TheRPGSite

I know a lot of folks have their fingers on the pulse of what's been announced, what's been cancelled, etc.  Just curious.

The only product on the schedule at the moment is "Princes of the Apocalypse" due on 7 April. It is a big campaign (level 1 to 15) designed by Sasquatch Studios (as Tyranny of Dragons was designed by Kobold Press). It will be accompanied by release of material either in Basic or free online such as the Genasi.

You can expect a similar campaign being released every 6 months or so (http://www.nerdsonearth.com/2014/12/dungeons-dragons-5e-release-schedule-2018/).

There was some suggestion that it was going to be released with a companion book called "Adventurer's Handbook" but that book was never announced. Some critics have termed this to be a "cancellation" but I think that this is a stretch. In any case, it seems likely that the salient material will be that which is going to be released either in Basic or free online.

FWIW you can keep up to date with all the most recent 5e schedule developments here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1847-D-D-5th-Edition-Release-Schedules

As to speculation as to further releases, the only one I have seen was Chris Perkins seeming to tease that some sort of Greyhawk book/product. You can see that here: http://twitter.com/chrisperkinsdnd/status/520385395323060224. This could be the "Alice in Wonderland" inspired Campaign due later this year, given Gary Gygax's use of that theme in two modules that were set under Castle Greyhawk.

They also released the DM screen and spell cards also through second party publishers.

Cue folks proclaiming "dead edition walking" on other forums.

I'm pretty happy with what I have now, the 3 core books.
I'd probably buy a decent GM screen.
I'd definitely buy a MM2.

As to adventure and campaign adventures..  
I'd buy a compendium book of mini adventures/encounter book
I'd probably not buy a major campaign book, as I have lots of that sort of material already I can convert.
I WOULD buy a converted Greyhawk setting for 5e, that'd be pretty cool.
 
Other than that, I think the 3 core books are pretty complete for my needs.
I doubt I'd buy splat books and so on, such as more classes and spells and stuff.

Yeah, the screen is looking good to me.

I think another MM is due, I just can't seem to make do with the one. I imagine part of the reason is I'm playing Emerald Spire, and it keeps referencing monsters not in the 5e MM, and I can't readily find anything comparable (eg, Gibbering Mouther).

Quote from: Doom;817152Yeah, the screen is looking good to me.

Cool, good to know.
It's pretty cheap anyway.

Quote from: Doom;817152I think another MM is due, I just can't seem to make do with the one. I imagine part of the reason is I'm playing Emerald Spire, and it keeps referencing monsters not in the 5e MM, and I can't readily find anything comparable (eg, Gibbering Mouther).

Yeah MMs are really useful and I love just reading them for fun anyway.
I love reading all the details of their backgrounds and they're great for seeding ideas for adventures.

TBH, I'll probably buy pretty much all MMs that are released for 5E, as they are always useful to have.

Who produced the Starter? Was that WOTC or another 2nd party gig?

Quote from: Omega;817162Who produced the Starter? Was that WOTC or another 2nd party gig?

AFAIK that was WOTC.

I didn't get it, although it was also pretty cheap and a decent purchase for someone new to DnD and RPGs in general.
It's just I was pretty happy with the free PDFs until the actual core books came out.

Quote from: Omega;817162Who produced the Starter? Was that WOTC or another 2nd party gig?

WotC.

Having bought it, I'll say it was definitely a nice introduction to 5th Edition.

And I have to say, those 3rd-party Spell Cards? They're looking very attractive...

You know, I think it kind of funny that people might say 5e is moribund due to low supporting product release.  Are they so addicted to splat-treadmill that a Montana Mule-Choker's worth of new shoddily-tested skills, powers, items and monsters being released thrice quarterly is their only measure of a game being alive?

I really like the release schedule, it's about right. Not too much, just enough, good quality control (whether you like the result or not it's well controlled).

Suppose that if you are running older campaigns you might want some more monsters, but a: you probably can convert them and b: I think Kobold press are muttering about a new monster book.

I think avoiding splatbooks and character escalation supplements is a very good idea.

Plus this is meant to be the edition to repurpose and re-use all the stuff you have on your shelves already folks!

Aww still no manual of the planes thats literally all i want from this edition so i can steal everything thats not bolted down and run cackling with glee back to a better edition with the loot in my hands.

oh also a war book but considering how unpopular those tend to turn out outside of the warweaver prestige class i dont think this edition will get 1 sadly especially not with the priority's they are taking

Quote from: thedungeondelver;817179You know, I think it kind of funny that people might say 5e is moribund due to low supporting product release.  Are they so addicted to splat-treadmill that a Montana Mule-Choker's worth of new shoddily-tested skills, powers, items and monsters being released thrice quarterly is their only measure of a game being alive?

No, but we really need a good setting book ASAP.

the manual of the planes counts as a setting book right

A Greyhawk setting book this year would sell the deal for me.

I don't consider Manual of the Planes to be a setting book as it can apply to all settings and only at a certain stage in a campaign.

And I would prefer to see a Manual of the Planes/Deities and Demigods book.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;817179You know, I think it kind of funny that people might say 5e is moribund due to low supporting product release.  Are they so addicted to splat-treadmill that a Montana Mule-Choker's worth of new shoddily-tested skills, powers, items and monsters being released thrice quarterly is their only measure of a game being alive?

Apparently.

I've been too busy actually running the game to notice that nothing else has been announced, I guess.

Quote from: Skywalker;817242A Greyhawk setting book this year would sell the deal for me.

I don't consider Manual of the Planes to be a setting book as it can apply to all settings and only at a certain stage in a campaign.

And I would prefer to see a Manual of the Planes/Deities and Demigods book.

I agree with these points.
In addition to a Greyhawk setting book, I'd also buy a Deities and Demigods and a Manual of the planes book, as they're just good fun reading at very least.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;817179You know, I think it kind of funny that people might say 5e is moribund due to low supporting product release.  Are they so addicted to splat-treadmill that a Montana Mule-Choker's worth of new shoddily-tested skills, powers, items and monsters being released thrice quarterly is their only measure of a game being alive?

As opposed to The Strategic Review and Dragon and White Dwarf, which released monthly? (Not to mention all the fanzines like Alarums & Excursions).

If a game is popular, people are going to want material, period. It's nothing new.

Ah yes dieties and demigods that's another one. And as danskmacabre said there just plain fun to read I suppose my priority go manual of the planes> dieties and demigods> something covering warfare

Although the main use I will get out of the manual is new locations on the inner and outer planes. I'm not going to change to the new layout.

For dieties and demigods I mostly want some new minor gods for different creatures and maybe some info on the other gnomish gods (did they cover them in whatever races book they were in I need to buy those books)

And in the unlikely event they have a war book this edition I will mostly just crib scenario ideas because I get the feeling the system will really stupid.

And a book of vile darkness and exalted deeds would be nice. I hope they have the nipple clamps of exquisite pain just to piss pundit off

QuoteFWIW you can keep up to date with all the most recent 5e schedule developments here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1847-D-D-5th-Edition-Release-Schedules

Sigh. There was a time when you could get relevant information from the WotC website.

Quote from: JeremyR;817321As opposed to The Strategic Review and Dragon and White Dwarf, which released monthly? (Not to mention all the fanzines like Alarums & Excursions).

If a game is popular, people are going to want material, period. It's nothing new.

Yes, but that wasn't essential and at least until a few of the items from The Dragon were combined into Unearthed Arcana, magazine stuff wasn't "essential" or "core"; there's magazines and websites and on and on now but for some reason it doesn't scratch people's itch.  They want that splat treadmill and they want it now!

Quote from: Godfather Punk;817430Sigh. There was a time when you could get relevant information from the WotC website.

You still can: http://dnd.wizards.com/products/catalog.

The ENWorld site is probably more complete as it includes wider events, 3PP publisher and the like.

Yeah, it's just that there used to be more substantial updates in articles and Dragon. But maybe that's a side effect from the lower output too.

I think WotC is keeping all public communications to a minimum, given how they seem to set the internet on fire :)

Quote from: Skywalker;817453The ENWorld site is probably more complete as it includes wider events, 3PP publisher and the like.

...and about 20 years of age, added to the average poster. :pundit:
At least, most of the posters on the old gleemax boards seemed to be 14-year olds, which can get aggravating.

I am not very interested in more adventures, which is all that appears to be in the queu.

Always a fan of another Monster Manual.  Seems they should be easy to crank out given the zillions of critters available for update.

I would like a PHB 2.  Psionics goodness needs to see the light of day, more subclasses, and more backgrounds.  

I am a sucker for Greyhawk and would buy it, but I don't care or need them to make one.  Otherwise I do not give a flip if they update any other setting, with a tiny maybe on Mystara.  A brand new setting might have potential.

Would really like a modern or sci fi version.

Quote from: Old One Eye;817501Would really like a modern or sci fi version.

Amen.

judging from the praises the head administer over at mythweavers sings about 5e not supporting monster races savage species is going to be a clusterfuck when it comes out

or maybe they wont have 1 did 4th edition have a savage species equivalent

hopefully the manual of the planes will have a decent encounter table this time around not that it will effect me but it bothered me in the 3e one

The main thing I'd want before I'd run 5e is a comprehensive set of encounter tables by terrain type, urban, by dungeon level etc. Basically the same as the 1e DMG/FF/MM2, or Pathfinder has good ones esp in the Beginner Box and Gamemastery Guide. 5e looks like it should be good for sandboxing, but I don't want to have to make all my own tables. Without a minimal level of support like that I'd rather use Pathfinder, or another system - my 1980s version of Dragon Warriors has comprehensive tables in book 1, for instance.
It's not encouraging that 5e had no encounter tables in the MM and just a sample in the DMG (sylvan woods, yaay) - Pathfinder has a full set in their Bestiary (but limited to the monsters there) and much better ones in the GMG and Beginner Box.

Even if I'm not rolling encounters in play, I find some random rolls pre-session extremely useful to get my creativity going.

Quote from: S'mon;817576The main thing I'd want before I'd run 5e is a comprehensive set of encounter tables by terrain type, urban, by dungeon level etc. Basically the same as the 1e DMG/FF/MM2, or Pathfinder has good ones esp in the Beginner Box and Gamemastery Guide. 5e looks like it should be good for sandboxing, but I don't want to have to make all my own tables. Without a minimal level of support like that I'd rather use Pathfinder, or another system - my 1980s version of Dragon Warriors has comprehensive tables in book 1, for instance.
It's not encouraging that 5e had no encounter tables in the MM and just a sample in the DMG (sylvan woods, yaay) - Pathfinder has a full set in their Bestiary (but limited to the monsters there) and much better ones in the GMG and Beginner Box.

Even if I'm not rolling encounters in play, I find some random rolls pre-session extremely useful to get my creativity going.

Yeah I thought that was a bit crap about the MM in 5E , no decent encounter charts.

Quote from: danskmacabre;817588Yeah I thought that was a bit crap about the MM in 5E , no decent encounter charts.

Was this one of those things they determined most people didn't need through all their surveying?

i sure hope not because if so they need either better surveying or the earth needs better people

Quote from: S'mon;817576The main thing I'd want before I'd run 5e is a comprehensive set of encounter tables by terrain type, urban, by dungeon level etc. Basically the same as the 1e DMG/FF/MM2,

By all means play whatever game you prefer (1e still holds as my favorite overall game).  But for this particular complaint, what is the issue with using those older encounter tables since the various DnD games use all the same monsters?

Quote from: Old One Eye;817624By all means play whatever game you prefer (1e still holds as my favorite overall game).  But for this particular complaint, what is the issue with using those older encounter tables since the various DnD games use all the same monsters?

I agree; it's not like the tables themselves specifically outline the monster's stats.  Level 15 of a water-filled dungeon cave and you stumble upon an aboleth, there's no insistence that you use the 1e and then manually convert...just use the 1e books for the tables and your ($EDITION) books for the actual stats.

Quote from: Old One Eye;817624By all means play whatever game you prefer (1e still holds as my favorite overall game).  But for this particular complaint, what is the issue with using those older encounter tables since the various DnD games use all the same monsters?

(a) You often find you've rolled a monster that isn't actually in the book. I get this using 3.5e adventures's tables for Pathfinder, much worse 1e to 5e.

(b) I travel by public transport to my games, at London pubs. I need to keep the number of books down.

Edit: Might give it a try with my 1e DMG, though. It would have to replace the 5e DMG in my load-out.

Are making your own tables so hard? Just from the 1e/2e explanation of How To, looking at d% and 1d12+1d8, I extrapolated the basics to figure out my own micro tables. Settings can be anything, and thus no batch of example tables would ever suffice. Why do you need example tables to be a pre-fab substitute for your own creativity.

Hell, give me your setting, some parameters, and I can scribble up your encounter tables. I mean, making NPCs are harder than encounter tables. Are you using some weird CR budget calculations?

Quote from: Old One Eye;817624By all means play whatever game you prefer (1e still holds as my favorite overall game).  But for this particular complaint, what is the issue with using those older encounter tables since the various DnD games use all the same monsters?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;817642I agree; it's not like the tables themselves specifically outline the monster's stats.  Level 15 of a water-filled dungeon cave and you stumble upon an aboleth, there's no insistence that you use the 1e and then manually convert...just use the 1e books for the tables and your ($EDITION) books for the actual stats.

I don't have the older books anymore. Even if I did, I don't want to be carrying them around. Even if I had them in electronic format, I don't want to be referencing multiple books either.
I just want it all in one book with only monsters from that book.

Quote from: Opaopajr;817708Are making your own tables so hard? Just from the 1e/2e explanation of How To, looking at d% and 1d12+1d8, I extrapolated the basics to figure out my own micro tables. Settings can be anything, and thus no batch of example tables would ever suffice. Why do you need example tables to be a pre-fab substitute for your own creativity.

I could be putting the very limited amount of time I have into other things.
I like to use pre-generated encounter tables for various regions for inspiration.
I rarely actually roll on those tables, but I like to look at them to get ideas.
for an adventure, I often pre-generate a few random encounters with some notes anyway if I know what sort of areas the characters are likely to go through. That way the encounters are far more interesting.

Quote from: Opaopajr;817708Hell, give me your setting, some parameters, and I can scribble up your encounter tables. I mean, making NPCs are harder than encounter tables. Are you using some weird CR budget calculations?

If you really mean this, I'd love to give you a series of environments I want random encounters for. I could print it out and stick it in the back of the 5E MM.

Quote from: danskmacabre;817737If you really mean this, I'd love to give you a series of environments I want random encounters for. I could print it out and stick it in the back of the 5E MM.

Well, since it's dirt easy, sure. What exactly do you want? If you're looking for generic terrain info, the MM categorized things according to climate (and had them numbered and even sorted by CR?), IIRC.

You might as well tailor the tables to a setting, or at least some parameter guidelines. Otherwise if you're just looking looking for inspiration, I could just roll up a random batch of terrain or CR relevant Encounter Tables.

Quote from: Opaopajr;817738Well, since it's dirt easy, sure. What exactly do you want? If you're looking for generic terrain info, the MM categorized things according to climate (and had them numbered and even sorted by CR?), IIRC.

Well there actually ARE some encounter table examples in the DMG, but they're scattered all over the place and doesn't cover all the environment types.
Still, I suppose I could trawl through the DMG and grab bits from it and make a PDF or something or even print it out and stick it in the back of the MM.
The bits that are missing I could create a thread for in this forum for suggestions.

Quote from: Opaopajr;817708You might as well tailor the tables to a setting, or at least some parameter guidelines. Otherwise if you're just looking looking for inspiration, I could just roll up a random batch of terrain or CR relevant Encounter Tables.

I'll create a thread later for some random encounter content I'm looking for for various environments, thanks :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;817708Are making your own tables so hard? Just from the 1e/2e explanation of How To, looking at d% and 1d12+1d8, I extrapolated the basics to figure out my own micro tables. Settings can be anything, and thus no batch of example tables would ever suffice. Why do you need example tables to be a pre-fab substitute for your own creativity.

Hell, give me your setting, some parameters, and I can scribble up your encounter tables. I mean, making NPCs are harder than encounter tables. Are you using some weird CR budget calculations?

I did make up a couple tables for 5e - http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=31182
But I do find it quite a lot of effort, and I don't want to have to make a comprehensive set.
I haven't settled on a setting yet, but probably the Wilderlands - either Arcadian forested hills (Ghinarian hills), or cold/temperate forest, hills and plains (Elphand Lands & Irminsul forest) are a couple possibilities. Also their coasts and nearby seas.

Quote from: danskmacabre;817737I could be putting the very limited amount of time I have into other things.
I like to use pre-generated encounter tables for various regions for inspiration.
I rarely actually roll on those tables, but I like to look at them to get ideas.
for an adventure, I often pre-generate a few random encounters with some notes anyway if I know what sort of areas the characters are likely to go through. That way the encounters are far more interesting.




If you really mean this, I'd love to give you a series of environments I want random encounters for. I could print it out and stick it in the back of the 5E MM.

this is what i find to encounter tables are a great way to have an easy reference for what a party is likely to encounter in an area i dont actually roll on them i just choose a monster. the info is in the monster entries themselves but i should not have to compile the list myself and the chance of each creature appearing is a good indication of how often they should be encountered

Quote from: Skywalker;817453You still can: http://dnd.wizards.com/products/catalog.

Complete tangent: That Tiamat miniature is so ridiculously tiny. It's like it belongs to some alternative product line where all the PC miniatures are the size of ants.

It's a Tiamat for ants.

wait how are you going to get either Tiamat or Bahamut to fit on your grid

oh wait 5e went theatre of the mind didn’t it

the tiamat looks crap from the front but at other angles its fine

i like the bahamut but i feel that pose would work better for some sort of evil dragon

edit: i have the icons of the realms starter set and the wizards fireball looks great in person it does not really come through on an image

Quote from: S'mon;817744I did make up a couple tables for 5e - http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=31182
But I do find it quite a lot of effort, and I don't want to have to make a comprehensive set.
I haven't settled on a setting yet, but probably the Wilderlands - either Arcadian forested hills (Ghinarian hills), or cold/temperate forest, hills and plains (Elphand Lands & Irminsul forest) are a couple possibilities. Also their coasts and nearby seas.

You put a lot of info on your tables. Maybe that's why they feel like more effort? I do give props to the Number Appearing (#A) value, as that helps. The special commentary is a nice touch (% chance, and typical behavior).

Have either of you flipped through Magic the Gathering card sets? A lot of them are thematic, quite easy to flip through, and add according to terrain (land mana type). Since many are roughly analogous to MM creatures, just do some spot stat line editing.

I will say editing down 5e monsters to a stat line is the hardest part.

speaking of the planes i found this on the wizards website (oddly enough i could not find any direct links to it but the url checks out)

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_67_68.pdf

what that indicates to me is they are going with the idea that each setting is a separate planet on the same material plane or am i missing something here

Quote from: tuypo1;819174speaking of the planes i found this on the wizards website (oddly enough i could not find any direct links to it but the url checks out)

http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_67_68.pdf

what that indicates to me is they are going with the idea that each setting is a separate planet on the same material plane or am i missing something here

I thought it was just that there was a variety of material planes?  That was the impression I got from the DMG.

thats what i thought at first to but then i considered that in the descriptions of the demonweb pits in the fiend folio they used to term worlds to refer to planets.

im thinking its probably separate planes and its just poor wording.

I think they're maintaining just enough strategic ambiguity so as to not poop in the cheerios of the Spelljammer fans.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;817761Complete tangent: That Tiamat miniature is so ridiculously tiny. It's like it belongs to some alternative product line where all the PC miniatures are the size of ants.

It's a Tiamat for ants.

I don't think it's tiny at all.  In fact, I don't see how they could make it bigger and still be usable for people who use minis.  Dragons have never been fully to scale.

This is how big she is in comparison to other minis.  Those are giants below her, not regular scale PCs.  And Kaldarax is freaking huge.  That's also a CD case that Cthulhu is standing on.

(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9DjoCFu0HCU/VG5MvSHOfDI/AAAAAAAAB1I/vpKkX4eHdA0/w576-h436-no/minis.jpg)

As posted elsewhere, some of the content from the "Adventurer's Handbook" for the Princes of the Apocalypse campaign has been posted for free of WotC's site: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/elementalevil_playerscompanion

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819474I don't think it's tiny at all.  In fact, I don't see how they could make it bigger and still be usable for people who use minis.  Dragons have never been fully to scale.

  A Tiamat the size of 3.5's Colossal Red would be a Very Cool Thing, but I'm not sure the market could bear it. (I know I couldn't afford it, or at least wouldn't pay what it would probably cost. I still have a few regrets about not picking up the AT-AT, though ... )

Quote from: Warthur;819472I think they're maintaining just enough strategic ambiguity so as to not poop in the cheerios of the Spelljammer fans.

you know i think you might be right

Quote from: Sacrosanct;819474I don't think it's tiny at all.  In fact, I don't see how they could make it bigger and still be usable for people who use minis.  Dragons have never been fully to scale.

She appears to be essentially the same size as my Huge 3.5 Dragon miniatures. Maybe my conception of Tiamat is just out-of-sync with the current edition, but she's the Mother of Evil Dragons. I conceive of her as being very, very large.

If she was Kaladrax-sized I'd consider her a little on the small side, but not ant-proportioned.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;819479A Tiamat the size of 3.5's Colossal Red would be a Very Cool Thing, but I'm not sure the market could bear it. (I know I couldn't afford it, or at least wouldn't pay what it would probably cost. I still have a few regrets about not picking up the AT-AT, though ... )

My perception may be biased due to owning a Colossal Red Dragon and the Gargantuan dragons that WotC produced.

She should be the biggest dragon WotC ever made.  Also the way she's flying, she looks like Ghidorah.  We need the Tarrasque and Oonga to get some Kaiju action going.

acording to 3e dieties and demigods tiamat is colossal i would have expected colossal+ but eh

bahamut is also colossal

Quote from: Justin Alexander;819639She appears to be essentially the same size as my Huge 3.5 Dragon miniatures. Maybe my conception of Tiamat is just out-of-sync with the current edition, but she's the Mother of Evil Dragons. I conceive of her as being very, very large.

If she was Kaladrax-sized I'd consider her a little on the small side, but not ant-proportioned.

.

She's bigger than any of my other dragons, including new ones like Cinder (http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a578/Corporea/cinder/cinder-1_zps26ded5e6.jpg), which is all that matters to me.  And as I mentioned, any bigger and she would be pretty much non functional on the game table.

But in all fairness, I admit my perspective may be biased and skewed, because I grew up with Ral Parth and Grenadier dragon minis, which were much smaller (http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii125/_koboldmage_/DSCN2264.jpg) than the newer plastic stuff.

i suppose with the decresed focus on the grid in this edition it does not really matter so much if somethings the wrong size

Tiamat should be the size of a My Fair Lady hat, possibly a Beach Blanket Babylon hat in her own planar domain.

wait since when does she get bigger there

i just had an idea if you could trick tiamat into having some sort of size increasing spell cast on her while in her cave the whole thing would shatter as she got to big for it throwing bones all over the layer and the path to the layer below it

I have trouble believing that there are enough spelljammer fans for WoTC to really be concerned about them.

even if it is a tiny amount it would have to be more then the people bothered by the pandering so its a question of how much work they put into the decision if it was just a sudden idea i could understand it a conscious effort that they spent time to think up not so much

i hope this time around they remember that faerun is not the only planet with an underdark

Quote from: RPGPundit;820201I have trouble believing that there are enough spelljammer fans for WoTC to really be concerned about them.

I would definitely buy a Spelljammer 5E reboot. But if they don't do that, then I'm not gonna be that concerned either.

Quote from: danskmacabre;820812I would definitely buy a Spelljammer 5E reboot. But if they don't do that, then I'm not gonna be that concerned either.

I'd be a lot more interested in something like that if it wasn't a straight remake, and instead was a new concept/setting that took some inspiration from Spelljammer, some original stuff, and some from the Princess Ark stuff from Mystara.

Quote from: tuypo1;819785i suppose with the decresed focus on the grid in this edition it does not really matter so much if somethings the wrong size

So my question would be why people buy the dragon minis from whizz kids for $60 when you can buy papo or schleich dragons for 25

Quote from: RPGPundit;820201I have trouble believing that there are enough spelljammer fans for WoTC to really be concerned about them.

True enough, but I'd say the same about some of the other more obscure D&D settings (is there really that much of a Birthright fanbase, for instance?) and yet the 5E DMG not only goes out of its way to mention every single Prime Material world that TSR or Wizards has published but also make sure to cite Sigil as a nod to the Planescape fans and hasn't said anything to outright contradict Spelljammer.

I suspect there is an official policy of No Pissing In The Cheerios in terms of statements made about old settings - it doesn't matter whether a particular setting's fanbase is particularly large, and it certainly doesn't matter whether or not Wizards intend to actually support a particular setting (I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for new Mystara material, for instance), but at the same time "Repair Lost Goodwill" is such an important part of 5E's mission that it isn't worth kicking off a fuss by specifically unmaking any of the campaign settings.

Plus, of course, anything that drives dndclassics sales by piquing people's curiosity can't hurt either.

On the main topic: I seem to remember we were told that we'd be getting a) some clarity on licensing arrangements and b) past edition conversion guidelines around about now. Any sign of them on the horizon?

yeah theres no reason to piss over the old settings not only will it hurt them but it can only help them to mention it

but really if they want to drive d&d classics sales they should MAKE THE FUCKING LINK ON THERE WEBSITE MORE PROMINENT

on the matter of sigil im bracing myself for a whole new wave of waaaah we want a stated lady of pain because we dont care about things making sense waaaaa

it will be an interesting sight

Quote from: RPGPundit;821096I'd be a lot more interested in something like that if it wasn't a straight remake, and instead was a new concept/setting that took some inspiration from Spelljammer, some original stuff, and some from the Princess Ark stuff from Mystara.

I'd be perfectly happy with this. And I'm a pretty big Spelljammer fan. Took me years to actually crack it open, I thought the concept was silly. But after a night of binge drinking, I pulled it off my shelf and said WTH... and squeezed a 3-year campaign out of it. I highly recommend 'Under the Dark Fist' - possibly one of the largest scoped campaign scenarios ever. It's like Star Wars and the Republic is Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and the Realms united against over a dozen other undiscovered campaign settings under the rule of one tyrant Emperor.

I had members of the Scarlet Brotherhood, teamed up with Knights of Solamnia, and tribes of cursing Hadozee, and Imperial Elves, and even some renegade Illithid - yeah it's gonzo... but epic as all hell. Felt very Star Wars... yet still D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;820201I have trouble believing that there are enough spelljammer fans for WoTC to really be concerned about them.

Spelljammer still has quite a fanbase. They even made a module for Neverwinter with custom ship models. I have the alpha of it and it was fairly neet in how they pulled it off.

Hard to say if WOTC will do it again. The magazine reboot for 3e got mostly negative reactions. And I do not recall any mention of Spelljammer in any of the 5e core book text.

They may try another Gamma World. But after the botch of the last one thats pretty iffy too.

Quote from: tenbones;821123I'd be perfectly happy with this. And I'm a pretty big Spelljammer fan. Took me years to actually crack it open, I thought the concept was silly. But after a night of binge drinking, I pulled it off my shelf and said WTH... and squeezed a 3-year campaign out of it. I highly recommend 'Under the Dark Fist' - possibly one of the largest scoped campaign scenarios ever. It's like Star Wars and the Republic is Dragonlance, Greyhawk, and the Realms united against over a dozen other undiscovered campaign settings under the rule of one tyrant Emperor.

I had members of the Scarlet Brotherhood, teamed up with Knights of Solamnia, and tribes of cursing Hadozee, and Imperial Elves, and even some renegade Illithid - yeah it's gonzo... but epic as all hell. Felt very Star Wars... yet still D&D.

that does sound pretty awesome

Quote from: Omega;821129Spelljammer still has quite a fanbase. They even made a module for Neverwinter with custom ship models. I have the alpha of it and it was fairly neet in how they pulled it off.

Hard to say if WOTC will do it again. The magazine reboot for 3e got mostly negative reactions. And I do not recall any mention of Spelljammer in any of the 5e core book text.

They may try another Gamma World. But after the botch of the last one thats pretty iffy too.

I think I saw a mention of it in the 5E DMG but I'd have to take another look when I can get my hands on it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;821098So my question would be why people buy the dragon minis from whizz kids for $60 when you can buy papo or schleich dragons for 25

I have them all in together in the same "Chest of Dragons" - Schleich & Papo make good Elder Wyrms for Epic play, but are a bit too big for young & adult dragons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;821096I'd be a lot more interested in something like that if it wasn't a straight remake, and instead was a new concept/setting that took some inspiration from Spelljammer, some original stuff, and some from the Princess Ark stuff from Mystara.

Yeah I wouldn't NEED it to be a straight remake, but I do find the general concept of Spelljammer fascinating and would love to use something like it in 5E.

It's something I've always felt just begs to be done right.  Which is to say, I don't think it ever quite has been done right, yet.

Well if you're gonna do 5e Spelljammer you have to address:

Space - is it vaccuum or not? It impacts the game in subtle ways.

Cultures - Imperial Elves, Scro, etc. Which cultures are spacefaring? Do you create templates for what your worlds SHOULD be like with spacefaring as part of it? I said fuck it, and Waterdeep and Calimport are Spelljamming ports. You can't hide that kinda shit.

Crystal Spheres - Keep or toss?

Magitech-level - Smokepowder? Or up the ante with Fireball guns, and lightning rifles using some "magical crystals" for ammo-packs? It would take little effort to go Fantasy Star Wars.

Construction rules - Spelljammer dodged the issue much like Star Wars does on how Spelljammers (hyperdrives) are created: you can only purchase them in-game from Arcane (or you steal one from an existing ship). What propels ships now? Do you need the huge crews? What kinds of ships are we talking about?

Everything else is window dressing. You could simulate a lot of things like Air Envelopes etc. through the use of magi-tech and keep the cold hard vacuum. Of course it would be a little grittier.

Edit - Might make a better New Thread....

Quote from: tenbones;821744Well if you're gonna do 5e Spelljammer you have to address:

Space - is it vaccuum or not? It impacts the game in subtle ways.

Cultures - Imperial Elves, Scro, etc. Which cultures are spacefaring? Do you create templates for what your worlds SHOULD be like with spacefaring as part of it? I said fuck it, and Waterdeep and Calimport are Spelljamming ports. You can't hide that kinda shit.

Crystal Spheres - Keep or toss?

Magitech-level - Smokepowder? Or up the ante with Fireball guns, and lightning rifles using some "magical crystals" for ammo-packs? It would take little effort to go Fantasy Star Wars.

Construction rules - Spelljammer dodged the issue much like Star Wars does on how Spelljammers (hyperdrives) are created: you can only purchase them in-game from Arcane (or you steal one from an existing ship). What propels ships now? Do you need the huge crews? What kinds of ships are we talking about?

Everything else is window dressing. You could simulate a lot of things like Air Envelopes etc. through the use of magi-tech and keep the cold hard vacuum. Of course it would be a little grittier.

Edit - Might make a better New Thread....

Yeah, this definitely deserves its own thread.

maybe they will have a book of fey this time around.

I wonder what this editions tomb of horrors will be like

Actually... for me...

I'd like to see a new Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.

And pump up the 5e Gamma World Hotness inside it... DO IT. Give me some Torque Grenades, Black Ray Guns, Healing Cannisters so I can totally ruin my fantasy game!!! WOOO!!!!!

(totally serious)

I have to say, I'm finding the glacial pace of supplements for 5e to be another nail in the coffin for me finding 5e to be of any value.

I've never been a fan of 5e. I was in the playtest and found it varied from "dull retread" to "more change for the sake of change". It was very much in the vein of the new "Amazing Spider-Man" movies (or any of the current "80s remake fever" films) - basically the same crap I already saw before only done better last time and with a bunch of new changes for no good reason that I dislike.

I played the preview adventure for the release and found it to be the same. Then the final rule books came out and I looked at those and it still felt the same. I still can find no reason at all to use these rules instead of a previous version.

But I kept thinking - maybe once we're past the obligatory initial three books they'll finally come out with that modular stuff they mentioned in the playtest that might make it interesting.

No such luck. Months later, and its clear they only want to sell me hardback adventure books I don't want. More power to them if this model works for them, but it sure won't be getting any of my money.

Quote from: jgants;823545I have to say, I'm finding the glacial pace of supplements for 5e to be another nail in the coffin for me finding 5e to be of any value.

I've never been a fan of 5e. I was in the playtest and found it varied from "dull retread" to "more change for the sake of change". It was very much in the vein of the new "Amazing Spider-Man" movies (or any of the current "80s remake fever" films) - basically the same crap I already saw before only done better last time and with a bunch of new changes for no good reason that I dislike.

I played the preview adventure for the release and found it to be the same. Then the final rule books came out and I looked at those and it still felt the same. I still can find no reason at all to use these rules instead of a previous version.

But I kept thinking - maybe once we're past the obligatory initial three books they'll finally come out with that modular stuff they mentioned in the playtest that might make it interesting.

No such luck. Months later, and its clear they only want to sell me hardback adventure books I don't want. More power to them if this model works for them, but it sure won't be getting any of my money.

Well, at least you're honest about not liking it from the start.  That's fair.

According to Mearls in an interview. They plan to release 2 adventures per year, planned out to 2018.

Tyranny of Dragons was first. Now its the Elemental Evil. Next up is apparently some sort of Alice in Wonderland sort of thing? Like Dungeonland and Beyond the Magic Mirror?

I have not yet found any other mention of that so who knows if its true or not. And a-lot can change in 4 years even if it is.

I like 5E and think they did a good job putting it together. But a few months in, I'm more likely to grab my 1E or B/E books and one of the great new OSR megadungeons if I am going to play D&D. There isn't any particular rules-y reason why; I just am not feeling the coolness factor you get with great games. That would change if they put out some creative, fun, really nicely produced dungeons or settings. But so far I've found the official adventures for 5E to be total crap (other than Phandelver, which is pretty solid).

The lack of additional material (outside of the stuff I've been feverishly working on for my own use) is starting to make my player's teeth itch.

We don't use their adventures, or anyone elses, so... they need to get on the ball.

Generally speaking, your own dungeons and campaigns are always going to be the best material, so I'm sure there is lots of cool home brewed 5E stuff out there. And I get that it is an objectively better designed set of rules than all the pre 3E stuff (and maybe 3E and 4E as well). I just personally don't see much reason to play it in place of other editions. The experience at the table is pretty similar. I think it is mostly true that people make too much of differences between rules sets and systems. They don't really have that much to do with the experience of table top roleplaying. I'ld rather all the creative energy people have put into rules revisions went into adventures and settings and such.

Quote from: Larsdangly;825958I like 5E and think they did a good job putting it together. But a few months in, I'm more likely to grab my 1E or B/E books and one of the great new OSR megadungeons if I am going to play D&D. There isn't any particular rules-y reason why; I just am not feeling the coolness factor you get with great games. That would change if they put out some creative, fun, really nicely produced dungeons or settings. But so far I've found the official adventures for 5E to be total crap (other than Phandelver, which is pretty solid).

I'm running 5e with conversion of 3.5 version of Caverns of Thracia plus conversion of the OSR dungeon Dyson's Delve. 5e works great for the swords & sorcery themed campaign, the combat feels much more meaty and visceral than other editions - probably a result of 'bounded accuracy' where even AC 15 guys are being hit at least half the time by enemies, few foes have attack bonus below +4. The 5e Barbarian is absolutely brilliant for this, the Rogue too - the Fighter's not half bad either. The caster classes seem rather weaker though, I'm playing a Paladin in another 5e campaign and not too impressed.

Back when the designers were talking about their vision for 5E, they kept saying they were going to get off the splatbook treadmill. OSR fans who disliked WotC scoffed at the idea the system wouldn't bloat. Bitter 4E fans said splatbooks are the only way to bring in a steady revenue.

Turns out they were true to their word. 5E is the first edition since 1E that isn't relying on a splatbook revenue model. Funny thing is, now fans are saying they want more content.

I admit, I'm a little surprised at how light the release schedule has been. I hate rules bloat, but I though we would get more setting books (Forgotten Realms, Underdark, a small-scale setting like the Nentir Vale from 4E, etc.) and miscellaneous support by now (optional naval and aquatic rules, ideas for undead campaigns, more robust outdoor exploration support, etc.).

It does sound like they're hitting their stride with the latest adventure, and it seems like they've learned from Pathfinder that the mega-adventures are the way to go. But those adventures have been designed by contractors. What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

I don't think of adventures or settings as splatbooks. Basically, what i like is the 1E model (at least for the classic period of its first 5 years). That IS what 5E is doing, and that's great. I just don't think they've produced adventures that stack up with what TSR was producing during the early years of 1E.

Little popcorn adventures outside of Adventure League, or at least opening up Adventure League's Expeditions to the public once a season is retired, may help here. Some of the AL Expeditions for Tyranny of Dragons were great world building fodder for the region around Phlan. Too bad the 5-10 lvl stuff went out with a bang and shuffled everyone to Mulmaster for the Elemental Evil season like a bad guided tour.

But then Organized Play is Organized Play. And there is still time to resource dump Dragon's Season once they are done with it. It looks like they are more involved in trying to get new blood back into the swing of RPGs more than anything.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019Turns out they were true to their word. 5E is the first edition since 1E that isn't relying on a splatbook revenue model. Funny thing is, now fans are saying they want more content.

Yeah. And while I know you're speaking in general - I've never been one of these people. I like splats. I'm a GM - so I use what works for me. I don't have a problem with rules bloat because if I don't like a given rule, I don't use it.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019I admit, I'm a little surprised at how light the release schedule has been. I hate rules bloat, but I though we would get more setting books (Forgotten Realms, Underdark, a small-scale setting like the Nentir Vale from 4E, etc.) and miscellaneous support by now (optional naval and aquatic rules, ideas for undead campaigns, more robust outdoor exploration support, etc.).

Very much with you on this. I want setting books so I don't have to waste time updating stuff, because I still use their settings. Though now I'm doing Spelljammer (and I have zero hope they'll get around to this anytime soon) - so I'm offroading on my own content.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019It does sound like they're hitting their stride with the latest adventure, and it seems like they've learned from Pathfinder that the mega-adventures are the way to go. But those adventures have been designed by contractors. What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

Hopefully making our Dark Sun book with full psionics rules.

im hopeing that the constant mentions of other settings even more obscure ones is a good sign of new setting books

but god damit they better not release them as slowly as they are releasing there adventures

Quote from: tenbones;826087Very much with you on this. I want setting books so I don't have to waste time updating stuff, because I still use their settings. Though now I'm doing Spelljammer (and I have zero hope they'll get around to this anytime soon) - so I'm offroading on my own content.

See, this is one of the things that might actually push me to using 5e. My players actually bought the 5e rules (I have not because of my aforementioned "meh" feeling towards the rules) and we've been talking about trying to add new players (we haven't played in 2 1/2 months now because half the group has been busy with other things on game night).

So, even though I prefer my own personal modification of the AD&D 2e rules for my Al-Qadim campaign, it might be easier to just use 5e. But, there's no way I'm doing all the work to convert all of the Al-Qadim stuff I want to use to 5e on my own.

Elemental Evil Player Companion is now print on demand at DTRPG, with premium colour even:  http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145542/Elemental-Evil-Players-Companion-5e

Quote from: Skywalker;826175Elemental Evil Player Companion is now print on demand at DTRPG, with premium colour even:  http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145542/Elemental-Evil-Players-Companion-5e

Good for them, hopefully it proves worthwhile.

Quote from: estar;826188Good for them, hopefully it proves worthwhile.

I would say 2/3rds is repeated in Princes of the Apocalypse, so it will be interesting to see how successful it is. I guess its a good option for people who want the rules only.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

5.5e? :D

Quote from: Haffrung;826019It does sound like they're hitting their stride with the latest adventure, and it seems like they've learned from Pathfinder that the mega-adventures are the way to go. But those adventures have been designed by contractors. What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

mega adventures are all fine and dandy but you need other smaller adventures to go along with them

I agree about the need for smaller adventures I can use to fill gaps in my campaign. Stuff like in Dungeon.

It would be nice if WoTC did release small adventures- maybe 7-10 page ones, as free pdfs on their site.  Small adventures don't have to be amazing, just entertaining.

Quote from: RunningLaser;826492It would be nice if WoTC did release small adventures- maybe 7-10 page ones, as free pdfs on their site.  Small adventures don't have to be amazing, just entertaining.

All they'd have to do is release their Adventure League Expeditions once they have retired a season. Many people haven't gone through the Tyranny of Dragons 4+ 5-10 lvl Expeditions yet. And ToD has something like 8+ 1-5 lvl Expeditions as well.

Too bad they got rid of their magazines, though. That'd be a nice place to drop their bite-sized adventures. Maybe even a place to post a few homebrew creations. Probably was not enough Hasbro$ Bucks to be worth it, however.

I really don't like the style of module typical of 'adventure paths' and the recent 5E releases. The word count is enormously too high, described spaces often actually quite small and 'funnel like', and the adventures themselves feel quite programed and rail-road-y. If I were emperor of the universe I would force WotC to put out some things of the style and structure of the old pastel modules, plus a boxed set or two for settings.

they used to release small adventures on there website

with a little bit of messing around you can still find them on the archive i intend to run legend of the silver skeleton when my party reaches that level

Quote from: Larsdangly;826521I really don't like the style of module typical of 'adventure paths' and the recent 5E releases. The word count is enormously too high, described spaces often actually quite small and 'funnel like', and the adventures themselves feel quite programed and rail-road-y. If I were emperor of the universe I would force WotC to put out some things of the style and structure of the old pastel modules, plus a boxed set or two for settings.

Murder at Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard are both shorter and more open adventures. However, many people seem to discount them, which I am guessing has led to WotC focussing on the adventure paths instead.

The real thing I'm currently missing are setting books.

What I'd particularly like to see is the 5E core book approach applied to individual campaign settings - no splatbook-like sprawl of additional supplements, just a very complete overview of the whole thing where you can satisfyingly run campaigns in the world for ages from the main book. (Ideally either complete-in-one-book, or with a Player's Guide/DM's Guide division.)

My suspicion is that they won't do such a thing for Forgotten Realms, partly because the setting is too dang detailed and partly because it's the assumed setting for the core books and most of the Adventurer's League stuff, but if as the Forbes interview suggests they shift gears to give a special look to a particular campaign world for a few adventure releases it might make sense to herald that sort of thing with a setting guide.

Quote from: Skywalker;826684Murder at Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard are both shorter and more open adventures. However, many people seem to discount them, which I am guessing has led to WotC focussing on the adventure paths instead.

People like to see some stats in the book, also they are seen as 'for organised play'.
I'm glad I bought Crystal Shard, it works really well as a generic campaign setting.

Quote from: S'mon;826721People like to see some stats in the book, also they are seen as 'for organised play'.

I get that, though there aren't much stats in the Tyranny of Dragons or Princes of the Apocalypse books either TBH. I think its just mostly that they get overlooked due to their earlier release.

Good money after bad? They gotcha good.

To date, I've spent exactly $0.00 on 5e. so if they got me good, I am impressed by how. I already have Basic PHB .pdf, DMG/MM .pdf, some Legend of Crystal Shards MM .pdf, 2 Adventure League season updates, & EE Players Companion .pdf (new spells, new races, etc.).

That said, what stopped me from getting LotCS is price. It was like $25 during the playtest, and I just was not in the market back then for such a module. Having played through Hoard of the Dragon Queen and hearing about Rise of Tiamat, and now seeing Princes of the Apocalyse... I am thinking if I were to pick up stuff it would be Starter Set and LotCS. They seem like they have the most sandbox return value.

Not really into grand campaigns that rocket PCs through levels. I could care less about PC widgets ROFLStomping the game before the GM gets a handle on strategy & tactics. So HotDQ, RoT, and PoA are very much DOA to me, especially after a run through or lengthy peek. There's just better free material out there. (Besides, who wants a rehash of stale memories — what's next Tomb of Horrors season?) That said, I hear nothing but glowing reviews of LotCS, so that grabs my attention.

to be fair its kind of vital to have a tomb of horrors release

although i expect it will come with a new flood of people thinking it was in some way meant to represent what gygax was like and taking it to seriously.

Quote from: Skywalker;826684Murder at Baldur's Gate and Legacy of the Crystal Shard are both shorter and more open adventures. However, many people seem to discount them, which I am guessing has led to WotC focussing on the adventure paths instead.

I was actually surprised and extremely pleased when I found those at my local Barnes and Noble, and snapped them up instantly. I wasn't sure if a D&D Next designed game would fit with 5E but I figured it was close enough that I could wing it.

Quote from: Opaopajr;826737To date, I've spent exactly $0.00 on 5e. so if they got me good, I am impressed by how. I already have Basic PHB .pdf, DMG/MM .pdf, some Legend of Crystal Shards MM .pdf, 2 Adventure League season updates, & EE Players Companion .pdf (new spells, new races, etc.).

That said, what stopped me from getting LotCS is price. It was like $25 during the playtest, and I just was not in the market back then for such a module. Having played through Hoard of the Dragon Queen and hearing about Rise of Tiamat, and now seeing Princes of the Apocalyse... I am thinking if I were to pick up stuff it would be Starter Set and LotCS. They seem like they have the most sandbox return value.

Not really into grand campaigns that rocket PCs through levels. I could care less about PC widgets ROFLStomping the game before the GM gets a handle on strategy & tactics. So HotDQ, RoT, and PoA are very much DOA to me, especially after a run through or lengthy peek. There's just better free material out there. (Besides, who wants a rehash of stale memories — what's next Tomb of Horrors season?) That said, I hear nothing but glowing reviews of LotCS, so that grabs my attention.

How do you think 5e runs with the free stuff and no paid books?  How about free material plus adding the MM? For various reasons, I am rather averse to paying, but the idea of using the formally free material is interesting (it can be free via torrent, but I don't really want that either).

I've been running a PbP RAW here on this forum for over 8 months now. Outside of a lack of monsters for the first 3 months, and some challenges porting over 2e monster ideas, it's pretty easy now. A lot of monster creation is surprisingly modular; take X special ability, add Y senses, sprinkle Z skills, very easy to bake your own creations.

Granted, if it was face-to-face we could have reduced those 8 months to something like 2 or 3 sessions. The party is lvl 2 as soon as they go to Long Rest, but like kids they are fighting sleep afraid they'll miss something new. They also really put me through my paces regarding the RAW rules.

The Basic PHB has plenty to cover most situations. Most trouble I had was with the party splitting to the four winds and trying to gauge worthwhile distance & time. Thankfully there's enough examples on Travel Times, Stealth, Crawl, Lighting, Cover, etc. to extrapolate enough. Though the party did make me bust out the algebra at times as they'd swing from exploration to combat to social all over the map simultaneously.

The Basic MM/DMG gives you way more monsters to work with (way more than LotCS and HotDQ), and a handy dandy CR compilation (which is mostly wonky given 5e lethality). The big grab for Basic MM/DMG is more pre-fab widgets for Senses, Abilities, Lair Actions and the like. I already had to create my own creature more than once beforehand, and this would have made it easier back then. However LotCS & HotDQ & EE PC does give more spells to sprinkle about, so...

Overall, Basic 5e .pdfs is all you really need. The print PHB is mostly for player tinkering to min/max (which is mercifully hard to do) and the print MM & DMG is mostly for new GMs struggling to bring the challenge back once they flipped all those switches on. Outside of some fun specialized archetypes, the headache really is not much worth it (keep a very keen eye on certain feats and spells!), the Basic .pdf is far more manageable.

As to need, it's easier to run Basic right away and there's less clutter to crap up the game. I'd personally start with that instead. Besides, it's healthy to get used to telling your players 'no' — easier to add in than subtract out.

Given the surplus of older (A)D&D material, you don't really need the printed books. The only one I'd bother with eventually is the PHB, for the archetypes, several classes, and races. Otherwise it works swimmingly.

Thanks for the explanation. I have not given the Basic a gander since the initial release. I will need to check it out again.  I'm not DMing now, but the last run I had included a rolling cast of 12 players (and many were newbies).  This led to too much time wasted explaining the concepts and creating characters (even Myth & Magic has too many bells and whistles with Race, Class, Attributes, WP (fighting style, maneuvers, NWP, Languages, gear and Class Talents).  

5e Basic might be a good solution, it is free, easy to download and a bit easier for newbies than the full blown version.  Yes, I know there are plenty of other OSRish games out there, but telling strangers you are playing the newest version of D&D has some explain-ability,cache and appeal that the other games do not.  

For example with Myth & Magic- "Well you see, its based on 2e which was the 90s version of the games, but it folded in some options from late in the edition and then incorporated some mechanics from 3e, but did it in a way that kept the 2e math.  Plus there was a 3 year open development period that I participated in, but all that material is gone to the ether, and the KS ran off the rails, but the game is good."  Whew.  

Its easier to say, "Basic D&D, download here".  :p

One thing I found that helps is to keep most of the intensive math behind the GM screen, especially for new players. For my PbP I routinely did otherwise because I was playing with veteran players, and because I declared I was running RAW I needed to display at times to offer verification for trust. But new players often get overwhelmed and it is just easier to do the 'stage magic behind the scenes'.

So don't give up on your Myth & Magic. It might be more presentation than anything else.

One thing I found useful in 5e that speeds up post-3e D&D-isms is the Passive check, a codified 4e idea of an older concept. Basically by demarcating a competency threshold, it quickly gives GMs ideas how to feed differing levels of description to players and let them do with that as they please. And it's not just for Perception or Investigation, as you can use it for other checks, like Persuasion, Deception, or Vehicle (land) (WIS): Calm Draft Animal, and just assume a base level of professionalism.

It's the old idea of assumed adventurer competence, or NWP professional level skill, but with a d20 value.

Quote from: Endless Flight;8262715.5e? :D

Not even remotely funny. And its 6e, (technically 7e) they are working on if one of their comments had the meaning it could be read to have. Hope that is not true.

Passive perception was one of the cool features of 4e I thought.  It helped smooth out a lot of issues of rollplay/roleplay and player skill/character skill .  Glad to see it made it to 5e.  I'll have to go check on how it was implemented.  

Cheers

Does anybody know what wizards has planed for castle greyhawk this edition. Obviously with the forgoten realms the primary setting now its not as important but i would think that of all things thats the thing they would most want to do in house.

Its looks like the next Campaign book or two will be set in Greyhawk. Something about Alice in Wonderland and another about giants.

I would defo buy a Greyhawk and FR book for 5E.

Well a general greyhawk book is prety much a given but castle greyhawk itself is still up in the air

Well a general greyhawk book is prety much a given but castle greyhawk itself is still up in the air

Quote from: Skywalker;828912Its looks like the next Campaign book or two will be set in Greyhawk. Something about Alice in Wonderland and another about giants.

speaking of alice in wonderland and castle Greyhawk the looking glass was a miror right i think theres a magic portal mirror in the basement  of castle greyhawk somewhere so it may well end up tying into the castle anyway. I doubt it though.

So it looks like the next release will be 'Out of the Abyss (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/outoftheabyss)', an Underdark adventure scheduled for September 2015.

Quote from: Godfather Punk;830328So it looks like the next release will be 'Out of the Abyss (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/outoftheabyss)', an Underdark adventure scheduled for September 2015.

Menzoberranzan, so another Realms focused module.

QuoteDare to descend into the Underdark in this adventure for the world’s greatest roleplaying game!

The Underdark is a subterranean wonderland, a vast and twisted labyrinth where fear reigns. It is the home of horrific monsters that have never seen the light of day. It is here that the dark elf Gromph Baenre, Archmage of Menzoberranzan, casts a foul spell meant to ignite a magical energy that suffuses the Underdark and tears open portals to the demonic Abyss.

Gaaah! What in the fuck is with the Forgotten Realms and the insipid, dumb, vapid, shitty, shitty names. I swear to fuck that the people who write the Realms novels and D&D supplements have never read any fantasy written before 1991, never read any history, don't actually read any fiction other than D&D tie-ins at all. Ed Greenwood clearly has an awful tin ear for language. But what are the odds that every other person who has written a FR novel of D&D book suffers from the same affliction? There must a style guide somewhere mandating this shit. I have honestly had to change the names of 80 per cent of the locations and 90 per cent of the NPCs in the Realms adventures and guidebooks I've used.

Quote from: Haffrung;830418Gaaah! What in the fuck is with the Forgotten Realms and the insipid, dumb, vapid, shitty, shitty names. I swear to fuck .......*froth froth rant*

So you don't like the names then?  ;)

Quote from: Haffrung;830418Gaaah! What in the fuck is with the Forgotten Realms and the insipid, dumb, vapid, shitty, shitty names. I swear to fuck that the people who write the Realms novels and D&D supplements have never read any fantasy written before 1991, never read any history, don't actually read any fiction other than D&D tie-ins at all. Ed Greenwood clearly has an awful tin ear for language. But what are the odds that every other person who has written a FR novel of D&D book suffers from the same affliction? There must a style guide somewhere mandating this shit. I have honestly had to change the names of 80 per cent of the locations and 90 per cent of the NPCs in the Realms adventures and guidebooks I've used.

I feel you. One of the reasons I actively avoid the Dalelands and much of the North. One of the useful things I've found from the crap-tastic AdjectiveNoun and NounVerb naming conventions is that at least they convert decently in a translator tool.

But Gromph Baenre of Menzoberranzan is pretty egregious. 'Gromph' defies convention so openly. Sounds more orc than drow. Not even an apostrophe as an excuse.

Quote from: Haffrung;830418Gaaah! What in the fuck is with the Forgotten Realms and the insipid, dumb, vapid, shitty, shitty names. I swear to fuck that the people who write the Realms novels and D&D supplements have never read any fantasy written before 1991, never read any history, don't actually read any fiction other than D&D tie-ins at all. Ed Greenwood clearly has an awful tin ear for language. But what are the odds that every other person who has written a FR novel of D&D book suffers from the same affliction? There must a style guide somewhere mandating this shit. I have honestly had to change the names of 80 per cent of the locations and 90 per cent of the NPCs in the Realms adventures and guidebooks I've used.

Its Eds naming convention that has allways put me off the Realms. The whole Word-Word thing gets really old really fast.

And yes. There is a guide for the Realms that writers are supposed to adhere to somewhat. And the world has been mapped heavily so place names are set. Its hard and sometimes disallowed to shoehorn in something new that isnt cleaving to FRs conventions. That has not stopped a few from bucking the system a little or alot.

Jar-Jar Baenre FTW!!!

Ha ha ha...I have yet to see a published setting that wasn't chock full of shitty made-up names like that or full of idiotic apostrophes or unpronounceable letter combinations.  Official setting suck as a rule.

Quote from: Matt;830563Ha ha ha...I have yet to see a published setting that wasn't chock full of shitty made-up names like that or full of idiotic apostrophes or unpronounceable letter combinations.  Official setting suck as a rule.

Greyhawk and BX Known World were actually pretty good. They werent as repettitive or overwrought as some later iterations.

The few glances Ive had at Birthright seems it has an interesting land naming convention.

April to September is a huge gap to have no releases in. Do they seriously expect to keep everyone interested in the demons-and-drow plotline with three months of hype leading into it or might there be a setting book or something planned for the gap?

Quote from: Matt;830563Ha ha ha...I have yet to see a published setting that wasn't chock full of shitty made-up names like that or full of idiotic apostrophes or unpronounceable letter combinations.  Official setting suck as a rule.

The Wilderlands is awesome. Greyhawk is not bad. Warhammer Fantasy's the Old World is supposed to be kind of a joke, but it still manages to be evocative and colorful. Most modern fantasy settings have hackneyed names, but they're not as outright dumb and absolutely lacking in any wonder as Greenwood's Realms.

Connyberry. Red Larch. Nettlebee Ranch. The Westwood. Triboar. Who could resist a realm so ripe with the promise of exotic wonders and stirring adventure! Neverwinter is the worst. The city of Neverwinter... the home of Castle Never... below which lie the Neverneath... where you can find the Crown of Neverwinter... and return it to Lord Neverember. My eight year old could come up with better stuff than that. And now the dread drow sorceror... Gromph Baenre. A debauched and decadent demon-worshipper of the blackest appetites... or a comical french goblin?

Quote from: Warthur;830665April to September is a huge gap to have no releases in. Do they seriously expect to keep everyone interested in the demons-and-drow plotline with three months of hype leading into it or might there be a setting book or something planned for the gap?

Princes of the Apocalypse should take 4-6 months to play through. Still, it is strange that WotC is publishing strictly adventure paths, and that even those are all being commissioned from third parties. Does D&D even have any full-time staff anymore? Do they just work on the organized play material?

Quote from: Omega;830649Greyhawk and BX Known World were actually pretty good. They werent as repettitive or overwrought as some later iterations.

The few glances Ive had at Birthright seems it has an interesting land naming convention.

I love me some Greyhawk, but lets be honest.  Half the names are either people's real names jumbled up (Zagyg, Dramidj, etc), or super generic (Great Kingdom, Vast Swamp, etc).

Quote from: Haffrung;830674Princes of the Apocalypse should take 4-6 months to play through. Still, it is strange that WotC is publishing strictly adventure paths, and that even those are all being commissioned from third parties. Does D&D even have any full-time staff anymore? Do they just work on the organized play material?

They're testing bits of mechanics here and there on the Unearthed Arcana articles (like the Eberron stuff from a while back and the current set of sea-based adventure rules, which snuck in details on the Dragonlance minotaurs), but what form these experiments will eventually take is deliberately vague.

Quote from: Omega;830649Greyhawk and BX Known World were actually pretty good. They werent as repettitive or overwrought as some later iterations.

The few glances Ive had at Birthright seems it has an interesting land naming convention.

I got the impression the names were taken from actual characters played out by players.
Which is probably how it was I suspect.

Quote from: danskmacabre;830852I got the impression the names were taken from actual characters played out by players.
Which is probably how it was I suspect.

In a way that is not too far off from some real naming conventions of countries.

Wolworth was named after a supermarket apparently on the Great Kingdom map. Probably others. Though most still feel more natural rather than FRs wordword world.

Hmmm,

I just went and dl'ed all the officially free pdfs I could find for 5e.  I ended up with 15 and I made an additional one with the EE trinket table.  Even though the core books are 52% off on Amazon right now, this might be enough for me :p

I wonder if there are more?

Quote from: Teazia;831092Hmmm,

I just went and dl'ed all the officially free pdfs I could find for 5e.  I ended up with 15 and I made an additional one with the EE trinket table.  Even though the core books are 52% off on Amazon right now, this might be enough for me :p

I wonder if there are more?

There are some side articles on things like a Urban Arcana setting and some other stuff buried in there too.

Currently I have
Basic PHB
Basic DMG(which is also the MM)
UA Battlesystem
UA Eberron
UA Waterborne
UA Class Variants

TOD Hoard Supplement
TOD Rise Supplement
EE Players Companion

And the articles on Trinkets, Random character gen, Urban Arcana, and so on.

Not to mention the League stuff

Quote from: Teazia;831092Hmmm,

I just went and dl'ed all the officially free pdfs I could find for 5e.  I ended up with 15 and I made an additional one with the EE trinket table.  Even though the core books are 52% off on Amazon right now, this might be enough for me :p

I wonder if there are more?

The only free, official D&D 5 PDFs I know of are the Basic Set and the Elemental Evil Players' Guide.
What other ones are there, and are they all on the Wizards Website? If so, where?

Quote from: Jame Rowe;831442The only free, official D&D 5 PDFs I know of are the Basic Set and the Elemental Evil Players' Guide.
What other ones are there, and are they all on the Wizards Website? If so, where?

The Unearthed Arcana articles are "officially free" if not "free, official" offerings. They are positioned as playtest-like.  The ones you list are the only ones that I know of that are "free, official" game materials.

Quote from: Haffrung;830674Princes of the Apocalypse should take 4-6 months to play through. Still, it is strange that WotC is publishing strictly adventure paths, and that even those are all being commissioned from third parties. Does D&D even have any full-time staff anymore? Do they just work on the organized play material?

The organized play stuff is done by freelancers and volunteers, not full-timers.

Quote from: VectorSigma;831702The organized play stuff is done by freelancers and volunteers, not full-timers.

And boy does it show at times! O_o

Defiance in Phlan was a nice starting cluster of five intro adventures. But some of the other ones are real stinkers (<_< Umberlee quests).