Over on Tangency.net, they're already engaging in (highly wishful) thinking about replacing 5e, mostly as a system of the RPGnet culture's resentment over the end of 4e and the return of a D&D system that's actually D&D.
But what do you think 5e's staying power is? Assuming that WoTC would actually stand by wanting to have an evergreen system, assuming that was actually their goal, to stay with 5e, how much staying power do you think it has?
bear in mind im biased as the the 2 things that make me think it has no staying power are 2 of the things i hate most about it.
the major one is of course the player/npc disconnect. In 3e if you wanted to make a character that was not a normal character race it was easy because monsters, npcs and pcs all worked on the exact same rules which itself is already a huge advantage. and then on top of that they layered extremely effective rules to make and balance monsters as characters that applied in pretty much the exact same way to any creature.
compare this to 5e where a monster has a statblock composed of attacks health armor and a few skills and other tidbits. WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GO FROM THERE. if they do make a savage species this edition they will have there work cut out for them and it will still be a clusterfuck (there are other problems with the minimal statblocks but those are all unrelated to staying power).
the other one is pretty minor really in that it is unlikely to effect most people and will be nowhere near as much work to fix but is still relevant is that i dont see it scaling into epic levels well.
im tempted to say that the shift in focus from new stuff to new adventures will hurt them but a lot of people seem to be happy with the change so maybe im in the minority here, but if you cant have a huge arsenal of different magic items why adventure.
5 - 6 years at best. How much the new edition changes from 5th likely depends only on how it performs. It could be as minor as 1st to 2nd edition changes, or as major as 3.5 to 4th.
Evergreen systems arent moneymakers, unfortunately. Until Hasbro begins treating D&D like one of its boardgame properties instead of the bastard stepbrother of MtG, we're in for a bumpy road.
I am not going to answer you. But I will mull it over and suggest some stuff to consider.
- has it addressed the needs of enough D&D players that it can keep a core body of customers?
- can a business model for rpgs be made that doesn't require a new edition every 5-6 years to invigorate sales?
- in parallel, can a single version hold the attention of gamers, or will the attractions of "new shiny" tend to leech gamers away?
- can a business model be created so that Hasbro can make money from licensed products, essentially leaving the ruleset as the core IP?
- will the game be slowly destroyed by accretions and inflationary supplements, splatbooks etc.
- lastly, and the only one I'll answer, is it a good game to enjoy D&D trope games? YES
If WOTC abandons the five year plan and actually keeps the damn thing in print then it has alot of staying power.
Unfortunately WOTC has shown themselves too infatuated with this retarded practice and so probably in about 4-5 years 6e will be announced.
As for what the other place thinks. Who the hell cares? They have proven themselves time and again to be the last people on Earth to look for for anything remotely resembling sane opinions.
There seem to be two loose groups of gamers. Those who play games because they want to explore settings and those who want to explore rules. The former group would probably be happy with 5e forever (just as such groups were happy with previous editions). The latter group however always needs new rules, preferably rules they see as innovative, or they tend to loose interest in a game and start looking for another set of rules to explore. The latter group already has issues with 5e as it isn't "innovative enough rules-wise".
Whether a sixth edition will be needed will depend on which group WOTC decides to support. Given that WOTC apparently needs to make tons of money from selling D&D and given their track record with D&D, they will probably end up with a new half-edition in 2-3 years and a new edition 2-3 years after that. Both the half-edition and the new edition will likely be far more different from 5e than the difference between most TSR editions. I would love to be wrong about these predictions, however.
I think it has been designed for staying power - or at least to act as a sort of holding pattern for the brand - they seem to want a long term low key approach & avoid the rapid burnout cycle of 3e and especially 4e.
I somewhat agree with Tuypo about NPCs - currently I can either make an NPC using the PC rules and have a hell of a time assigning CR/XP, or I can take a stat block from back of the MM (which is great), or I can make something completely arbitrary with the building rules, which from my limited experience so far looks a lot harder & messier than in 4e.
More than any other edition, I think this one really needs a big book of NPC stats with calculated CRs, or else much simpler way to create classed NPCs & assign CR. My current approach is to use the back of the MM NPCs and tweak armour, weapons, abilities etc as necessary, or reskin actual monsters (eg Drow Warrior becomes Elf Merchant, Orcs make decent barbarians, etc) but that will only go so far I fear.
That's a good question. If WotC goes by some of the things that they've said- that they've opened the umbrella of the D&D brand to not just rpg's, but everything else (toys, video games, movies, ect), then I think 5th definitely has legs to keep going forward for a bit.
4th ed seemed to be all about the powers that the players could perform (and improving the monsters to speed things along). But really, how many times can you vary up the "push, pull, shift" thing?
If they stick to their guns about not releasing rules bloat, but instead keep a good flow of solid adventures, settings and such, I think 5th has a good chance of going past 5-6 years. Who knows though- all it takes is the leader of the board room to decide they want a new edition and that's that.
My guess is it depends if Hasbro can keep the pressure off the tabletop game for huge revenue generation, and instead get serious about other D&D-branded items rather than just a handful of books.
A series of 3 hardcovers, a few adventures (which have never been massive sources of profit) and occasional other products cannot sustain a huge business division, and with endless splats and frequent reboots wearing thin...far better to keep a small evergreen range and concentrate on completely new complementary lines like video games.
Depends, at least in part, on three things that aren't clear to me yet.
1. Does the game suffer from any hidden traps or break down at certain points, a la 3E?
2. Can D&D sustain itself at levels acceptable to the company when it doesn't have the best product support in the industry? (The game's level of support has varied, but until 2011, I don't believe there was a time when it wasn't on par with or above all its competitors.)
3. How zealous do you and yours intend to be in driving out and fencing the game against the swine, storygamers, SJWs, videogamers, readers, Christians, and any who do not affirm the moral superiority of old-school libertarian sandbox Will-to-Power gameplay? ;)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;8213423. How zealous do you and yours intend to be in driving out and fencing the game against the swine, storygamers, SJWs, videogamers, readers, Christians, and any who do not affirm the moral superiority of old-school libertarian sandbox Will-to-Power gameplay? ;)
I'm planning to let a SJW play in my first 5e tabletop campaign... :eek:
Having a SJW at the table's not so bad, it must be a lot like having a Stasi agent in Cold War east Germany - you just be careful not to say the wrong thing. Ever. :D
Quote from: S'mon;821350I'm planning to let a SJW play in my first 5e tabletop campaign... :eek:
Having a SJW at the table's not so bad, it must be a lot like having a Stasi agent in Cold War east Germany - you just be careful not to say the wrong thing. Ever. :D
I shall pray to the Agnostic God that nothing horrible happens while you conduct this gaming experiment. ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit;821306Over on Tangency.net, they're already engaging in (highly wishful) thinking about replacing 5e, mostly as a system of the RPGnet culture's resentment over the end of 4e and the return of a D&D system that's actually D&D.
You really should stop giving a fuck about that place.
Quote from: RPGPundit;821306But what do you think 5e's staying power is? Assuming that WoTC would actually stand by wanting to have an evergreen system, assuming that was actually their goal, to stay with 5e, how much staying power do you think it has?
I think it is too early to tell, but if WotC is still beholden to the five year plan, then it won't. One of the keys to evergreen and longevity is to not change the system so much that it becomes a pain in the ass to use old material, and to not do that every five years. Unfortunately, it isn't going to be up to gamers playing D&D, it will be up to accountants looking at balance sheets.
As 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.
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 warned the players in my area that 5e wont have staying power. The new hotness wore off real quickly. The lgs that started with 3 nights of 5e and went up to 5 nights of 5e a week. It is now down to 1 night a week. The other lgs's haven't been pushing it much.
Anything with 'D&D' on its cover that's not utter crap and/or horribly mismanaged should have plenty of staying power.
Quote from: jeff37923;821352You really should stop giving a fuck about that place.
Perspective: you're talkiing to someone who just declared that YDIS is Literally Worse Than (neo-)Nazis.
Quote from: RunningLaser;821329If they stick to their guns about not releasing rules bloat, but instead keep a good flow of solid adventures, settings and such, I think 5th has a good chance of going past 5-6 years. Who knows though- all it takes is the leader of the board room to decide they want a new edition and that's that.
I strongly suspect that this will be highly dependent on whether Mike Mearls and his bosses are good at fighting and dealing with company "politics" within WotC and at Hasbro.
(ie. If Mike Mearls and/or his bosses are fired, then anything can happen).
Wasn't one of the stated plans for 5e that they were going to release a simpler core that would appeal to fans of earlier editions, and then later release rules options that you can tack on if you want something closer to a 3e or 4e experience? I know I saw a lot of people talking about modularity and expandability early on in the 5e development cycle. So shouldn't they wait until the supplement(s) are released and see how well it actually accomplishes that goal before making any predictions?
Well one things for certain- 5e players won't have to worry about WoTC turning off their character builder at some point:)
I wouldn't sweat it. There's folks still playing od&d, ad&d, ad&d2e, basic d&d, 3rd ed, ect. There's so much old material out there, and from what I gather, easy to covert, who cares if it goes the distance or not?
I can only speak for myself, but I think 5E is probably the peak for me. I could be wrong, and maybe they'll find a way to make a 6E that fetches my slippers, bakes lasagna and gives blow jobs on demand, but, short of that, I'm done.
Quote from: Saplatt;821369I can only speak for myself, but I think 5E is probably the peak for me. I could be wrong, and maybe they'll find a way to make a 6E that fetches my slippers, bakes lasagna and gives blow jobs on demand, but, short of that, I'm done.
From a different perspective, personally 4E was the "peak" for me.
So far for 5E, I haven't found any local groups that I'm willing to play weekly games with. (ie. Nights which I'm not available, players whom I've had previous bad experiences with, etc ...).
So I have largely held off on buying any 5E books. No point in buying any 5E books, when I'm not playing in any weekly 5E games.
This is essentially two questions:
1. Does the material withstand vigorous play (without breaking down irrevocably and needing continual errata patches)?
Yes, for the most part it does. The sheer frustration of the char-op crowd to find "teh brokken" means that, even if it is in there, it takes a lot more system expertise effort and is a lot more isolated (and thus campaign expunge-able) than before. The GM being free, nay encouraged, to tinker and tweak the "maths" as they see fit — because there's no delicate formula in the balance, and thus why I am very cool with the lack of NPC build guidelines — removes the debate from design fine tuning to GM campaign judgment.
The shared public game language has been given license to table dialects and slangs again. If it doesn't fit your group needs, here's some guidelines to mess with it until it gets there. That mental shift alone ensures longevity.
2. Will WotC, actually just Hasbro, give a shit and hold to realistic expectations, turning their real attention to cross-product brand licensing?
I have far little faith in the corporation itself. That said they've already started with Dice Masters, continued their MMO support, and are cross-pollinating their comics and such with new recognizable entities. ... so maybe there's hope.
No...and it doesn't matter if the game is any good.
WotC needs to sell books, nothing sells like core books.
6e is coming GenCon 2020.
To butcher Bob Dylan, if an edition isn't busying being playtested, its busy dying.
Quote from: jeff37923;821351I shall pray to the Agnostic God that nothing horrible happens while you conduct this gaming experiment. ;)
It's fine, he's already playing in my Pathfinder campaign. I only got in trouble after I accepted his Facebook Friend request and he saw me advocating Classical Liberal Lockean 'Natural Rights' over modern Progressive 'Human Rights': The US Founding Fathers liked Natural Rights. The Founding Fathers owned slaves. Ergo (I think the implication was) Natural Rights are Racist.
Since I got 5E, I managed to get 5 players together for gaming sessions.
of those players, 2 of them had never played RPGs before and loved 5E.
One of those players is also now playing CoC on a different night with a different GM and loves that too.
So I DO think 5E is a great gateway RPG at the very least and people who start on it , will probably stick with it for years, as they will have good memories of RPGs with it.
Also, it's easy to learn and teach. Combat is super easy.
The new player this weekend, picked it up very easily and was having a blast.
The rules are just "Good enough" and very moddable anyway if they're not QUITE a fit to your needs.
We've adopted some optional rules which make it closer to what we're looking for (ones suggested in the DMG and PHB).
All in all, if WotC DID want to make it an evergreen product, I would be into that.
If they DID come out with a new DnD in 5 years or whatever, well I'd probably check it out and if it was an improvement, I'd probably buy it and use it.
I never bothered with DnD 3, 3.5 or 4th edition, so I don't just buy DnD coz it's DnD.
So if a 6th Ed was not to my tastes, I could happily stick with 5E with even the material that's available for it now. I don't really NEED anything else.
Still, I'd buy a Greyhawk setting for 5E and however many Monsters manuals they'll release. Plus a Deities and demigods and other stuff, but only as really this is a super cheap hobby, so spending $50 on a book every few months is a bargain and those books would be fun just to read.
The absolute glacial pace of supplements and very thin release schedule are fantastic signs for the RPG.
D&D is finally being treated like a top tear IP.
Attack Wing
Dice masters
Various board games
Miniature lines
Etc...
All those getting he lions share of love and attention means that D&D will finally have a chance to just be an RPG without having to also be WOTCs cash cow.
The less "development", the less "support", the less "new, new, new!" The better.
With any luck WOTC will forget about the RPG except for the occasional reprint and the rare new product when the whim strikes them.
I don't hate 5e, that's the first edition since first that I could say that of. But I'm afraid it probably won't get the type of support it needs to be evergreen. But that's because it needs a high grade series of movies or a long running television show not another splat book or another series of badly painted minis.
Quote from: The_Shadow;821333My guess is it depends if Hasbro can keep the pressure off the tabletop game for huge revenue generation, and instead get serious about other D&D-branded items rather than just a handful of books.
A series of 3 hardcovers, a few adventures (which have never been massive sources of profit) and occasional other products cannot sustain a huge business division, and with endless splats and frequent reboots wearing thin...far better to keep a small evergreen range and concentrate on completely new complementary lines like video games.
i have never understood the idea of splatbook bloat how could a new splat ever be a bad thing as long as the content is good
new spells new weapons new monsters new items so much new stuff
and stuff is always good
Quote from: jeff37923;821352You really should stop giving a fuck about that place.
its vigilence if we stop the war on rpg.net then they can start to amass power unchecked
Quote from: S'mon;821392It's fine, he's already playing in my Pathfinder campaign. I only got in trouble after I accepted his Facebook Friend request and he saw me advocating Classical Liberal Lockean 'Natural Rights' over modern Progressive 'Human Rights': The US Founding Fathers liked Natural Rights. The Founding Fathers owned slaves. Ergo (I think the implication was) Natural Rights are Racist.
your a better man then i
Quote from: David Johansen;821416a long running television show
i want a drow soap opera
Quote from: RPGPundit;821306But what do you think 5e's staying power is? Assuming that WoTC would actually stand by wanting to have an evergreen system, assuming that was actually their goal, to stay with 5e, how much staying power do you think it has?
Doesn't that assumption make this discussion moot, as the answer ultimately depends on whether WotC stand by that goal?
Quote from: Piestrio;821414The absolute glacial pace of supplements and very thin release schedule are fantastic signs for the RPG.
D&D is finally being treated like a top tear IP.
Attack Wing
Dice masters
Various board games
Miniature lines
Etc...
All those getting he lions share of love and attention means that D&D will finally have a chance to just be an RPG without having to also be WOTCs cash cow.
The less "development", the less "support", the less "new, new, new!" The better.
With any luck WOTC will forget about the RPG except for the occasional reprint and the rare new product when the whim strikes them.
Agreed, the more they can mine the D&D IP in areas other than RPGs, the less there is a need to constantly reboot the RPG. I'm cautiously optimistic that this game will last longer than the 6 year cycle.
Attack Wing also looks pretty cool, though I don't want to put that much money into another "wallet death by billion cuts" tabletop game. I'm already into Dice Masters (marvel though, not D&D), which is bad enough.
Quote from: tuypo1;821418i have never understood the idea of splatbook bloat how could a new splat ever be a bad thing as long as the content is good
new spells new weapons new monsters new items so much new stuff
and stuff is always good
Problem is, for most of the target market, it's not our first rodeo. How many Manuals of the Planes do you want to buy? And splats bring a lot of problems like power creep, which again a lot of people have wised up to. People just won't rush out to buy stuff like they did in 2003.
I believe it does.
1. It's easy to customize. I don't know why people are having a hard time with NPC construction, you don't need a cadre of full write-ups unless that NPC becomes important. Most of the time I choose AC, HD, HP, an attack roughly gauged from level and choose a couple defining personality traits. I tuned up healing to match my desires. It plays fast and my "new to RPGs" players are having a blast. It's easy to teach, easy to run, and more importantly it's good no-hassle FUN.
2. Supplements are focused on people with real lives/responsibilities who need a framework within which to run a game without the hours of prep one might put into it rolling their own. However, it works just fine for that too. I've tuned my 5e for Harn World (and Harn World in some aspects to 5e...) and it seems to be working fine at my table. You can see lots of actual play posts on G+ about this first adventure arc. People are playing the shit out of the basic set through the two hardcover adventures.
3. The release schedule is based on getting things done right (the willingness to delay the DMG...) and releasing useful products that sell. WOTC already demonstrated they are willing to re-focus as needed (canceling the adventurer's handbook...). It's about playable and useful, not creating an unending churn of rules Legos. Paizo/Pathfinder have the rules Lego crowd well in hand (and doing handsomely to boot).
Let the naysayers wring their hands. It's tomfoolery. There are 1000 games out there. Instead of bitching, just find one you like and fucking play it. Why is this hard?
Quote from: tuypo1;821422your a better man then i
Athenians owned slaves, does that make democracy a slaver?
Oh right, we are a Republic!
Hmmm, Alexander had slaves, what does that say about The Alexandrian?!?
Quote from: Teazia;821459Athenians owned slaves, does that make democracy a slaver?
Oh right, we are a Republic!
Hmmm, Alexander had slaves, what does that say about The Alexandrian?!?
im not even sure what your trying to get at here
Quote from: Teazia;821459Athenians owned slaves, does that make democracy a slaver?
Oh right, we are a Republic!
Hmmm, Alexander had slaves, what does that say about The Alexandrian?!?
(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091015142052/uncyclopedia/images/8/8e/Rabbit_pancake.jpg)
i know its kind of my thing to point out that sort of picture is against the rules but oh my god thats so cute i could just eat it all up
Quote from: tuypo1;821465im not even sure what your trying to get at here
Oh, 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.
Quote from: trechriron;821457There are 1000 games out there. Instead of bitching, just find one you like and fucking play it. Why is this hard?
:) I agree with you Trechiron.
Piestrio has a good point too.
Quote from: trechriron;8214573. The release schedule is based on getting things done right (the willingness to delay the DMG...) and releasing useful products that sell. WOTC already demonstrated they are willing to re-focus as needed (canceling the adventurer's handbook...). It's about playable and useful, not creating an unending churn of rules Legos. Paizo/Pathfinder have the rules Lego crowd well in hand (and doing handsomely to boot).
I still remain somewhat concerned/baffled by the 'one adventure path every six-eight months as massive combined products' as the
only published support. The Adventure Path model has worked for Paizo, but in a more continuous, bite-sized approach and with ancillary material. If you're not hooked by whatever 1E adventure series they're homaging this time ;), there's nothing to buy from WotC for half a year or more, and you have to either roll your own material or go third-party.
QuoteLet the naysayers wring their hands. It's tomfoolery. There are 1000 games out there. Instead of bitching, just find one you like and fucking play it. Why is this hard?
If it were ten or fifteen years ago, I'd say there'd be a legitimate reason to care--as D&D goes, so goes the industry. But the rise of new production, distribution and creative options means that the industry/hobby could now even survive a D&D crash.
At this point, my interest is primarily academic, with the exception that WotC is holding on to one piece of IP I still care about (
Ravenloft), and a general belief that 'more D&D players' is better for the hobby overall. All three of those concern points I mentioned above relate to this--will the game blow up in their faces at some point if not handled with care, will there be enough support (not necessarily
rules support, mind) to keep them interested in the game in the long run, and will they be welcomed even if they don't agree with the Right Way to play D&D? :)
Quote from: trechriron;8214572. Supplements are focused on people with real lives/responsibilities who need a framework within which to run a game without the hours of prep one might put into it rolling their own. However, it works just fine for that too. I've tuned my 5e for Harn World (and Harn World in some aspects to 5e...) and it seems to be working fine at my table. You can see lots of actual play posts on G+ about this first adventure arc. People are playing the shit out of the basic set through the two hardcover adventures.
Do you have a link? And do you have your conversion posted anywhere? I am a long time Harn fan (Just got Araki-Kalai and the new map) and repurpose a lot of their material to use in my weekly Majestic Wilderlands game.
For example I used Gardieren as the foundation for the town the PCs are visiting.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xFLM6C40blk/VQeGxCUaTTI/AAAAAAAAEL4/hRqhvTaM6bA/s1600/Castle%2Band%2BTown.jpg
I'm sure it has been mentioned, but 5e will have staying power for as long as it's the most recent edition. Then it will be relegated to smaller groups of gamers just like every edition before it. It won't ever fully go away, just like OD&D hasn't fully gone away. But it's also D&D, the biggest name in the biz, so as long as it's the supported edition, it will continue to have players, from 1 year out to 10 years out to 20 years out. Well, as long as people play TTRGPs at any rate.
Quote from: RPGPundit;821306Over on Tangency.net, they're already engaging in (highly wishful) thinking about replacing 5e, mostly as a system of the RPGnet culture's resentment over the end of 4e and the return of a D&D system that's actually D&D.
But what do you think 5e's staying power is? Assuming that WoTC would actually stand by wanting to have an evergreen system, assuming that was actually their goal, to stay with 5e, how much staying power do you think it has?
5e has no staying power at all.
This current edition is not a special snowflake. WoTC will not magically stop using the
"planned obsolescence model" for D&D. They never have before, and they certainly won't now. That's just wishful thinking on your part.
In a few years, there will be a 6e. I don't know what it'll look like, but it will eventually make its appearance.
It's inevitable.
I don't know how much the staying power of 5e is inherent to the system versus how much it is tied to the marketing.
That said, I think 5e may be my favorite iteration of D&D so far. I think it's a solid system that is fairly easy to tinker with. It does D&D style fantasy quite well, something for instance I think 4e failed to do.
I think what's going to be critical for 5e is the kind of supplement support it sees. I am a little troubled by the large focus on pathfinder style, hardback, adventure paths.
I would much rather see the old plastic cover modules, and hard back setting books. If they put out quality adventures that leave room for players and DM's to dick about, and produce high quality setting material then I think all is well.
Another 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.
One problem I am already seeing in my area is apathy, after the initial release mania wore off people are already shrugging at 5th and going back to Pathfinder and 3.5. I actually think a new setting could help with this if it were well done.
Quote from: estar;821510Do you have a link? And do you have your conversion posted anywhere? I am a long time Harn fan (Just got Araki-Kalai and the new map) and repurpose a lot of their material to use in my weekly Majestic Wilderlands game.
For example I used Gardieren as the foundation for the town the PCs are visiting.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xFLM6C40blk/VQeGxCUaTTI/AAAAAAAAEL4/hRqhvTaM6bA/s1600/Castle%2Band%2BTown.jpg
Awesome! No, I haven't, I should probably polish something up and post it. I am considering making my Obsidian Portal game publicly available as well. A couple of my players are super creative writers!
The current campaign surrounds a mystery regarding Ilvir, so I think that Araki-Kalai supplement could come in handy. They are currently fighting an "infection" of spawn in Tashal, and are getting ready to embark on the salt trail to figure out where (why) the sudden surge in activity is coming from. The fact that people and creatures can now be infected with an Ilvirian Parasite has the king of Kaldor somewhat concerned...
I dunno. Oddyssey described it as "everyone's second-favorite edition of D&D", which I can totally grok, after having played with her for a little while. It's basic enough, flexible enough, and D&D enough that, even if WotC whips out a sixth edition in a handful of years, I think people who are playing 5th now will stick with it.
Incidentally, my second-favorite edition of D&D is actually 2nd Edition. And my number one favorite is Castles & Crusades. Nobody asked me that, but -- look at that avatar. That is the avatar of a man who gives.
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 think it has immense staying power.
The problem is. It is being produced by a company that initiates planned obsolescence on about a 5 year time scale by their own admittance and has gone through SIX editions so far pretty close to that timetable. Which makes it really hard to have any faith in them.
I plan to get alot more than 5 years use out of 5e.
Well assuming the books hold together. My PHB binding, which I thought was fine, is starting to show signs of coming apart.
Quote from: Omega;821541My PHB binding, which I thought was fine, is starting to show signs of coming apart.
My DMG's binding started to fail right out the gate. I called WoTC and told them about it. They arranged for Fedex to come by and pick up the book. They said a replacement would be sent out in a few weeks. This was maybe two weeks ago, so hopefully it will be coming in another week or two. Just wanted to let you know of an avenue you could take.
And..... Fedex just dropped off the new DMG to my doorstep 2 minutes ago.
:)
Quote from: RunningLaser;821586And..... Fedex just dropped off the new DMG to my doorstep 2 minutes ago.
:)
... and they say that WOTC isn't watching forums...
I think, in light of planned obsolescence, the question is really whether the mechanical legacy of 5e has any staying power.
Personally I hate Advantage / Disadvantage / Inspiration and hope they die in a fire. I love the proficiency bonus and largely think 5e gets things more or less right otherwise.
I'm uncertain about the hit dice creep, looking at the Monster Manual it's pretty clear that WotC and their designers still don't understand that 1HD IS a mook rule. So when I look at 3 HD Kobolds and Hobgoblins I'm just not sure I like it. If you want a level 3 encounter send 6 Kobolds per PC or 3 Hobgoblins. It also moves 1st level PCs to a less powerful place in the general scheme of things in the world. Still that's a quibble in the, not what I'd have done box. Also, while I haven't done the work through, I'm pretty sure they didn't actually build the monsters as PCs and there's some oddities like Kobolds getting 1d4 + 2 damage with daggers when they have a -2 Strength bonus. I'd need to dissect things in detail but on the surface it looks sloppy.
I think limiting the use of Heavy weapons by small characters isn't enough. Medium weapons should be heavy for small creatures.
Magic is more complex than it needed to be in my mind. The attempt to make it easier really fell flat as far as I can see. Too many moving parts now.
Quote from: David Johansen;821598Personally I hate Advantage / Disadvantage
Why? I'm kind of on the fence about them myself but everyone else seems to love 'em.
Quote from: trechriron;821593... and they say that WOTC isn't watching forums...
It's the drones man, the drones....
Quote from: Simlasa;821599Why? I'm kind of on the fence about them myself but everyone else seems to love 'em.
Well, in brief at the risk of a derail:
It doesn't work for rolling massed attacks because each attack roll needs to be done separately, you can devolve it to reroll hits or reroll misses but none the less it makes it harder to run big fights. When ten goblins roll to hit ten men at arms I want to roll 10d20 and discard the misses.
It doesn't stack and even if it did it would be messy. I realize stacking modifiers have their own issues and modifier die types are even worse for point one.
It's a cute innovation for the sake of cute innovation that really doesn't improve the game. Besides which they already made it much easier to succeed in general.
They could have gotten rid of stat bonuses entirely by allowing a reroll when the result was less than the attribute in question which I would approve of whole heartedly. Could have tied size to damage die and gotten rid of Strength bonuses to damage while they were at it.
Anyhow, it's not a deal breaker but I'd like it to go away in sixth edition.
Quote from: David Johansen;821598I'm uncertain about the hit dice creep, looking at the Monster Manual it's pretty clear that WotC and their designers still don't understand that 1HD IS a mook rule. So when I look at 3 HD Kobolds and Hobgoblins I'm just not sure I like it. If you want a level 3 encounter send 6 Kobolds per PC or 3 Hobgoblins. It also moves 1st level PCs to a less powerful place in the general scheme of things in the world.
1st level characters in 5e are like 0 level characters in past editions, so 1st level characters aren't intended to be more powerful than random humanoids who have experience fighting by design.
It isn't like number of hit dice = mook is a universal constant that WoTC doesn't understand, they just don't see it the same way that you do and I happen to be in agreement with WoTC on this one.
Quote from: snooggums;8216241st level characters in 5e are like 0 level characters in past editions, so 1st level characters aren't intended to be more powerful than random humanoids who have experience fighting by design.
It isn't like number of hit dice = mook is a universal constant that WoTC doesn't understand, they just don't see it the same way that you do and I happen to be in agreement with WoTC on this one.
It may be a valid change depending on how you play but it was the standard from OD&D - 3e including every edition of basic. It's the vestigial organ of the Wargame. But it can be very handy when big combats happen. If I want to ignore and abstract all npc combat I play Rolemaster or GURS where it's simply too much work to do otherwise. But D&D was designed to handle it on table (with or without minis) from the very beginning. So while it's not a deal breaker it's a disappointment for me.
Quote from: snooggums;8216241st level characters in 5e are like 0 level characters in past editions, so 1st level characters aren't intended to be more powerful than random humanoids who have experience fighting by design.
I think it's more accurate to say that 1st level in 5e is like 1st level in non-AD&D pre-3e (eg BX), where a Fighter-1 had 1d8 hit dice and was functionally identical to a 1 hd orc - hopefully he had a better AC.
The first session of my 5e campaign last Friday featured an exciting duel between Barbarian-1 PC and an Orc (MM stats). The Barb was losing until he Raged in round 2, eventually killing the orc with 2 hp left. The Orc would have killed any other PC except a Fighter, I think.
Quote from: David Johansen;821598I think, in light of planned obsolescence, the question is really whether the mechanical legacy of 5e has any staying power.
Personally I hate Advantage / Disadvantage / Inspiration and hope they die in a fire. I love the proficiency bonus and largely think 5e gets things more or less right otherwise.
I'm uncertain about the hit dice creep, looking at the Monster Manual it's pretty clear that WotC and their designers still don't understand that 1HD IS a mook rule. So when I look at 3 HD Kobolds and Hobgoblins I'm just not sure I like it. If you want a level 3 encounter send 6 Kobolds per PC or 3 Hobgoblins. It also moves 1st level PCs to a less powerful place in the general scheme of things in the world. Still that's a quibble in the, not what I'd have done box. Also, while I haven't done the work through, I'm pretty sure they didn't actually build the monsters as PCs and there's some oddities like Kobolds getting 1d4 + 2 damage with daggers when they have a -2 Strength bonus. I'd need to dissect things in detail but on the surface it looks sloppy.
I think limiting the use of Heavy weapons by small characters isn't enough. Medium weapons should be heavy for small creatures.
Magic is more complex than it needed to be in my mind. The attempt to make it easier really fell flat as far as I can see. Too many moving parts now.
Not to disagree with you, as I too have my issues with 5e as with every game, but let me clarify some things:
Yes, Kobolds being 1 HD and the like was a useful visual on mook rule. Here they are 2d6-2, which averages out to 5 HP. It is a weak non-beast creature that averages less HP than almost all 1st lvl characters (lowest HD by class is 6+CON, start 1st lvl with max HP on your HD). Seems like the backwards engineered the equation 2d6-2 from the 2~10 HP (average 5) parameter. It's a sentient creature with enough heft to be dangerous in coordinated numbers (kobolds are quite deadly in 5e).
And I think they are shifting away into flat HP and damage to simplify things for GMs who don't want to be bothered. So if you are looking for creatures, you look by average HP first, not HD. Which explains why the HD equation is in parentheses after the HP average, to emphasize one over the other during quick reference.
It's basically shifting from HD as a reference measure to outright HP average, which skips rolling or calculation step. Looking back on older modules, I find it a rather helpful reference tool instead of those modules' HP ranges or equations. I don't need the HP range when I have the equation, and the average is a useful tool in high volume combat — and if I had to order those two as a reference I want the HP average first as looking up by equation crosses my eyes after a while.
Everyone starts 1st with max HD plus CON, so there's quite a bit more HP bloat built in by design. This is also tied to Prof Bonus to attack rolls and bounded accuracy. The idea is enough to give a back and forth instead of everyone whiffing all the time (because everyone likes to roll damage dice!). The give and take was back-loaded to HP instead of AC, almost everyone hits with +2 or more and almost everyone has decent HP in response.
The Dagger is a Finesse weapon, it may use STR or DEX on its attack and damage rolls. Kobolds have +2 DEX. The stat line is correct, they are using finesse to sneak that dagger into more vital spots.
Advantage/Disadvantage is basically +4/-4 big bonuses from older editions, like hitting someone who is Prone or taking a Called Shot. Since those are big changes to a situation, they don't need to be there for the regular calculation. That they cancel each other out and cannot stack also simplifies matters (except for mass combat). They are there to basically reduce big context swings into bite-sized tidbits of mutual nullification.
As for Mass Combat, they released a new .pdf for those rules. Granted 10 goblins v. 10 soldiers isn't that big, but that'd be better off managed by GM behind the screen calculations. I personally, if without a die roller program, would just roll 20d20 for Advantage and take the 10 highest. Vice versa for Disadvantage. Easy, and doesn't really matter unless those 10 soldiers/goblins are individual PCs.
The adjustment to the Heavy weapon property sounds like a lot of fun for a home game. But given the current environment the sturm und drang about "marginalizing the little people" would be ongoing even now. I myself am contemplating other weapon property adjustments for other home games. Great place to look if you are contemplating Modern, Sci-Fi, Westerns, etc.
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.
Quote from: TristramEvans;822205Does that mean more lizardboobs? That was really the thing that irked me.
I think the dragonborn are really egg-laying mammals (being human/dragon crosses), like the duck-billed platypus. :D
Quote from: TristramEvans;822205Does that mean more lizardboobs? That was really the thing that irked me.
Bigger boobs in this edition. Dont look!
i can understand people not liking breasts on the new dragonborn but i do wonder why so many people were bothered by it in 3e the dragonborn were clearly stated to keep the physical characteristics of there previous race (although i doubt they would keep there nipples)
Great, now nipple-less Barbie breasts bother me more than lizard breasts.
We could use more boobies! Dragon people boobies. Hafling boobies. Dwarf boobies. Elf boobies. Troll boobies. Hobgoblin boobies. Orc boobies. Goblin boobies. Tiefling boobies. Tarrask boobies. Doppleganger boobies. Drider boobies. Booby Boobies.
They should be in crenelations, decorations, statuary, hilts, coin faces, wine casks and ship ornaments.
You should have them on the fence.
You should give them with a pence.
You should paint them on a wall.
You should draw them short or tall.
Boobies boobies everywhere. Over here and over there. Cannot find them? Do not fret. We can hire Boba Fett!
Boobies!
*puts drink down. Faceplant
Quote from: trechriron;822354We could use more boobies! Dragon people boobies. Hafling boobies. Dwarf boobies. Elf boobies. Troll boobies. Hobgoblin boobies. Orc boobies. Goblin boobies. Tiefling boobies. Tarrask boobies. Doppleganger boobies. Drider boobies. Booby Boobies.
They should be in crenelations, decorations, statuary, hilts, coin faces, wine casks and ship ornaments.
You should have them on the fence.
You should give them with a pence.
You should paint them on a wall.
You should draw them short or tall.
Boobies boobies everywhere. Over here and over there. Cannot find them? Do not fret. We can hire Boba Fett!
Boobies!
*puts drink down. Faceplant
Really, historically, we should, you know.
Sometimes I wonder how long it will be before we start blowing up ancient treasures because they aren't politically correct.
Quote from: David Johansen;822355Sometimes I wonder how long it will be before we start blowing up ancient treasures because they aren't politically correct.
I don't think it'll come to that, only because that would require actually doing something (other than shrieking on the internet).
Now, making excuses based on political correctness for people who blow up ancient treasures in the name of religious fanaticism, and shrieking about anyone who dares criticize them for it, that's already happening.
Your religious fanaticism is really just yesterday's political correctness, so I'll keep worrying.