D&D (2024) What spells should be dropped?

[Stalker0]

That is why the spells need a new development pass as part of the OneD&D playtest. To make them less of a trap option. We're literally in the only time where this effort can happen for the next 10 years. Let's see how the designers do!

I’d love to know how the designers evaluate spells. I mean you see some and your like “I think this js weak, but I can maybe see how to make it work”

And there are the ones “how in gods green earth did this spell ever make it through review, was someone drunk?”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Maybe not, but you know there will be three book regardless.

‘Kay

 

[Micah Sweet]

‘Kay

Hey, do you disagree? Do you think this time WotC's going to be all, "Hey, this time let's just do one combined book for players and GMs? That'll buck 50 years of tradition AND net us less overall revenue!"

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just cannot imagine WotC making a business decision that would lead to smaller short-term gains.

 

[James Gasik]

Hey, do you disagree? Do you think this time WotC's going to be all, "Hey, this time let's just do one combined book for players and GMs? That'll buck 50 years of tradition AND net us less overall revenue!"

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just cannot imagine WotC making a business decision that would lead to smaller short-term gains.

I remember when I got into Pathfinder, and was able to buy the core rules all in one book. This, plus having pretty much all the rules I need online, was really nice. Updating the pdf's of books with errata was nice too, until they started making dumb rulings based on Pathfinder Society play (I'll miss you, Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier!).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I remember when I got into Pathfinder, and was able to buy the core rules all in one book. This, plus having pretty much all the rules I need online, was really nice. Updating the pdf's of books with errata was nice too, until they started making dumb rulings based on Pathfinder Society play (I'll miss you, Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier!).

Single rulebooks are pretty cool, but you'll never see that format from WotC.

 

[Shardstone]

I don't want that format from WotC. D&D is a big freakin' game man. Do I think the 3 core book format is dope? Not really, I think they'd be better served changing it up a bit. But one book? That'd be such a disgustingly big book.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want that format from WotC. D&D is a big freakin' game man. Do I think the 3 core book format is dope? Not really, I think they'd be better served changing it up a bit. But one book? That'd be such a disgustingly big book.

The MM would likely still be separate. Even the "one corebook" people do that with rule-heavy games.

 

[James Gasik]

The MM would likely still be separate. Even the "one corebook" people do that with rule-heavy games.

Sure, but you can put a bunch of basic monsters up to CR 5 or so in the core book, enough to get you started.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hey, do you disagree? Do you think this time WotC's going to be all, "Hey, this time let's just do one combined book for players and GMs? That'll buck 50 years of tradition AND net us less overall revenue!"

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I just cannot imagine WotC making a business decision that would lead to smaller short-term gains.

I don’t really want to get into a whole thing about what wotc will or won’t do, considering how those tend to go these days.

Edit: also, I don’t really care? Like I’m not over here worrying about whether wotc will do a thing, I’m having discussions about D&D .

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t really want to get into a whole thing about what wotc will or won’t do, considering how those tend to go these days.

Edit: also, I don’t really care? Like I’m not over here worrying about whether wotc will do a thing, I’m having discussions about D&D .

I actually have zero problem with a three book system, if the rules density demands it. Level Up has a core three, for example.