Quite honestly, I think that the OSR products have taken the wind out of the sails of D&D as far as my own interest goes. I bought the starting set to support the new product, but I find myself more enthralled by the various OSR incarnations-- especially those that I feel push the creative envelope.

I'm in two D&D 5e campaigns right now. One is going to be short lived, by design, but the other could go on for some time yet. I'm finding that I like the rules in play, and the 5e takes on the character types. I haven't yet seen high level play... but for 3rd-8th level play, so far it's been wonderful, and I forsee it having staying power at the game tables where I play.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;821723Quite honestly, I think that the OSR products have taken the wind out of the sails of D&D as far as my own interest goes. I bought the starting set to support the new product, but I find myself more enthralled by the various OSR incarnations-- especially those that I feel push the creative envelope.

I've been buying a bunch of OSR stuff recently to use with 5e. Like someone else said, that murderous Scandinavian white nationalist heathen dude on Youtube does a fantastic job selling Basic Fantasy RPG* - I went off and ordered 4 BFRPG supplements from amazon at £2.75 a go. :cool:

*Admittedly I had no idea he was a murderer etc when I saw the video, I guess that might have affected my receptivity to the message.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;821354As someone who just spent money on all the books for 5E, it's disheartening to hear that nobody really thinks it has staying power. But I suppose five years worth is plenty of enjoyment to wring out of a game.

I wouldn't stress. Most of the people who don't think it has a staying power as a system have hated the very idea of 5E since it was announced. And as a traditional RPG, the system wonks on RPGnet will always hate 5E.

But the longevity of 5E won't be decided by what a bunch of design-wonks and bitter non-gamers think of it. I suspect the core system will be around for a long time, because it meets WotCs goal of an accessible game that can attract and keep casuals playing without driving away players of pre-4E editions.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;821503Oh, what I got from S'mon's post is that when he became FB friends with one dude who found out that he ascribed to Lockean "Natural Rights" rather than what one might call modern progressive "Human Rights," the dude used an ad hominem response rather than engage with the actual ideas behind Lockean "Natural Rights".

The later post by Teazia pointed out that you could do this with other ideas, such as the basic principles of democracy, because the people who originally put forth those ideas had some abhorrent practices(in this case, the example was also slavery, though this being ancient Greece, I'm sure quite a bit more could be said as well). I took it to be a show of empathy for what happened to S'mon, and an expression of frustration with ad hominem arguments in general.

Let me put forth something here. Think of something that you believe to be good and true. I don't need to know what it is, but just keep it in mind throughout the rest of this paragraph. There is a very good chance -- almost certain, in fact -- that the early proponents of the idea that you're thinking of, as well as many of the people who adopted it later on, also did and/or believed things that you would find abhorrent. And yet something good and true doesn't stop being good and true just because people with other, bad beliefs/practices also believe it. If that was the standard, then you could literally dismiss any idea without actually having to engage the idea itself.

That's basically it. Smon: "He didn't engage the actual ideas; rather, he engaged in ad hominem." Teazia: "Here is something else that you could also dismiss if ad hominem was considered a legitimate debate tactic rather than the informal logical fallacy that it is." And then me, clarifying things to the best of my understanding.

makes sense

Quote from: Arkansan;821520Another thing I think would help with long term stability would be to release the occasional genre book. Do a science fantasy, do one on steampunk, do one on real swords and sorcery, give a line of books that offer guides on taking the system outside the stock D&D fantasy constraints.

this so much outside of the manual of the planes and deities and demigods my favorite books were the genre books. I really hope they find a way to bring back the warweaver.

im a bit worried they will have stupidly watered down war rules this time around though.

although i do wonder if the reduction in magic items will cause magic siege weapons to be much less common on the battlefield.

Quote from: Simlasa;821599Why? I'm kind of on the fence about them myself but everyone else seems to love 'em.

because it makes setting up the perfect kill no fun among other things

in an edition with modifiers you can make a bunch of preparations and get a ridiculously high attack modifier as a reward for you work. 5e is lol nope advantage

most of the problems with it come down to it being no good for simulating multiple things going your way at once.

also i find the whole idea of it a bit silly to begin with

Quote from: tuypo1;821878most of the problems with it come down to it being no good for simulating multiple things going your way at once.

also i find the whole idea of it a bit silly to begin with

I guess for me it just feels a bit bland... fast, and sometimes all that's needed... but like you say, there are times where you want to bask in the details of your scheming a bit.

I enjoy Advantage/Disadvantage as a way to eliminate the millions a little modifiers from other editions. In Basic, the modifiers were pretty reasonable unless you used certain rules. The only thing I remember being complicated in Basic series was the weapon mastery system. After that my desire to keep track of all that faded quickly. Fifth edition does a pretty good job of bring back the feel of second edition (my favorite AD&D version) without all the fiddly business. So, for me the game has staying power for sure.

That said, no game is perfect. For some reason the dragonborn existing chafes me harder than underwear that are two sizes to small. Also, they look more like Dargo from Farscape than dragons in a lot of the art.

I'd trade the lame Dragonborn for Lizardmen in a heart beat.

Anyhow, I'm all for dropping or generalizing modifiers but I still want them to stack.  So, let's keep it to range, cover, and concealment/darkness for missile fire but keep the non-stacking additional die away.

And don't get me wrong, 5e could have been so much worse.  As I've said, I don't hate it, I don't think anyhow, I'd need to play it more than I have.  I still think +8 to hit for a first level archer is a bit absurd even if everyone is +2 to every proficiency at first level.

so do the 5e dragonborn have any similarities to the 3e dragonborn or did they just use the name without considering what may happen in future if they bring in the other dragonborn

Quote from: tuypo1;822172so do the 5e dragonborn have any similarities to the 3e dragonborn or did they just use the name without considering what may happen in future if they bring in the other dragonborn

I'm not sure about the third edition dragonborn, but the ones in 5th edition are very similar to the ones in the edition that shall not be named which preceded the 5th edition.

Quote from: David Johansen;822170I'd trade the lame Dragonborn for Lizardmen in a heart beat.

As would I. However scribbling up an equivalent Lizardman race is pretty easy in 5e.

Quote from: David Johansen;822170Anyhow, I'm all for dropping or generalizing modifiers but I still want them to stack.  So, let's keep it to range, cover, and concealment/darkness for missile fire but keep the non-stacking additional die away.

And don't get me wrong, 5e could have been so much worse.  As I've said, I don't hate it, I don't think anyhow, I'd need to play it more than I have.  I still think +8 to hit for a first level archer is a bit absurd even if everyone is +2 to every proficiency at first level.

Range, cover, and concealment/darkness actually do "stack," but that is because they don't overlap mechanically as the same to-hit modifiers. They are each their own separate function. Long Range is at Disadvantage. Cover grants +AC. And Concealment/Darkness/Stealth is versus Passive Perception (or Search action, or guessing attack location). Darkness can also create the Blind condition and grant Disadv.

It reads abrasively to old school sensibilities at first. But in actual play it feels surprisingly similar. Basically it is like someone approached similar goals through a different, modern direction. Disconcerting, but pleasing in how easy it is to mod those last few steps.

The third edition Dragonborn only appeared in one sourcebook, and were never supported outside of it, as far as I know. They weren't a race in the traditional sense, but regular people transmogrified into humanoid-dragon hybrids.
They are also only better known than other obscure sourcebook -only freaks because they could be exploited by the toxic charop crowd.
The newly introduced 4th and 5th edition Dragonborn are a bit lame, but they could probably be made more interesting in a setting that focuses more on the exotic outlier races, instead of the Tolkienian Trio (Elf, Dwarf, Halfling).

Quote from: TheFailedSave;822195I'm not sure about the third edition dragonborn, but the ones in 5th edition are very similar to the ones in the edition that shall not be named which preceded the 5th edition.

Does that mean more lizardboobs? That was really the thing that irked me.