ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -A number of other creators covering D&D have been sponsored by Hasbro/WOTC and/or are developing a relationship with WOTC. I disagree with both since I think WOTC should be boycotted. I ask viewers to consider this if it turns out I am an isolated voice being critical of the books right now. -I should have also mentioned Tales of the Valiant, which for people who enjoy 5e is more familiar and doesn't involve supporting WOTC: www.talesofthevaliant.com/ And of course there's Pathfinder 2e which addresses common complaints about 5e that my channel has a ton of content on! -10:39 i have learned that the SubredditStats graph might not be accurate, Reddit's unpopular changes have reduced everyone's engagement with Reddit, and also affected SubredditStat's ability to track data on the site. Still, my anecdotal observation is that interest waned at least among the online/active part of D&D players, maybe in number of posts but definitely in enthusiasm. -22:33 Characters getting buffed in 5.5e made it even more important to playtest the crop of new monsters, because the old math definitely needs updating. -24:40 We DID see some (for me) welcome changes to conjuring spells and smite spells in the Unearthed Arcana articles that might have survived. Meanwhile, the lack of even claiming to address spells (they said they were rebuilding all the monsters) is highly concerning. -It's too early to call, but this might be a case of Planned Obsolescence. It would be consistent with Hasbro's profit goals if their plan is to turn D&D into a "living game" that gets updated periodically, and you need to be subscribed to their digital service to stay up-to-date. It would explain the lack of urgency to fix their game, because the game can be patched over time. (2026: "We have fixed these problematic spells!") And it would be consistent with their mission statement in their 2022 One D&D World Reveal video that "we don't think of D&D as an edition. It's just... D&D."
honestly I feel similar I understand you need money to live but accepting sponsorship form WOTC look at least ugly, I watched one video as it was announced that it will have somone new (maybe new character or collaboration?) but it turned out that it was just corporation Ad hiden under few paragraphs of content from book that was about 95% from playtest or old PHB, I don't think I was ever that disappointed
I feel like 5.2 would be a better name for it than 5.5 for these reasons. 1. old stuff is from '14 and uses 5.1 SRD 2. new stuff is from '24 and uses 5.2 SRD
There's a bit of an issue for it being live service. Assuming that 5.5e will constantly be updated like some live service, won't it be very jarring for a player who played in 2024, then decide to go back to it in 2030, and now have to relearn everything from the past 4 years of patches and balances? It just kinda bizarre to have that in a TRPG for me
@@Kirinboy39 To be fair, Paizo puts out regular errata, but they're much more incremental than what WOTC has set-up needs to happen here. They started with a solid playtested base. Plus, the updated rules are all free online. The issue is more that WOTC might have put out something half-baked on purpose now, to make updating essential
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I dread the future where someone sit down in 2031 and each player have a different year's handbook that has very different contents and everyone has to cross reference the right rules to resolve
I am soon running a mini adventure for my players to compare D&D, Pathfinder, MCDM RPG, DaggerHeart, and DC20. Essentially it is going to be a time loop that lasts two sessions and each loop is a different system, but with similar encounters and characters to allow comparison between the systems.
My singular biggest gripe with 5e is that the community is obsessed with reskinning it to meet their genre needs over playing games designed for those genres. You don't get actual laser guns, you get bows reskinned to be laser guns. I was once invited to play "a Star Wars TTRPG", I was really excited actually because Fantasy Flight's Star Wars RPG is fantastic, simple to learn, easy to run, and fun to play. Instead I got 5e with severely unbalanced homebrew. Changing only what needs to be changed to make 5e "star wars flavor" in the same way an overpriced sparkling water is "orange flavor".
@@FlareBinar WEG SWRPG and FFG SWRPG only major similarities are being dice pool systems and Star Wars, WEG is more like a traditional RPG whereas FFG is more like a modern TV show with many twists and turns. Both infinitely surpass the WoTC Star Wars Saga D20 system though.
I made a post about this in the Pathfinder2e subreddit awhile ago; it's called "Why leave and why not?" The only legitimate arguments I've found there for doing this kind of thing are: 1. *Time management* : Some people believe they do not have the time to convert to a new system. I think they are mistaken, and laziness may be a factor here. The time they spend attempting to convert 5E into something else is often greater than the time they would need to learn the fundamentals of another system. 2. *Player Scarcity* : other systems have a smaller playerbase, and players at some tables are either lazy or uninterested in trying them out, so even if someone wants to play another system, they don't seem to get the opportunity. I also believe they exaggerate the severity of the situation. For example, if you can only play with a specific group, that's unfortunate, but there are lots other communities on other systems; you just need to look around a little.
@@XvicvicX I really don't understand the hesitance to learn new systems. You don't have a similar problem with video games. People gladly try out new video games, but hesitate to try a new TTRPG, when much like video games the biggest hump is just learning how to play the first one.
I've been a D&D fan since the mid 80s, and this will be the first rulebook set I won't be buying. I left D&D when the OGL scandal hit, and WOTC has given me no reason to come back (and many more reasons to stay away). I moved to Pathfinder and I'm happy with it. It's similar enough to scratch my D&D itch and Paizo is not a problematic company.
True that, 5e in general didn't grab my attention from the beginning, I was too used to the options from 3.5. But their actions pushed me away even further.
There is something vindicating about the shift away from codified language after 4th edition being walked back in 1D&D. Basically since 5e dropped, and especially when everyone was still trying to figure out how you even play it, DMs and players were realising that the so-called "natural language" used to make the books easier to understand actually makes them more difficult to understand when you need a specific clarification. For the longest time 5e was sort of this thing that worked best when you squinted a little because even something as basic as an "attack action" is so unreasonably complicated when you start deep diving into how it interacts with other mechanics.
I wonder if they are doing that in hopes of revitalizing their relationship with old players who still play 2nd and 1st editions. That would be very funny, because those players despise 5e xD (with nonsensical vitriol)
Will never forget the first time I was running a trap in an adventure and had to dig through paragraphs of text to figure out effects, spot DC, disable DC, etc. Glad I've moved on to systems that standardize the format.
I had a similar experience recently with programming languages. I recently did a small course on Python, which is generally known for a being a very simple, easy to use programming language, that "emphasizes code readabilty" meaning the code should be as close to natural language as possible. Yeah I f*cking hated it. Compared to other programming languages I just found the natural language approach to make things less clear and error prone and I see a similar problem in TTRPG systems. Natural language is inherently ambiguous, that's why something as simple as "spilling tea" can mean two completely different things. Natural languages are flexible in their meaning and that can be helpful if you want to leave things up to interpretation but it's (mostly) not a good way to handle rules for a game. Very good for flavor though. One good thing about that Python course though was that it introduced me to the concept of natural languages and formal languages. Formal languages being a language where any part of it has a singular unambiguous meaning, which is a way better approach (I think) to creating a game including TTRPGs. Words like hidden, invisible, strike, etc have clearly defined meaning and impact on the rest of the game and it makes playing the game less confusing. One of my friends used to say Pathfinder is great because it's designed like a video game, in the sense that you could simply write it's rules into a programming language and everything would just work as intended. That's because Pathfinder is simply modelling a formal language using a natural language and all programming languages are formal languages (although Python certainly tries not to be). They have to be because if anything isn't clearly defined, it ends in crashes and bugs. (Obviously those still happen, but almost exclusively if things are used for the wrong purpose)
"AT HIGHER LEVELS: WHEN YOU CAST THIS SPELL USING A SPELL SLOT OF x+1 LEVEL OR HIGHER, do something FOR EACH SLOT LEVEL ABOVE x" - This text shows up in almost all of the 361 spells in the player's handbook, instead of just using a keyword. Perhaps "heightened"? "THE TARGET TAKES x DAMGE ON A FAILED SAVE, AND HALF AS MUCH ON A SUCCESSFUL ONE" - Is used so much. Again, could really use a keyword. Might I suggest "basic save"? Not to mention how some spells specify "a creature/point/space that you can see", while many spells don't specify it, even though you would assume that they also need line of sight
Honestly good, there's way better games out there and it's an enjoyable market to look at and get into. Outside of Pathfinder 2e, which is my mainstream choice of game.. I've gotten into dozen of amazing games lots of OSR/rules lite games too. If you want something a little easier to digest without it being such a massive 180 check out shadow dark.
Same! After almost 10 years of playing DND I quit all together last year and honestly I couldn't be happier. Trying out a bunch of new systems has been a delightful time.
Another big issue with having this relatively small (but still dozens of spells long) subset of way too powerful spells is that it required the Designers of 5e to late in the game add the band aid that is Legendary Resistances so that the big boss monster wasn't banished by the cleric round 1 in 100% of the fights. And there is nothing more feels bad as a spellcaster than using your highest rank spell slot that you just got thinking it's going to do lots of damage or get its full effect as the DM goes "Ohhh nat 1 on the save" but then the DM says "It burns a Legendary resistance though, so takes half/no damage/no effect." It's also so metagamey because then you as the Party have to come up with low rank spells that are problematic enough that they force the DM to burn the 3 resistances so you can then go "Ah hah now I cast the big one!" Which is just not how the PCs would behave when faced with say a kraken. People get so up in arms that spellcasters in PF2e don't have break the game spells early on. Calling it "overly designed". But IMO you need that careful alignment so that magic can be consistently satisfying without needing this kludgey back stop of Legendary resistances.
This isn't something PF2E has room to criticize them on, honestly. The game has the EXACT same issue of 5e that a handful of spells completely outshine the rest - the only difference is that all spells are way weaker as a baseline. Tack on how the three action system is almost completely un-utilized in spell design, and it's hard to describe PF2E spellcasting as anything but "5e but worse". Also personally I'll take legendary resistance over the god-awful design choice of Incap any day.
@@SirGiff Nice entry for the prompt: Tell me you haven't played a caster in Pf2e past level 1 without telling me you haven't played a caster in PF2e past level 1.
THANK YOU! I appreciate you "not" calling out everyone that immediately flip-flopped. It would be a real shame if all the people who faux-raged about D&D/WOTC/HASBRO immediately rolled over for belly rubs as soon as they started receiving free stuff again. Thank you for being a person of genuine character in an age of people without backbones.
Yeah, well, many of the bigger creators' main problem was that they were either sponsored by 3rd party creators, or that they were 3rd party creators themselves. So the OGL being retracted would have been a direct hit on their finances. And covering the drama for sure brought in some nice view numbers for them. Now that it has blown over, they have no reason to jump ship, or critique. They can just go back to peddling their goods again and to chasing the algorithm, as Ronald put it, thus letting WotC's behaviours slide again instead of preassuring thwm further so they can fix their shit. Which will, inevitably, lead to WotC trying more shenanigans in the future.
A point left off the reasons to be angry at WotC is there's literally already pre-order exclusive DLC and microtransactions put into DnD moving into DnD2024
We got so tired of DND 5e we played ADND 2e and it was no joke the better game. From there we went to many other games, playing Pathfinder 2e right now which idk why it's not more popular than 5e... just name recognition it must be and streamers only playing games that give the most likes.
@@kanaric literally just brand recognition. i'd bet good money most people who play 5e do not care about TTRPGs, they just get invited once a month to do the thing their friend saw on stranger things or its someone into nerd culture as an aesthetic that only cares about it because thats what people think nerds are into. if you are lucky you'll find someone who's favorite streamer streamed it and they got interested that way, but that streamer probably only played 5e because it will get a boost in the algorithm.
> Not fixing broken CR > Not fixing broken d20 math > Not fixing broken spells Not worth buying! They’ve made a lot of good superficial changes. It’s too bad the bones are rotten.
It might be about skill check at low levels being only 20% affected by attribute + proficiency but 80% dice, so a stupid barbarian can solve puzzles on first try that an expert wizard fails on first try.
CR is monster based and is probably coming in Monster Manual and wouldnt be in the Players Handbook... I really dont know what u mean about d20 math being broken? What spells are broken?
@@moonlight2870 Ronald has a great video about this! It has Bounded Accuracy in the title. It’s hard to explain quickly but the jist is that bonuses are too low except when they aren’t. If you’ve ever prepared a stealth challenge but the ranger knows Pass Without Trace you’ll understand.
@qarsiseer hum...I see. Well, while that can be true mathematically, in practice, that's often not an issue. You roll the dice and see if you rolled good or not. I understand what you mean, but it works fine. There's no need to "fix". I agree with the spells, tho. Except they didn't show all the spells just yet. So it's early to say. But I don't trust them lol
Yes! I am aware. I originally planned to say a word on it but didn't want to get bogged in debating the significance of it which I knew would be debated. I think it's a positive thing and reflects that the outcry has had SOME impact and is not to be diminished. But of course the fight's not over!
It was so disconcerting to see just about every major DnD channel, from Ginny Di to Pack Tactics, accept WotC sponsorships. Kudos to channels DnDShorts who is clearly covering things on his own merit. It's great to see you're calling this out - DON'T accept WotC sponsorships!
Maybe. But the facts we’ve seen could be just as easily explained without malice or intentional misdirection, in a couple different ways: - The folks who want significant changes to D&D5E have already moved to different games (even if they’re only as “different” as Pathfinder or Tales of the Valiant), so they’re not giving feedback on the playtest documents. Which means the feedback WotC gets is primarily or entirely from people who are mostly happy with D&D5E. Meaning big changes get mostly voted down, and minor tweaks get positive responses. - Time crunch and cautiousness. They could’ve started out intending to make some relatively big changes, but as they tried them out they realized that the ripple effects would require more changes, which would require more changes, etc. That would leave them with the options of delaying the release, making the changes anyway but knowing they didn’t have time to find&fix all the problems those changes create, maybe throwing more people at the project [implausible if they’re trying to cut employees], or give up on the more-radical revision and make safer changes with fewer knock-on interactions with other rules. - Clash between designers and decision-makers. The designers were sincerely exploring bigger changes, but then someone higher up the corporate ladder told them not to. Maybe they accurately identified situation 2 and realized that the designers were being overly optimistic on what could be accomplished and still have a finished, polished product on time. Maybe they worried that they were in situation 1, and the feedback supporting bigger changes was from folks who wouldn’t buy D&D anyway, so better to listen to the folks who only wanted small changes and were therefore basically happy with D&D5E already. - Closely related to the previous point, I’m sure there are folks at WotC and Hasbro who are extremely gunshy about significant changes due to the reception of D&D4E. So they could’ve started out intending to make bigger changes and then talked themselves out of it, deciding it’s better to keep the fans they have than risk driving them away-because there’s a good chance that the folks who would like a very different D&D will never try it because it has the name “D&D”.
@@natbarmore I still find is horrible that they cut DND when monopoly go made 2 billion dollars and was the fastest mobile game to earn that much ever. They have the funds to invest into dnd and instead cut the creative staff :(
I'm glad I went with Worlds Without Number and didn't look back. As a bonus, it gives solid tools to build adventures when I foray into running other games like PF2e or Savage Worlds.
The worse are the intentionally vague rules in dnd, where the DM has to make a decision, which may or may not be in favor of what the player want, resulting in DMs having the "bad role" for not allowing something that would break the balance of their games. Of course players want the power creep, but DMs have to think about other players, and how to easily design encounters so that they are fair and fun for everyone PF2e has a lot of rules, but most of the time it's clear in its intent and in its rules, the DM doesn't have to rule stuff differently.
@OlivierCombe the amount of times our 5e sessions would come to a standstill as we would look for Twitter response from Crawford or Mearles to know what the rule is. And even sometimes get into arguments about it. Pf2e is just clear.
@@OlivierCombe "Those are the rules" is a sentence I love getting to say. No aggro, no arguments... it is what it is. I don't always agree with it, and I am allowed to change those rulings as I see fit, but it's not expected of me, which is lovely.
I like how that "a la carte" thing being removed is a downgrade. Consider this: it was already an anti-consumerist dystopian microtransaction nightmare, and it frickin' got *worse.* Also frick all those new systems coming out that are completely closed-license. They're failures, and they need to uninstall. Any new system should be using a model like Paizo where you're pretty much pay-what-you-want. You can literally play PF1e, PF2e, or Starfinder without paying a cent to Paizo, or you can load up on every special edition hardcover book available, it's up to you.
Rules are free, everything else like npcs, pre-made characters and adventure modules are sold, but that’s ok since those aren’t needed to play. Personally prefer physical books since it’s easier to find what you’re looking for than in website.
It’s not necessarily bad to not have the rules and content available for free. Paizo is very unique in being able to afford that. But WotC is definitely doing public corpo greedy things
Yeah honestly After the OGL scandal, AI scandal, layoff scandal, "undermonetization" scandal and Dragonlance show scandal I'm not inclined to trust WotC can deliver good products made by human beings anymore
@@zerg0s Joe Manganiello wanted to produce his own Dragonlance show and got approval from wotc only for them to rugpull him and can it because the Dragonlance book and board game flopped
I just wish there was more *variety* with the D&D alternatives. Pathfinder 2 is clearly going in its own direction with breaking changes (we've needed to ditch alignment for 20 years), but the MCDM RPG and DC20 really feel a lot like 5e with the serial numbers filed off. They're not being very adventurous because they want to capture the 5e audience, but that means there's not much variety.
My thoughts on the new additions: MCDM = D&D for people who miss 4E. DC20= D&D for people who can't get their tables to play Pathfinder. Daggerheart - D&D for people who prefer LARP but their friends would make fun of them if they saw them at a park in cosplay with PVC wand. This is all very reductive of course, I actually would play any of them; to your point I think they are opting to reduce risk of failure by sticking close to a proven successful formula. Unfortunately it probably is the smartest business choice.
One I would love to see get more love is Fabula Ultima. It has just enough rules to make some solid mechanics work but also light enough to make flavor super easy to splash in.
I have in another RUclips comment section about dnd clones, vs dnd alternatives, vs dnd adjacent, etc. What I’d say about DC20 is that it feels like D&D, but the mechanics really are moving forward in a good way from 5e. It’s a fair comparison to say it sits between 5e and PF2e but with its own flair and touches. I think there are other systems out there that give more variety as D&D alternatives just have to look a bit more.
THIS is the standard I judge to be a X.5 edition. The 2e Remaster (including PC2) is close, but fundamentally doesn't have any changes to the primary workings of the rules engine itself. DnD2024 is virtually IDENTICAL to what 3.5 was. Reworked classes so they are fairly distinct mechanically but share some familiarity, changes to fundamental rules of the system, and reworking of creature statblocks to address issues with the CR system which make old monsters questionably compatible. 3.5 and now 5.5 are "Backwards Compatible" with hard air quotes and an asterisk.
Well... Paizo was upfront about what were going to be changed and why. They also didn't release any playtests for the changes, as they figured what they were changing was based on feedback of being played for a year+. But, the system wasn't broken... they "fixed" a few vexing design choices while also stripping out all the OGL content they have been using... So, the biggest changes would be the lore for the setting of Galorian. Followed by the classes who are impacted the most by their removal. *Shrugs* It's at best a "Remaster" or at worst a v2.1, lol. I see no problem using Remaster Wizards next to the OG Wizard... the balance is going to be pretty much the same, though their abilities will be different... resulting in different flavour between them.
Paizo did say they didn’t want to call it a “.5” because it wasn’t a big rework of the base of the game, but would leave it to the community. I’d more call it a .1
I am only new to PF2e but there was nothing severely broken in PF2e prior to the remaster that needed a drastic "x.5" rules overhaul that changes almost everything about the system. The same can't be said about D&D 2014 5e. The list of complaints from me alone, as a DM, is a mile long.
"so players have been making and sharing homebrew rules.. so all we need to do is look at the data of which is the most popular.. put it in a new book and sell bank. " "or we can do even less work and double the price"
I just really agree with you, been watching your videos a lot latetly, and you've help a lot with moving to pathfinder. I want to put my money where my mouth is, bought the remaster and the beginners box to run virtually, and I've already DM a one shot of PF2e, and then returned as a player to a campaing of 5e (both lvl 1) and I was just WISHING for something else to do instead of repeating the same action over and over. Also, a problem of DND adventures is that are, at best, barebones of stories, there's a reason why every single campaing has a "remix" or somethhing like that made by the community, The Alexandrian put it best when it said something along the lines of "they're not teaching anyone how to be a DM, they're just telling you go there, there, and this happens." I feel WOTC is the Bethesda of TTRPGs, famous company but with the years people realized the community made most of the work, and thats not even talking about things like the pinky boys
Cynical theory: they didn't present much DM stuff because their marketing and design strategy is focused on continually presenting more powerful player options because that tempts people to buy new books so they can keep making strong characters.
I think it's very plausible. It's the power creep you might see in Magic but not tempered by the fact of being a competitive game... since only the DM gets beat up on
DMs as individuals purchase much more than players do, but players outnumber them by an order of magnitude. So player option books sell extremely large quantities, but players are less likely to purchase many books back to back. DMs on the other hand will consistently purchase settings, adventures, monster books, miniatures, etc. But those releases will sell in smaller quantities, so they have to be careful not to produce too much of any given product.
My conspiracy theory is they want to phase out DM support and replace them with AI and people just gather around and have some Siri-like entity tell them what happens
This isn't a surprise. Non-nerd/gamers who are just hyper-greedy Jabba the Huts are taking CEO positions and only see money and nothing else. I don't know how anyone can support WotC anymore.
One of my pet peeves with 5e player's handbook: Entries in the index saying "see other entry" instead of just listing a page number. It's downright infuriating. I've literally spent time penciling in all the page numbers whenever it does that, and at least a third of the entries do.
A very weird complaint but I play a lot of characters with the noble background (the princess adventurer is an archetype I love) but it sucks thst the flavor equipment is gone, no signet ring, no writing supplies, no proof of who you are. It feels like it lost a lot of the small flavor that was there
I don't think it's a weird complaint at all but a perfectly reasonable one. Those things and the background features made the backgrounds at least feel like they were meant to be about your character as a person, rather than just a series of numbers.
I also don't like that your stat bonuses will now come from background instead of race. This will greatly limit the number of desirable backgrounds for every class, resulting in more "cookie-cutter" characters. You could make really interesting characters in 5e by choosing an unorthodox background for your class, and then coming up with a backstory to fit that combination. For example, a Noble Monk. A young lady is caught engaging in potentially scandalous behavior, so her parents ship her off to a convent to keep her out of trouble. She has surprising aptitude for the martial arts, but bristles at all these rules she's expected to live by. Her parents come to retrieve her after a few years, as they've arranged a marriage for her. She's not into that idea, so she escapes on the way home, and now makes her living as an adventurer. Unlike most Monks, she's materialistic and hedonistic, and has a rather lofty opinion of herself. That's a fun character idea, and it came directly from thinking about what a Monk with the Noble background might be like. It was also made possible by 5e's removal of alignment restrictions for all classes (as there's no way she's Lawful-anything). But now you'll have to choose from a limited subset of backgrounds that give you the correct stats, if you don't want your character to suck. The freedom that 5e giveth, 5.5 taketh away.
Not fixing the DM's problems is unforgivably. Iv moved to pathfinder/vampire/COC/cyberpunk/Dcc where they make the game runners life so much better. leave Wotc go to better games!
Its been a while since I read through my 2E Pathfinder core book but with any complex RPG system you really need to dedicate an entire page for player reference regarding exactly WHAT they can do in a turn. How many actions they have how many ways they can break up their movement, if any. How much of your turn is taken by an action; dropping an item is faster than manipulating a door to open or close it, casting a typical spell is significantly longer than both. The hardest thing with my new players in pathfinder has always been "What can I do on my turn?" Even though it would seem simpler: You have 3 "actions" to use how you want, they often forget a spell is usually 2 of those actions and sometimes even forget some spells take all 3. In that way 5e has had a major advantage in easing new players in; since its simply move > action > bonus with what bonus action can be used for specifically numerated in their class/subclass features as they level up and is otherwise, manipulate an object or bonus attack with the off-hand, but then those bonus things you get from your class that used to be full actions (like hiding as a rouge/ranger) feel a bit like cheating, like they're valuable as bonus actions rather than full actions. Contrast that 5e explanation with Pathfinder 2s well you could manipulate, or feint, or raise your shield, or drink a potion, or try to hide, or move 30 feet or cast a spell; but only 'these' spells because 'those' spells take 2 actions and sure you can hide > move > attack for sneak attack but anyone can do that` while in 5e only rouges and rangers can because only they get hide as a bonus action. If I was going to write a TTRPG system either the player options are going to be so simple anyone can remember what they can do on their turn OR I'm going to dedicate an entire spread to the player; what they can do on their turn and even have a handy note that suggest the player bookmark that page for easy reference, maybe even engineer the book so if you just flop it open your almost guaranteed to land on that spread.
As newbie player of PF2E, i find your arguement actually opposite of my and my groups exeperience. The number of spells that are 2 actions are pretty heavily the majority so its very easy to simply assume it a 2 action spell. Let alone something like pathbuilder or creating a digital version of your character sheet to print the spell descriptions for easy reference makes it very very very easy to track and plan your next move. 5e, you easily spend more time trying to plan out some elaborate sequence of actions and then the game is sitting for 5 minutes the moment your first roll fails and your entire sequence planned grinds to a halt. Let alone the number of times you find yourself in a situation where your putting strain on the DM to try to even rule if your sequence is a legit option of events due to vagueness of rules. Paizo in comparison have done a REALLY good job in eliminating lots of that similar vagueness with simple language and usually pretty blatant restrictions where they exist. I have zero issue remember what I can do in my turn in pf2e, more often I am forgetting some of the more basic actions honesty than I am my abilities, spells or reaction options. While last I tried to play 5e, the constant juggling of actions, reactions, bonus actions, clashing of rulings, etc.. quickly made me walk away from the campaigns, trying multiple times thinking maybe it was just a bad fit for me and the GM.. nope its a bad fit for me and the game system itself.
Love your videos like this. I go to D&D conventions so I have to keep playing 5e but my home campaign swapped to pf2e and couldnt be happier. PF2E actually feels like you are playing a game and have character progression every level. It is quite nice.
I have moved over to running PF2 games and most of my players are either positive or neutral towards those rules vs 5th Ed D&D. On the other side of things I still play 5th Ed D&D so may pick up the new PHB if, or more likely when, those games move over to the new rules but I have no plans to get the other books. Level 1 Feats, Weapon Traits and more versatility with ability modifiers (even if they are not completely free) are reason enough that I expect games I play in to move over. Not sure how support for D&D Beyond will go since they removed micro-transactions for purchasing single subclasses. I may be back to pen and paper for tracking characters.
It’s fun if you haven’t tried it yet. There’s a free playtest version which is basically the most updated version of the game on the Kickstarter you can try out!
One fact I rediscovered recently when all the old dnd creators did that nostalgia play through with each edition. When WotC bought the D&D IP (they paid for it, they didn't create it fyi) the mandate given to the writers and developers was to "make the best game". That was the company mandated objective for 3.0e. The old timers in the video recalled this fact and it reminded me, cause I had heard it before. When they made 4e, 5e, and now 5.5e the mandate changed. It's been make "more money" ever since. Or "Update" the rules. Which is arbitrary and effectively nonsensical as they are up to date unless someone changes them. Regardless. I remember that vibe of "making the best game possible" when 3.0 came out and listening/reading their various media at the time. I still think it is the best edition of dnd, but I heavily modify it anyway. The core mechanic is simple. Roll a d20, add modifiers, and meet or beat a DC. Anyone thinking it's "too difficult" to learn is saying they are dumber than a moron teenager. Which I was when it came out. The ONLY reason d&d is popular now is NOT the 5e rules. It was critical roll. Now, I won't go into how critical role is more a professional production than it is a real d&d game, but their youtube channel combined with covid was an explosive recipe for drawing a new audience. Anyone new to any hobby wants the newest and shineiest stuff. It only makes sense. And since MANY people are totally new to the hobby, they just use the new rules cause it's what they got. Very few people I'v heard of/seen stick to 5e for very long if they have experience playing other systems. Unless they just have no option due to the ever present DM shortage or they have financial incentives to keep playing 5e.
At this point I’m far more interested in your opinion on DC20. As a predominantly PF2 GM since its inception, DC20 is the only other announced system that actually has me excited about adding it to my table. Obviously DC20 has been the darling to talk about over the last couple weeks, but most of that is coming from the 5e community. And overwhelmingly, most of it is praising the “fixing” of 5e. I think the irony there is between the videos themselves and the comments people are leaving on them, a vast majority of the fixes already exist in PF2 (and in some cases seem to be improved in DC20). Personally I’m really excited for the system, as playing a D&D/Pathfinder-style game with an “open” action system is a minimum requirement of mine now that PF2’s 3-Action system spoiled me. I’m also hoping to lure DC20 players to my table for some additional ttrpg fun in the form of PF2. Have you had a chance to check it out? (Edited to correct some grammar)
I think simplifying ability scores and and being able to bank reactions is cool, but also if every ability score can be used for an attack role, why even bother if every character's attack will be +5 or whatever unless they intentionally make badly optimized characters? Two steps forward one step back, but the steps forward are relative to DnD, and PF already had several steps on it IMO.
@@onlynormalperson Hold on… that’s literally what pf2e does. Unless you build intentionally away from it every player in the party should have the same bonus to hit with their specialty with the exception of training gaps like fighter.
Because the ability scores are used for more than attacking. Even if you can make an intelligence prime fighter there are might requirements for heavy armor, agility increases dodge, and so forth. I'm not sure DC20 is as flexible as it seems at first glance.
@@onlynormalpersonI hear you. I will say that nothing much changes from how things work now. Even Paizo pushes the idea that the main class attribute should be maxed out in PF2. For anyone interested in a heavy combat focus, that’s going to be their attack stat. The only time in PF2 that I see people shy away from maxing their main stat is if a caster dedicates to a full support role. DC20’s take lets the player maintain some combat effectiveness while still providing a more specialized character and not backing a player into picking a particular class just to make that happen. I don’t know. I thought I was going to hate that part but I think it’s sound. My issue is not getting to roll actual damage, as I tend to prefer the swing that comes with PF2 and other systems.
My main reason for not covering other systems has been lack of time so far. (I don't see myself doing a short review.) However, I do think it's overall a great and positive thing for TTRPG players in general to be broken out of the mental bubble that there is only One True RPG, and so I wish success for all alternatives to 5e as a Good Thing(TM) in general!
DO NOT FORGET ABOUT THE WORKERS! Hasbro's toxic profit-seeking culture isn't about the games, it isn't about the players, it isn't about the PEOPLE! Hasbro is about the profit, and you can all die in a FIRE so long as you give them your money! You can ONLY vote with your dollar, people. Stop. Paying. Them. Your. Money. They only abuse you and they only abuse the artists and writers who work for them. When someone shows you who they are, believe them!
It’s interesting to hear a Pathfinder 2e cheerleader say that bonus action potions are a good change for 5e. Using a potion in 2e requires 2 actions (one to draw it, one to drink it), the equivalent of an action in 5e. I’d be curious if Ronald supports introducing new rules that allow drawing and stowing items to be free actions in 2e, such as a single free interact action once per turn. It’s certainly one of the biggest negative quality of life aspects to the game.
12:36 from the very beginning of the next playtest and when D&D 5e came out, they were adamant that magic items would not be a requirement and therefore you would not necessarily find them in your adventures.
I'm sure you're aware of this since you enjoy 4e and PF2, but that has led to one of the complaints about 5e, which is that the math and the monsters have been balanced around players NOT having magic items, when nearly every table DOES give out magic items. It is one of the ways the game gets out of control for 5e DMs who aren't careful. Resistance to nonmagical BPS damage becomes either brutal or a non-feature and a pushover. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't as a DM.
@@mycatistypingthis5450 it’s important to recognize that it doesn’t matter what you think in this context. The developers stated and so designed for a game that didn’t require magic items. That makes a campaign in which you heavily use magic items inherently imbalanced. For the record I agree with you, just important to understand we are talking about the design goals of the game not a player/dm’s personal opinion.
@@mycatistypingthis5450 I agree wholeheartedly. The issue is, the developer thought they would be able to make that happen and then they completely didn't do it
2e is just a better edition. Better action economy, better encounter balance, more detailed guides and charts for DM to use, better adventure paths for new and older DMs, better skill progression, and much more support and options available with more coming out, and a more consumer friendly conpany who doesn’t use AI and offers deals on acquiring pdfs for various modules on a daily basis. Also, Pathbuilder 2e is DnDbeyond without the numerous microtransactions with the only payput being for variant rules. Oh and all of their content is online, free-to-view, and has FoundryVTT support build into the base game The only thing 5.5e has over PF is the branding.
It's not. You can like 2e better, I like many of the things 2e does better than 5e. But 2e is not a better 5e, neither is dc20 or anything. They are all just different games. Amd with 5e you can do things that 2e can't. And that's ok. I understand disliking wizards of the coast. They suck, as most big corporations do. But why are 2e fans so hellbent on "killing" 5e?
@@moonlight28702e is just mechanically better. The 3 action economy alone makes it a better system. It also has an encounter building system that actually functions
I have to say, nothing in that preview made me want to return. It would have taken a miracle, mind you, because they still have at least one of their incompetent CEO's, and still show no signs of changing their ugly corporate ways, but I was curious if at least the 'game' part of that rodeo would reveal interesting changes. That video barely said anything. They sure liked to talk about their philosophy while saying barely anything about actual at the table rules. Mentioning 'we have crafting rules' means nothing without examples. I've seen their Bastion Rules, which people were excited about, and it's a nothing-burger, so I don't expect that they fixed the economy of D&D enough to present anything resembling deep crafting rules. I also get some personal red-flags too about corporate speak. I know this is just me, and it's just my personal take, but the constant use of 'delighted' seems to come up. I don't want to be 'delighted' with a TTRPG. I want to be excited to play, I want to be immersed, I want to have fun. Delighted is something I want when I try a nice cheesecake, or find out that I paid a few bucks less for groceries. And it just strikes me as... corporate. I don't know how to explain it, but it comes up so much in these videos that it feels un-natural and overly scripted. I also note something in their video that I deeply disliked. I paraphrase Perkins: "We actually went way beyond in changing some of the rules and experimenting. But you all, luckily, reigned us back in". I don't like that it places the lack of actual design and innovation back on the 'community'. They didn't seem to have much of a vision or any faith in their designs to begin with. A designer has a clear path, and a plan. If it grossly doesn't work, then abandon it. If it needs iteration and rework, then rework it. They just abandoned it. Because the designers likely got fired before it could be fleshed out and iterated on. And I have seen _nothing_ that helps DM's here. No mention of an actual way to create monsters/enemies that actually work. No mention of an actual economy or examples of crafting systems, barely any real meat to an exploration system (They mention it a lot, and mention characters all being able to do things, but I don't recall any examples). They don't address that the game is a nightmare to try and run once you get into the double digits, and indeed, there was no playtesting of the CR system, which doesn't work, or monsters, which have to be tweaked to work so much that DM's are part designers half the time. I'm sad to see it. I never wish a project like this to fail. I want to see more people come into the hobby with a game that's amazing and fun, but I don't see it here. This is just some polish put on everything, and a hand put out for $180 USD (Which is a LOT more for us Canadians). Staying with Savage Worlds and Pathfinder. Looking forward to DC20, which feels like what D&D should have done with a new edition.
Made the swap to PF2e last year and I'm never going back. Running an abomination vaults campaign atm. Also playing Kingmaker and a homebrew. Waiting for a Wrath of the Rightous port.
I'll be honest, I just can't muster any excitement about the new version. A friend of mine said they're going to be buying the books and I can't think of a polite way to say "but why?"
After delving deeper into PF2e, I just grow more and more frustrated with D&D and this new interation does nothing to bring me back. It doesn't answer any of the frustrations I have had. Not to mention the amount of things they did to D&D Beyond to make it unuser friendly and I am just tired of it. With Roll20 and Demiplane now merging and the fact that Demiplane will be directly referenced in Roll20 and that i get all the digital Pathfinder stuff I bought on Roll20 in Demiplane...I literally have no use for D&D any more with that change. Full steam ahead with PF2e, I rather have a system that doesn't shake down it's player base for all their money.
Treantmonk is fracking insane if he thinks its only a "handful" of spells that creates the martial-caster divide in 2014 5e. Yes there are the best in class spells, fireball, counterspell, fly, spiritual weapon etc, but that doesn't even scratch the surface of the insane number of exploration breaking spells. Goodberry, Tiny Hut, Invisibility etc etc etc. If all you can do is hit things with a sword, and now trip things with that same sword attack, how can you ever not be outclassed by a wizard turning invisible and avoiding the enemy completely. BTW, it is rather rich of Treantmonk to downplay the capabilities of magic when he is most famous for writing a guide that was "how to win every situation with magic".
He is also a hypocrite. I found PF2E from his channel pushing the humble bundle after the OGL scandal. I switched and never looked back. What's Treantmonk doing? Still selling WOTC DND. He complains how cruel they are to their employees and then continues selling for them in his next video. He has no spine, no conviction, and is willing to promote a company that actively seeks ways to hurt creators and players. I also noticed he is quick to jump on the coat tails of other RUclips channel successes, such as DC20, while taking no risks of his own. Boycott Treantmonk.
@@geoffreygeever Let's be real, pretty much every TTRPG creator (of which I know of only 5) has jumped on the DC20 hype train which has driven me nuts considering just how much of a scam DC20 is and just how scripted every DC20 is. Literally, "ad-read" levels of scriptedness. If you have seen one DC20 video you have seen every other one. Supposed "unique to the creator" pros and cons and all. As for Treantmonk, I have been boycotting him for years. In addition to the complaints you rised, everything he does screams "metagaming theory-crafting game wrecking munchkin". The worst possible qualities you can find in prospective players. The type that is reviled on r/RPG-horror-stories. No!!! Coby from D4, seems genuinely interested in analytically pushing his character builds as far as the system (5e) allows. Treantmonk, on the other hand seems to just want to screw over their DM and players at the table. That's not the type of player I want at my table, and certainly not the type of creator that I wish to give the time of day. Boycot away!!!
As a pathfinder player, I don't understand the resistance to making magic items more... common? Like in a world where you can run into a wizard on the daily of course some of em are gonna be hittin the grind every day makin magic swords for a living. Of course some king is gonna be spending the military budget gettin his dudes decked out.
(Late response, but...) it's probably because the designers claimed that the game was "balanced" around few if any magic items being distributed. So then people want to play the "balanced" version, which is allegedly the version with few or no magic items. Of course, the game is poorly balanced either way, but biases can be hard to overcome.
I think the fact that it's close to 5e is a reason for the hype going down (as is the nature of hype), but it might also be precisely what part of the market is looking for. We'll see
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Well, and they engaged in the same problems you mentioned, where they focused on player options instead of tweaking the core rules. So, I'm happy for an alternative to D&D, but they didn't go far enough to fix some problems that 5e has.
It sucks they didn't stick to the cool "Black Flag" name though. 😅 "Tales of the Valiant" sounds so lame to me (gives me flashbacks to Prince Valiant :p ) It's purely a matter of taste of course. :)
On a similar note, I'm looking at Playtest 6's Beast Master ranger animal companions and it looks pretty rough... hit points are 5 + five times your Ranger level (no CON bonus)? Terrible if you're dipping into Ranger to pick up the animal. Blech.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG My guess is to incentivise players to go straight with beast master, rather than 3 lv dip. As far as I can remember, classes with Wis as primary stat (Druid and Cleric) have access to medium armor and martial weapon proficiency, so I dont think dipping to ranger is a good idea (as far as I can remember, druid has the most economical way to access animal familiara).
Really interesting thoughts. One thing I'd love to see is rules/info on how to make and reward players for social encounters and exploration encounters. I don't believe that the lack of rules/info on these encounters will be addressed in 5.5. I'm looking at other systems or using the encounter rules from the Dragon Age RPG. You just determine the difficulty if your encounter based on the description in the book and give your players a certain amount of xp when they complete the encounter, regardless of what kind of encounter you are running. It's simple to use. Hopefully we'll get something better down the line for D&D encounters than we have now.
I pretty much agree on all of your points. I still can't support WoTC and the game doesn't appear to have changed very much at all. That being said, probably the smartest thing they have done is working with some of the bigger name content creators to do more of their marketing for them.
14:56 ever since what they perceived as a failure in 4th edition, they have always stated that any new versions of Dungeons and Dragons will be backwards compatible with each other so that that will never happen again
And my take is that's a bad policy. Saying you'll never break compatibility means you will block innovation. Tastes change, people come up with new ideas. For virtually every other game, people want improvements in the next version. I don't see fans of any other game treating a statement "we will never innovate" as a good thing.
I enjoy the hobby. There things that DnD does really well. There are also substantial imbalances and shortcomings. I have yet to see anything that indicates to me that WotC is fixing more problems than they are creating in this new version. I’ve seen a bunch of changes. Not many improvements though.
My table recently switched all our games over to Pathfinder 2E. We had some hesitations at first, but the more we played the more we fell in love with it. I’m not even sure what all WOTC would have to do to win us back, but we’ve been perfectly happy in this new system, and as our characters increase in level we’re enjoying it more and more (where in 5e there was typically more fun in the earlier levels).
I've got a couple of counterpoints to make: -I agree that they're making some abussive moves towards monetization, reason as to why I don't support them, but since the rectifications of the OGL scandal, they've actually been making a lot of changes both in their policies and development to allow and encourage homebrew. They even allowed homebrew content to be imported and sold in D&D Beyond, taking a commition on sells for the marketplace. In fact, the VTT they are developing has a heavy focus on customisation towards homebrew, so I would not say they are trying to remove 3rd party content. -Interest in the unearthed arcanas, from what I could see in the community, has only increased since UA5 with the reworked classes. You said it yourself, the data might be innacurate, due to it being people using reddit less, but many dnd content creators, both in the english and spanish community, started to bring attention to these unearthed arcanas since the class changes started to happen. In fact, the changes to spellcasters in UA5, not liked by many people (COWARDS! haha), caused the webpage to go down for a couple of hours due to the amount of feedback they got regarding all that, if I remember correctly. -Saying there are no guides towards magic item pricing and when to get what magic items in the DM's guide is a lie. Sure, the system is pretty shit, the prices are only aproximations, and the way it is show is confusing and unbalanced, but idk, it is there. Once you get a basic understanding of how the game works, they can be used as references to know what to give or sell to your players. criteria and context are always necessary of course, and the system might lead you to fuck up, thus why it is kinda shitty, but again, it is there. -The potions as a bonus action rule has got some connotations that I think you're missing. It is applied to ONLY healing potions, as the guy said in the video. That means it doesn't overlap as much as you might think with the thieve's feature. I agree with you, there was no playtest for the rule, BUT, i'd say healing potion as a bonus action has been popular since always as a homebrew rule. If something made it popular it was probably critical role, they run that rule at they table, and let me tell ya, 90% of people I know that play dnd, either by youtube or in person, run the rule that way, looong before baldur's gate 3 came out. Sure, there was no "official" playtest in an unearthed arcana, but oh boy has there been enough playtest there, enough for the people at wotc to read the suggestion at least once a day haha. Still, I agree, don't support wizards of the coast. I find it heartbreaking that the people actually developing the rules and the actual artists they have are caught in the collateral damage, as those people actually show love and interest towards the game, rules and world they are creating, but as with everything, the people in charge tend to fuck up the most and earn the biggest revenue. I'll still support 3rd party creators and continue to play dnd in my extremely homebrew way haha
Ngl, I'm way more interested in PF2 and DC20 Action points system. I'm sick of Action, bonus Action style. It gets confusing a.f trying to explain it to new players Also dear God do they still have spell slots and ability scores?
I love manna over spell slots becouse they way DC20 uses means you can power up a spell soo burning hands turns into Scott ing ray turns into fire ball this is all one spell the power is decided how much mp (manna points you put into it ) its a really cool system
19:15 I think D&D V3.5 had two main categories of actions, standard, and move, and the rules state that you can take a move action in place of a standard action. If this means that you can take two move actions during a round at the cost of not taking a standard action, this would be like being able to take two bonus actions instead of a standard action and a bonus action during a round in D&D fifth edition.
They should have given a set of skills to decide upon in background s. If you're an orphan or a pirate, why be a rogue if it automatically gives you a rogue skill?
If you want more alternatives for dnd. Fabula Ultima is worth trying out. Its basically dnd fused with final fantasy. Also. The announcement is just not winning me over. I'd rather play Pathfinder 2e. [Despite me having trouble even finding a game since everyone uses foundry.] Especially with weapon mastery. That should have been in the game DAY 1. Especially since it helps make weapons more distinct. Overall. I have been enjoying other systems more than 5e. Its a shame that wotc is running a system I considered fun but flawed.
minor thing but bonus action potions is a very long standing and popular house rule that has been used for quite some time now. we know it works already.
I'm sure it'll work out fine, tho that wasn't my concern here. It was the inability to assess drafts of the classes without knowing the action economy rules and who knows what other skill rules, combat rules, changes to monsters, spells, magic items we don't know about
As a DM I take each class level up ability as an option to my players and give them a past eddition option of eqivelant level or lower for that class as they customize thier character. They have to seek out an elder usualy to teach them. Most older stuff is compadible with a little tweeking.
I'll weigh in here, even though my stance is pretty firm. 5e was a triumph for WOTC. Regardless of any deeper mechanics problems, its easy accessibility for new players generated incredible interest and brought in new players, arguably like no other system or edition has in decades, if ever. The wake of that success, however, has demonstrated that Hasbro has no idea what to do with that success. Modern business models don't support the idea of nurturing a loyal customer base through two-way communication and focused product support. They started 5e by releasing sourcebooks in the cultural tradition of the game, focusing on providing DMs with pre-written material. Then, as the game drew more attention, Hasbro decided to focus on player choices almost exclusively. It makes sense, from a business model. There are at least three players for every one DM, and modern business strategy dictates that focus on wider demograpbics generates higher revenue. Likewise, removing the competition's access to the market (in this case, 3rd party producers) is supposed to increase market share. Unfortunately for Hasbro, TTRPGs aren't like other areas of business. I only bought 5e's core books and Volo's Guide, but I can literally run 5e games for the rest of my life with those products, and because the game master can provide their own content, forcing the market closed and focusing on player option products just... Doesn't matter as much. It doesn't drive revenue the way it would for a board game, and crowding out competitors from the 5e market has only created additional competition that can't be as easily controlled. I left 5e when they started trying to drive revenue with pay-to-play online sources like Beyond. My group has been playing Night Shift: VSW for three years now, and we're about to start a Traveller 2e campaign. We have even more fun than we did with 5e. D&D is just unnecessary and superfluous to the hobby; a single game system among many. And until Hasbro figures that out, it will remain so.
I'm gonna be putting that backwards compatibility to the test pretty soon. I plan on running characters made with the new system through COS to see for myself.
0:45 other systems aren't real 2:43 unfortunately money talks and bullshit walks or whatever 5:08 if only internet videos could get rid of the cock. 5:21 MCDM RPG mentioned pog! 5:45 I laughed 9:25 that sounds far more magnanimous than it really probably is. 9:35 oh wait you agree with me lmao 11:20 that's kinda huge cause the current DMG is ass 19:05 god yes it sucks Solid video Ronnie boy!
hey man look, all I'm gonna say is that I prefer a lot of things the way its done in D&D as opposed to other systems. So engaging in the stuff as it comes out is something I'm still gonna do. Won't pay them a dime for it, though. I've got a nice little free alternative for their services.
Huh. I didn't even know they had released videos on the books. Hasbro/WotC can get absolutely stuffed, and my interest in D$D since Hasbro's BS two years ago reflects that.
After the OGL it was nice seeing people who refused to try anything but DND finally expand out and try new systems but it felt like as soon as wizards went “whoopsie nevermind” they where immediately forgiven by a ton of people. Then another incident and another and another and people just keep going back. It’s like looking at an abusive relationship where I can’t fathom why the battered partner keeps going back everytime the abuser pretends they’re sorry and promises they’ll never do it again. There’s just so many better systems out there without all the constant anti-consumer abuse.
I’ve been recently messing with revising classes and races and honestly the more I look at their revisions the more it’s clear most dms can do an equal or better job than wizards
love TheRulesLawyerRPG videos ❤ i used to be a 5e player (switched over from pathfinder 1e) and i am almost completely in the pf2 bucket now. it’s such a great system (that and wfrp 4) and yeah… this new version of 5e dnd just doesn’t look appealing to me. i’ve only ever liked dnd for its flexibility to make whatever you want of it, but it seems like wotc isn’t even trying to do that to reinvent it into something better 😅 also, DC20 looks cool but i’m apprehensive with the fact we haven’t heard much in the way of them having official vtt support like Paizo with Pathfinder 2e and Cubicle 7 with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e (who both have the BEST support possible for VTT players).
And don't forget about the issues a staggered release will cause DMs. Players get their new toys months before the DMG, and then Monster Manual comes out in 2025! Since they are rebalancing monsters to match their CR, we dungeon masters will have OLD monsters vs new character options for months! I'll be calling it either the 2025 edition, because its incomplete without a bestiary, or simply dnd Skip edition if I don't buy it.
Masteries is ill thought out. Having every successful hit knock enemies prone or give advantage means encounters that aren't challenging, spells being now worthless, and DM's with their hainds tied. Bastions are basically solo play, and it just........ The game's very anti-DM.
I think the forgotten aspect of spell casting is spell components That is what is supposed to be the limiting factor on the Caster and therefore the Martal divide. But no one really uses them so there is no balance or semblance of one rather. Not all spells require crazy components after all...
They did technically do a DMG playtest with the Bastion System. I think they mentioned in a video towards the end of the playtest that they decided to internally test the encounter building rules but that they would be redesigned.
"We wanted to make the backgrounds as flexible as possible to support as many characters as possible" ...I mean, ok, 3 options and freely distributing three ability improvements (can you put +3 into one?) between those options is reasonably flexible, but I think Pathfinder's one boost to one of two abilities, and a second boost to any ability (can't be the same) makes for more flexibility. (Quickly running the numbers - A PF2e background gives me 9 options for where to put my ability boosts from it For Acrobat, for example, 4 options for Strength, 4 options for Dex, and one option where I take both Strength and Dex; while D&D5e2024/5.5e gives either 7 or 10 options depending on if it lets me use +3 into one, but those options are all entirely constrained to half the abilities, so if my character really needs something outside of those, either mechanically or flavour wise, I'm SOL so even if it's the 10 option version, I'd still prefer the customizability of Pathfinder's version) - Though I can't speak as widely as you seem to be able to, most systems I play aren't as... Heavy... As D&D5e or PF2e are, and certainly don't have as much focus on 'a build' as either of them do.
I like both systems I am about to finish my second run as a gm of the beginner box for pf2e. I am going to try dming a short dnd adventure to compare though. I can say even with foundry and pf2e integration I feel like there’s a lot to keep track of and can be difficult for beginning gms like me. I also come from dnd as a player so maybe I feel like it could be easier to dm due to my years of experience in dnd but if anyone has any suggestions please let me know. My hardest thing to manage is exploration mechanics in pf2e along with detection mechanics.
I don't know what to do but point you to vids on my channel, and How It's Played is the go-to for rules explanations. Also there's a lot of posts on the PF2e subreddit where people have a lot of the same concerns you have and get a wealth of helpful responses. One thing I'd say is that there isn't as much of a premium on the GM of having to know everything... outsource to your players! One advantage to rules being defined is that your players can find the answers, too. Archives of Nethys has all the rules for free.
In and the sales price of magic item is not considered their buy price in and with their purchase price being "an npc will never willingly part from their magic items" possibly slightly paraphrased
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-A number of other creators covering D&D have been sponsored by Hasbro/WOTC and/or are developing a relationship with WOTC. I disagree with both since I think WOTC should be boycotted. I ask viewers to consider this if it turns out I am an isolated voice being critical of the books right now.
-I should have also mentioned Tales of the Valiant, which for people who enjoy 5e is more familiar and doesn't involve supporting WOTC: www.talesofthevaliant.com/ And of course there's Pathfinder 2e which addresses common complaints about 5e that my channel has a ton of content on!
-10:39 i have learned that the SubredditStats graph might not be accurate, Reddit's unpopular changes have reduced everyone's engagement with Reddit, and also affected SubredditStat's ability to track data on the site. Still, my anecdotal observation is that interest waned at least among the online/active part of D&D players, maybe in number of posts but definitely in enthusiasm.
-22:33 Characters getting buffed in 5.5e made it even more important to playtest the crop of new monsters, because the old math definitely needs updating.
-24:40 We DID see some (for me) welcome changes to conjuring spells and smite spells in the Unearthed Arcana articles that might have survived. Meanwhile, the lack of even claiming to address spells (they said they were rebuilding all the monsters) is highly concerning.
-It's too early to call, but this might be a case of Planned Obsolescence. It would be consistent with Hasbro's profit goals if their plan is to turn D&D into a "living game" that gets updated periodically, and you need to be subscribed to their digital service to stay up-to-date. It would explain the lack of urgency to fix their game, because the game can be patched over time. (2026: "We have fixed these problematic spells!") And it would be consistent with their mission statement in their 2022 One D&D World Reveal video that "we don't think of D&D as an edition. It's just... D&D."
honestly I feel similar I understand you need money to live but accepting sponsorship form WOTC look at least ugly, I watched one video as it was announced that it will have somone new (maybe new character or collaboration?) but it turned out that it was just corporation Ad hiden under few paragraphs of content from book that was about 95% from playtest or old PHB, I don't think I was ever that disappointed
I feel like 5.2 would be a better name for it than 5.5 for these reasons.
1. old stuff is from '14 and uses 5.1 SRD
2. new stuff is from '24 and uses 5.2 SRD
There's a bit of an issue for it being live service.
Assuming that 5.5e will constantly be updated like some live service, won't it be very jarring for a player who played in 2024, then decide to go back to it in 2030, and now have to relearn everything from the past 4 years of patches and balances?
It just kinda bizarre to have that in a TRPG for me
@@Kirinboy39 To be fair, Paizo puts out regular errata, but they're much more incremental than what WOTC has set-up needs to happen here. They started with a solid playtested base. Plus, the updated rules are all free online.
The issue is more that WOTC might have put out something half-baked on purpose now, to make updating essential
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I dread the future where someone sit down in 2031 and each player have a different year's handbook that has very different contents and everyone has to cross reference the right rules to resolve
I am soon running a mini adventure for my players to compare D&D, Pathfinder, MCDM RPG, DaggerHeart, and DC20. Essentially it is going to be a time loop that lasts two sessions and each loop is a different system, but with similar encounters and characters to allow comparison between the systems.
would love to hear about your experience! if you're interested would love to hear about it on my Discord server
That’s cool! Can’t wait to hear the feedback from that experience
I gotta say, I love the idea of this.
You are a GENIUS
You encounter a Dire Groundhog!
My singular biggest gripe with 5e is that the community is obsessed with reskinning it to meet their genre needs over playing games designed for those genres. You don't get actual laser guns, you get bows reskinned to be laser guns.
I was once invited to play "a Star Wars TTRPG", I was really excited actually because Fantasy Flight's Star Wars RPG is fantastic, simple to learn, easy to run, and fun to play. Instead I got 5e with severely unbalanced homebrew. Changing only what needs to be changed to make 5e "star wars flavor" in the same way an overpriced sparkling water is "orange flavor".
What do you think of West End Game's version of Star Wars RPG?
@@aralornwolf3140 pretty sure that's just the old publishing house that used to hold the rights, it should be the same game.
@@FlareBinar WEG SWRPG and FFG SWRPG only major similarities are being dice pool systems and Star Wars, WEG is more like a traditional RPG whereas FFG is more like a modern TV show with many twists and turns. Both infinitely surpass the WoTC Star Wars Saga D20 system though.
I made a post about this in the Pathfinder2e subreddit awhile ago; it's called "Why leave and why not?" The only legitimate arguments I've found there for doing this kind of thing are:
1. *Time management* : Some people believe they do not have the time to convert to a new system. I think they are mistaken, and laziness may be a factor here. The time they spend attempting to convert 5E into something else is often greater than the time they would need to learn the fundamentals of another system.
2. *Player Scarcity* : other systems have a smaller playerbase, and players at some tables are either lazy or uninterested in trying them out, so even if someone wants to play another system, they don't seem to get the opportunity. I also believe they exaggerate the severity of the situation. For example, if you can only play with a specific group, that's unfortunate, but there are lots other communities on other systems; you just need to look around a little.
@@XvicvicX I really don't understand the hesitance to learn new systems. You don't have a similar problem with video games. People gladly try out new video games, but hesitate to try a new TTRPG, when much like video games the biggest hump is just learning how to play the first one.
I've been a D&D fan since the mid 80s, and this will be the first rulebook set I won't be buying. I left D&D when the OGL scandal hit, and WOTC has given me no reason to come back (and many more reasons to stay away). I moved to Pathfinder and I'm happy with it. It's similar enough to scratch my D&D itch and Paizo is not a problematic company.
True that, 5e in general didn't grab my attention from the beginning, I was too used to the options from 3.5. But their actions pushed me away even further.
Not currently a problematic company. The Paizo union exists for a reason.
@@CheezMonsterCrazyevery company should have a union tbqh.
I moved to ToV, if I really want that leveled dungeon crawl experience, but mostly for fantasy I have moved to Dragonbane and Tales of Xadia.
@@CheezMonsterCrazytrue that, and to their credit they recognized it voluntarily rather than fighting it.
There is something vindicating about the shift away from codified language after 4th edition being walked back in 1D&D. Basically since 5e dropped, and especially when everyone was still trying to figure out how you even play it, DMs and players were realising that the so-called "natural language" used to make the books easier to understand actually makes them more difficult to understand when you need a specific clarification. For the longest time 5e was sort of this thing that worked best when you squinted a little because even something as basic as an "attack action" is so unreasonably complicated when you start deep diving into how it interacts with other mechanics.
I wonder if they are doing that in hopes of revitalizing their relationship with old players who still play 2nd and 1st editions. That would be very funny, because those players despise 5e xD (with nonsensical vitriol)
Will never forget the first time I was running a trap in an adventure and had to dig through paragraphs of text to figure out effects, spot DC, disable DC, etc. Glad I've moved on to systems that standardize the format.
@@SheppiTSRodriguezThe criticism from old schoolers is no more nonsensical than your criticism with the system.
I had a similar experience recently with programming languages. I recently did a small course on Python, which is generally known for a being a very simple, easy to use programming language, that "emphasizes code readabilty" meaning the code should be as close to natural language as possible. Yeah I f*cking hated it. Compared to other programming languages I just found the natural language approach to make things less clear and error prone and I see a similar problem in TTRPG systems. Natural language is inherently ambiguous, that's why something as simple as "spilling tea" can mean two completely different things. Natural languages are flexible in their meaning and that can be helpful if you want to leave things up to interpretation but it's (mostly) not a good way to handle rules for a game. Very good for flavor though.
One good thing about that Python course though was that it introduced me to the concept of natural languages and formal languages. Formal languages being a language where any part of it has a singular unambiguous meaning, which is a way better approach (I think) to creating a game including TTRPGs. Words like hidden, invisible, strike, etc have clearly defined meaning and impact on the rest of the game and it makes playing the game less confusing. One of my friends used to say Pathfinder is great because it's designed like a video game, in the sense that you could simply write it's rules into a programming language and everything would just work as intended. That's because Pathfinder is simply modelling a formal language using a natural language and all programming languages are formal languages (although Python certainly tries not to be). They have to be because if anything isn't clearly defined, it ends in crashes and bugs. (Obviously those still happen, but almost exclusively if things are used for the wrong purpose)
"AT HIGHER LEVELS: WHEN YOU CAST THIS SPELL USING A SPELL SLOT OF x+1 LEVEL OR HIGHER, do something FOR EACH SLOT LEVEL ABOVE x" - This text shows up in almost all of the 361 spells in the player's handbook, instead of just using a keyword. Perhaps "heightened"?
"THE TARGET TAKES x DAMGE ON A FAILED SAVE, AND HALF AS MUCH ON A SUCCESSFUL ONE" - Is used so much. Again, could really use a keyword. Might I suggest "basic save"?
Not to mention how some spells specify "a creature/point/space that you can see", while many spells don't specify it, even though you would assume that they also need line of sight
I've been very disillusioned with D&D lately. Wizards of the Coast (and Hasbro too) have just been making too many terrible choices.
Honestly good, there's way better games out there and it's an enjoyable market to look at and get into.
Outside of Pathfinder 2e, which is my mainstream choice of game.. I've gotten into dozen of amazing games lots of OSR/rules lite games too.
If you want something a little easier to digest without it being such a massive 180 check out shadow dark.
And the release of all this publicity material for 2024 5e does nothing to change that perception.
Same! After almost 10 years of playing DND I quit all together last year and honestly I couldn't be happier. Trying out a bunch of new systems has been a delightful time.
Check out DC20. I’ve been reading it, haven’t played it yet and it feels like an actual DND6e, unlike this
the doorbell is a paid actor :p
Another big issue with having this relatively small (but still dozens of spells long) subset of way too powerful spells is that it required the Designers of 5e to late in the game add the band aid that is Legendary Resistances so that the big boss monster wasn't banished by the cleric round 1 in 100% of the fights.
And there is nothing more feels bad as a spellcaster than using your highest rank spell slot that you just got thinking it's going to do lots of damage or get its full effect as the DM goes "Ohhh nat 1 on the save" but then the DM says "It burns a Legendary resistance though, so takes half/no damage/no effect." It's also so metagamey because then you as the Party have to come up with low rank spells that are problematic enough that they force the DM to burn the 3 resistances so you can then go "Ah hah now I cast the big one!" Which is just not how the PCs would behave when faced with say a kraken.
People get so up in arms that spellcasters in PF2e don't have break the game spells early on. Calling it "overly designed". But IMO you need that careful alignment so that magic can be consistently satisfying without needing this kludgey back stop of Legendary resistances.
yeah it makes any kind of controlling style of mage unplayable. like if you dont take damage spells you're just rendered useless.
I like the boss style of PF2e so much more than the clunky bosses of 5e.
This isn't something PF2E has room to criticize them on, honestly. The game has the EXACT same issue of 5e that a handful of spells completely outshine the rest - the only difference is that all spells are way weaker as a baseline. Tack on how the three action system is almost completely un-utilized in spell design, and it's hard to describe PF2E spellcasting as anything but "5e but worse".
Also personally I'll take legendary resistance over the god-awful design choice of Incap any day.
@@SirGiff Nice entry for the prompt: Tell me you haven't played a caster in Pf2e past level 1 without telling me you haven't played a caster in PF2e past level 1.
THANK YOU! I appreciate you "not" calling out everyone that immediately flip-flopped. It would be a real shame if all the people who faux-raged about D&D/WOTC/HASBRO immediately rolled over for belly rubs as soon as they started receiving free stuff again.
Thank you for being a person of genuine character in an age of people without backbones.
Yeah, well, many of the bigger creators' main problem was that they were either sponsored by 3rd party creators, or that they were 3rd party creators themselves. So the OGL being retracted would have been a direct hit on their finances. And covering the drama for sure brought in some nice view numbers for them. Now that it has blown over, they have no reason to jump ship, or critique. They can just go back to peddling their goods again and to chasing the algorithm, as Ronald put it, thus letting WotC's behaviours slide again instead of preassuring thwm further so they can fix their shit. Which will, inevitably, lead to WotC trying more shenanigans in the future.
Actually I find that very spineless.
I'm more excited by DC20 than D&D 5.5.
Ditto
Yeah, DC20 seems the most in the spirit of D&D 5e of all the new stuff. I think it'll end up being an even easier switch than Pf2 for most people.
A point left off the reasons to be angry at WotC is there's literally already pre-order exclusive DLC and microtransactions put into DnD moving into DnD2024
Ah, is there a link with more info? Or can you summarize?
All rpg games have dlc, what do you think all the books that get released are?
Don't forget they *just* got rid of ala carte purchasing on d&d beyond.
Yup. It's all about the $
@@quinn0517 So they took out microtransactions so that's bad. But they have preorder dlc and microtransactions they are adding?
Most of the video was just regurgitated reasons to be mad at WotC. Does anyone need any more of that at this point?
There’s so many better games available than when 5e first came out. I wish people would try them
there were so many better games available when 5e first game out, too.
We got so tired of DND 5e we played ADND 2e and it was no joke the better game. From there we went to many other games, playing Pathfinder 2e right now which idk why it's not more popular than 5e... just name recognition it must be and streamers only playing games that give the most likes.
@@kanaric literally just brand recognition. i'd bet good money most people who play 5e do not care about TTRPGs, they just get invited once a month to do the thing their friend saw on stranger things or its someone into nerd culture as an aesthetic that only cares about it because thats what people think nerds are into. if you are lucky you'll find someone who's favorite streamer streamed it and they got interested that way, but that streamer probably only played 5e because it will get a boost in the algorithm.
> Not fixing broken CR
> Not fixing broken d20 math
> Not fixing broken spells
Not worth buying! They’ve made a lot of good superficial changes. It’s too bad the bones are rotten.
What's the broken d20 math?
It might be about skill check at low levels being only 20% affected by attribute + proficiency but 80% dice, so a stupid barbarian can solve puzzles on first try that an expert wizard fails on first try.
CR is monster based and is probably coming in Monster Manual and wouldnt be in the Players Handbook...
I really dont know what u mean about d20 math being broken?
What spells are broken?
@@moonlight2870 Ronald has a great video about this! It has Bounded Accuracy in the title.
It’s hard to explain quickly but the jist is that bonuses are too low except when they aren’t. If you’ve ever prepared a stealth challenge but the ranger knows Pass Without Trace you’ll understand.
@qarsiseer hum...I see. Well, while that can be true mathematically, in practice, that's often not an issue. You roll the dice and see if you rolled good or not. I understand what you mean, but it works fine. There's no need to "fix". I agree with the spells, tho. Except they didn't show all the spells just yet. So it's early to say. But I don't trust them lol
Just so you know, Cynthia Williams resigned and is no longer at WOTC.
Chris Cocks is still employed though and likely collecting his bonus while they layoff workers.
Yes! I am aware.
I originally planned to say a word on it but didn't want to get bogged in debating the significance of it which I knew would be debated. I think it's a positive thing and reflects that the outcry has had SOME impact and is not to be diminished. But of course the fight's not over!
Yeah she resigned long after the damage was done and come to think of it, I didn't hear an announcement of her replacement.
It was so disconcerting to see just about every major DnD channel, from Ginny Di to Pack Tactics, accept WotC sponsorships. Kudos to channels DnDShorts who is clearly covering things on his own merit. It's great to see you're calling this out - DON'T accept WotC sponsorships!
It feels like they hyped up the changes they were making only to distract people and market DND, and not make the game better.
Maybe. But the facts we’ve seen could be just as easily explained without malice or intentional misdirection, in a couple different ways:
- The folks who want significant changes to D&D5E have already moved to different games (even if they’re only as “different” as Pathfinder or Tales of the Valiant), so they’re not giving feedback on the playtest documents. Which means the feedback WotC gets is primarily or entirely from people who are mostly happy with D&D5E. Meaning big changes get mostly voted down, and minor tweaks get positive responses.
- Time crunch and cautiousness. They could’ve started out intending to make some relatively big changes, but as they tried them out they realized that the ripple effects would require more changes, which would require more changes, etc. That would leave them with the options of delaying the release, making the changes anyway but knowing they didn’t have time to find&fix all the problems those changes create, maybe throwing more people at the project [implausible if they’re trying to cut employees], or give up on the more-radical revision and make safer changes with fewer knock-on interactions with other rules.
- Clash between designers and decision-makers. The designers were sincerely exploring bigger changes, but then someone higher up the corporate ladder told them not to. Maybe they accurately identified situation 2 and realized that the designers were being overly optimistic on what could be accomplished and still have a finished, polished product on time. Maybe they worried that they were in situation 1, and the feedback supporting bigger changes was from folks who wouldn’t buy D&D anyway, so better to listen to the folks who only wanted small changes and were therefore basically happy with D&D5E already.
- Closely related to the previous point, I’m sure there are folks at WotC and Hasbro who are extremely gunshy about significant changes due to the reception of D&D4E. So they could’ve started out intending to make bigger changes and then talked themselves out of it, deciding it’s better to keep the fans they have than risk driving them away-because there’s a good chance that the folks who would like a very different D&D will never try it because it has the name “D&D”.
@@natbarmore I still find is horrible that they cut DND when monopoly go made 2 billion dollars and was the fastest mobile game to earn that much ever. They have the funds to invest into dnd and instead cut the creative staff :(
I'm glad I went with Worlds Without Number and didn't look back. As a bonus, it gives solid tools to build adventures when I foray into running other games like PF2e or Savage Worlds.
Good for you
I hates worlds without numbers, that System is so boring
The more i play PF2E the more i realize how mediocre the design is in DnD
The worse are the intentionally vague rules in dnd, where the DM has to make a decision, which may or may not be in favor of what the player want, resulting in DMs having the "bad role" for not allowing something that would break the balance of their games. Of course players want the power creep, but DMs have to think about other players, and how to easily design encounters so that they are fair and fun for everyone
PF2e has a lot of rules, but most of the time it's clear in its intent and in its rules, the DM doesn't have to rule stuff differently.
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by how... intentional pf2e feels in its design when I first started playing it. They actually close cheesy loopholes.
@OlivierCombe the amount of times our 5e sessions would come to a standstill as we would look for Twitter response from Crawford or Mearles to know what the rule is. And even sometimes get into arguments about it. Pf2e is just clear.
@@OlivierCombe "Those are the rules" is a sentence I love getting to say. No aggro, no arguments... it is what it is. I don't always agree with it, and I am allowed to change those rulings as I see fit, but it's not expected of me, which is lovely.
The same thing happened to me and my group! Even if I weren't angry at WotC, I'd stay with Pathfinder!
I like how that "a la carte" thing being removed is a downgrade. Consider this: it was already an anti-consumerist dystopian microtransaction nightmare, and it frickin' got *worse.*
Also frick all those new systems coming out that are completely closed-license. They're failures, and they need to uninstall. Any new system should be using a model like Paizo where you're pretty much pay-what-you-want. You can literally play PF1e, PF2e, or Starfinder without paying a cent to Paizo, or you can load up on every special edition hardcover book available, it's up to you.
Rules are free, everything else like npcs, pre-made characters and adventure modules are sold, but that’s ok since those aren’t needed to play.
Personally prefer physical books since it’s easier to find what you’re looking for than in website.
Npcs and premades are on AoN, only APs are paid-only
It’s not necessarily bad to not have the rules and content available for free. Paizo is very unique in being able to afford that. But WotC is definitely doing public corpo greedy things
Yeah honestly
After the OGL scandal, AI scandal, layoff scandal, "undermonetization" scandal and Dragonlance show scandal
I'm not inclined to trust WotC can deliver good products made by human beings anymore
What’s the dragonlance show scandal, I must’ve missed that!
@@zerg0s Joe Manganiello wanted to produce his own Dragonlance show and got approval from wotc only for them to rugpull him and can it because the Dragonlance book and board game flopped
Wasn't there a concern he would naturally do a better job than them?
Decades of loyalty was destroyed by Hasbro. So many other games out there. There is 0% chance I play D&D or give money to D&D again.
I just wish there was more *variety* with the D&D alternatives. Pathfinder 2 is clearly going in its own direction with breaking changes (we've needed to ditch alignment for 20 years), but the MCDM RPG and DC20 really feel a lot like 5e with the serial numbers filed off. They're not being very adventurous because they want to capture the 5e audience, but that means there's not much variety.
My thoughts on the new additions: MCDM = D&D for people who miss 4E. DC20= D&D for people who can't get their tables to play Pathfinder. Daggerheart - D&D for people who prefer LARP but their friends would make fun of them if they saw them at a park in cosplay with PVC wand. This is all very reductive of course, I actually would play any of them; to your point I think they are opting to reduce risk of failure by sticking close to a proven successful formula. Unfortunately it probably is the smartest business choice.
One I would love to see get more love is Fabula Ultima. It has just enough rules to make some solid mechanics work but also light enough to make flavor super easy to splash in.
@@mattg8262I think there’s something to that!🤣
I have in another RUclips comment section about dnd clones, vs dnd alternatives, vs dnd adjacent, etc. What I’d say about DC20 is that it feels like D&D, but the mechanics really are moving forward in a good way from 5e. It’s a fair comparison to say it sits between 5e and PF2e but with its own flair and touches. I think there are other systems out there that give more variety as D&D alternatives just have to look a bit more.
@@hellfrozenphoenix13have heard a lot of people talking it up and I’m starting to dig into it more. The villain system sounds interesting.
"This is just regular malibu stacy with a cheap hat!" "She's got a new hat!!!"
THIS is the standard I judge to be a X.5 edition. The 2e Remaster (including PC2) is close, but fundamentally doesn't have any changes to the primary workings of the rules engine itself. DnD2024 is virtually IDENTICAL to what 3.5 was. Reworked classes so they are fairly distinct mechanically but share some familiarity, changes to fundamental rules of the system, and reworking of creature statblocks to address issues with the CR system which make old monsters questionably compatible.
3.5 and now 5.5 are "Backwards Compatible" with hard air quotes and an asterisk.
Well... Paizo was upfront about what were going to be changed and why. They also didn't release any playtests for the changes, as they figured what they were changing was based on feedback of being played for a year+.
But, the system wasn't broken... they "fixed" a few vexing design choices while also stripping out all the OGL content they have been using... So, the biggest changes would be the lore for the setting of Galorian. Followed by the classes who are impacted the most by their removal. *Shrugs*
It's at best a "Remaster" or at worst a v2.1, lol. I see no problem using Remaster Wizards next to the OG Wizard... the balance is going to be pretty much the same, though their abilities will be different... resulting in different flavour between them.
Paizo did say they didn’t want to call it a “.5” because it wasn’t a big rework of the base of the game, but would leave it to the community. I’d more call it a .1
I am only new to PF2e but there was nothing severely broken in PF2e prior to the remaster that needed a drastic "x.5" rules overhaul that changes almost everything about the system. The same can't be said about D&D 2014 5e. The list of complaints from me alone, as a DM, is a mile long.
"so players have been making and sharing homebrew rules.. so all we need to do is look at the data of which is the most popular.. put it in a new book and sell bank. "
"or we can do even less work and double the price"
I just really agree with you, been watching your videos a lot latetly, and you've help a lot with moving to pathfinder. I want to put my money where my mouth is, bought the remaster and the beginners box to run virtually, and I've already DM a one shot of PF2e, and then returned as a player to a campaing of 5e (both lvl 1) and I was just WISHING for something else to do instead of repeating the same action over and over. Also, a problem of DND adventures is that are, at best, barebones of stories, there's a reason why every single campaing has a "remix" or somethhing like that made by the community, The Alexandrian put it best when it said something along the lines of "they're not teaching anyone how to be a DM, they're just telling you go there, there, and this happens." I feel WOTC is the Bethesda of TTRPGs, famous company but with the years people realized the community made most of the work, and thats not even talking about things like the pinky boys
Cynical theory: they didn't present much DM stuff because their marketing and design strategy is focused on continually presenting more powerful player options because that tempts people to buy new books so they can keep making strong characters.
I think it's very plausible.
It's the power creep you might see in Magic but not tempered by the fact of being a competitive game... since only the DM gets beat up on
This is indeed part of the problem. New player builds are given more power,but older models don't get updated according.
to be fair, 90% of the books are bought by DM's
DMs as individuals purchase much more than players do, but players outnumber them by an order of magnitude. So player option books sell extremely large quantities, but players are less likely to purchase many books back to back. DMs on the other hand will consistently purchase settings, adventures, monster books, miniatures, etc. But those releases will sell in smaller quantities, so they have to be careful not to produce too much of any given product.
My conspiracy theory is they want to phase out DM support and replace them with AI and people just gather around and have some Siri-like entity tell them what happens
Would love to hear your thoughts on what DC20 is doing!!
Agree!
This isn't a surprise. Non-nerd/gamers who are just hyper-greedy Jabba the Huts are taking CEO positions and only see money and nothing else. I don't know how anyone can support WotC anymore.
One of my pet peeves with 5e player's handbook: Entries in the index saying "see other entry" instead of just listing a page number. It's downright infuriating. I've literally spent time penciling in all the page numbers whenever it does that, and at least a third of the entries do.
But that's what old-fashioned enclyopdias use to do, so why not a brand new D&D book published in 2024.
Woot, early post! I never catch your stuff this fast. :D
A very weird complaint but I play a lot of characters with the noble background (the princess adventurer is an archetype I love) but it sucks thst the flavor equipment is gone, no signet ring, no writing supplies, no proof of who you are. It feels like it lost a lot of the small flavor that was there
I don't think it's a weird complaint at all but a perfectly reasonable one. Those things and the background features made the backgrounds at least feel like they were meant to be about your character as a person, rather than just a series of numbers.
I also don't like that your stat bonuses will now come from background instead of race. This will greatly limit the number of desirable backgrounds for every class, resulting in more "cookie-cutter" characters. You could make really interesting characters in 5e by choosing an unorthodox background for your class, and then coming up with a backstory to fit that combination.
For example, a Noble Monk. A young lady is caught engaging in potentially scandalous behavior, so her parents ship her off to a convent to keep her out of trouble. She has surprising aptitude for the martial arts, but bristles at all these rules she's expected to live by. Her parents come to retrieve her after a few years, as they've arranged a marriage for her. She's not into that idea, so she escapes on the way home, and now makes her living as an adventurer. Unlike most Monks, she's materialistic and hedonistic, and has a rather lofty opinion of herself.
That's a fun character idea, and it came directly from thinking about what a Monk with the Noble background might be like. It was also made possible by 5e's removal of alignment restrictions for all classes (as there's no way she's Lawful-anything).
But now you'll have to choose from a limited subset of backgrounds that give you the correct stats, if you don't want your character to suck. The freedom that 5e giveth, 5.5 taketh away.
Not fixing the DM's problems is unforgivably.
Iv moved to pathfinder/vampire/COC/cyberpunk/Dcc where they make the game runners life so much better.
leave Wotc go to better games!
5.5 feels like a solid cash grab to codify the homebrew rules/fixes everyone uses anyways, and some of their "new" ideas are straight from pf2e
For backgrounds: Just do the +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 to any stats... MAD classes like Barb and Monk will thank you.
Good point. But now they are limited to maybe 1 or 2 backgrounds. Like, they didn't consider the consequences of their own logic.
Its been a while since I read through my 2E Pathfinder core book but with any complex RPG system you really need to dedicate an entire page for player reference regarding exactly WHAT they can do in a turn. How many actions they have how many ways they can break up their movement, if any. How much of your turn is taken by an action; dropping an item is faster than manipulating a door to open or close it, casting a typical spell is significantly longer than both. The hardest thing with my new players in pathfinder has always been "What can I do on my turn?" Even though it would seem simpler: You have 3 "actions" to use how you want, they often forget a spell is usually 2 of those actions and sometimes even forget some spells take all 3. In that way 5e has had a major advantage in easing new players in; since its simply move > action > bonus with what bonus action can be used for specifically numerated in their class/subclass features as they level up and is otherwise, manipulate an object or bonus attack with the off-hand, but then those bonus things you get from your class that used to be full actions (like hiding as a rouge/ranger) feel a bit like cheating, like they're valuable as bonus actions rather than full actions. Contrast that 5e explanation with Pathfinder 2s well you could manipulate, or feint, or raise your shield, or drink a potion, or try to hide, or move 30 feet or cast a spell; but only 'these' spells because 'those' spells take 2 actions and sure you can hide > move > attack for sneak attack but anyone can do that` while in 5e only rouges and rangers can because only they get hide as a bonus action.
If I was going to write a TTRPG system either the player options are going to be so simple anyone can remember what they can do on their turn OR I'm going to dedicate an entire spread to the player; what they can do on their turn and even have a handy note that suggest the player bookmark that page for easy reference, maybe even engineer the book so if you just flop it open your almost guaranteed to land on that spread.
As newbie player of PF2E, i find your arguement actually opposite of my and my groups exeperience. The number of spells that are 2 actions are pretty heavily the majority so its very easy to simply assume it a 2 action spell. Let alone something like pathbuilder or creating a digital version of your character sheet to print the spell descriptions for easy reference makes it very very very easy to track and plan your next move. 5e, you easily spend more time trying to plan out some elaborate sequence of actions and then the game is sitting for 5 minutes the moment your first roll fails and your entire sequence planned grinds to a halt. Let alone the number of times you find yourself in a situation where your putting strain on the DM to try to even rule if your sequence is a legit option of events due to vagueness of rules. Paizo in comparison have done a REALLY good job in eliminating lots of that similar vagueness with simple language and usually pretty blatant restrictions where they exist. I have zero issue remember what I can do in my turn in pf2e, more often I am forgetting some of the more basic actions honesty than I am my abilities, spells or reaction options. While last I tried to play 5e, the constant juggling of actions, reactions, bonus actions, clashing of rulings, etc.. quickly made me walk away from the campaigns, trying multiple times thinking maybe it was just a bad fit for me and the GM.. nope its a bad fit for me and the game system itself.
Love your videos like this. I go to D&D conventions so I have to keep playing 5e but my home campaign swapped to pf2e and couldnt be happier. PF2E actually feels like you are playing a game and have character progression every level. It is quite nice.
I have moved over to running PF2 games and most of my players are either positive or neutral towards those rules vs 5th Ed D&D.
On the other side of things I still play 5th Ed D&D so may pick up the new PHB if, or more likely when, those games move over to the new rules but I have no plans to get the other books.
Level 1 Feats, Weapon Traits and more versatility with ability modifiers (even if they are not completely free) are reason enough that I expect games I play in to move over. Not sure how support for D&D Beyond will go since they removed micro-transactions for purchasing single subclasses. I may be back to pen and paper for tracking characters.
😂 "I'm back. Luckily it wasn't the Pinkertons." That was great my man!
I'm a fan of the nickname 5.24
Love the DC20 mention. It looks really good!
It’s fun if you haven’t tried it yet. There’s a free playtest version which is basically the most updated version of the game on the Kickstarter you can try out!
One fact I rediscovered recently when all the old dnd creators did that nostalgia play through with each edition. When WotC bought the D&D IP (they paid for it, they didn't create it fyi) the mandate given to the writers and developers was to "make the best game". That was the company mandated objective for 3.0e. The old timers in the video recalled this fact and it reminded me, cause I had heard it before.
When they made 4e, 5e, and now 5.5e the mandate changed. It's been make "more money" ever since. Or "Update" the rules. Which is arbitrary and effectively nonsensical as they are up to date unless someone changes them. Regardless.
I remember that vibe of "making the best game possible" when 3.0 came out and listening/reading their various media at the time. I still think it is the best edition of dnd, but I heavily modify it anyway. The core mechanic is simple. Roll a d20, add modifiers, and meet or beat a DC. Anyone thinking it's "too difficult" to learn is saying they are dumber than a moron teenager. Which I was when it came out.
The ONLY reason d&d is popular now is NOT the 5e rules. It was critical roll. Now, I won't go into how critical role is more a professional production than it is a real d&d game, but their youtube channel combined with covid was an explosive recipe for drawing a new audience. Anyone new to any hobby wants the newest and shineiest stuff. It only makes sense. And since MANY people are totally new to the hobby, they just use the new rules cause it's what they got. Very few people I'v heard of/seen stick to 5e for very long if they have experience playing other systems. Unless they just have no option due to the ever present DM shortage or they have financial incentives to keep playing 5e.
At this point I’m far more interested in your opinion on DC20. As a predominantly PF2 GM since its inception, DC20 is the only other announced system that actually has me excited about adding it to my table. Obviously DC20 has been the darling to talk about over the last couple weeks, but most of that is coming from the 5e community. And overwhelmingly, most of it is praising the “fixing” of 5e. I think the irony there is between the videos themselves and the comments people are leaving on them, a vast majority of the fixes already exist in PF2 (and in some cases seem to be improved in DC20). Personally I’m really excited for the system, as playing a D&D/Pathfinder-style game with an “open” action system is a minimum requirement of mine now that PF2’s 3-Action system spoiled me. I’m also hoping to lure DC20 players to my table for some additional ttrpg fun in the form of PF2. Have you had a chance to check it out?
(Edited to correct some grammar)
I think simplifying ability scores and and being able to bank reactions is cool, but also if every ability score can be used for an attack role, why even bother if every character's attack will be +5 or whatever unless they intentionally make badly optimized characters?
Two steps forward one step back, but the steps forward are relative to DnD, and PF already had several steps on it IMO.
@@onlynormalperson Hold on… that’s literally what pf2e does. Unless you build intentionally away from it every player in the party should have the same bonus to hit with their specialty with the exception of training gaps like fighter.
Because the ability scores are used for more than attacking. Even if you can make an intelligence prime fighter there are might requirements for heavy armor, agility increases dodge, and so forth. I'm not sure DC20 is as flexible as it seems at first glance.
@@onlynormalpersonI hear you. I will say that nothing much changes from how things work now. Even Paizo pushes the idea that the main class attribute should be maxed out in PF2. For anyone interested in a heavy combat focus, that’s going to be their attack stat. The only time in PF2 that I see people shy away from maxing their main stat is if a caster dedicates to a full support role. DC20’s take lets the player maintain some combat effectiveness while still providing a more specialized character and not backing a player into picking a particular class just to make that happen. I don’t know. I thought I was going to hate that part but I think it’s sound. My issue is not getting to roll actual damage, as I tend to prefer the swing that comes with PF2 and other systems.
My main reason for not covering other systems has been lack of time so far. (I don't see myself doing a short review.) However, I do think it's overall a great and positive thing for TTRPG players in general to be broken out of the mental bubble that there is only One True RPG, and so I wish success for all alternatives to 5e as a Good Thing(TM) in general!
DO NOT FORGET ABOUT THE WORKERS!
Hasbro's toxic profit-seeking culture isn't about the games, it isn't about the players, it isn't about the PEOPLE! Hasbro is about the profit, and you can all die in a FIRE so long as you give them your money! You can ONLY vote with your dollar, people. Stop. Paying. Them. Your. Money. They only abuse you and they only abuse the artists and writers who work for them. When someone shows you who they are, believe them!
Boycott this awful company.
It’s interesting to hear a Pathfinder 2e cheerleader say that bonus action potions are a good change for 5e. Using a potion in 2e requires 2 actions (one to draw it, one to drink it), the equivalent of an action in 5e. I’d be curious if Ronald supports introducing new rules that allow drawing and stowing items to be free actions in 2e, such as a single free interact action once per turn. It’s certainly one of the biggest negative quality of life aspects to the game.
12:36 from the very beginning of the next playtest and when D&D 5e came out, they were adamant that magic items would not be a requirement and therefore you would not necessarily find them in your adventures.
I'm sure you're aware of this since you enjoy 4e and PF2, but that has led to one of the complaints about 5e, which is that the math and the monsters have been balanced around players NOT having magic items, when nearly every table DOES give out magic items. It is one of the ways the game gets out of control for 5e DMs who aren't careful. Resistance to nonmagical BPS damage becomes either brutal or a non-feature and a pushover. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't as a DM.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG yes, I also know that players love receiving magic items so if DMS started not handing out magic items, players would riot
I disagree that it isn't a requirement. Without magic weapons, martials fall off even harder.
@@mycatistypingthis5450 it’s important to recognize that it doesn’t matter what you think in this context. The developers stated and so designed for a game that didn’t require magic items. That makes a campaign in which you heavily use magic items inherently imbalanced.
For the record I agree with you, just important to understand we are talking about the design goals of the game not a player/dm’s personal opinion.
@@mycatistypingthis5450 I agree wholeheartedly. The issue is, the developer thought they would be able to make that happen and then they completely didn't do it
Great Job on this video. I've already KS'ed DC20. Good luck with the other analyses that you are doing.
2e is just a better edition. Better action economy, better encounter balance, more detailed guides and charts for DM to use, better adventure paths for new and older DMs, better skill progression, and much more support and options available with more coming out, and a more consumer friendly conpany who doesn’t use AI and offers deals on acquiring pdfs for various modules on a daily basis. Also, Pathbuilder 2e is DnDbeyond without the numerous microtransactions with the only payput being for variant rules. Oh and all of their content is online, free-to-view, and has FoundryVTT support build into the base game
The only thing 5.5e has over PF is the branding.
It's not. You can like 2e better, I like many of the things 2e does better than 5e. But 2e is not a better 5e, neither is dc20 or anything. They are all just different games. Amd with 5e you can do things that 2e can't. And that's ok. I understand disliking wizards of the coast. They suck, as most big corporations do. But why are 2e fans so hellbent on "killing" 5e?
@@moonlight2870 🤨Where did I say I wanted to kill 5e?
Way to lump everyone in who dislikes 5e smh
That and maybe book layouts. I prefer PF2e, but player core could still be designed better.
@@moonlight28702e is just mechanically better. The 3 action economy alone makes it a better system. It also has an encounter building system that actually functions
@@Iceblade269 killing is between quotations for a reason my guy lol
I have to say, nothing in that preview made me want to return. It would have taken a miracle, mind you, because they still have at least one of their incompetent CEO's, and still show no signs of changing their ugly corporate ways, but I was curious if at least the 'game' part of that rodeo would reveal interesting changes.
That video barely said anything. They sure liked to talk about their philosophy while saying barely anything about actual at the table rules. Mentioning 'we have crafting rules' means nothing without examples. I've seen their Bastion Rules, which people were excited about, and it's a nothing-burger, so I don't expect that they fixed the economy of D&D enough to present anything resembling deep crafting rules.
I also get some personal red-flags too about corporate speak. I know this is just me, and it's just my personal take, but the constant use of 'delighted' seems to come up. I don't want to be 'delighted' with a TTRPG. I want to be excited to play, I want to be immersed, I want to have fun. Delighted is something I want when I try a nice cheesecake, or find out that I paid a few bucks less for groceries. And it just strikes me as... corporate. I don't know how to explain it, but it comes up so much in these videos that it feels un-natural and overly scripted.
I also note something in their video that I deeply disliked. I paraphrase Perkins: "We actually went way beyond in changing some of the rules and experimenting. But you all, luckily, reigned us back in". I don't like that it places the lack of actual design and innovation back on the 'community'. They didn't seem to have much of a vision or any faith in their designs to begin with. A designer has a clear path, and a plan. If it grossly doesn't work, then abandon it. If it needs iteration and rework, then rework it. They just abandoned it.
Because the designers likely got fired before it could be fleshed out and iterated on.
And I have seen _nothing_ that helps DM's here. No mention of an actual way to create monsters/enemies that actually work. No mention of an actual economy or examples of crafting systems, barely any real meat to an exploration system (They mention it a lot, and mention characters all being able to do things, but I don't recall any examples). They don't address that the game is a nightmare to try and run once you get into the double digits, and indeed, there was no playtesting of the CR system, which doesn't work, or monsters, which have to be tweaked to work so much that DM's are part designers half the time.
I'm sad to see it. I never wish a project like this to fail. I want to see more people come into the hobby with a game that's amazing and fun, but I don't see it here. This is just some polish put on everything, and a hand put out for $180 USD (Which is a LOT more for us Canadians).
Staying with Savage Worlds and Pathfinder. Looking forward to DC20, which feels like what D&D should have done with a new edition.
VIVA SHADOWDARK!!!!!!
Made the swap to PF2e last year and I'm never going back.
Running an abomination vaults campaign atm. Also playing Kingmaker and a homebrew.
Waiting for a Wrath of the Rightous port.
I'll be honest, I just can't muster any excitement about the new version. A friend of mine said they're going to be buying the books and I can't think of a polite way to say "but why?"
All you need are the current base books. Then make up your own world from there. I agree with you. Rebuying the rules is dumb.
After delving deeper into PF2e, I just grow more and more frustrated with D&D and this new interation does nothing to bring me back. It doesn't answer any of the frustrations I have had. Not to mention the amount of things they did to D&D Beyond to make it unuser friendly and I am just tired of it. With Roll20 and Demiplane now merging and the fact that Demiplane will be directly referenced in Roll20 and that i get all the digital Pathfinder stuff I bought on Roll20 in Demiplane...I literally have no use for D&D any more with that change. Full steam ahead with PF2e, I rather have a system that doesn't shake down it's player base for all their money.
Treantmonk is fracking insane if he thinks its only a "handful" of spells that creates the martial-caster divide in 2014 5e. Yes there are the best in class spells, fireball, counterspell, fly, spiritual weapon etc, but that doesn't even scratch the surface of the insane number of exploration breaking spells. Goodberry, Tiny Hut, Invisibility etc etc etc. If all you can do is hit things with a sword, and now trip things with that same sword attack, how can you ever not be outclassed by a wizard turning invisible and avoiding the enemy completely.
BTW, it is rather rich of Treantmonk to downplay the capabilities of magic when he is most famous for writing a guide that was "how to win every situation with magic".
He is also a hypocrite. I found PF2E from his channel pushing the humble bundle after the OGL scandal. I switched and never looked back. What's Treantmonk doing? Still selling WOTC DND. He complains how cruel they are to their employees and then continues selling for them in his next video. He has no spine, no conviction, and is willing to promote a company that actively seeks ways to hurt creators and players. I also noticed he is quick to jump on the coat tails of other RUclips channel successes, such as DC20, while taking no risks of his own. Boycott Treantmonk.
@@geoffreygeever Let's be real, pretty much every TTRPG creator (of which I know of only 5) has jumped on the DC20 hype train which has driven me nuts considering just how much of a scam DC20 is and just how scripted every DC20 is. Literally, "ad-read" levels of scriptedness. If you have seen one DC20 video you have seen every other one. Supposed "unique to the creator" pros and cons and all.
As for Treantmonk, I have been boycotting him for years. In addition to the complaints you rised, everything he does screams "metagaming theory-crafting game wrecking munchkin". The worst possible qualities you can find in prospective players. The type that is reviled on r/RPG-horror-stories. No!!! Coby from D4, seems genuinely interested in analytically pushing his character builds as far as the system (5e) allows. Treantmonk, on the other hand seems to just want to screw over their DM and players at the table. That's not the type of player I want at my table, and certainly not the type of creator that I wish to give the time of day. Boycot away!!!
As a pathfinder player, I don't understand the resistance to making magic items more... common? Like in a world where you can run into a wizard on the daily of course some of em are gonna be hittin the grind every day makin magic swords for a living. Of course some king is gonna be spending the military budget gettin his dudes decked out.
(Late response, but...) it's probably because the designers claimed that the game was "balanced" around few if any magic items being distributed. So then people want to play the "balanced" version, which is allegedly the version with few or no magic items.
Of course, the game is poorly balanced either way, but biases can be hard to overcome.
I'm disappointed that there wasn't this level of hype for Tales of the Valiant
I think the fact that it's close to 5e is a reason for the hype going down (as is the nature of hype), but it might also be precisely what part of the market is looking for. We'll see
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Well, and they engaged in the same problems you mentioned, where they focused on player options instead of tweaking the core rules. So, I'm happy for an alternative to D&D, but they didn't go far enough to fix some problems that 5e has.
It sucks they didn't stick to the cool "Black Flag" name though. 😅
"Tales of the Valiant" sounds so lame to me (gives me flashbacks to Prince Valiant :p )
It's purely a matter of taste of course. :)
@@EugeneGM1 I hope someday KP does a TotV second edition is is more refined like PF2e is compared to 1E.
Its just the same crap system, made worse
While some spells including Conjure Animals were playtested (most of them looked fine) it really needed more extensive playtest for spell adjustment.
On a similar note, I'm looking at Playtest 6's Beast Master ranger animal companions and it looks pretty rough... hit points are 5 + five times your Ranger level (no CON bonus)? Terrible if you're dipping into Ranger to pick up the animal. Blech.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG
My guess is to incentivise players to go straight with beast master, rather than 3 lv dip.
As far as I can remember, classes with Wis as primary stat (Druid and Cleric) have access to medium armor and martial weapon proficiency, so I dont think dipping to ranger is a good idea (as far as I can remember, druid has the most economical way to access animal familiara).
Really interesting thoughts. One thing I'd love to see is rules/info on how to make and reward players for social encounters and exploration encounters. I don't believe that the lack of rules/info on these encounters will be addressed in 5.5. I'm looking at other systems or using the encounter rules from the Dragon Age RPG. You just determine the difficulty if your encounter based on the description in the book and give your players a certain amount of xp when they complete the encounter, regardless of what kind of encounter you are running. It's simple to use. Hopefully we'll get something better down the line for D&D encounters than we have now.
I pretty much agree on all of your points. I still can't support WoTC and the game doesn't appear to have changed very much at all. That being said, probably the smartest thing they have done is working with some of the bigger name content creators to do more of their marketing for them.
14:56 ever since what they perceived as a failure in 4th edition, they have always stated that any new versions of Dungeons and Dragons will be backwards compatible with each other so that that will never happen again
Doesn’t mean they will keep that promise...
And it was a lie
And my take is that's a bad policy. Saying you'll never break compatibility means you will block innovation. Tastes change, people come up with new ideas. For virtually every other game, people want improvements in the next version. I don't see fans of any other game treating a statement "we will never innovate" as a good thing.
I enjoy the hobby. There things that DnD does really well. There are also substantial imbalances and shortcomings. I have yet to see anything that indicates to me that WotC is fixing more problems than they are creating in this new version. I’ve seen a bunch of changes. Not many improvements though.
Don't worry. They are removing 'races' and half races for woke points and to please the people on twitter
My table recently switched all our games over to Pathfinder 2E. We had some hesitations at first, but the more we played the more we fell in love with it. I’m not even sure what all WOTC would have to do to win us back, but we’ve been perfectly happy in this new system, and as our characters increase in level we’re enjoying it more and more (where in 5e there was typically more fun in the earlier levels).
I've got a couple of counterpoints to make:
-I agree that they're making some abussive moves towards monetization, reason as to why I don't support them, but since the rectifications of the OGL scandal, they've actually been making a lot of changes both in their policies and development to allow and encourage homebrew. They even allowed homebrew content to be imported and sold in D&D Beyond, taking a commition on sells for the marketplace. In fact, the VTT they are developing has a heavy focus on customisation towards homebrew, so I would not say they are trying to remove 3rd party content.
-Interest in the unearthed arcanas, from what I could see in the community, has only increased since UA5 with the reworked classes. You said it yourself, the data might be innacurate, due to it being people using reddit less, but many dnd content creators, both in the english and spanish community, started to bring attention to these unearthed arcanas since the class changes started to happen. In fact, the changes to spellcasters in UA5, not liked by many people (COWARDS! haha), caused the webpage to go down for a couple of hours due to the amount of feedback they got regarding all that, if I remember correctly.
-Saying there are no guides towards magic item pricing and when to get what magic items in the DM's guide is a lie. Sure, the system is pretty shit, the prices are only aproximations, and the way it is show is confusing and unbalanced, but idk, it is there. Once you get a basic understanding of how the game works, they can be used as references to know what to give or sell to your players. criteria and context are always necessary of course, and the system might lead you to fuck up, thus why it is kinda shitty, but again, it is there.
-The potions as a bonus action rule has got some connotations that I think you're missing. It is applied to ONLY healing potions, as the guy said in the video. That means it doesn't overlap as much as you might think with the thieve's feature. I agree with you, there was no playtest for the rule, BUT, i'd say healing potion as a bonus action has been popular since always as a homebrew rule. If something made it popular it was probably critical role, they run that rule at they table, and let me tell ya, 90% of people I know that play dnd, either by youtube or in person, run the rule that way, looong before baldur's gate 3 came out. Sure, there was no "official" playtest in an unearthed arcana, but oh boy has there been enough playtest there, enough for the people at wotc to read the suggestion at least once a day haha.
Still, I agree, don't support wizards of the coast. I find it heartbreaking that the people actually developing the rules and the actual artists they have are caught in the collateral damage, as those people actually show love and interest towards the game, rules and world they are creating, but as with everything, the people in charge tend to fuck up the most and earn the biggest revenue. I'll still support 3rd party creators and continue to play dnd in my extremely homebrew way haha
Ngl, I'm way more interested in PF2 and DC20 Action points system. I'm sick of Action, bonus Action style. It gets confusing a.f trying to explain it to new players
Also dear God do they still have spell slots and ability scores?
5e does! DC20 doesn’t.
Of 2e also has spell slots. I, for one, see nothing wrong with that.
@@moonlight2870 spell slots are meh, I can take them or leave them.
I love manna over spell slots becouse they way DC20 uses means you can power up a spell soo burning hands turns into Scott ing ray turns into fire ball this is all one spell the power is decided how much mp (manna points you put into it ) its a really cool system
Yeah PF2 has spell slots. But they have entered new design territory with their kineticist, the "at will caster"
Bonus action, and minor action from 4e, both come from 3e/3.5e which called it a swift action. It's been a thing for a while, just by different names.
19:15 I think D&D V3.5 had two main categories of actions, standard, and move, and the rules state that you can take a move action in place of a standard action. If this means that you can take two move actions during a round at the cost of not taking a standard action, this would be like being able to take two bonus actions instead of a standard action and a bonus action during a round in D&D fifth edition.
BG3 playthroughs are all that DnD has of me left
31:51 As a pdf user, it never occured to me that physical books could do this.
Honestly a game changer, everyone should do this!
I do have a complaint about Paizo however in that they don't hyperlink their PDFs! That would make them more helpful
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG
WotC Enjoyers: "You guys are getting PDFs?"
They should have given a set of skills to decide upon in background s. If you're an orphan or a pirate, why be a rogue if it automatically gives you a rogue skill?
If you want more alternatives for dnd.
Fabula Ultima is worth trying out. Its basically dnd fused with final fantasy.
Also. The announcement is just not winning me over. I'd rather play Pathfinder 2e. [Despite me having trouble even finding a game since everyone uses foundry.]
Especially with weapon mastery. That should have been in the game DAY 1. Especially since it helps make weapons more distinct.
Overall. I have been enjoying other systems more than 5e. Its a shame that wotc is running a system I considered fun but flawed.
Fabula ultima is wonderful. I started running a campaign for my group after we tried the press start one shot
minor thing but bonus action potions is a very long standing and popular house rule that has been used for quite some time now. we know it works already.
I'm sure it'll work out fine, tho that wasn't my concern here. It was the inability to assess drafts of the classes without knowing the action economy rules and who knows what other skill rules, combat rules, changes to monsters, spells, magic items we don't know about
As a DM I take each class level up ability as an option to my players and give them a past eddition option of eqivelant level or lower for that class as they customize thier character. They have to seek out an elder usualy to teach them. Most older stuff is compadible with a little tweeking.
I'll weigh in here, even though my stance is pretty firm.
5e was a triumph for WOTC. Regardless of any deeper mechanics problems, its easy accessibility for new players generated incredible interest and brought in new players, arguably like no other system or edition has in decades, if ever. The wake of that success, however, has demonstrated that Hasbro has no idea what to do with that success. Modern business models don't support the idea of nurturing a loyal customer base through two-way communication and focused product support. They started 5e by releasing sourcebooks in the cultural tradition of the game, focusing on providing DMs with pre-written material.
Then, as the game drew more attention, Hasbro decided to focus on player choices almost exclusively. It makes sense, from a business model. There are at least three players for every one DM, and modern business strategy dictates that focus on wider demograpbics generates higher revenue. Likewise, removing the competition's access to the market (in this case, 3rd party producers) is supposed to increase market share.
Unfortunately for Hasbro, TTRPGs aren't like other areas of business. I only bought 5e's core books and Volo's Guide, but I can literally run 5e games for the rest of my life with those products, and because the game master can provide their own content, forcing the market closed and focusing on player option products just... Doesn't matter as much. It doesn't drive revenue the way it would for a board game, and crowding out competitors from the 5e market has only created additional competition that can't be as easily controlled.
I left 5e when they started trying to drive revenue with pay-to-play online sources like Beyond. My group has been playing Night Shift: VSW for three years now, and we're about to start a Traveller 2e campaign. We have even more fun than we did with 5e. D&D is just unnecessary and superfluous to the hobby; a single game system among many. And until Hasbro figures that out, it will remain so.
I'm gonna be putting that backwards compatibility to the test pretty soon. I plan on running characters made with the new system through COS to see for myself.
0:45 other systems aren't real
2:43 unfortunately money talks and bullshit walks or whatever
5:08 if only internet videos could get rid of the cock.
5:21 MCDM RPG mentioned pog!
5:45 I laughed
9:25 that sounds far more magnanimous than it really probably is.
9:35 oh wait you agree with me lmao
11:20 that's kinda huge cause the current DMG is ass
19:05 god yes it sucks
Solid video Ronnie boy!
BONUS ACTIONS = ASS
Hi Austin!
WotC probably actively wants the book to be hard to navigate quickly so you're forced to use D&DBeyond.
"Luckily it wasn't the Pinkertons"... that was pure fried gold. Dying laughing here.
hey man look, all I'm gonna say is that I prefer a lot of things the way its done in D&D as opposed to other systems. So engaging in the stuff as it comes out is something I'm still gonna do. Won't pay them a dime for it, though. I've got a nice little free alternative for their services.
The first 5 minutes I understand: Feel free to play the game! But download the pirated PDF!
Huh. I didn't even know they had released videos on the books. Hasbro/WotC can get absolutely stuffed, and my interest in D$D since Hasbro's BS two years ago reflects that.
I love how you start the video
After the OGL it was nice seeing people who refused to try anything but DND finally expand out and try new systems but it felt like as soon as wizards went “whoopsie nevermind” they where immediately forgiven by a ton of people. Then another incident and another and another and people just keep going back. It’s like looking at an abusive relationship where I can’t fathom why the battered partner keeps going back everytime the abuser pretends they’re sorry and promises they’ll never do it again.
There’s just so many better systems out there without all the constant anti-consumer abuse.
I’ve been recently messing with revising classes and races and honestly the more I look at their revisions the more it’s clear most dms can do an equal or better job than wizards
Talk about utter meh, this is a "new" edition? 😂
love TheRulesLawyerRPG videos ❤
i used to be a 5e player (switched over from pathfinder 1e) and i am almost completely in the pf2 bucket now. it’s such a great system (that and wfrp 4) and yeah… this new version of 5e dnd just doesn’t look appealing to me. i’ve only ever liked dnd for its flexibility to make whatever you want of it, but it seems like wotc isn’t even trying to do that to reinvent it into something better 😅
also, DC20 looks cool but i’m apprehensive with the fact we haven’t heard much in the way of them having official vtt support like Paizo with Pathfinder 2e and Cubicle 7 with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 4e (who both have the BEST support possible for VTT players).
And don't forget about the issues a staggered release will cause DMs. Players get their new toys months before the DMG, and then Monster Manual comes out in 2025! Since they are rebalancing monsters to match their CR, we dungeon masters will have OLD monsters vs new character options for months!
I'll be calling it either the 2025 edition, because its incomplete without a bestiary, or simply dnd Skip edition if I don't buy it.
27:40 Force cage should have an AC and HP, that is the real fix. That is the way you see in fantasy stories.
I think this version of D&D should be referred to as 5.2 so as to align with the new 5.2 SRD.
I gave away all of my 5E books. I don’t want their taint in my house. If I want to play D&D I’ll play AD&D 2e.
Masteries is ill thought out. Having every successful hit knock enemies prone or give advantage means encounters that aren't challenging, spells being now worthless, and DM's with their hainds tied.
Bastions are basically solo play, and it just........
The game's very anti-DM.
I think the forgotten aspect of spell casting is spell components That is what is supposed to be the limiting factor on the Caster and therefore the Martal divide. But no one really uses them so there is no balance or semblance of one rather.
Not all spells require crazy components after all...
They did technically do a DMG playtest with the Bastion System.
I think they mentioned in a video towards the end of the playtest that they decided to internally test the encounter building rules but that they would be redesigned.
The art looks awesome at least?
And people had to fight tooth and nail for that, because Wizards kept trying to use AI art…
@@zerg0s Thanks, I didn't know that. Doesn't surprise me though.
"We wanted to make the backgrounds as flexible as possible to support as many characters as possible"
...I mean, ok, 3 options and freely distributing three ability improvements (can you put +3 into one?) between those options is reasonably flexible, but I think Pathfinder's one boost to one of two abilities, and a second boost to any ability (can't be the same) makes for more flexibility. (Quickly running the numbers - A PF2e background gives me 9 options for where to put my ability boosts from it For Acrobat, for example, 4 options for Strength, 4 options for Dex, and one option where I take both Strength and Dex; while D&D5e2024/5.5e gives either 7 or 10 options depending on if it lets me use +3 into one, but those options are all entirely constrained to half the abilities, so if my character really needs something outside of those, either mechanically or flavour wise, I'm SOL so even if it's the 10 option version, I'd still prefer the customizability of Pathfinder's version) - Though I can't speak as widely as you seem to be able to, most systems I play aren't as... Heavy... As D&D5e or PF2e are, and certainly don't have as much focus on 'a build' as either of them do.
Hey @TheRulesLayerRPG do you have plans to take a look at DC20? Saw some videos but they arent as insightful as you are
Thanks for supporting DC20. You've been my favorite youtuber for PF2e for a longtime.
I like both systems I am about to finish my second run as a gm of the beginner box for pf2e. I am going to try dming a short dnd adventure to compare though. I can say even with foundry and pf2e integration I feel like there’s a lot to keep track of and can be difficult for beginning gms like me. I also come from dnd as a player so maybe I feel like it could be easier to dm due to my years of experience in dnd but if anyone has any suggestions please let me know. My hardest thing to manage is exploration mechanics in pf2e along with detection mechanics.
I don't know what to do but point you to vids on my channel, and How It's Played is the go-to for rules explanations. Also there's a lot of posts on the PF2e subreddit where people have a lot of the same concerns you have and get a wealth of helpful responses. One thing I'd say is that there isn't as much of a premium on the GM of having to know everything... outsource to your players! One advantage to rules being defined is that your players can find the answers, too. Archives of Nethys has all the rules for free.
In and the sales price of magic item is not considered their buy price in and with their purchase price being "an npc will never willingly part from their magic items" possibly slightly paraphrased
In adnd* on the phone so can't edit original comment