When is the countdown to 5e going to start?
It's coming out this summer, right?
Where is the hype? Why I haven't I seen or heard anything?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355106-Street-date-for-D-amp-D-Next-Starter-Game-is-July-15
Stan Shin over at the G+ community (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/101509275664581560702)compiled all the available information:
Culled from a variety of late-breaking leaks, here is the D&D Next release schedule (hat tip to Mike Hensley). The product will be called simply 'D&D'.
The release schedule:
D&D Starter Set, releasing July 15, 2014, list price $19.95
D&D Player's Handbook, releasing August 19, 2014, list price $49.95 (Note: they will have the PHB for sale if you attend GenCon, but then not widely available until Aug. 19 after GenCon)
D&D Dungeon Master's Guide, releasing November, 2014, $49.95
I've not seen any word on the Monster Manual.
Sources below:
"We have just received solicitation notices from our distributors for the D&D Next Starter Game, $19.99, with a street date of July 15, 2014."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355106-Street-date-for-D-amp-D-Next-Starter-Game-is-July-15#ixzz31bY7fNTO
"That's the reason WOTC is running a Q&A and character creation workshop at GenCon. The PHB won't be available until Aug 19, which is the Tuesday after GenCon. However, copies will be for sale at GenCon itself a couple of days before GenCon. This will allow WOTC to sell the books directly to their most enthusiastic fans(thereby making more money since they don't have to go through distributors and retailers for these sales).
Since most people who get the book at the con won't have time to read it before attending games, they will have the character creation workshops to walk people through the process with plenty of copies of the PHB at the workshop. Heck, if they are smart....they might sell copies of the book during the workshop to avoid absurdly long lines at their booth."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355106-Street-date-for-D-amp-D-Next-Starter-Game-is-July-15/page3#ixzz31bXOvKVO
"I've seen a report from a meeting last week that the PHB is August and the DMG is November. Both $49.99."
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355106-Street-date-for-D-amp-D-Next-Starter-Game-is-July-15/page3#ixzz31bXVDlQk
"WotC said the new edition would simply be Dungeons & Dragons, or D&D. No number, no Next. "
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355106-Street-date-for-D-amp-D-Next-Starter-Game-is-July-15/page4#ixzz31bXgxzqw
"D&D Starter Set, releasing July 15, 2014, list price $19.95
D&D Player's Handbook, releasing August 19, 2014, list price $49.95"
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353254-Initial-D-amp-D-Next-Releases-Showing-Up-on-Barnes-amp-Noble-Website#ixzz31bXzG2xk
So it seems like the ad copy in a box comes out July 15th and the game in late August.
Think I'm gonna wait a bit for reviews on the box before grabbing it. The box will tell all about the game. Has WOTC learned anything?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749073So it seems like the ad copy in a box comes out July 15th and the game in late August.
Think I'm gonna wait a bit for reviews on the box before grabbing it. The box will tell all about the game. Has WOTC learned anything?
I know WoTC doesn't have the best track record, but I think it's a bit unfair at this point to call it an "ad copy in a box". We haven't seen what's in it yet. Since WotC seems to have learned something (based on the design of 5e), I hope they also learned something with starter sets.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749075I know WoTC doesn't have the best track record, but I think it's a bit unfair at this point to call it an "ad copy in a box". We haven't seen what's in it yet. Since WotC seems to have learned something (based on the design of 5e), I hope they also learned something with starter sets.
I have never hoped that I was wrong about a product more than this one.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749078I have never hoped that I was wrong about a product more than this one.
Well, I have it on preorder at my FLGS. I'll definitely post a detailed review about it.
It could be a really awesome started box, like old Red Box. You never know. We'll have to wait and judge.
//Panjumanju
As far as I am aware, WoTC has only ever released one "starter box set" that wasn't a throwaway crippleware product, and that was the one (of several) for 3.5e that actually had a small form factor softback PHB.
So the likelihood of the new one coming out in July for $19.99 is pretty damn slim...
Especially if they are having a "Character Creation Workshop" at Gencon... If it was the full game in a box, which will be out BEFORE Gencon; then such a "Workshop" wouldn't even be needed...
Yeah... That's learning from past mistakes that is...
I've hated on 5th Edtion based on the playtest, but at this point I'm going to wait and see. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised by a game that can be run at a rules-medium level with none of the 4e stuff I hated.
If they really are going back to the modular concept, I may like it after all.
As much as I like the concept of Pathfinder, it's lately been grating on me with its rules bloat. I'd much rather have the real thing, and have it be a game that I can play my way.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749087As far as I am aware, WoTC has only ever released one "starter box set" that wasn't a throwaway crippleware product, and that was the one (of several) for 3.5e that actually had a small form factor softback PHB.
So the likelihood of the new one coming out in July for $19.99 is pretty damn slim...
Especially if they are having a "Character Creation Workshop" at Gencon... If it was the full game in a box, which will be out BEFORE Gencon; then such a "Workshop" wouldn't even be needed...
Yeah... That's learning from past mistakes that is...
I wouldn't expect the full game in a box, just a functional re-playable game with character creation for PCs with a limited set of options.
The benchmark for WotC is the Pathfinder Beginner's Box. If they do not do at least that, then they are already failing to the competition.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749093I wouldn't expect the full game in a box, just a functional re-playable game with character creation for PCs with a limited set of options.
By full set of rules I mean enough to get you playing the game, with character creation rules for Levels 1, 2 or 3; with 3-4 classes and races. Most importantly is COMPLETELY COMPATABLE with the actual game when it comes out...
Unlike the 4e Redbox...
Quote from: Monster Manuel;749089If they really are going back to the modular concept, I may like it after all.
I wouldn't bet on that.
I've heard no mention of "modularity" since the 3rd playtest, and even back then there was no "modularity" just lip service paid to it. The game has wavered back and forth falling further and further towards sops for 4vengers, and it looks like that's where it's going to be. A sort of weird 2e/4e hybrid.
I want it to succeed, I might buy the starter set, but, in the overall...pass.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749096I wouldn't bet on that.
I've heard no mention of "modularity" since the 3rd playtest, and even back then there was no "modularity" just lip service paid to it. The game has wavered back and forth falling further and further towards sops for 4vengers, and it looks like that's where it's going to be. A sort of weird 2e/4e hybrid.
I was told by someone in the closed playtest that the playtests didn't represent iterative versions of the game so much as concepts they were testing as modules. According to him it will be modular.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749072"I've seen a report from a meeting last week that the PHB is August and the DMG is November. Both $49.99."
I those prices, I will only buy it new if it is so great I want to use it instead of TSR D&D. As this seems unlikely, I'll probably wait until I can pick it up used for a lot less. I'm tired of giving WOTC money for a game I don't end up playing more than a few times (as I did with 3.0, 3.5, and 4e).
Of course, if they come out with PDF copies at $10-$15 bucks a volume, I would probably pick those up.
Quote from: RandallS;749104Of course, if they come out with PDF copies at $10-$15 bucks a volume, I would probably pick those up.
I would not hold your breath for those prices. The 5e Playtest modules in PDF are going for $17.99? at dndclassics.com. IF they ever released PDF versions of the core books, I'd expect between $25-30 each.
But I doubt we'll see them anytime soon...
Quote from: Monster Manuel;749100I was told by someone in the closed playtest that the playtests didn't represent iterative versions of the game so much as concepts they were testing as modules. According to him it will be modular.
(http://www.clipartguide.com/_named_clipart_images/0060-0808-2616-0927_Ill_Man_With_the_Chills_Wearing_an_Ice_Pack_Clip_Art_clipart_image.jpg)
(http://www.beepregnant.com/images/bee_logo3.png)(http://blogs.yis.ac.jp/15bryana/files/2010/12/bif-leaving1.gif)
(http://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/pennywise-clown-it.jpg)
(http://connectnigeria.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/when.jpg)
(http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/cm/goodhousekeeping/images/EZ/woman-eye-brows-s3-medium_new.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-syh8RV1utpM/Ts8J8RxwBKI/AAAAAAAAAco/jZAeCG-t9s8/s1600/the-sea-really-is-that.jpg)
(http://sandiegofreepress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/pennywise-clown-it.jpg)
I don't believe it on its face, it was an internet post, after all. I'm just saying that I'm not as firmly in the camp of hating 5e on principle as I was before. I've moved into the wait and see camp.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;749127I don't believe it on its face, it was an internet post, after all. I'm just saying that I'm not as firmly in the camp of hating 5e on principle as I was before. I've moved into the wait and see camp.
I started out liking it, then adapting a wait and see, now I'm very Meh with a touch of wait and see but I'm not going to stoke the fires of edition war just yet.
I mean they haven't marketed it as "You were wrong and stupid to play D&D this way." exactly...
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749128I started out liking it, then adapting a wait and see, now I'm very Meh with a touch of wait and see but I'm not going to stoke the fires of edition war just yet.
I mean they haven't marketed it as "You were wrong and stupid to play D&D this way." exactly...
I started off very meh, I mean it's from the same idiots who made the last two shitty versions of D&D so my expectations were pretty low.
The first play test packet really interested me but ever since they've been sliding back into a lot of the stupidity that has been their stock and trade for the past 14 years so I got pretty discouraged.
They are however still
saying all the right things.
So I'm mildly excited.
If they don't include grids or tokens in the boxed set, that will be a good sign, imo.
If the PHB total does away with those kinds of diagrams (like in 3e/4e/2e players options), then that will be awesome . . . in a tactical combat module chapter is fine, though.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749087As far as I am aware, WoTC has only ever released one "starter box set" that wasn't a throwaway crippleware product, and that was the one (of several) for 3.5e that actually had a small form factor softback PHB.
So the likelihood of the new one coming out in July for $19.99 is pretty damn slim...
Especially if they are having a "Character Creation Workshop" at Gencon... If it was the full game in a box, which will be out BEFORE Gencon; then such a "Workshop" wouldn't even be needed...
Yeah... That's learning from past mistakes that is...
All the signs are they've learned nothing from Pathfinder Beginner Box (or Mentzer '83!) and it'll be another crappy pay-to-preview, yup.
I think the "pay to preview" are the damn Sundering modules for D&D Encounters.
The first box at $20 (or whatever your local currency is) seems good. $50+ for a PHB.... Go fuck off. $20 for a PDF..... Go fuck off.
But for the box I would expect the same I would get from the BECMI Red Box. Not worried about dice and a crayon, but a few levels and the rules to cover it (both sides of the DMs screen). Play it to death and then get the extended rules later in the year.
For me, I object to the PHB, DMG prices but I can see younger kids (and me if I badger my parents) getting the box mid-year and then the larger book(s) Christmas/birthday.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749108I would not hold your breath for those prices. The 5e Playtest modules in PDF are going for $17.99? at dndclassics.com. IF they ever released PDF versions of the core books, I'd expect between $25-30 each.
That's far more than any PDF is worth to me. $10 is my normal limit for a PDF, but I'd do $15 for D&D. Anything more than that is a flat no, especially since I would be likely able to get used hardbacks for less than $25-30 a piece off ebay in a few months.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749087As far as I am aware, WoTC has only ever released one "starter box set" that wasn't a throwaway crippleware product, and that was the one (of several) for 3.5e that actually had a small form factor softback PHB.
So the likelihood of the new one coming out in July for $19.99 is pretty damn slim...
Especially if they are having a "Character Creation Workshop" at Gencon... If it was the full game in a box, which will be out BEFORE Gencon; then such a "Workshop" wouldn't even be needed...
Yeah... That's learning from past mistakes that is...
It would be needed if either of these were true, 1) it didn't cover all the options available at GenCon (races, classes, feats, skills, etc..), or 2) they thought a significant number of people playing the GenCon game would not have the starter set.
I'd say both are likely. Indeed I think the first is a near certainty.
Quote from: jeff37923;749094The benchmark for WotC is the Pathfinder Beginner's Box. If they do not do at least that, then they are already failing to the competition.
That box is significantly more money. 75% more expensive.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749096I wouldn't bet on that.
I've heard no mention of "modularity" since the 3rd playtest
Then you have not been paying much attention. It's mentioned pretty much every month, perhaps every week. They even announced the names of the first four modularity bundles.
Quote from: Mistwell;749307They even announced the names of the first four modularity bundles.
Where?
I'm pretty amped about the release of Next. The playtests went over really well with my group. At its core, it's a game that supports early style D&D play with rationalized systems and a few modern tweaks. It's remarkably close to the homebrew D&D that I've been cobbling together myself for the last five years or so.
It feels really weird to be excited about a new edition of D&D. I'd pretty much given up any expectations that WotC (or any other mainstream RPG publishers) would publish a game suited to my preferences. And I frankly don't understand why more old-school gamers don't recognize this as the biggest shift in the industry towards towards traditional play modes in the last 15 years. I suppose the OSR is such an indie movement these days, the contempt for anything mainstream is reflexive.
Quote from: Haffrung;749342It feels really weird to be excited about a new edition of D&D. I'd pretty much given up any expectations that WotC (or any other mainstream RPG publishers) would publish a game suited to my preferences. And I frankly don't understand why more old-school gamers don't recognize this as the biggest shift in the industry towards towards traditional play modes in the last 15 years. I suppose the OSR is such an indie movement these days, the contempt for anything mainstream is reflexive.
I'm right there with you. I wrote off D&D after the 90s, so it's nice to see that after almost 15 years, there's a current edition that I enjoy playing again.
Still not sure about this 2d20 advantage/disadvantage thing.
What's the latest on that?
Is it optional?
Quote from: 1989;749349Still not sure about this 2d20 advantage/disadvantage thing.
What's the latest on that?
Is it optional?
I think that's a pretty big part of the core rules. I suppose you could replace all instances where advantage/disadvantage apply with a +4/-4 modifier.
However, IMO, I like it better because it's one less thing to add/subtract during combat. I find it easier to roll 2 dice and take the highest than add another level of modifiers. To each their own though.
Quote from: Mistwell;749306That box is significantly more money. 75% more expensive.
Worth every penny and then some.
The first 4e box was so flimsy it disintegrated right after I opened it the first time. The essentials box was good but the contents sucked.
It's amazing that my boxed sets from the 1980s hold up better than a boxed set that WotC released like five years ago.
Quote from: Mistwell;749306That box is significantly more money. 75% more expensive.
I've seen your responses here and elsewhere about this, and you seem intentionally obtuse on the subject. The Pathfinder box costs 75% more? That
is the problem. Regardless of how expensive it is, it currently sets the bar for an intro box. If the Next box costs considerably less, how likely is it to meet that bar, never mind exceed it? Personally, I still have hope, as the lack of standups should cut a lot of the overhead. But I have no difficulty understanding why many people suspect it's going to be thinly disguised paid-advertising crippleware, as that's the precedent WotC has set.
Quote from: Mistwell;749307Then you have not been paying much attention. It's mentioned pretty much every month, perhaps every week. They even announced the names of the first four modularity bundles.
Really? Where?
Quote from: 1989;749349Still not sure about this 2d20 advantage/disadvantage thing.
What's the latest on that?
Is it optional?
I was pretty iffy on it before I played the game. I was worried that it would dominate play and essentially you'd always end up rolling 2d20. That isn't how it worked out at all. I've been playing and running Next recently and we've gone through entire sessions without it coming up. When it does come up, it's very handy, and my worry of "it doesn't feel like D&D" has proven unfounded.
It's a pretty integral part of the system, so I don't think it will be optional, but it's certainly does not feel as you might suspect on paper.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: Haffrung;749342And I frankly don't understand why more old-school gamers don't recognize this as the biggest shift in the industry towards towards traditional play modes in the last 15 years.
I guess I do recognise that. But I don't see why I should give WoTC another $150+ (that's £100!) for an old school D&D game, when I can just run OSRIC etc. OSRIC is around $15 for a hardcopy, and it seems to do everything 5e does.
Quote from: S'mon;749389I guess I do recognise that. But I don't see why I should give WoTC another $150+ (that's £100!) for an old school D&D game, when I can just run OSRIC etc. OSRIC is around $15 for a hardcopy, and it seems to do everything 5e does.
I guess the simple answer is, "don't". If you're happy, that's all that really matters. For me, I'm almost always the DM, so I'll be dropping $150 on all three books. Which is less than I've spent on any other RPG I've played over the years when you total everything up except WFRP 1e. The rest of my group only needs to spend $50.
AD&D1e with some 2e elements is my favorite edition. However, there are things in Next that I like that isn't being met with AD&D (and I know it's all subjective):
* advantage mechanic
* easy PC customization (not bloated like 3e)
* bounded ascending accuracy
* current support
Quote from: S'mon;749389I guess I do recognise that. But I don't see why I should give WoTC another $150+ (that's £100!) for an old school D&D game, when I can just run OSRIC etc. OSRIC is around $15 for a hardcopy, and it seems to do everything 5e does.
I'll gladly pay WotC for the power of the official D&D brand if it helps me in luring players to a lighter style of play. While I'll run any edition/clone of D&D without much fuss, I'll admit my preferences run to either the hardcore wargamey depth of 4e or the speed of earlier editions, and I don't think I want the clunky midway compromise of Pathfinder being the default of the hobby anymore.
Quote from: S'mon;749389I guess I do recognise that. But I don't see why I should give WoTC another $150+ (that's £100!) for an old school D&D game, when I can just run OSRIC etc. OSRIC is around $15 for a hardcopy, and it seems to do everything 5e does.
That's fair enough. I like to have published support for my games these days. And since the Next dev team essentially has a picture of me on the wall labeled 'target customer', I feel some obligation to support them, if only to show that yes, there really is a market out there for a rules-medium edition of official D&D that you can play in a more freewheeling manner than the last two editions.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;749394While I'll run any edition/clone of D&D without much fuss, I'll admit my preferences run to either the hardcore wargamey depth of 4e or the speed of earlier editions, and I don't think I want the clunky midway compromise of Pathfinder being the default of the hobby anymore.
Strangely enough, just as the final nail is about to be driven into 4e's coffin, I'm developing an interest in having another go at it, not as Dungeons and Dragons (which it isn't) but as it's own thing: a combat skirmish game with a tightly integrated mechanical system.
Quote from: aspiringlich;749410Strangely enough, just as the final nail is about to be driven into 4e's coffin, I'm developing an interest in having another go at it, not as Dungeons and Dragons (which it isn't) but as it's own thing: a combat skirmish game with a tightly integrated mechanical system.
Speaking even as someone who mostly enjoyed 4e for its intended purpose...
It's much, much better at being that thing you just said.
Quote from: aspiringlich;749410Strangely enough, just as the final nail is about to be driven into 4e's coffin, I'm developing an interest in having another go at it, not as Dungeons and Dragons (which it isn't) but as it's own thing: a combat skirmish game with a tightly integrated mechanical system.
I'm enjoying 4E Essentials using the Neverwinter Nights campaign setting. Sessions consist mostly of intrigue, roleplaying, and exploration. We'll usually have two 60 minute combats in a 5 hour session.
Basically, I run the non-combat part of the game as I've always done. Description, dialog, exploration. The combats take much longer than B/X and AD&D, so we have fewer of them. Combat is the highly-detailed climax to the adventures, not a series of escalating fights.
I'm still baffled why WotC released so many grindy dungeon-crawls to support 4E. Something like Thunderspire Labyrinth would be tiresome using 4E, and is actually better-suited to AD&D. In fact, I'll probably convert Thunderspire to Next once its released.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749111lots of images
Took me a minute. Love these things.
Quote from: LibraryLass;749422Speaking even as someone who mostly enjoyed 4e for its intended purpose...
It's much, much better at being that thing you just said.
It is good for this purpose, but one of the reasons I never really jumped on the 4E bus is that I have some old table top skirmish games I think actually got that side of things even better. If you really play melee/wizard/TFT you'll find it is at least as tactical and nuanced as 4E but runs fast and is (to me) more fun.
Quote from: Haffrung;749397That's fair enough. I like to have published support for my games these days.
I'm pretty sure more stuff has been published for osr games in the past 5 years than wotc has managed to do for 4e or 5e. Hell, Frog God by themselves out produces wotc in quantity and quality of modules.
Quote from: aspiringlich;749410Strangely enough, just as the final nail is about to be driven into 4e's coffin, I'm developing an interest in having another go at it, not as Dungeons and Dragons (which it isn't) but as it's own thing: a combat skirmish game with a tightly integrated mechanical system.
I haven't read any of the encounters stuff but from what I hear they sound like they might be a fun way to kill a few weekends when there isn't a campaign going.
I had once planned to sell off my 4e stuff but recently I've decided to hang onto it.
Quote from: mhensley;749452I'm pretty sure more stuff has been published for osr games in the past 5 years than wotc has managed to do for 4e or 5e. Hell, Frog God by themselves out produces wotc in quantity and quality of modules.
The 4e D&D Gamma World boxed set was 40$ and a complete game really, aside from the parts locked up in the CCG. and when it came out on amazon it was around 25$ or so pre-order.
So a 20$ D&D starter could be just like BX, a playable game levels 1-3 or so.
I have seen a few forum posts of folks saying "Oh I'm running <$CLASSIC_D&D_MODULE> with Next right now - with no changes at all."
I'm wondering one if that is 100% true and two is it true in reverse; can I buy D&D Next adventures and run them for AD&D without modifying them mechanically at all.
That will be a good test for me. I might not buy the next D&D, but can I buy adventures.
And, will the produce setting-free ones or at least ones that are light enough on the setting to easily drop in to Greyhawk and so forth.
Quote from: Mistwell;749306That box is significantly more money. 75% more expensive.
And compared to the crippleware that WotC has produced in beginner sets, well worth every penny.
Where are you getting the price for a 5E starter set for making the comparison? Or is this just your standard White Knight kneejerk?
Face it, WotC has dug themselves a hole and must make an effort to climb out of it. Nobody's fault but their own. Paizo is the competition, if WotC makes a poor showing in their products, then WotC is going to lose.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749509I have seen a few forum posts of folks saying "Oh I'm running <$CLASSIC_D&D_MODULE> with Next right now - with no changes at all."
I'm wondering one if that is 100% true and two is it true in reverse; can I buy D&D Next adventures and run them for AD&D without modifying them mechanically at all.
That will be a good test for me. I might not buy the next D&D, but can I buy adventures.
And, will the produce setting-free ones or at least ones that are light enough on the setting to easily drop in to Greyhawk and so forth.
Id have to say anyone claiming they ran an AD&D module with Next with "no changes" was lying or were being misquoted. Or possibly the early version was more compatible.
Just a quick check with the first Next monster the Ankheg and the AC is different, HD is different, attack damage is reduced, exp is reduced.
You'd have to at the very least convert an AD&D monsters AC. And then figure out how AD&D HD work vs Next's monster level.
And that means that you'd have to convert the other way as well. and if its a new monster in Next then you cant just replace it with its older counterpart.
Otherwise I think youd be able to run the modules without much else to change. Havent tested that theory yet.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749509I have seen a few forum posts of folks saying "Oh I'm running <$CLASSIC_D&D_MODULE> with Next right now - with no changes at all."
I'm wondering one if that is 100% true and two is it true in reverse; can I buy D&D Next adventures and run them for AD&D without modifying them mechanically at all.
That will be a good test for me. I might not buy the next D&D, but can I buy adventures.
And, will the produce setting-free ones or at least ones that are light enough on the setting to easily drop in to Greyhawk and so forth.
It's really easy to run old modules with 5e - just substitute the monsters with ones from 5e or just change AC's on the fly and that's usually close enough to work ok.
The problem with the published 5e modules is that they are firmly set in the FR and are part of a storyline. Not so easy to just plop into your own setting or campaign IMO.
Quote from: Omega;749516Id have to say anyone claiming they ran an AD&D module with Next with "no changes" was lying or were being misquoted. Or possibly the early version was more compatible.
Just a quick check with the first Next monster the Ankheg and the AC is different, HD is different, attack damage is reduced, exp is reduced.
You'd have to at the very least convert an AD&D monsters AC. And then figure out how AD&D HD work vs Next's monster level.
And that means that you'd have to convert the other way as well. and if its a new monster in Next then you cant just replace it with its older counterpart.
Otherwise I think youd be able to run the modules without much else to change. Havent tested that theory yet.
Quote from: mhensley;749521It's really easy to run old modules with 5e - just substitute the monsters with ones from 5e or just change AC's on the fly and that's usually close enough to work ok.
The problem with the published 5e modules is that they are firmly set in the FR and are part of a storyline. Not so easy to just plop into your own setting or campaign IMO.
So basically...I can "run them with no changes" as long as I alter all the mechanical stuff and am willing to run FR...pass.
To be fair though, the adventures published so far have been part of the organised play buildup to the 5E release, so there's no saying what post-release adventures will be like.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749546So basically...I can "run them with no changes" as long as I alter all the mechanical stuff and am willing to run FR...pass.
Well, it's not AD&D, so you will have to change
something. It's just how much are you willing to do. I've done a lot of running AD&D modules with 5e, and it's so easy I can do it on the fly as I go. Pretty much just drag and drop 5e monster stats into the AD&D module, and change things like saving throws into 5e's universal DC mechanic. Easy peasy.
Now, going the other direction I haven't done because I haven't played any of 5e's official modules with AD&D. However, I have written a superdungeon (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/107308672422345398151) using 5e's mechanics (generic game world), and I don't see any issue whatsoever with doing the same thing: drag and drop monster stats from AD&D into the module and play as is. The campaign is designed to
not be used with battlemaps or minis at all (unless you want to), and it works just fine in 5e.
If there is any sort of OGL at all, I think you'll find lots of 5e adventures that aren't tied to FR.
*Edit* Actually, here is a page from my superdungeon. Decided for yourself how hard it would be to run this through an AD&D ruleset. I imagine you'd just replace the monster stat block and that's it.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-nbncv06WmmY/U2kk0HNu0AI/AAAAAAAAAwU/f_U50t44ktM/w612-h792-no/page39.jpg)
Aren't all editions of the D&D monster manuals rather extensive? Could it be as easy as swapping out a 5e Beholder's stat block with the AD&D one?
Sure a total conversion might be a bit more complicated than that, but as for creatures...
Quote from: mhensley;749452I'm pretty sure more stuff has been published for osr games in the past 5 years than wotc has managed to do for 4e or 5e. Hell, Frog God by themselves out produces wotc in quantity and quality of modules.
I disagree. Goodman Games adventures vary wildly in quality, and they have cheap and ugly production values (though Castle Whiterock was quite good). I've given up trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. I liked Frog God Games back in their Necromancer days. But I've found their books now to be behind the times in the layout and production values, but priced as premium products. I returned the Slumbering Tsar because it simply wasn't up to snuff for a $120 book. Terrible layout and readability.
WotC don't have a great track record of publishing adventures. But several products from their late 4E era really impressed me. The Neverwinter Nights campaign book is one of the best sandbox campaigns I've ever come across, content-wise, and without a doubt the best in presentation and ease of use at the table. Vor Rukoth is another old-school sandbox site. Gardmore Abbey is an excellent location-based adventure site. The Nentir Vale adventures wouldn't have been out of place in TSR era D&D.
So I'm pretty optimistic that WotC can publish adventures for 5E that will be superior to the stuff being put out by Goodman and Frog God*. And I won't have to completely revamp the stat blocks, the way I do for the adventures by OSR publishers.
* I actually wish Frog God would move to supporting S&W and D&D Next, instead of S&W and Pathfinder. Next is much more of an old-school system than Pathfinder, which Bill Webb himself has admitted he doesn't like and doesn't play.
Actually dungeondelver, this is probably a better example to use when talking about the compatibility between 5e and AD&D. Because 5e isn't nearly dependent on tactical combat, there is a lot more freedom in maps. I can't see how I would be able to do this in 4e unless I had 100 pages of 5' grid maps to represent these areas, and this image is only about 1/2 of the total adventure; the main temple complex isn't even on this image. Also, many of the encounter rooms are roving; they don't just sit in one place waiting for the PCs to stumble on them so if you used a battlemap, you'd have to have one big enough to represent the entire dungeon levels. Not sure how I would be able to do that with a map this large if using the grid.
So to answer your question, I'm sure that I'm not the only one who is using the entire 5e ruleset to create adventures in the "AD&D vein", so-to-speak, and thus being very easy to convert to AD&D use.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9hQlA-hICkQ/Uvqz7Usc4SI/AAAAAAAAATI/8D9ZxJNOOL0/w612-h792-no/mappreviews.jpg)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749572I can't see how I would be able to do this in 4e unless I had 100 pages of 5' grid maps to represent these areas, and this image is only about 1/2 of the total adventure; the main temple complex isn't even on this image. Also, many of the encounter rooms are roving; they don't just sit in one place waiting for the PCs to stumble on them so if you used a battlemap, you'd have to have one big enough to represent the entire dungeon levels.
This works they same in 4e that it does in any edition when miniatures are being used- you draw the area on your erasable battle mat if/when the need arises.
Quote from: hexgrid;749584This works they same in 4e that it does in any edition when miniatures are being used- you draw the area on your erasable battle mat if/when the need arises.
To an extent. But 4E strongly encourages preparing for encounters by designing the terrain, the enemy unit composition, and the positioning of the enemies.
Quote from: hexgrid;749584This works they same in 4e that it does in any edition when miniatures are being used- you draw the area on your erasable battle mat if/when the need arises.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but 4e is designed with clear encounter boundaries, correct? I was under the impression that an encounter in 4e is specifically designed to have X amount of opponents in a clearly defined area.
With the module I have written, it is entirely plausible that most of the other creatures may be alerted to a battle and come join it. Also, many of the creatures roam the area and don't just stay in their encounter area. With those two factors, it's entirely likely that you could have an encounter that starts in room 4 or whatever, and technically continue through the entire dungeon level until either all the monsters are dead, the PCs are dead, or the party finds another solution (like running away, hiding, etc).
How would one handle that in 4e, when each square on those maps = 10ft, and you can see just how big a particular dungeon level is.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;749546So basically...I can "run them with no changes" as long as I alter all the mechanical stuff and am willing to run FR...pass.
Swap monsters seems about it.
Magic items seem the same.
The Next conversion of Keep on the Borderlands that came with the last playtest packet is fairly unchanged overall. Just a notable toning down of magic items gained and the shift in monster stats is what I am seeing.
The FR part you can jettison and replace with anything.
But unfortunately the answer is NO, the modules are not useable without at least a little work on the part of the DM.
Quote from: jeff37923;749512And compared to the crippleware that WotC has produced in beginner sets, well worth every penny.
I was not commenting on the quality just explaining the price difference plays a role. You can put more into a starter set if you raise the price by 75%. You can also price a lot of people out of trying out that new game when you set the price point above $20, which research says is the threshold many people use for impulse buys. I agree with you, the starter set needs to be better that recent attempts by WOTC. I also don't think it can be as complete as the Pathfinder version, since that version costs so much more. If it is, well great.
QuoteWhere are you getting the price for a 5E starter set for making the comparison? Or is this just your standard White Knight kneejerk?
Oh I see...you're not reading the thread you're commenting on. Not sure what to do with that Jeff. There was an announcement from distributors that the Starter Set is $20 and coming out on July 15 and the product ID number is A92160000. We're talking right now about that announcement.
Quote from: Haffrung;749587To an extent. But 4E strongly encourages preparing for encounters by designing the terrain, the enemy unit composition, and the positioning of the enemies.
It encourages it, and you can do amazing things that way if you have the time, but after a while I just said fuck it. I prepared a wide swath of simple enemies of varying levels (which is trivially easy in 4e once you've figured out the dozen or so basic enemy functions), set up a rough random encounter table old-school style, and eyeballed realistic seeming terrain on the fly with graph paper. Worked fine for the most part.
What my monsters lacked in coherent tactics they made up for in numbers and power. My players got a big kick out of being a resourceful team outsmarting superior foes.
Quote from: SacrosanctPlease correct me if I'm wrong, but 4e is designed with clear encounter boundaries, correct? I was under the impression that an encounter in 4e is specifically designed to have X amount of opponents in a clearly defined area.
Nah, I added monsters mid-fight all the time, and players routinely made moves that required me to expand the map. No biggie. The thing about 4e characters is that they have so many resources and options in combat that they really can handle a lot more than seems plausible on paper. The Encounter and Daily powers are not the be-all, end-all, though smart players will figure out ways to create "safe time" for recovering those.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749594How would one handle that in 4e, when each square on those maps = 10ft, and you can see just how big a particular dungeon level is.
Most 4e Encounters would include multiple rooms and locations, unlike the room by room description of previous editions. Basically, 4e assumed that a combat would spill out into the surrounding area. For example, the entire ground level of the moathouse in Hommlet is one encounter (or two if you include outside of the keep) rather than 17 rooms as in AD&D1e. As such, the opponents from those additional rooms and locations are included in the set up.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749594Please correct me if I'm wrong, but 4e is designed with clear encounter boundaries, correct? I was under the impression that an encounter in 4e is specifically designed to have X amount of opponents in a clearly defined area.
With the module I have written, it is entirely plausible that most of the other creatures may be alerted to a battle and come join it. Also, many of the creatures roam the area and don't just stay in their encounter area. With those two factors, it's entirely likely that you could have an encounter that starts in room 4 or whatever, and technically continue through the entire dungeon level until either all the monsters are dead, the PCs are dead, or the party finds another solution (like running away, hiding, etc).
How would one handle that in 4e, when each square on those maps = 10ft, and you can see just how big a particular dungeon level is.
This stuff is all part of the "Delve" format for adventures, which predates 4e a bit and I don't think it's really a part of the system itself. Late 3e adventures all used it, and IIRC, WotC started backing away from it in late 4e.
The article where WotC introduced is actually still up: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060317a
The problem with the format is handling all the stuff you just described, but there's nothing about 4e that requires it. Put the some monsters and the PCs on a grid, and it's going still going to function even if you haven't carefully pre-planned the encounter.
An issue you
would have is that 4e combats take too long to be compatible with standard dungeon crawl assumptions.
Quote from: Mistwell;749673Oh I see...you're not reading the thread you're commenting on. Not sure what to do with that Jeff. There was an announcement from distributors that the Starter Set is $20 and coming out on July 15 and the product ID number is A92160000. We're talking right now about that announcement.
No, dipshit, I'm trying to nail down that price figure you are waving about because it does not appear anywhere else online that I have been able to locate and ENworld is not what I consider a reliable source.
One metric I use to judge how playable I'll find an edition of D&D is to look at the stat block for a simple monster. If a goblin or kobold has a half page stat block, I'm going to fucking hate it. Do we have any clues about the length/complexity of monster stat blocks in 5e?
Quote from: jeff37923;749689No, dipshit, I'm trying to nail down that price figure you are waving about because it does not appear anywhere else online that I have been able to locate and ENworld is not what I consider a reliable source.
It's directly from two different distributors (Lion Rampart Imports out of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Alliance Games Distributors, which has locations across the US). The first person to report it was the owner of Games Plus out of Chicago (the price is $19.99, if you want to call Curt and confirm it you can go to their webpage (http://www.games-plus.com/) for his number). And it does appear in several places online. It seems the initial Barnes and Noble release page was exactly accurate.
None of this was "EnWorld", EW just repeated what the game store owners and distributors said (cause you know, it's news). Apparently this initially started with announcements at a retailer's conference last week.
If it's going to retail for $20, expect more of the same.
Quote from: Endless Flight;749696If it's going to retail for $20, expect more of the same.
Hard to tell. Mike Mearls said, "I can't talk about specific products, but in my ideal world there's a game called D&D that you find in stores. It's simple enough that you can just start playing, but deep enough that you feel that the next layer of stuff adds to it, rather than replaces it like going from a starter set to a Player's Handbook has traditionally done."
Quote from: Larsdangly;749693One metric I use to judge how playable I'll find an edition of D&D is to look at the stat block for a simple monster. If a goblin or kobold has a half page stat block, I'm going to fucking hate it. Do we have any clues about the length/complexity of monster stat blocks in 5e?
As of last playtest a Goblin was:
QuoteGoblin
Small Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Armor Class 13 (leather, shield)
Hit Points 3 (1d6)
Speed 30 ft.
Senses darkvision 60 ft.
Str 8 (–1) Dex 11 (+0) Con 10 (+0)
Int 10 (+0) Wis 9 (–1) Cha 8 (–1)
Alignment neutral evil
Languages Common, Goblin
TRAITS
Bushwhacker: During the first round of combat, the goblin has advantage on attack rolls against any target that has a lower initiative.
Sneaky: The goblin can attempt to hide at the end of a move without using an action.
Stealthy +5: The goblin gains a +5 bonus to Dexterity (Stealth) checks.
ACTIONS
Melee Attack—Mace: +1 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature). Hit: 2 (1d6 – 1) bludgeoning damage (minimum 1 damage).
Ranged Attack—Shortbow: +2 to hit (range 80 ft./320 ft.; one creature). Hit: 3 (1d6) piercing damage.
ENCOUNTER BUILDING
Level 1
XP 10
Quote from: Skywalker;749702As of last playtest a Goblin was:
Do the monster's ability scores serve any purpose? Why would anyone need to know what the goblin's wisdom is?
Quote from: aspiringlich;749706Do the monster's ability scores serve any purpose? Why would anyone need to know what the goblin's wisdom is?
Aside from skill rolls, they are also used for Saving rolls versus spells and other effects.
Quote from: aspiringlich;749706Do the monster's ability scores serve any purpose? Why would anyone need to know what the goblin's wisdom is?
Mostly saving throws.
Quote from: Mistwell;749709Mostly saving throws.
Yep. 5e doesn't have a separate rule or table for everything like AD&D. Everything is pretty much based on "roll d20, add modifiers, did you beat the difficulty value (DC)?"
Making an attack? Roll d20, add your bonus, and see if it beats the target's AC.
Getting attacked by a spell? Roll d20, add your appropriate ability bonus, and see if you made your save (beat the spell's DC)
Got poisoned by that trap? Roll d20, add your appropriate bonuses, and see if you beat the poison's DC.
You get the point ;)
Quote from: aspiringlich;749706Do the monster's ability scores serve any purpose? Why would anyone need to know what the goblin's wisdom is?
Any time it makes a roll related to Wisdom. Perception and saving throws seem the most likely.
Quote from: Skywalker;749677Most 4e Encounters would include multiple rooms and locations, unlike the room by room description of previous editions. Basically, 4e assumed that a combat would spill out into the surrounding area. For example, the entire ground level of the moathouse in Hommlet is one encounter (or two if you include outside of the keep) rather than 17 rooms as in AD&D1e. As such, the opponents from those additional rooms and locations are included in the set up.
OK, assuming that's true (I have no reason to question it), it sort of gets to my original point. One of the maps for my adventure is roughly 500 feet by 700 feet. If each 1" square = 5 ft, then that map would have to be 100 inches wide by 140 inches long. That's freaking huge. And that's just for one map. If I wanted to make 4e compatible battlemaps for just those maps that are 10ft scale, I'd probably have 1-2in of the book thickness just on gigantic fold out maps.
After all, because the battles can spill out for the entire level, you couldn't really do just specific key areas, nor could you draw it on a board unless that board was 12ft by 8ft or something big.
That's what I was getting at then I said I don't see how 4e can support a style of play in AD&D in the context of large dungeons or areas.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749717After all, because the battles can spill out for the entire level, you couldn't really do just specific key areas, nor could you draw it on a board unless that board was 12ft by 8ft or something big.
They can do, but most dungeon based modules are generally presented in areas within the dungeon, by location, faction, theme etc (see Temple of Elemental Evil and Keep on the Borderlands for good examples), and this is what 4e tended to embrace.
Even in those older modules, it is rare that you would have an encounter where the entire dungeon would likely come barrelling down on the party. And if it did, 4e would struggle with it no more or less than earlier editions of D&D IME. You would just break it into chunks, call each encounters even if the combat was ongoing in some fashion. This technique was detailed in the DMG.
Quote from: Skywalker;749702As of last playtest a Goblin was:
That has to be simplified for me. Let me see if I can:
Goblin, lvl 1, XP 10.
#App ?; HP d6 (3); AC 13; #Atk 1; Atk +1 melee, +2 ranged; Dmg (as weapon) melee -1; Mv 30'; Mrl ?.
Mods: Str -1, Dex 0, Con 0, Int 0, Wis -1, Cha -1.
Traits: Bushwhacker, Sneaky, Stealth +5.
AL NE; Lang Common, Goblin; Senses 60' Darkvision.
Items: Mace, Shortbow.
I am still dissatisfied... Part of me does like the idea of Keyword Traits, but that's a new batch of stuff to memorize. At my best I can only reduce the stat line to 3-4 lines, however, as the attribute mods and traits add at least 2 new lines. Number Appearing and Morale are again noticeably absent, much to my displeasure.
Hmm, perhaps they'll create a better shorthand for this.
Quote from: Opaopajr;749728That has to be simplified for me.
The 5e stat block is eerily close to the 3e statblock shown below, with only a few lines being either omitted or incorporated (in italics and green) and with special abilities are spelt out:
QuoteGoblin, 1st-Level Warrior
Small Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Hit Dice: 1d8+1 (5 hp)
Initiative: +1
Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares)
Armor Class: 15 (+1 size, +1 Dex, +2 leather armor, +1 light shield), touch 12, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple: +1/–3
Attack: Morningstar +2 melee (1d6) or javelin +3 ranged (1d4)
Full Attack: Morningstar +2 melee (1d6) or javelin +3 ranged (1d4)
Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft.
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +1, Will –1
Abilities: Str 11, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 9, Cha 6
Skills: Hide +5, Listen +2, Move Silently +5, Ride +4, Spot +2
Feats: Alertness
Challenge Rating: 1/3
Alignment: Usually neutral evil
For comparison:
QuoteGoblin
Small Humanoid (Goblinoid)
Armor Class 13 (leather, shield)
Hit Points 3 (1d6)
Speed 30 ft.
Senses darkvision 60 ft.
Str 8 (–1) Dex 11 (+0) Con 10 (+0)
Int 10 (+0) Wis 9 (–1) Cha 8 (–1)
Alignment neutral evil
Languages Common, Goblin
TRAITS
Bushwhacker: During the first round of combat, the goblin has advantage on attack rolls against any target that has a lower initiative.
Sneaky: The goblin can attempt to hide at the end of a move without using an action.
Stealthy +5: The goblin gains a +5 bonus to Dexterity (Stealth) checks.
ACTIONS
Melee Attack—Mace: +1 to hit (reach 5 ft.; one creature). Hit: 2 (1d6 – 1) bludgeoning damage (minimum 1 damage).
Ranged Attack—Shortbow: +2 to hit (range 80 ft./320 ft.; one creature). Hit: 3 (1d6) piercing damage.
ENCOUNTER BUILDING
Level 1
XP 10
Quote from: Opaopajr;749728That has to be simplified for me. Let me see if I can:
Goblin, lvl 1, XP 10.
#App ?; HP d6 (3); AC 13; #Atk 1; Atk +1 melee, +2 ranged; Dmg (as weapon) melee -1; Mv 30'; Mrl ?.
Mods: Str -1, Dex 0, Con 0, Int 0, Wis -1, Cha -1.
Traits: Bushwhacker, Sneaky, Stealth +5.
AL NE; Lang Common, Goblin; Senses 60' Darkvision.
Items: Mace, Shortbow.
I am still dissatisfied... Part of me does like the idea of Keyword Traits, but that's a new batch of stuff to memorize. At my best I can only reduce the stat line to 3-4 lines, however, as the attribute mods and traits add at least 2 new lines. Number Appearing and Morale are again noticeably absent, much to my displeasure.
Hmm, perhaps they'll create a better shorthand for this.
If you look at my post #56, you can see how I did in the module itself for the snapping turtle. There is no reason why you can't get by with a couple lines
For the goblin, you could do:
Goblin (lvl 1, XP 10)
Str, Wis, Cha: -1, AC: 13, HP: 3, Init: +0, Spd: 30ft
Attacks: mace (+1, 1d6-1) or shortbow (+2, 1d6)
Abilities: Bushwacker, sneaky, stealth
The thing that stands out from the stat block as useless is languages. Who gives a shit what languages a goblin (or hill giant, or troll) speaks.
Anyone who attempts to parley? Still, Sacrosanct's posted stat-block looks perfectly serviceable.
Quote from: Larsdangly;749693One metric I use to judge how playable I'll find an edition of D&D is to look at the stat block for a simple monster. If a goblin or kobold has a half page stat block, I'm going to fucking hate it. Do we have any clues about the length/complexity of monster stat blocks in 5e?
Here is a goblin from the last Playtest beastiary. No background, just info. Earlier packs had backgrounds as well. It is not an exact transcribe. Just the gist. And I would bet its going to change a little once in print.
Id say wait and see what the MM or equivalent looks like before judging.
QuoteGoblin - and creature type. Small humanoid in this case
AC - 13 - and what wearing
HP - 3 (1d6)
Speed
Senses - type and range
Str Con Dex Int Wis Cha - statted like a PC with mod listed.
Alignment
Languages
TRAITS
Bushwhacker - with short description
Sneaky - with short description
Stealthy - with short description
ACTIONS
Melee Attack - Weapon used, reach, damage, type
Ranged Attack - Weapon used, reach, damage, type
ENCOUNTER BUILDING
Level 1
XP 10
In a way it reminds me of the 2nd ed Gamma World where all the mutants in the beastiary were statted out and you could play them if you so wanted.
I guess morale won't have any place in 5e?
Come to think of it, that's something that 4e would have really benefited from, as a way of cutting short all those interminable grind sessions.
Quote from: aspiringlich;749747I guess morale won't have any place in 5e?
.
I've heard there will be in the final rules, but I'm not sure how they have it worked out
Quote from: Haffrung;749741The thing that stands out from the stat block as useless is languages. Who gives a shit what languages a goblin (or hill giant, or troll) speaks.
I do. When the players encounter that goblin, whether or not they can communicate in a common language is going to affect the reaction roll...
Quote from: Haffrung;749741The thing that stands out from the stat block as useless is languages. Who gives a shit what languages a goblin (or hill giant, or troll) speaks.
Yeah, because role-playing and conversing with creatures would get in the way of XP :rolleyes:
Quote from: Mistwell;749698Hard to tell. Mike Mearls said, "I can't talk about specific products, but in my ideal world there's a game called D&D that you find in stores. It's simple enough that you can just start playing, but deep enough that you feel that the next layer of stuff adds to it, rather than replaces it like going from a starter set to a Player's Handbook has traditionally done."
So in his ideal world D&D would be sold in a box, cost $35-$40 for a complete game, and then you'd pay for expansions.
This sounds like the 2010 D&D Gamma World box, which is a complete (10 levels detailed, and easy to expand) game in a modest sized A5 softcover, plus maps, tokens and character sheets. I don't think that game sold very well because (a) they crippled it with a tack-on CCG, (b) it's not the D&D brand - though actually it's compatible with 4e and could be used for crossovers and (c) it was practically unsupported, zero magazine support and just a couple expansions.
But I think D&D could do extremely well with a similar 10-level game in a similar box at a similar price point. They seem to have no intention of doing that though; instead it's $50 Player's Handbooks, $150 for the three books (and the three books of 4e were pretty incomplete). Three books at $20 each worked great in 2000, but I don't think three books at $50 each is going to do great in 2014.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749717That's what I was getting at then I said I don't see how 4e can support a style of play in AD&D in the context of large dungeons or areas.
I think you're probably right, though few of my AD&D combats really sprawl over huge areas. My 4e combats tend to stick to one 24"x30" Paizo flipmat, which is pretty much the ideal size for a 4e encounter. Occasionally I'll use two, or one with a bit of extension when characters wander slightly off-mat. Don't think I've ever gone beyond about 48"x30", which is the most that most playing areas can handle. Usually a 4e dungeon expedition involves 2-4 discrete encounters.
Quote from: aspiringlich;749747I guess morale won't have any place in 5e?
Come to think of it, that's something that 4e would have really benefited from, as a way of cutting short all those interminable grind sessions.
Lack of morale rules in 3e/PF is really annoying too. Personally I tend to use BX's 2d6-roll-over for morale in every game I run. 2e AD&D's 2d10-roll-over is fine too, but I find 2d6 probability distribution easier to grok.
One thing about 4e though is that it's very obvious when the PCs are going to win. Often the players can sense when the tide has shifted in their favour and they start asking for Intimidate checks; that's a good time to have surviving monsters flee or surrender.
Here's my morale rules for 4e: when a monster is bloodied, it makes a Morale saving throw (D20 roll vs. 11+ with whatever modifier makes sense for the situation) and then makes another Morale saving throw each time they get hit while bloodied.
Morale - in any edition - is the key to keeping fights from dragging forever.
Quote from: elfandghost;749761Yeah, because role-playing and conversing with creatures would get in the way of XP :rolleyes:
Intelligent humanoids can speak some common. That's how you roleplay and converse. Any other languages are irrelevant. Language is one of those nitpicky legacy artifacts hardly any uses (or used).
Quote from: S'mon;749765Lack of morale rules in 3e/PF is really annoying too. Personally I tend to use BX's 2d6-roll-over for morale in every game I run. 2e AD&D's 2d10-roll-over is fine too, but I find 2d6 probability distribution easier to grok.
I just use my judgement. Intelligent creatures rarely fight to the death.
Later editions get roasted by grognards for turning everything into a number and a die-roll. And yet they want mechanical support for morale. Morale is perfectly fine handled with DM judgement, just as most NPC roleplaying and reactions are. No need for the dice.
Quote from: Haffrung;749780Later editions get roasted by grognards for turning everything into a number and a die-roll. And yet they want mechanical support for morale. Morale is perfectly fine handled with DM judgement, just as most NPC roleplaying and reactions are. No need for the dice.
I agree with you on that last point. In fact I think the dice can really screw things up. In B/X there's a reaction roll for attempting to hire henchmen, so let's say the party bends over backwards to hire the guy, offers him a really sweet deal, and goes the whole 9 yards with the role play, then they roll a 2 ... sorry, the guy thinks you're a bunch of dicks and starts badmouthing you all over town. What?
Quote from: Haffrung;749780Intelligent humanoids can speak some common. That's how you roleplay and converse. Any other languages are irrelevant. Language is one of those nitpicky legacy artifacts hardly any uses (or used).
I've used languages since 1975. They are important enough that I allow characters to learn additional languages during play if they move to an area where a different language is spoken. "Common" exists, but it is like Basic English (limited vocabulary, etc.) so simple, common things are easy to express clearly while more complex things are hard to express and easier to miscommunicate so having a real language in common between characters makes things much easier for all but the most basic communication.
Quote from: Haffrung;749780Any other languages are irrelevant. Language is one of those nitpicky legacy artifacts hardly any uses (or used).
You are speaking entirely for yourself here you realise, right? It was a factor in the last game I DMed, and has been an
extremely significant factor in the PbF I'm currently playing in with a DM new to old school (completely different group).
Quote from: Haffrung;749780I just use my judgement. Intelligent creatures rarely fight to the death.
Later editions get roasted by grognards for turning everything into a number and a die-roll. And yet they want mechanical support for morale. Morale is perfectly fine handled with DM judgement, just as most NPC roleplaying and reactions are. No need for the dice.
Your endless complaining about "Grognards" and this site is getting a bit old. Morale is useful for a variety of reasons in the same way random encounter tables are useful. It's one of the things I missed even when I first started 3.x back in 2000. YMMV and all that, but it's not some strange outlier, and, in my experience, works far better when randomised than when the DM chooses (due to the tendency for bias and patterns taking hold).
Quote from: Haffrung;749780Intelligent humanoids can speak some common. That's how you roleplay and converse. Any other languages are irrelevant. Language is one of those nitpicky legacy artifacts hardly any uses (or used).
"Some common" being the key point. That's going to be enough for basic negotiations but it's going to be tricky if you want to express more nuanced points. Additionally, the ability to converse with someone in a language they are fully fluent in - or even better, their native tongue - confers a diplomatic advantage which I hope would be obvious. The party member who can speak politely to goblins in their own tongue might be able to sway them better than the opponent who barks orders at them in common.
Also, having languages creates a sense of verisimilitude and helps maintain the sense that we're exploring an actual world here, rather than a cardboard set with invisible walls and fanciful linguistic coincidences.
FWIW, this is not just theory, the fact that none of my groups' PCs speak Elvish was decidedly relevant to the D&D session I ran Wednesday night.
Quote from: Haffrung;749780Language is one of those nitpicky legacy artifacts hardly any uses (or used).
Language is a major part in all my games. My first houserule is
there ain't no Common.QuoteI just use my judgement. Intelligent creatures rarely fight to the death.
Later editions get roasted by grognards for turning everything into a number and a die-roll. And yet they want mechanical support for morale. Morale is perfectly fine handled with DM judgement, just as most NPC roleplaying and reactions are. No need for the dice.
I use both dice and judgement. If there are just a few intelligent opponents, they'll flee or fight based on judgement. If it's a big battle with lots of factions involved, rolling for morale is a convinient way to decide what the NPCs/monsters do regardless of what their leader is shouting at them.
More to the point; when I run fantasy campaigns with non-humans in it, creatures, monsters and other races don't automatically attend their equivalent of language school. They speak their language and their language alone - unless they are highly cultured and intelligent. So; goblins could only speak darkspeech/goblinoid, with perhaps some 'common' swear words. Elves would likely speak a variety of languages.
I think languages are important (heck, a major plot point will be missed in my superdungeon if the PCs don't have someone who speaks goblin), but I don't think it's necessary to have a stat block value for it. I mean, if I read the "goblin" entry, I can assume it speaks goblinoid, right? I don't need something there to tell me that.
I will agree that I don't think there has to be real rules around morale either. I much prefer to handle that organically based on what's happening in the game, rather than a random die result.
Talked to one of my gaming groups last night. As long as it's not crippleware we'll buy the starter set in July.
Quote from: Opaopajr;749728Mods: S -1, W -1, Ch -1
That's all you need. It's default 0, and you just need one letter to represent the ability name other than Con and Chr which take two.
Quote from: Haffrung;749780Language is one of those nitpicky legacy artifacts hardly any uses (or used).
Believe it or not, Gary Gygax ended up agreeing with you, as in Lejendary Adventures and Lejendary Earth he assumed all people, including other races, ended up speaking the same language after centuries of assimilation--an admitted game device--but it definitely simplifies things.
Quote from: JRT;749798Believe it or not, Gary Gygax ended up agreeing with you, as in Lejendary Adventures and Lejendary Earth he assumed all people, including other races, ended up speaking the same language after centuries of assimilation--an admitted game device--but it definitely simplifies things.
Well we haven't managed such a feat here on earth and we are all the same species. If we can't get our collective shit together as a single species, how does a world inhabited by dozens of sentient races go about it?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749809Well we haven't managed such a feat here on earth and we are all the same species. If we can't get our collective shit together as a single species, how does a world inhabited by dozens of sentient races go about it?
Simple. When no reasonable refutation of your point can be given, fall back on religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel) for the answer ;)
Obviously they don't. It's just a question of whether or not you think it matters to your game.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749812Simple. When no reasonable refutation of your point can be given, fall back on religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel) for the answer ;)
:rotfl:
We speak different languages because god is a dick.
Can someone explain to me how "Tyranny of Dragons" fits into all of this?
Quote from: Saplatt;749826Can someone explain to me how "Tyranny of Dragons" fits into all of this?
No, because no-one knows right now.
Quote from: Saplatt;749826Can someone explain to me how "Tyranny of Dragons" fits into all of this?
I dunno. WOTC rolled a 4 maybe? :p
WOTC METAPLOT TABLE1) Plague of Undead
2) Swarm of Goblinoids
3) Invasion of Demons
4) Tyranny of Dragons
5) Infestation of Lycanthropes
6) Devastation of Drow
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749830I dunno. WOTC rolled a 4 maybe? :p
WOTC METAPLOT TABLE
1) Plague of Undead
2) Swarm of Goblinoids
3) Invasion of Demons
4) Tyranny of Dragons
5) Infestation of Lycanthropes
6) Devastation of Drow
It's actually a 6 x 6 table, we've already had the Plague of Drow, and WW published Tyranny of Undead and Devastation of Lycanthropes as their own game lines.
Quote from: Ladybird;749834It's actually a 6 x 6 table, we've already had the Plague of Drow, and WW published Tyranny of Undead and Devastation of Lycanthropes as their own game lines.
Satire is so much less funny than real life. ;)
Quote from: Saplatt;749826Can someone explain to me how "Tyranny of Dragons" fits into all of this?
It's the marquee adventure.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749830I dunno. WOTC rolled a 4 maybe? :p
WOTC METAPLOT TABLE
1) Plague of Undead
2) Swarm of Goblinoids
3) Invasion of Demons
4) Tyranny of Dragons
5) Infestation of Lycanthropes
6) Devastation of Drow
You forgot "A Gaggle of Giants"
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749869You forgot "A Gaggle of Giants"
Clutch of Kobolds
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749809Well we haven't managed such a feat here on earth and we are all the same species. If we can't get our collective shit together as a single species, how does a world inhabited by dozens of sentient races go about it?
For the same reason we arent all playing one version of D&D.
Quote from: Saplatt;749826Can someone explain to me how "Tyranny of Dragons" fits into all of this?
Could be a holdover from where WOTC was planning to totally reboot Dragonlance.
Or could be a reboot of Council of Wyrms.
Or could be the equivalent of Dragonomicon.
Or something else weird. Like someone thought it was a neet title.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749869You forgot "A Gaggle of Giants"
"An Exaltation of Aarakocra"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;749870Clutch of Kobolds
Quote from: Opaopajr;749885"An Exaltation of Aarakocra"
"A Billett of Bulettes"
Languages can be a problem. That's why everyone, regardless of where they are in the universe, speak English in Star Trek. Why? Because people don't like subtitles.
In a fantasy world, I don't see any reason why the Gods could not have all creatures speak the same tongue if that is the kind of game world you want.
However, in D&D I like to name Common as the main language of the local empire, AKA Latin for Roman and neighbors of Rome.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;749892"A Billett of Bulettes"
Would not that be a clip or cartridge? :cool:
Quote from: Exploderwizard;749078I have never hoped that I was wrong about a product more than this one.
I've had personal assurances from the highest levels that this box set will be more than just crippleware.
Mind you, that may not mean anything, I don't know for sure. I have not yet seen the final product with my own eyes.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Saplatt;749826Can someone explain to me how "Tyranny of Dragons" fits into all of this?
Ok, according to the information on Amazon today. Its a two part adventure set in the Forgotten Realms. The adventure design and development by Kobold Press, and it will tie into D&D Encounters, but its not part of it.
There seems to be a set of miniatures by WizKids to go along with it too.
As I mentioned in other places, I thought I should clarify: I still haven't seen the whole of the starter set; but the information I have now received (unless I'm being intentionally and blatantly deceived) has led me to conclude that the starter set will be very worthwhile.