just in an extremist and over-the-top way. But as these woke warriors mature, they might relax a bit and realize that fantasy orcs aren't black people, and killing things and taking their stuff isn't tantamount to distributing small pox blankets to Native Americans.

You are correct, I also think WOTC benefits from the people they are not marketing to (the older gamers) having money and will buy a book to a game they may never play (I have lots of books to games I knew I would never play just to check out the setting, some idea for rules, etc).  I think lots of game systems benefit from the RPG "whales", WOTC might be one of the few that benefits from actual brand new gamers consistently buying their stuff.

Quote from: Mercurius on November 28, 2020, 03:40:54 PMBut as these woke warriors mature, they might relax a bit and realize that fantasy orcs aren't black people

The most racist thing I've ever seen in TTRPGs is the equation of black people with orks.

"Why do you think they're the same?"
"They're not, they're stand-ins."
"Okay, but why are they stand-ins?"
"Because white people kill them."
"Why do white people kill them?"
"Because orks are murderers and rapists!"
"How does that make them stand ins for black people?"
"Because white D&D players fear black people are murderers and rapists!"
"Isn't that kind of racist against D&D players?  That they're white and fear black people?"
"Well maybe if they weren't taught that black people are orks it wouldn't be an issue."
"Okay.  What about Hobgoblins?"
"Fuck those little Hittite bastards."
"???"

(alternatively)

"Oh yeah, they're analogs for humans too."
"Which ones?"
"Which ones?"
"Yeah.  If orks are black people, who are hobgoblins?"
"Oh, you know, some non-white culture.  It's all the same to white racist D&D players.  Which is why we need to remove violence against them all.  They're all people!"
"Okay.  What about Mind Flayers?  Beholders?"
"What?  Look, I don't actually play D&D.  It's a dumb game.  But WotC better hire me on a racial outreach consultant!"

I just received a copy of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, as a much appreciated gift.  I have it spread out side by side with the PHB and Xanathar's Guide.

The selection of New Spells, is minimal at best; but perhaps D&D 5E has enough spells now?

The rest of the book....... It's maybe not even half the book overall, that Xanathar's was.

Do I consider Tasha's to be my jumping off point, for purchasing D&D 5E books?  Yes, most likely.  But not so much because Tasha's isn't a strong offering; but because I'm confident that D&D 5E offers more than enough options now.  If you can't find a character concept you want to play in 5E now, you probably just don't want to play D&D 5E.

I'm still waiting for a good Equipment Book...  >:( Rapier & Quarterstaff uber alles has been rankling for years now. Also, that's not how darts or blowguns work.

Tasha definitely cements my good sense not to get much beyond Basic 5e D&D. Though the "fixing" of the melee cantrips was nice, if overdue.

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 27, 2020, 09:45:09 AM
Though the "fixing" of the melee cantrips was nice, if overdue.

What is the fixing of the melee can trips?

Quote from: Crusader X on December 27, 2020, 12:39:34 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 27, 2020, 09:45:09 AM
Though the "fixing" of the melee cantrips was nice, if overdue.

What is the fixing of the melee can trips?

Well, I disagree that they needed "fixing."  Basically, the cantrips were set up so that certain magic, feats, etc., allowed booming blade and green flame blade to be used with melee weapons with more than 5' reach.  It was one of the few ways to make a whip worthwhile, and it did open some different polearm builds.  Now these cantrips are range "self," so it invalidates those magic enhancements.  I usually don't like changes that are intended to reduce the number of character options.  Now there is absolutely no reason to ever use a whip...

They also made it so you had to use a weapon with at least 1 silver peice as a cost so no more GFB with Shadow blade

The optional advice in the front of Tasha's, seems to say; "You can ignore the rules of the game, in the name of fun.  Just do whatever you want to do, and call it D&D."

More choice is not always good. At a certain point, the amount of choice overwhelms even dedicated players, pleasing only the most hardcore.

This strategy might sell more books, but rarely enhances the game long term.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 27, 2020, 01:39:35 PMNow these cantrips are range "self," so it invalidates those magic enhancements.

That's more of an errata than a Tasha thing. It applies whether you buy into Tasha's or not.

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 27, 2020, 05:53:12 PM
The optional advice in the front of Tasha's, seems to say; "You can ignore the rules of the game, in the name of fun.  Just do whatever you want to do, and call it D&D."

I think that note, or a variation of it, is included the core rules of every edition. For example in 1st edition:

QuoteThe game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play.

Funny how in 5e they needed to publish a new source book 6 years in to tell us about a Rule Zero that has existed basically since the hobby started.

Quote from: VisionStorm on December 28, 2020, 08:38:37 AM
Funny how in 5e they needed to publish a new source book 6 years in to tell us about a Rule Zero that has existed basically since the hobby started.

In my opinion, this is due to the largely new player base coming into the hobby with their perspectives partially formed by computer rpg's.

I think that computer rpg's have had a bit bigger effect on the hobby - especially with new players, than many believe.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 28, 2020, 03:13:06 PMIn my opinion, this is due to the largely new player base coming into the hobby with their perspectives partially formed by computer rpg's.

I think that computer rpg's have had a bit bigger effect on the hobby - especially with new players, than many believe.

I've always found this argument odd. All the computer RPG ideas originally came from table top games anyway. What goes around, comes around.

Quote from: mightybrain on December 28, 2020, 03:30:57 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 28, 2020, 03:13:06 PMIn my opinion, this is due to the largely new player base coming into the hobby with their perspectives partially formed by computer rpg's.

I think that computer rpg's have had a bit bigger effect on the hobby - especially with new players, than many believe.

I've always found this argument odd. All the computer RPG ideas originally came from table top games anyway. What goes around, comes around.

I think that the issue is that video games offer a significantly different dynamic than tabletop RPGs. There is no DIY in most video games, and even the ones that offer some semblance of it, through modding and such, still do so strictly within the confines of what the core engine allows, as well as of whatever mods you create, which are somewhat limited (compared to TTRPGs) and take considerable technical expertise to make. In TTPRGs you can alter the entire engine to its very core or add massive expansions to it with only limited technical knowledge (compared to coding), and you can even make stuff up on the fly with enough experience. In a computer game you're always bound by a scrip and only what has been scripted exists, but in a TTRPG you can go off the rails and explore any nook and cranny, as long as the GM is willing and able to go along with it.

The two types of experience are completely different from each other, even though they share superficial similarities. There is no Rule Zero in video games, but you can have one in TTRPGs.

Quote from: VisionStorm on December 28, 2020, 05:05:25 PMIn TTPRGs you can alter the entire engine to its very core or add massive expansions to it with only limited technical knowledge (compared to coding)

I suggest the difference is that with CRPGs, this kind of fiddling is naturally limited to those who tend to think through the consequences of their changes.

While 1st edition AD&D devoted once sentence to explicitly allowing rule changes, it came after several paragraphs warning of the dangers and difficulties of doing so. Newer editions have kept the allowance but discarded the warnings. As Dr. Strange observed, the warnings ought to come before the instructions.

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 27, 2020, 09:45:09 AM
I'm still waiting for a good Equipment Book...  >:( Rapier & Quarterstaff uber alles has been rankling for years now. Also, that's not how darts or blowguns work.

Maybe this can help a little :D

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/291160/5e-Manual-of-Arms-Weapons?manufacturers_id=12430

(yeas, it is my book... shameless self promotion :P )

Quote from: shivaa95 on December 31, 2020, 10:35:26 AM
To be honest, I've never liked AD&D. I've played it several times and I didn't like it at all.

When it was THE game, it was pretty impressive.  I was exposed to it first, without any other gaming experience.  It was just plain awesome, for a while.

Quote from: shivaa95 on December 31, 2020, 10:35:26 AM
To be honest, I've never liked AD&D. I've played it several times and I didn't like it at all.

Eehhh, I don't think anyone ever played AD&D.  At least not according to the rules.  The rules in the manuals were so disjointed, disorganized, and contradictory that we all ended up playing our own version of the rules.  We played the "best" version for us.  It's too bad you (probably) played someone else's version of the game, rather than your own...

Quote from: Razor 007 on December 12, 2020, 12:26:47 AM
I don't believe the Artificer class presented in 5E, fits in very well with the more traditional classes?

I've watched a few reviews on Y tube; and the descriptions of the mechanics of the class and its bag of tricks, causes me to lose focus on the traditional D&D fantasy tropes that I enjoy in gaming.  Whereas the presence of an Alchemist wouldn't?   I believe I'd prefer Alchemist, over Artificer.

It would likely fit really well in say a setting like Blackmoor. Possibly Mystara. And maybee Greyhawk. Blackmoor had a distinct sci-fi element to it. Mystara has a fair amount of inventions. Greyhawk has some SF elements as well. All three you could introduce some or all of the artificer into.

It also fits some fantasy settings with an emphasis on golems, constructs, and other magitech gadgeteering.

And it really fits some anime or console game settings with a heavy magitech element.

Others you'd have a harder time introducing without some work.

But that is true of all the classes and subclasses even. Some fit, some do not. Jettison what does not. D&D Conan removed all classes except the fighter and thief just about, and demihumans. Dragonlance tossed out paladins and clerics to a degree, then brought them back, to a degree, and tossed out some races. Dark sun did as well.

Got my copy today  - on the doorstep - in the snow...  >:(

Aside from a little warping that will flatten out easily enough, its in good condition seems.

And I am both saddened and surprised that this copy is from the second print run. Thus breaking my collection of all first runs for 5e. I'll probably get a 1st print later to round out my collection... ahem.

Will comment on it later when have had more time to look through it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on December 28, 2020, 08:38:37 AM
Funny how in 5e they needed to publish a new source book 6 years in to tell us about a Rule Zero that has existed basically since the hobby started.

Bit of a necro post, but on a lark, I landed on the Amazon page for that Tasha book earlier...and it has over 12,000 ratings on it versus 512 written ratings.

Spam ratings, no doubt, but that really says something about how insecure the D&D 'community' is when real gamers smell BS and don't want the offering.

The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.

Looking at the Amazon reviews, most of the complaints appear to be about the binding. Usually along the lines of "typically poor WoTC product." Is their printing that bad now? I haven't bought a physical book from them for several years.

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

Has to be both, because Hasbro has embraced wokeness for a while now. They won't curtail anything WOTC does unless it severely hurts their bottom line, and Magic dwarfs D&D these days.

Quote from: mightybrain on April 16, 2021, 03:00:57 PM
Looking at the Amazon reviews, most of the complaints appear to be about the binding. Usually along the lines of "typically poor WoTC product." Is their printing that bad now? I haven't bought a physical book from them for several years.

I've only seen their books at Barnes and Noble and flipped through them on occasion, so can't say for sure. Wouldn't doubt it, though; DriveThruRPG has had the same issue for years now with their 'Premium' POD books.

Quote from: Renegade_Productions on April 16, 2021, 03:20:27 PMHas to be both, because Hasbro has embraced wokeness for a while now. They won't curtail anything WOTC does unless it severely hurts their bottom line, and Magic dwarfs D&D these days.

Hasbro has not much yet. Theres been a few possible things. But they might also be parodies. Its hard to tell sometimes. But they seem to not pay any attention to WOTCs screw ups till late. Then they tighten the dogs leash... again.

Reallt depends on how deep marketing has its claws into Hasbro. So far seems not much. But they seem hell bent on co-opting them too. Wether this will happen is anyones guess. WOTC on the other hand is weird in that they talk big, but their product tends to be practically devoid of big displays. And what is in a book tends to be either small, or small to the point of being a single meaningless sentence.

Their staff on the other hand cant shut their damn mouths virtue signalling and marketing slapped "warning" disclaimers on every Drive Thru page for any older game they sell as being "problematic".

Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.

Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....

I love Tasha's cauldron. I love optional rules and I love the improvements to the ranger class. I can finally play a single class ranger with expertise stealth.

I am definitely not woke or Sjw at all (orcs are evil). But I love being able to place ability score modifier to race where ever I like them (optional rule) because I hate the pigeonholing of races to certain classes. I can play an effective tiefling fighter now or build a badass orc cleric of grumsh. Okay I still hate dwarf wizards. But that's another story.

I see how many don't want a book of options. That's cool, sit this one out. But I love options to customize settings by themes that are important for the types of stories I want to see unfold.

Quote from: Arnwolf666 on April 17, 2021, 06:52:20 PM
I love Tasha's cauldron. I love optional rules and I love the improvements to the ranger class. I can finally play a single class ranger with expertise stealth.

I am definitely not woke or Sjw at all (orcs are evil). But I love being able to place ability score modifier to race where ever I like them (optional rule) because I hate the pigeonholing of races to certain classes. I can play an effective tiefling fighter now or build a badass orc cleric of grumsh. Okay I still hate dwarf wizards. But that's another story.

I see how many don't want a book of options. That's cool, sit this one out. But I love options to customize settings by themes that are important for the types of stories I want to see unfold.

Sure you're not.

And even if you're not, you could've saved yourself 40 bucks by remembering that those things you mentioned can be homebrewed into 5E without WOTC putting it into a splatbook, thereby making it official and telling the Twatter crowd 'Okay, here's more ground for you. What else do you want?'

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.

Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....

The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.

Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....

The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Oh, that's easy.

Fighters = jocks, mages = nerds.

Revenge of the latter upon the former.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 02:06:22 PM
The rules in question are just a small part of an otherwise more or less not bad book. Its got a little of everything in it and more DM and player tools for those who need or those who do not, but might need a quick idea when the well is dry.

Obviously someone at WOTC is either gullible and got talked into adding those "safety" notes. Or someone there has an agenda. Maybe both at this point.

I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.

Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....

The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.

I would need to dig it out, but yeah, Monte Cook wanted to nerf archery options and felt martial classes were too powerful as is when developing 3E.

Quote from: Slambo on April 19, 2021, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.

Both. Monte Cook was one of the leads on 3e, and apparently strongly pushed wizards. And for after 3e released, see his variant Player's Handbook, Arcana Unearthed.

Though I think it's less that he thought fighters were overpowered and more that he just really, really liked spellcasters.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:23:40 AM

Quote from: Slambo on April 19, 2021, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.

Both. Monte Cook was one of the leads on 3e, and apparently strongly pushed wizards. And for after 3e released, see his variant Player's Handbook, Arcana Unearthed.

Though I think it's less that he thought fighters were overpowered and more that he just really, really liked spellcasters.

I'm not sure the distinction matters. I understand spellcasters are cool and all (I mean, I've got no room to talk as I love to play 'em), but the more I look at 3E, the more I wonder what the hell they were thinking.

The whole problem with feat taxes persisted all the way through freaking Pathfinder -- I like PF, but holy fuck, it was like they couldn't see some of the bigger problems with martial classes (especially fighters and monks) and just repeated the same mistakes.

Hence things like the World is Square/Elephant in the Room house rule pack, which threw a lot of that crap out the window.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 10:37:51 AM
I'm not sure the distinction matters. I understand spellcasters are cool and all (I mean, I've got no room to talk as I love to play 'em), but the more I look at 3E, the more I wonder what the hell they were thinking.

The whole problem with feat taxes persisted all the way through freaking Pathfinder -- I like PF, but holy fuck, it was like they couldn't see some of the bigger problems with martial classes (especially fighters and monks) and just repeated the same mistakes.

Hence things like the World is Square/Elephant in the Room house rule pack, which threw a lot of that crap out the window.

WotC has always had multiple personality disorder when it comes to coherent design and development.  It's not merely "design by committee", though that is certainly an issue.  It's more like a design committee that knows that design by committee knocks the vision and life out of a product.  So they decided to compensate by designing and developing 3 or 4 different visions all at once and hoping it would work out.  Even 4E, as narrow as it is, still has at least 2 competing visions of what it wants to be, and I'd say more like 3 competing visions and fragments from a few others.

It's almost impossible to grade their development efforts, because who could really shine in that environment?  Not sucking is a real achievement!  Adding, "Oh, and it has to be Woke, too," to that mix is only going to fragment the coherence further.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2021, 11:06:00 AM
WotC has always had multiple personality disorder when it comes to coherent design and development.  It's not merely "design by committee", though that is certainly an issue.  It's more like a design committee that knows that design by committee knocks the vision and life out of a product.  So they decided to compensate by designing and developing 3 or 4 different visions all at once and hoping it would work out.  Even 4E, as narrow as it is, still has at least 2 competing visions of what it wants to be, and I'd say more like 3 competing visions and fragments from a few others.

It's almost impossible to grade their development efforts, because who could really shine in that environment?  Not sucking is a real achievement!  Adding, "Oh, and it has to be Woke, too," to that mix is only going to fragment the coherence further.

This was even apparent in 4e D&D Gamma World where you have the developers going on about how slapstick it all will be.
Then the book and setting itself is fairly standard with only a few oddities.
Meanwhile the monster art is for some horror freak show.
And none of it is funny.
Even less so as they tried to glue a CCG onto it.

Its still though the most D&D in feel of the 4e efforts.

I greatly enjoy 4e Gamma World...but I skip entire chunks and hacked out the slapstick (and the CCG idiocy). It's definitely the best ruleset of the 4e era. 

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 10:37:51 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:23:40 AM

Quote from: Slambo on April 19, 2021, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.

Both. Monte Cook was one of the leads on 3e, and apparently strongly pushed wizards. And for after 3e released, see his variant Player's Handbook, Arcana Unearthed.

Though I think it's less that he thought fighters were overpowered and more that he just really, really liked spellcasters.

I'm not sure the distinction matters. I understand spellcasters are cool and all (I mean, I've got no room to talk as I love to play 'em), but the more I look at 3E, the more I wonder what the hell they were thinking.

I think the psychology behind it matters, because it can help explain why it happened and how to avoid that kind of problem in the future.

Wizard supremacy has a couple of roots. One, is the players most inclined to become rules geeks and thus designers seem to overwhelmingly prefer wizards. It tickles that geek power fantasy itch, by giving them a physically weak character who can acquire REAL ULTIMATE POWER (cf. Raistlin's popularity). It also tickles the rules geek itch, because it gives them more moving parts to play with.

As a result, there's a strong inherent bias in favor of wizards. That's complicated by a couple of additional factors, one of which is the reality or lack there of of magical powers. If a designer is the type of geek who is always picking nits, what does that do to fighters? It limits them. Because they start looking at fatigue, encumbrance, whether it's realistic for Fighter Bob to walk away from a 60 foot fall, and so on. The result is a progressive nerfing of the fighter class. And since we're talking about geeks who go over every last detail again and again, this becomes multiple waves of nerfing as everything is overthought and every "realistic" restriction imaginable is put in place. And especially if fighters are defined as the anti-magic-user class or mundane class, you end up with things like 3e's feat list, where there's not a truly heroic or legendary feat to be found (until epic levels, at which point they're pretty pathetic).

On the converse side, magic is explicitly not realistic. It can't be tested against reality, and how it works varies from source to source. So instead of tending toward harsh limits a la the fighter, the tendency with wizards it to remove limits. Because you can always find an example where it doesn't work like that, so out damn restriction, out! And when it comes to powers, it's even worse, because all those different myths and legends are pillaged for the best and most powerful powers. Some of which are insanely powerful, because magic in stories tends to have plot-based limits, not some kind of internal limits. The reason wizards don't dominate the stories in every way is because they're written that way, not because Merlin is balanced against King Arthur. So you end up with a steady erosion of the natural limits built into the game system, and an endless procession of new powers that are all added on top of each other.

Any good redesign of fighters or mages needs to recognize these tendencies, and counter them.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:27:50 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 10:37:51 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 10:23:40 AM

Quote from: Slambo on April 19, 2021, 09:15:27 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 19, 2021, 08:44:52 AM
The problem goes back further than 5E. I remember being absolutely floored that Monte Cook wanted to nerf martial types further in 3E and that they were too powerful compared to casters.

I cannot for the life of me understand that line of thought. I liked 3E, even with its flaws, but holy shit, did they beat fighters with the nerf stick.

Wait really? Did he mean in refrence to earlier editions or in refrence to early 3e.

Both. Monte Cook was one of the leads on 3e, and apparently strongly pushed wizards. And for after 3e released, see his variant Player's Handbook, Arcana Unearthed.

Though I think it's less that he thought fighters were overpowered and more that he just really, really liked spellcasters.

I'm not sure the distinction matters. I understand spellcasters are cool and all (I mean, I've got no room to talk as I love to play 'em), but the more I look at 3E, the more I wonder what the hell they were thinking.

I think the psychology behind it matters, because it can help explain why it happened and how to avoid that kind of problem in the future.

Wizard supremacy has a couple of roots. One, is the players most inclined to become rules geeks and thus designers seem to overwhelming prefer wizards. It tickles that geek power fantasy itch, by giving them a physically weak character who can acquire REAL ULTIMATE POWER (cf. Raistlin's popularity). It also tickles the rules geek itch, because it gives them more moving parts to play with.

As a result, there's a strong inherent bias in favor of wizards. That's complicated by a couple of additional factors, one of which is the reality or lack there of of magical powers. If a designer is the the type of geek who is always picking nits, what does that do to fighters? It limits them. Because they start looking at fatigue, encumbrance, whether it's realistic for Fighter Bob to walk away from a 60 foot fall, and so on. The result is a progressive nerfing of the fighter class. And since we're talking about geeks who go over every last detail again and again, this becomes multiple waves of nerfing as everything is overthought and every "realistic" restriction imaginable is put in place. And especially if define fighters are defined as the anti-magic-user class or mundane class, you end up with things like 3e's feat list, where there's not a truly heroic or legendary feat to be found (until epic levels, at which point they're pretty pathetic).

On the converse side, magic is explicitly not realistic. It can't be tested against reality, and how it works varies from source to source. So instead of tending toward harsh limits a la the fighter, the tendency with wizards it to remove limits. Because you can always find an example where it doesn't work like that, so out damn restriction, out! And when it comes to powers, it's even worse, because all those different myths and legends are pillaged for the best and most powerful powers. Some of which are insanely powerful, because magic in stories tends to have plot-based limit, not some kind of internal limits. The reason wizards don't dominate the stories in every way is because they're written that way, not because Merlin is balanced against King Arthur. So you end up with a steady erosion of the natural limits built into the game system, and an endless procession of new powers that are all added on top of each other.

Any good redesign of fighters or mages needs to recognize these tendencies, and counter them.

Interesting points, ill have to keep that in mind.

Agree with Slambo, good points Pat.  I wouldn't have thought about it exactly like you've put it, but I was very conscious of that issue while designing my system.  We'll see if I managed to side-step the landmines when I get it fleshed out and tested more.  Interesting timing, because what I'm working on in the design at the moment is ... putting even more limits on magic. :D

Quote from: Renegade_Productions on April 16, 2021, 03:20:27 PM
Has to be both, because Hasbro has embraced wokeness for a while now. They won't curtail anything WOTC does unless it severely hurts their bottom line, and Magic dwarfs D&D these days.

Magic money will act as a shield for WOTC to HASBRO.

5e will soon be the longest running edition of D&D WOCT has put out. Any upcoming decline in sales will be spun as an effect of the edition life-cycle playing itself out...

Plus, it takes a while for the woke to take effect and start to impact sales. And the SJW's at WOTC are only now just starting to turn up the dial.

Quote from: Omega on April 16, 2021, 07:14:12 PM
...
WOTC on the other hand is weird in that they talk big, but their product tends to be practically devoid of big displays. And what is in a book tends to be either small, or small to the point of being a single meaningless sentence.
...
Their staff on the other hand can't shut their damn mouths virtue signalling and marketing slapped "warning" disclaimers on every Drive Thru page for any older game they sell as being "problematic".

This disparity is the result of WOTC being almost entirely converged at the employee level, but not quite at the Executive.

Something interesting to look at:
https://www.comparably.com/companies/wizards-of-the-coast/executive-team

The WOTC executive team, while I'm sure are politically left, are a bunch of old white people. Probably grew up being what most would describe as a left-coast mid 90's democrat.  Not rabid SJW's.

But the younger crowd is in the door and is merely awaiting their turn at the wheel.

Proof of convergence from the link above:

"The Wizards of the Coast Executive Team is rated a "C" and led by CEO Chris Cocks. Wizards of the Coast employees rate their Executive Team in the Bottom 40% of similar size companies on Comparably with 501-1,000 Employees.
The HR department and Female employees are more confident in their Executive Team, while Caucasian employees and Male employees think there is room for improvement. "

The people hired to head the HR department are still clearly loyal to the executives. (the VP of HR has been there 9 years and is probably a personal friend of one of the executives...)

But the White male SJW employees are clearly chomping at the bit.

They are clearly being given increased room to play, Exhibit A: Jessica Price working on the Ravenloft book.

But evidently there are limits the SJW's in prime jobs are hesitant to cross. One look at the twitter feeds of Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford will show that they are in virtual lock step with the far-left SJW progressive agenda. Yet the product they are in charge of seems to be giving only lip-service. So far...

The SJW's there are starting to slowly turn up the dial. But for now, somewhere in the process someone is putting limits on the madness at WOTC.

In another thread I said that he thing to watch out for at WOTC is Executive changes. When you see musical chairs at the top level – especially in the HR department; watch out!

That will be the sign that WOTC/D&D is about to really start chugging the Kool-Aid...

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:27:50 PM

Wizard supremacy has a couple of roots. One, is the players most inclined to become rules geeks and thus designers seem to overwhelmingly prefer wizards. It tickles that geek power fantasy itch, by giving them a physically weak character who can acquire REAL ULTIMATE POWER (cf. Raistlin's popularity). It also tickles the rules geek itch, because it gives them more moving parts to play with.

The last version of D&D built to curb wizards was 1E AD&D.  But people whined about how easy it was for spells to be disrupted.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 17, 2021, 02:19:52 PM

Quote from: KingCheops on April 16, 2021, 02:29:27 PM
I was a little disappointed with the book but then that's because I buy in the wider publishing sphere.  DM's Guild and 3rd party/kickstarter.  The stuff in Tasha's was interesting but more on par with the better produced stuff on DM's Guild.

Yeah, that's a good description.  Recent WotC D&D products have been on the level of (or worse than) fan-made quality.  The WotC employees in charge of the supplements and adventures seem to be lacking the skills of actual "designers," regardless of their titles....

Because they are no more skilled than the hobbyists putting out good stuff on the DM's Guild.

Most of the people working at WOTC now have never had to sell a product on its own merits without it being attached to a known RPG IP like D&D.

They have gotten to, and maintained their place, more due to drive and desire, than any actual special skillset.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 19, 2021, 11:06:00 AM
...
WotC has always had multiple personality disorder when it comes to coherent design and development.  It's not merely "design by committee", though that is certainly an issue.  It's more like a design committee that knows that design by committee knocks the vision and life out of a product.  So they decided to compensate by designing and developing 3 or 4 different visions all at once and hoping it would work out...

I don't think that is an intentional effect. From what few things Pundit has mentioned in passing about his correspondence with Mearls about the design of 5e; there was evidently a lot of back and forth in the design team on how things should be done.

I got the impression that Mearls had to push back a lot on what other designers wanted to do. Very much a design by committee with one member of the committee being only a bit more powerful than the other members. Literally 3-4 different visions competing for page space.

Maybe Pundit could clarify, but I got the impression that the "lead designer" of 5e had a lot less overall authority over how things would be than one would at first think.

Did he pick people like Perkins and Crawford for his team, or were they assigned? That would make a big difference in his perceived authority over the direction of 5e by his supposed underlings.

And then of course all you need to do is take one look at the quality of product that a one man shop like Kevin Crawford can turn out, and it really makes you wonder why they needed so many writers for the three core books...

I am fully willing to be corrected on these assumptions however as it is just my speculation.

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:27:50 PM
...I think the psychology behind it matters, because it can help explain why it happened and how to avoid that kind of problem in the future.

Wizard supremacy has a couple of roots. One, is the players most inclined to become rules geeks and thus designers seem to overwhelmingly prefer wizards. It tickles that geek power fantasy itch, by giving them a physically weak character who can acquire REAL ULTIMATE POWER (cf. Raistlin's popularity). It also tickles the rules geek itch, because it gives them more moving parts to play with. ...

... magic is explicitly not realistic. It can't be tested against reality, and how it works varies from source to source. ... the tendency with wizards it to remove limits. ..., so out damn restriction, out! .... So you end up with a steady erosion of the natural limits built into the game system, and an endless procession of new powers that are all added on top of each other.

I think an additional effect is due to the way WOTC has done feedback/surveys.

As there are far more players than GM's – the responses to these surveys are heavily weighted towards the players wants and desires. And I would be utterly shocked if WOTC ever took the time to try and give equal weight to GM responses.

Players will almost always vote for more magic with less restrictions. And the people who actually have to run the game with their protestations about power creep and balance have their voices drowned out in the crowd.

So we have been in a cycle where WOTC just keeps giving out the DIB's and removing the restrictions on magic because their "survey's" tell them it's what everyone wants...

Quote from: Pat on April 19, 2021, 09:27:50 PM
...
Any good redesign of fighters or mages needs to recognize these tendencies, and counter them.

It would be nice, but I really doubt we'll ever see that. In fact I think D&D has a big legacy issue that keeps that from happening – D&D was never made from the ground up for a particular fantasy setting.

D&D was always a hodge-podge of different Fantasy S&S, and Weird Fantasy sources. If you were to take a step back and curate the next edition of D&D for a particular setting a lot things would need to be re-thought out.

And heaven forbid you do anything that would wind up "nerfing" casters, or even worse, dare to remove one of the playable monster races...

Quote from: Jaeger on April 20, 2021, 09:22:52 PM
And heaven forbid you do anything that would wind up "nerfing" casters, or even worse, dare to remove one of the playable monster races...

Constrained form. Limits are important. They're not just how we keep things in check, but they're the best way to give things a unique flavor. When you have a world that includes every monster, it's going to end up looking a bit like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, no matter what you do. The best way to create a new world isn't to come up with a new spin on existing monsters, but to exclude things.

Same is true with magic. The endlessly growing spell list, and then lumping all magical spell lists into one (two counting the divine) in 2e was a mistake. My first fix is to pare things back, restrict things. Magic-users have their own list, and illusionists have a separate and almost completely distinct one. Same with death masters, incantatrixes, alienists, and sorcerers.

This works well with B/X as a chassis. Magic-users have 12 spells per level, no more. Clerics have 8, no more. And that's the absolute maximum. No additions. Any new spells don't get added to those lists, they're used to make new lists. Don't make the BECMI mistake, give druids their own list with no split-class overlap with clerics. Same can be true for even the partial casters, like avengers and paladins. And correct one of the B/X mistakes, and give elves their own list.

There's a huge list of spells from other editions, and they're easy to convert. But don't use them to keep amping up the magic-user and cleric. Instead, use them to make magic unique, wondrous, and different. Different traditions, different styles, and it all goes back to different spell lists.

Dang, Pat, people are going to think I cribbed from you.  I've got 3 separate magic types, each with their own spells.  No overlap, but some similarities.  For example, every caster has some form of a spell that will provide light, but they are different spells designed to work within what that caster does. 

I agree.  Giant spell lists where every caster and their brothers use a slightly different subset doesn't really do much for magic.