PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e Release Dates and Pricing Confirmed



Pages : [1] 2

CyberThread
2014-05-19, 09:30 AM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/134601-Dungeons-Dragons-Unveils-Full-Product-Line-Release-Dates-and-Details

Fully Confirmed and legit, stuff is showing up on amazon now as pre orders.

Gamgee
2014-05-19, 09:39 AM
Such price, so small. Well as much as I like the system I might have to skip or delay my purchase of it. Simply due to a lack of money. Those will be way to expensive for me in Canada.

CyberThread
2014-05-19, 09:46 AM
Such price, so small. Well as much as I like the system I might have to skip or delay my purchase of it. Simply due to a lack of money. Those will be way to expensive for me in Canada.



Tell me more.... I do things on ebay all the time, so do speak up if I may have a new potential market :P

Like how much do they really jack the prices up in canada compared to the usa price?

1337 b4k4
2014-05-19, 09:48 AM
Reading between the lines, it's unclear whether the starter set will include chargen rules or not. I hope it does as 6 pregens are going to wear thin real quick.
Good on them for including dice with the starter set though, at $20 that will make a good impulse buy / gift set.
Interesting note that the DMG, which won't be out until November, is where the optional rules will reside. I'm hoping that at 320 pages, the PHB will have at least some of the modules/optional rules they're talking about.
I like the art work on the covers, I hope that continues over to the inside artwork as well. I wasn't a huge fan of either 4e or 3e artwork.
Does anyone else think the font they chose for the book titles though is awful? Like something you'd see on the cover of a small press / indie book published from microsoft word out of a basement or like something from an old B-movie monster flick? Maybe it's just the way that the solid white stands out against everything else on the cover, it just looks off to me.

CyberThread
2014-05-19, 09:54 AM
To put perspective PHB for 3.5 had 320 pages was 19.95 usa, but 31.25 candian .

Kurald Galain
2014-05-19, 09:59 AM
I'm hoping that at 320 pages, the PHB will have at least some of the modules/optional rules they're talking about.
The page linked says "learn the game's systems from it, but it includes only basic rules." At a $50 price tag I don't think I'll be buying that.

Eldan
2014-05-19, 10:02 AM
That actually seems cheap to me. We bought the 3.0 sourcebooks at 75 Swiss Francs (about 85$) per piece.

The covers look bland, though. NOt the pictures, they are pictury. But the writing and logo are very sterile.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-19, 10:06 AM
Looking over Amazon, I see the 4E PHB sells for $15 now, the 3E PHB for $23, and the 2E PHB for $25, all of which substantially cheaper than 5E. The 1E PHB is $70 now, but that's presumably a collector's item.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-19, 10:10 AM
The page linked says "learn the game's systems from it, but it includes only basic rules." At a $50 price tag I don't think I'll be buying that.

Yeah, but the WotC page says:


The Player’s Handbook is the essential reference for every Dungeons & Dragons roleplayer. It contains rules for character creation and advancement, backgrounds and skills, exploration and combat, equipment, spells, and much more.

Given that the basic rules are character creation, advancement, backgrounds, skills, exploration, combat, equipment and spells, I'm hoping the "much more" is stuff beyond the core system.


Looking over Amazon, I see the 4E PHB sells for $15 now, the 3E PHB for $23, and the 2E PHB for $25, all of which substantially cheaper than 5E. The 1E PHB is $70 now, but that's presumably a collector's item.

Well sure, but products on the market are always cheaper than new products. You'll note the list price is $35. The numbers we're being given by WotC are also list price. Also, arguably the fact that the 4e books are selling well below list while the 3e and 1e books are not is probably a factor of inventory glut (slow sales) and attempting to clear inventory before the new editions land. As an interesting side note, the 4e Rules Compendium is selling for $50 new on amazon, well over it's $20 list price, and all the essentials books are selling close to list.

Stubbazubba
2014-05-19, 10:33 AM
Why on earth is the PHB coming out in July, and the DMG not until November? What can you do with a PHB without a DMG for 4 months?

1337 b4k4
2014-05-19, 10:45 AM
Why on earth is the PHB coming out in July, and the DMG not until November? What can you do with a PHB without a DMG for 4 months?

Depends on the content of the PHB. If the PHB is less like more recent iterations and more like a complete core game, with the DMG containing more of the philosophical and optional stuff, it could work just fine.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-19, 10:47 AM
Why on earth is the PHB coming out in July, and the DMG not until November? What can you do with a PHB without a DMG for 4 months?

Presumably the same as with 4E: the PHB contains all the rules to play the game, the DMG contains advice for running a campaign but no actual rules. As I recall, 4E's DMG also came out several months later (and I never bought that either, because nothing in there is necessary to run a game).

Fralex
2014-05-19, 11:15 AM
I really hope they release it in PDF form. With bookmarks that take you to all the different sections. The playtest has taught me that this really is the best way to present a ton of information without it taking forever to look stuff up.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-19, 11:34 AM
Well I'm off to check out Kobold Press, I think I recall them doing pathfinder stuff...

Does anyone know of any good adventures they have made?

obryn
2014-05-19, 12:13 PM
Staggered releases are nothing new; the 3.0 release was, itself, staggered, and it did okay for itself. It also led to Sword & Sorcery's Creature Catalog being the first 3e monster book. (Neither 3.5 nor 4e were staggered, however.)

AD&D's releases were a lot more staggered than that, even, but that was the 70's.

As to why? A simple explanation is that not everything is done yet. Another is that $50 is pretty expensive, but $150 over several months is easier to swallow than $150 in one month.

e: For $16 I've pre-ordered the Starter Kit. I'm not super pumped, but that's impulse buy territory.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-19, 01:07 PM
Another note on pricing is that production costs have gone up quite a bit over the years. For example to print a 320 page full color hardcover book at Lulu would be $50.65. Using the cost estimator here (http://www.instantpublisher.com/Price-quote.aspx) a 320 page, full color, glossy hardback book print run of 500,000 units has a per unit cost of ~$28 / unit (and note the print run size pretty much stops mattering over a couple thousand units from that particular publisher). Now obviously we don't know the exact costs of D&D's publishing, and certainly the small press costs charged by Lulu are not what WotC is paying, but it gives you an idea of where publishing costs are. If you figure that the retail markup on books is in general 50% (http://www.writersservices.com/resources/publishing-pricing-inside-publishing), then the $50 price tag you're seeing might just well be a "reasonable" price for such a book. Now whether consumers will pay that or not is another matter, perhaps WotC should have gone with cheaper books (no color printing? paperback?) or more books at lower cost, but each of those comes with their own drawbacks. As a final note, I will point out that GURPS currently retails for $50 for the main book (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Basic/) (338 pages) and $35 for the second book (224 pages).

Sartharina
2014-05-19, 01:39 PM
...I do not like the new logo at all, and the artwork on the cover is... too noisy for my tastes. Save that kind of stuff for inside splash pages! I like my 3.5 'vault' themed art.

The pricing also seems a bit excessive.

Friv
2014-05-19, 04:15 PM
Another note on pricing is that production costs have gone up quite a bit over the years. For example to print a 320 page full color hardcover book at Lulu would be $50.65. Using the cost estimator here (http://www.instantpublisher.com/Price-quote.aspx) a 320 page, full color, glossy hardback book print run of 500,000 units has a per unit cost of ~$28 / unit (and note the print run size pretty much stops mattering over a couple thousand units from that particular publisher). Now obviously we don't know the exact costs of D&D's publishing, and certainly the small press costs charged by Lulu are not what WotC is paying, but it gives you an idea of where publishing costs are. If you figure that the retail markup on books is in general 50% (http://www.writersservices.com/resources/publishing-pricing-inside-publishing), then the $50 price tag you're seeing might just well be a "reasonable" price for such a book. Now whether consumers will pay that or not is another matter, perhaps WotC should have gone with cheaper books (no color printing? paperback?) or more books at lower cost, but each of those comes with their own drawbacks. As a final note, I will point out that GURPS currently retails for $50 for the main book (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Basic/) (338 pages) and $35 for the second book (224 pages).

The problem is less $50 for a 320 page book, although I do happen to think that full color is a mistake. Lots of RPG books have done very well on snazzy B&W artwork. The problem is that there's no indication that $50 will be sufficient to play the actual game for any length of time, because all of the important rules and monsters are in two other books. I'm not paying $150 for one game, not unless it really wows me out of the gate.

*EDIT* I'm going to say something nice, since I said something mean. The starter set looks really good. How to play a group for five levels, dice, a set of pregens for people who don't have ideas, and an adventure with, presumably, advice for making more adventures for the other levels, and all at a price point that makes impulse buys possible.

Seerow
2014-05-19, 06:21 PM
Presumably the same as with 4E: the PHB contains all the rules to play the game, the DMG contains advice for running a campaign but no actual rules. As I recall, 4E's DMG also came out several months later (and I never bought that either, because nothing in there is necessary to run a game).

I remember buying all 3 core books for 4e at once, so I do not believe that is a true statement.

Also according to the article, the DMG will include all of the optional modules (you know the big thing they've been hyping up as being what makes the game good for everyone? The thing that we never got a hint of in the playtest?) and more importantly all of the magic items. Hardly just advice for running the campaign without any rules.


More baffling than the DMG's delay is the Monster Manual's delay. The monster manual doesn't come out until September, a full month after the player's handbook. Even if you want to argue that the DMG isn't required (who wanted any loot from that encounter anyway?), the monster manual is absolutely required. Especially with the PHB being only a bit over 300 pages (so not going to have room for a bunch of monster stat blocks to hold over until the MM comes out).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-19, 06:27 PM
I remember buying all 3 core books for 4e at once, so I do not believe that is a true statement.

Also according to the article, the DMG will include all of the optional modules (you know the big thing they've been hyping up as being what makes the game good for everyone? The thing that we never got a hint of in the playtest?) and more importantly all of the magic items. Hardly just advice for running the campaign without any rules.


More baffling than the DMG's delay is the Monster Manual's delay. The monster manual doesn't come out until September, a full month after the player's handbook. Even if you want to argue that the DMG isn't required (who wanted any loot from that encounter anyway?), the monster manual is absolutely required. Especially with the PHB being only a bit over 300 pages (so not going to have room for a bunch of monster stat blocks to hold over until the MM comes out).


Obviously this means for at least a month PvP is encouraged by WotC!

Mwuahahahaha finally!

Envyus
2014-05-19, 06:32 PM
The reason for it is apparently for errata. So if they need to update stuff they don't need to all at once. This was apparently a problem back in 4th. The starter set and the modules will no doubt come with Monster stats as well.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-19, 06:32 PM
I remember buying all 3 core books for 4e at once, so I do not believe that is a true statement.

You are correct; I've just looked it up and the staggered release happened with 4.4's HOFL / RulCom / Monster Vault. They also did it with 3.0, years ago.

captpike
2014-05-19, 06:34 PM
it seams kind of pointless to buy the PHB if you have no optional modules (assuming they really exist of course), magic items, or any creature stats.

I mean what can we do with that? have PvP only games?

Envyus
2014-05-19, 06:37 PM
(assuming they really exist of course)

Sorry sorry but this caught my eye. The hell does this mean we can see the modules right there announced.

Seerow
2014-05-19, 06:38 PM
Sorry sorry but this caught my eye. The hell does this mean we can see the modules right there announced.

The ways of Mike Mearls are mysterious and full of overpromising. Believe nothing until you see it actually exists, and you will avoid much disappointment.

captpike
2014-05-19, 06:45 PM
Sorry sorry but this caught my eye. The hell does this mean we can see the modules right there announced.

they said they exist, that does not mean they do. it could mean for example that they have things they call modules, that are nothing more then small changes to unimportant rules.

I will believe they exist when I see them in a book in my hands.

if they had really wanted them to work they would have been in the playtest from the start. modules like the tactical combat one would have to be tested and made at the same time as the rest of the system. any mod that would effect the basic math of the game would.

so either they took the open playtest as nothing more then PR, or they were not serious about the modules

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-19, 07:25 PM
they said they exist, that does not mean they do. it could mean for example that they have things they call modules, that are nothing more then small changes to unimportant rules.

I will believe they exist when I see them in a book in my hands.

if they had really wanted them to work they would have been in the playtest from the start. modules like the tactical combat one would have to be tested and made at the same time as the rest of the system. any mod that would effect the basic math of the game would.

so either they took the open playtest as nothing more then PR, or they were not serious about the modules

I'm still hoping that the playtest and Mearls being one of the leaders (or is he the defacto leader?) of the dev team is all a big ruse. Like... D&D Next and D&D 5e are actually two separate systems. WotC wanted to throw people off their trail because they are being innovating and fantastic behind the scene... And then they reveal their plan all along!

:smallfrown:

Probably not *sigh*

Lokiare
2014-05-19, 07:44 PM
That actually seems cheap to me. We bought the 3.0 sourcebooks at 75 Swiss Francs (about 85$) per piece.

The covers look bland, though. NOt the pictures, they are pictury. But the writing and logo are very sterile.

Not cheap for me. That's like several months savings.


Yeah, but the WotC page says:



Given that the basic rules are character creation, advancement, backgrounds, skills, exploration, combat, equipment and spells, I'm hoping the "much more" is stuff beyond the core system.



Well sure, but products on the market are always cheaper than new products. You'll note the list price is $35. The numbers we're being given by WotC are also list price. Also, arguably the fact that the 4e books are selling well below list while the 3e and 1e books are not is probably a factor of inventory glut (slow sales) and attempting to clear inventory before the new editions land. As an interesting side note, the 4e Rules Compendium is selling for $50 new on amazon, well over it's $20 list price, and all the essentials books are selling close to list.

Hope in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up quicker.


The problem is less $50 for a 320 page book, although I do happen to think that full color is a mistake. Lots of RPG books have done very well on snazzy B&W artwork. The problem is that there's no indication that $50 will be sufficient to play the actual game for any length of time, because all of the important rules and monsters are in two other books. I'm not paying $150 for one game, not unless it really wows me out of the gate.

*EDIT* I'm going to say something nice, since I said something mean. The starter set looks really good. How to play a group for five levels, dice, a set of pregens for people who don't have ideas, and an adventure with, presumably, advice for making more adventures for the other levels, and all at a price point that makes impulse buys possible.

Yeah, the price points are just getting to be too much. I'm not putting anything down until I play the game and see how borked it is.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-19, 09:12 PM
So would this be the thread where we can place bets on how close the starter set will resemble the actual game?

Edit: bets not vets... Damn my phone's tiny keyboard!

Gamgee
2014-05-19, 10:25 PM
With shipping, tax, and conversion I would imagine each 50 dollar book to reach around 60-65 dollars. If I try and support my LFGS I would expect another 5 to 10 on top. At launch surely 65 that adds up to be almost enough money for another book from any other rpg company. Insane prices jacking.

Edit
If I'm super lucky to get a deal on the core books I could get them for 55-60, but I need to be on the ball and having a lot of good luck shopping around.

CyberThread
2014-05-19, 10:48 PM
With shipping, tax, and conversion I would imagine each 50 dollar book to reach around 60-65 dollars. If I try and support my LFGS I would expect another 5 to 10 on top. At launch surely 65 that adds up to be almost enough money for another book from any other rpg company. Insane prices jacking.

Edit
If I'm super lucky to get a deal on the core books I could get them for 55-60, but I need to be on the ball and having a lot of good luck shopping around.


Well I may look into buying some starter sets, and putting them on ebay, and see how the shipping options work out; I may be able to help some folks without doing a mark up like some stores would try to do, then again nothing is ever easy.

Gamgee
2014-05-19, 11:52 PM
Well I may look into buying some starter sets, and putting them on ebay, and see how the shipping options work out; I may be able to help some folks without doing a mark up like some stores would try to do, then again nothing is ever easy.

Well lets hope so. That would be great if I could get them for cheaper.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-20, 12:08 AM
Hope in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up quicker.

That's a loaded statement; You cannot compare a metaphysical concept to saliva and consider that fair. Seems like a low blow to use this statement simply to make a point in your favor.

As far as pricing goes, I do wish the core rulebook was $40 instead of $50, but the $10 difference is a leap of faith that people will have to take before they can know if it was a worthwhile investment. I think them taking that risk is fine as a company; All it means is that people will be sort of gambling the levels of entertainment they'll get out of the product(something that most modern video gamers do as-is, and a mentality that isn't always lost on tabletop roleplayers either.) Though as a poor college student I can agree that it does bite into the wallet a bit, and that's why I'm hoping they'll have good PDF releases; I'd gladly shell out some money for a 7'' tablet and some PDFs, but the hardcover books are less appealing because they're a bit big and weighted. I can't make sustained purchases of hefty books every other month, but I can probably do a solid one-time purchase if it crunches the costs that printing hardcovers introduces to the point where I can afford to get the majority of the content for the game.

Everyone seems to be buying the starter set, so I probably will too. Especially if they release non-standard dice with it. I can't imagine QW or Chessex shying away from an opportunity to cast special dice for a company that amounts to a good majority of their income. Otherwise it's all stuff that I can patiently wait until August for, but I am not ignorant to the fact that the starter set will be the essential tool for entry-level play and getting an idea of the absolutely final version of the system.

Lastly, I seem to be the only person on the face of the earth that is excited for the new miniatures release AND okay with it's price - a shame, really, but I'm a simple man of simple tastes, and miniatures are one way into my heart. Doesn't take much to please me when you mention painted plastic figurines, because I would eat those like candy if I could.

Sartharina
2014-05-20, 12:38 AM
it seams kind of pointless to buy the PHB if you have no optional modules (assuming they really exist of course), magic items, or any creature stats.

I mean what can we do with that? have PvP only games?Same thing I did back with 3e when it came out - screw around with the starter set material, using the PHB's expanded options for player characters. I have no idea how many times we rescued that unicorn from different rooms from the same dungeon layout (I still have that map, somewhere), shuffling around doors and tossing the assorted included monsters into the dungeon in different combinations. Eventually, we actually were able to take down that Red Dragon! But both dragons at once was insurmountable until we got the PhB.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-20, 09:06 AM
it seams kind of pointless to buy the PHB if you have no optional modules (assuming they really exist of course), magic items, or any creature stats.

I mean what can we do with that? have PvP only games?

According to Mearls' twitter, you don't need anything more than the PHB to start playing, you will be able to run a full campaign with just the PHB. And you apparently don't need the PHB to make a character. Source: (http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2014/05/mike-mearls-tweets-and-answers.html). The question then becomes, how will this be possible? Ideally, I would expect the PHB to come with the "math" part of creating magic items and monsters, and the MM and DMGs to be largely applications of that math, lore and philosophy.

CyberThread
2014-05-20, 09:12 AM
Alright, against forum rules to talk about what I have been talking about, Ignore what I have said.

Snowbluff
2014-05-20, 09:19 AM
I'm interest. I mean, I already play 3 kinds of DND (3.5, PF, and 4e). :smalltongue:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-20, 09:33 AM
I'm interest. I mean, I already play 3 kinds of DND (3.5, PF, and 4e). :smalltongue:

Wait, there are others out there that play multiple editions? Huh... Thought I was the only one.

Anyways...

Maybe they will have a OGL or something and a website that allows you to make characters? Like d20srd.org or d20pfsrd.com? This is only for character creation, no additional or optional options or even feats (yet?). This way you could make a character but still need the books to run the game.

captpike
2014-05-20, 01:25 PM
According to Mearls' twitter, you don't need anything more than the PHB to start playing, you will be able to run a full campaign with just the PHB. And you apparently don't need the PHB to make a character. Source: (http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2014/05/mike-mearls-tweets-and-answers.html). The question then becomes, how will this be possible? Ideally, I would expect the PHB to come with the "math" part of creating magic items and monsters, and the MM and DMGs to be largely applications of that math, lore and philosophy.

I have doubt they are good enough to put the math of how to make creatures in the PHB and that math would be good enough on its own to make any creature you need.

obryn
2014-05-20, 02:03 PM
So more news - while there is no character creation stuff in the box set, players WILL be able to make their own characters. So that points towards a (free, probably) online thingy for making your own characters, I guess? I am not sure how this is going to work.

russdm
2014-05-20, 02:36 PM
The ways of Mike Mearls are mysterious and full of overpromising. Believe nothing until you see it actually exists, and you will avoid much disappointment.

This needs to be turned into some kind of button or bumper sticker to be sold to people.

da_chicken
2014-05-20, 05:14 PM
Looks like the pre-order price on Amazon has already dropped below $40. It should reach $35 once Amazon hit 30% off.

Envyus
2014-05-20, 05:23 PM
Remember that one of the Modules is being released at the same time as the PH. So there will be monster stats in there as well.

Felhammer
2014-05-20, 06:12 PM
$50 is in ballpark for the price of books these days. Everything is just so much more expensive than it was ten years ago. On top of that, people are demanding much higher production quality now; black and white just doesn't cut it any more.

The price tag is still a bit steep but it really is not that much more than Pathfinder (if we compare similar content to similar content).

PF Core Rule Book: 50
PF Bestiary: 40
PF Game Mastery: 40

That is a total of $130. That is $20 less than D&D. Not that bad, really.

The staggered release is most likely due to a) the sheer cost of getting all of the content at once and b) the leeriness of merchants to buy lots of D&D books after the so-so performance of 4E. if you release everything at once, merchants will buy less because none of it has proven to have a fanbase and there is just so much to buy. Staggered is a better economic model for both WotC and the merchants. For us, it isn't so great because we will have to wait several months to get all of the content.

Casual fans will pick up the starter set, then the PHB and the adventure module. That should be more than enough to tide them over until the MM is released. For the hardcore gamers, we already have the beta's monster manual document and are smart enough to wing monsters until the MM is released. A month is not that big of a wait in the grand scheme of things.

As for the covers, well, I like them. They all convey a sense of adventure and excitement that was often lacking in previous editions. They catch your eye and draw you in (which is exactly what covers are supposed to do). My only hope is that the spine of the books have a similar ascetic, like the 4E ones, or the 3.5 Faerun & Eberron books. My biggest dislike of 3.5 was that there was no sense of continuity in the spines. It looks like a random assortment of books, which is definitely not pleasing to my eye.

I wonder if the characters on the various covers will be this edition's iconic characters.

Seerow
2014-05-20, 06:25 PM
PF Core Rule Book: 50
PF Bestiary: 40
PF Game Mastery: 40

That is a total of $130. That is $20 less than D&D. Not that bad, really.


1) Magic Items and modules to expand the game beyond the basic simple rules (remember those modules we were promised as a central part of DDN to make it a game for players of all editions?) are going to be in the DMG. It is entirely necessary to have a complete game. By comparison, the Game Mastery Guide for Pathfinder is entirely optional, with its whole focus being general GMing advice. So the actual price is closer to 90 dollars vs 150.

2) Everything ruleswise in Pathfinder can be found for free on the SRD. If you're just wanting to try out the game, your buy-in is "Free". You can then choose to invest more if you like it. It's really hard to compete with "Full lineup of books and options for free" by saying "3 books spread over 3-4 months for 150 dollars".

captpike
2014-05-20, 06:55 PM
paying $50 to get the full game would be costly but not too much.

paying $50 and I still don't have some of the moduals, or magic items means I did in fact NOT get a full game, I have to pay $50 more for a full game.

$100 IS too much to pay for the bare minimum to learn the game.

Felhammer
2014-05-20, 07:35 PM
paying $50 to get the full game would be costly but not too much.

paying $50 and I still don't have some of the moduals, or magic items means I did in fact NOT get a full game, I have to pay $50 more for a full game.

$100 IS too much to pay for the bare minimum to learn the game.

You pay $90 in Pathfinder (Core Rule Book + Bestiary). If you account for inflation, the $70 you spent in 2003 for the PHB and MM is worth $90 in today's money. A hundred dollars for a system is not that bad.


1) Magic Items and modules to expand the game beyond the basic simple rules (remember those modules we were promised as a central part of DDN to make it a game for players of all editions?) are going to be in the DMG. It is entirely necessary to have a complete game. By comparison, the Game Mastery Guide for Pathfinder is entirely optional, with its whole focus being general GMing advice. So the actual price is closer to 90 dollars vs 150.

2) Everything ruleswise in Pathfinder can be found for free on the SRD. If you're just wanting to try out the game, your buy-in is "Free". You can then choose to invest more if you like it. It's really hard to compete with "Full lineup of books and options for free" by saying "3 books spread over 3-4 months for 150 dollars".

1) I specified content for content for a reason. The Pathfinder Core Rule Book does a lousy job of being a helpful resource for dealing with anything that is not 100% pertinent to the rules (how to structure a campaign, how to deal with players, how to be a good host, managing time, creating a basic world to begin adventuring in, giving you a pre-made adventure, etc.). That information is as necessary as the "here's an example of play" section of any core rule book. Experienced players may not need it but newbies definitely do. Additionally, the PF Core Rule book does not include any variant rules to help make the game your own (the way DMGs/GMGs do). :smallsmile:

Beyond that, there is a philosophical debate to be had as to how the content should be organized and distributed amongst books. Look at the Pathfinder Core Rule book. It includes about 179 pages of content that in 3.5 were designated as material for the DM. Paizo is forcing players to pay for a book where 31% of the content is earmarked for DMs. Do not get me wrong, Paizo *had* to do it that way because small time companies cannot afford to release their content piecemeal (even if it is a better model). Other games take it a step further and include a smattering of interesting/iconic monsters in the core rule book, something Paizo did not do (and perhaps should have done if the goal was to release a whole game in a single book).

People are going to come down on the debate differently based on their own experience and situation. Some one who is only ever a player does not want DM content in his book (especially if it eats up a third of it). Other players may cross the screen more often and see a more integrated rule book as being a better value for him. Someone who is only ever a DM may actually favor the Essential Method of breaking books down into smaller, more easily digestible chunks. Maybe some people hate variant rules and would prefer that to have its own Unearthed Arcana-like book. Everyone will come down on the division of game material differently.

If the goal is to make a satisfying game on the cheap, then everything should be in one book - including monsters. If the goal is to save individuals money, then dividing the content up and spreading out amongst several books is the better option.

2) Pathfinder is indeed all online but people are not necessarily going to know if they impulse buy the core rule book. 4E had all their rules online for 10 bucks a month, which is still vastly cheaper than buying all of the books. Books are created for a reason - they have value independent of the content they provide.

Saying "Full lineup of books and options for free" is misleading in that the D&D and Pathfinder are two very different games. One only has to look at the edition wars that have plagued the internet for a decade and a half to see that two different rule sets attract and appeal to different kinds of folks. They are both roleplaying games but their rules are going to attract different user mindsets. A Ford F-350 and a Ford Focus will both get you from point A to point B but the experience will be very different.

captpike
2014-05-20, 07:43 PM
You pay $90 in Pathfinder (Core Rule Book + Bestiary). If you account for inflation, the $70 you spent in 2003 for the PHB and MM is worth $90 in today's money. A hundred dollars for a system is not that bad.



only one person needs a bestiary, even for that one person you can often make due without one if you absolutely have to.

magic items and moduals are player resources, every player would need to be able to look at magic items, not to mention the (hopefully existent) tactical module.

Felhammer
2014-05-20, 08:37 PM
only one person needs a bestiary, even for that one person you can often make due without one if you absolutely have to.

magic items and moduals are player resources, every player would need to be able to look at magic items, not to mention the (hopefully existent) tactical module.

Magic items dont have to be a player resource. In fact if they are like 3.5 magic items, they shouldnt be player resources. But that is just one man's opinion. :smallsmile:

Let us be honest, players only need the basic rules. Optional stuff, DM stuff and monsters are only needed by the DMs. Their game, their rules afterall.

captpike
2014-05-20, 09:11 PM
Magic items dont have to be a player resource. In fact if they are like 3.5 magic items, they shouldnt be player resources. But that is just one man's opinion. :smallsmile:

Let us be honest, players only need the basic rules. Optional stuff, DM stuff and monsters are only needed by the DMs. Their game, their rules afterall.

the players need all the rules for the game, if the DM is using the tactical mod then they need to know how it works. the only rules the PCs would not need to know are ones that would never come up for them. for example the ones dealing with how to make combat encounters, or how to make a creature. (unless you have summons that follow those rules of course)

saying PCs don't need to know about magic items is like saying they don't need to know about feats. magic items can come to define a character, they absolutely need to have all the details about them. if I am told to "make a level 5 character with a 2,000g budget for magic items" I don't want to have to have a DMG to make the character.


PC: "I move over here and cast a spell"
DM: "you cant do that, the rules say you provoke an OA for casting there"
PC: "there are no OAs in 5e"
DM: "the tact mod that we are using says there are"

how can you expect players to follow rules they don't know?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-20, 09:12 PM
Magic items dont have to be a player resource. In fact if they are like 3.5 magic items, they shouldnt be player resources. But that is just one man's opinion. :smallsmile:

Let us be honest, players only need the basic rules. Optional stuff, DM stuff and monsters are only needed by the DMs. Their game, their rules afterall.

It depends really.

Will the make the game where some classes need magic items to keep up with the game or will they make all classes be able to keep up with the game without magic items.

If it is the first one then magic items better be in the PHB but if it is the second one then we can do without magic items in the PHB.

So how much like 3e will this game be?

Felhammer
2014-05-20, 10:14 PM
the players need all the rules for the game, if the DM is using the tactical mod then they need to know how it works. the only rules the PCs would not need to know are ones that would never come up for them. for example the ones dealing with how to make combat encounters, or how to make a creature. (unless you have summons that follow those rules of course)

saying PCs don't need to know about magic items is like saying they don't need to know about feats. magic items can come to define a character, they absolutely need to have all the details about them. if I am told to "make a level 5 character with a 2,000g budget for magic items" I don't want to have to have a DMG to make the character.


PC: "I move over here and cast a spell"
DM: "you cant do that, the rules say you provoke an OA for casting there"
PC: "there are no OAs in 5e"
DM: "the tact mod that we are using says there are"

how can you expect players to follow rules they don't know?

Your DM can tell you how the tactical game works, or let you read his DMG., or you, being a guy who likes knowing everything, can buy the DMG. Not every player needs or wants that info (heck, many DMs won't want it either). Optional rules should not be foisted upon the masses en mass. They should have their own home (like the DMG).

Your point of view on magic items is being skewed by what has come before. 5E could easily be a game that does not require magic items for level up (at least not to the extent they were needed in 3.x and 4E). They could be special, more fluff based than anything else (which would be in line with the general tone of the game). Plenty of people made 5th level characters in every other edition (sans 4E) without needing to own the book with all the magic items in it.


It depends really.

Will the make the game where some classes need magic items to keep up with the game or will they make all classes be able to keep up with the game without magic items.

If it is the first one then magic items better be in the PHB but if it is the second one then we can do without magic items in the PHB.

So how much like 3e will this game be?

Indeed, it really depends on how the game turns out. Regardless, it is still easier to separate that content out in the name of simplicity than to try and shove the genie back in the bottle once the game is released.

captpike
2014-05-20, 10:30 PM
Your DM can tell you how the tactical game works, or let you read his DMG., or you, being a guy who likes knowing everything, can buy the DMG. Not every player needs or wants that info (heck, many DMs won't want it either). Optional rules should not be foisted upon the masses en mass. They should have their own home (like the DMG).

so you want to have an important part of the rules only in the DMG, where it will have to be passed around to everyone because everyone will have to understand it? do you want to spend the first session on two rounds of combat because the group realized that only the GM understand how combat works?




Your point of view on magic items is being skewed by what has come before. 5E could easily be a game that does not require magic items for level up (at least not to the extent they were needed in 3.x and 4E). They could be special, more fluff based than anything else (which would be in line with the general tone of the game). Plenty of people made 5th level characters in every other edition (sans 4E) without needing to own the book with all the magic items in it.


it has nothing to do with if they are required or not, if players use them they need to know what they do. for the exact same reason feats need to be in the PHB even if you can take +1 to a stat instead.

even if its just "lights up any room you are in" I would like to know that. what if I am making a character who is called "the lightbringer" it might be nice to be able to see there is a cool glowly sword.

----
the optional mods are just as important as the normal rules for the groups that use them.

HauntWrigs
2014-05-20, 10:33 PM
I'm interest. I mean, I already play 3 kinds of DND (3.5, PF, and 4e). :smalltongue:

Ha! Me, too!

Felhammer
2014-05-20, 11:10 PM
so you want to have an important part of the rules only in the DMG, where it will have to be passed around to everyone because everyone will have to understand it? do you want to spend the first session on two rounds of combat because the group realized that only the GM understand how combat works?


We are not talking about the core rules of the game. We are talking about an optional add on that the DM can choose to add to his game. It is a very different beast than seqestering the basic rules for combat (as intended by the core game) in a different book.





it has nothing to do with if they are required or not, if players use them they need to know what they do. for the exact same reason feats need to be in the PHB even if you can take +1 to a stat instead.

even if its just "lights up any room you are in" I would like to know that. what if I am making a character who is called "the lightbringer" it might be nice to be able to see there is a cool glowly sword.

No one is stopping you from buying the DMG, if you feel you must know everything as a player. Most players will be content finding gear in game. Remember Next has been stated to be a game that harkens back to the days of yore. One of those concepts is that magic items are rare and usually only found in deep, dark, long forgotten places (or the King's treasury!). If you are the Lightbringer, then be the Lightbringer. The existence (or non-existence) of a glowing object in the DMG does not stop you from making the character who you want. Character concept and roleplaying will be more important than complex character builds (or so the devs have said...).




the optional mods are just as important as the normal rules for the groups that use them.

Indeed but since the majority of games will not use the optional rules, their dis-inclusion from the PHB is a sound decision.

captpike
2014-05-20, 11:33 PM
We are not talking about the core rules of the game. We are talking about an optional add on that the DM can choose to add to his game. It is a very different beast than seqestering the basic rules for combat (as intended by the core game) in a different book.

sure if all the mods are short, simple and do not change any of the basic math of the game in any way.

in other words they are not what we have been told. and yes if the tactical mod is real and does what they say it will do then it will change how combat works in a basic way, that means every player must know how it works.



No one is stopping you from buying the DMG, if you feel you must know everything as a player. Most players will be content finding gear in game. Remember Next has been stated to be a game that harkens back to the days of yore. One of those concepts is that magic items are rare and usually only found in deep, dark, long forgotten places (or the King's treasury!). If you are the Lightbringer, then be the Lightbringer. The existence (or non-existence) of a glowing object in the DMG does not stop you from making the character who you want. Character concept and roleplaying will be more important than complex character builds (or so the devs have said...).

Indeed but since the majority of games will not use the optional rules, their dis-inclusion from the PHB is a sound decision.

the DMG is for DMs, the PHB is for players. if they put stuff the players need to know (the rules and magic items) in the DMG they are lying to everyone who reads the title of the book. also it wont cost any more money to put them in the PHB, it just moves where the pages are.

if as a player I have to buy the DMG to play the game, to know the rules or to look up items then the game failed, just as much as if they put the rules for PC summoning things in the monster manual. or the rules for fireball in the DMG.

puting magic items in the PHB works for everyone, putting them in the DMG only works for people who like random treasure, and never being able to plan your character around loot.

if the game is made for everyone then they must put magic items in the PHB because otherwise high magic games would not work.

Felhammer
2014-05-21, 01:18 AM
sure if all the mods are short, simple and do not change any of the basic math of the game in any way.

in other words they are not what we have been told. and yes if the tactical mod is real and does what they say it will do then it will change how combat works in a basic way, that means every player must know how it works.

Still does not mean it should be in the PHB. Now a fourth supplement, like Unearthed Arcana, there's the ticket (which is actually what I wish they would have done (but then again, people would be complaining about having to buy 4 books then)). :smallsmile:



if as a player I have to buy the DMG to play the game, to know the rules or to look up items then the game failed, just as much as if they put the rules for PC summoning things in the monster manual. or the rules for fireball in the DMG.

You are buying it because you have a particular playstyle that the designers of the game obviously do not want to encourage. There is a difference between bad design and a different design philosophy. :smallsmile:


puting magic items in the PHB works for everyone, putting them in the DMG only works for people who like random treasure, and never being able to plan your character around loot.

Unless the game does not focus on the Christmas Tree of magic items that provide tiny bonuses but are 100% necessary to own and use, otherwise the game breaks (i.e. 3.5 & 4E (before inherent bonuses)). Without that, there is no need to plan out magic item acquisition (at least compared to 3.x/PF/4E).


if the game is made for everyone then they must put magic items in the PHB because otherwise high magic games would not work.

By the same token putting magic items in the PHB encourages munchkinism and a trend towards high magic games.

There is no right or wrong here, just different preferences based on a preferred playstyle. Sadly, your playstyle is out of vogue since (quite sadly) everything that smells of 4E and player entitlement is being shunned in favor of nostalgia and a vastly more powerful DM.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-21, 06:04 AM
It's also worth noting (though I have no hard data on the issue) that in my experience, most groups don't all have a copy of the rules for every player. Heck both 4e groups I was in had a total of 2 PHBs and 1 DMG between 6 people. The 3e groups I've been in had maybe 50% of the people with PHBs and back when I played GURPS there was one copy of the rules for everyone. Same with the VtM games I've played. Personally I would wager that this is more common than every player owning their own set of the phb and whatever other rules the pcs need to know.




Unrelated Edit (but since I'm the last post so far, why bother with a new post)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mearls mentioned on his twitter (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/statuses/468919413098676224[) that WotC is apparently planning a step in between the starter set and buying all 3 core books.


The stuff we haven't talked about yet is where DMs and players go next - there's a step between the Starter Set and the Big 3

Person_Man
2014-05-21, 12:38 PM
I very very cautiously optimistic about this.

In theory the Player's Handbook should have everything a group of 12 year olds who have never touched the game before need to play the game. The base rules should be relatively simple, the base classes should not have a laundry list duplicative options and sub-classes (which I hate), and the rules for how to DM a game and a bunch of iconic monsters and how to make more monsters should be included within the 5E Player's Handbook itself, along with a link to a website with a bunch of additional monsters and campaign modules.

If that's the case, then the release schedule and pricing make sense. Player's Handbook is the game, everything else is just optional supplements.

If that's not the case, and they're just releasing things on a staggered basis due to logistical issues, then the game will basically be unplayable for new players (without a lot of help from more experienced players) for the first 6 months of it's release. And that's terrible, for lots of reasons.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-21, 12:47 PM
how to make more monsters should be included within the 5E Player's Handbook itself

Mearls did say that monster creation rules will be in the DMG, not the PHB, so at least that much won't be there. Makes me wonder how they're going to square it with the statement that you won't need the MM or the DMG to run a campaign.

Sartharina
2014-05-21, 12:49 PM
I think the starter kit's what's going to hold players until the DMG and MM get released.

It goes like "Get D&D Next's starter kit first, play around, have fun, exhaust its content. Then the Player's Handbook comes out. Now you can make new characters that are more awesome than your old ones, while the DM can use some of that material to change the monsters and dungeon stuff that comes in the starter kit to make another campaign with that material. Once you get bored of that, the Monster Manual is out, allowing you to run your Starter-kit based adventures with new monsters to face your new players, providing challenges for the entire level range. Then, the DMG comes out and it provides even more ideas and optional rules to make your campaign that started with a starter kit even better!"

You can get a LOT of mileage out of a good starter kit, as I did with my 3.0 starter game.

Seerow
2014-05-21, 01:18 PM
Mearls did say that monster creation rules will be in the DMG, not the PHB, so at least that much won't be there. Makes me wonder how they're going to square it with the statement that you won't need the MM or the DMG to run a campaign.

Mearls is also on record saying that you do not need either the starter set or the PHB to create new characters. He even went on to clarify that there will be no character creation rules present in the starter set.


Basically either Mearls has lost his mind in a very literal way, or they have something else major up their sleeve they aren't telling us about yet (like a new SRD or other digital tools to fill in the blanks while waiting for the remaining books to be published).

obryn
2014-05-21, 01:39 PM
Agreed, Seerow.

I'm calling it now - there will be a (free) online character builder and a (free) online searchable SRD-like database for characters/monsters/etc.

WotC, for all the flak we give them, isn't always completely dumb and know they have to compete with both their own 4e online offering (costs money) and Pathfinder's (free, bloated) online offerings.

Stubbazubba
2014-05-21, 02:14 PM
Agreed, Seerow.

I'm calling it now - there will be a (free) online character builder and a (free) online searchable SRD-like database for characters/monsters/etc.

WotC, for all the flak we give them, isn't always completely dumb and know they have to compete with both their own 4e online offering (costs money) and Pathfinder's (free, bloated) online offerings.

I predict it might be subscription-based, but the books come with a code that gets you a 1-year subscription "free."

captpike
2014-05-21, 02:38 PM
Still does not mean it should be in the PHB. Now a fourth supplement, like Unearthed Arcana, there's the ticket (which is actually what I wish they would have done (but then again, people would be complaining about having to buy 4 books then)). :smallsmile:

You are buying it because you have a particular playstyle that the designers of the game obviously do not want to encourage. There is a difference between bad design and a different design philosophy. :smallsmile:



Unless the game does not focus on the Christmas Tree of magic items that provide tiny bonuses but are 100% necessary to own and use, otherwise the game breaks (i.e. 3.5 & 4E (before inherent bonuses)). Without that, there is no need to plan out magic item acquisition (at least compared to 3.x/PF/4E).



By the same token putting magic items in the PHB encourages munchkinism and a trend towards high magic games.

There is no right or wrong here, just different preferences based on a preferred playstyle. Sadly, your playstyle is out of vogue since (quite sadly) everything that smells of 4E and player entitlement is being shunned in favor of nostalgia and a vastly more powerful DM.

my philosophy is that the books should live up to their names.

the players handbook should have everything the player needs to learn and play the game.

the DMG should have everything the DM needs but that the players do not.

the game should not try to encourage or discourage any playstyle, it should provide options for all the playstyles it supports. I dont want to buy a game that is passive agressive about magic items, that says "you can have magic items, but you cant know what they are or what they do" if I want to play a high magic game it should be as easy as a low magic game.

this is a "game for everyone" not a game for one very niche playstyle after all.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-21, 02:51 PM
my philosophy is that the books should live up to their names.

the players handbook should have everything the player needs to learn and play the game.

the DMG should have everything the DM needs but that the players do not.


Great. So now define those things. Arguably, what magic items do is DM only information until the player identifies the item. A great number of spell limitations were originally outlined in the AD&D DMG rather than the PHB. Rules options should definitely be DM only right? After all, if they're not being used, there's no need for the players to know them. Frankly I've never been a huge fan of splitting the books into PHB and DMGs and especially so in this age of "player must know all the things". The DMs are players and player might be called on to DM. Were it up to me, the DMG would have nothing but philosophy and guidelines and suggestions. It might also contain some building tools. But I've long been of the opinion that anything considered a "rule" should be in the PHB. And if that means you get a 500 page PHB and a 100 page DMG, then so be it. That said, I don't think the decision about what things to put where has anything to do with encouraging or not encouraging a particular game style. If your DM is going to run a game where you're allowed to know everything about all the magic items, they'll let you read the DMG if the information is in there. If they don't, they're a **** and you have bigger issues than "what book is this information in"

captpike
2014-05-21, 02:57 PM
Great. So now define those things. Arguably, what magic items do is DM only information until the player identifies the item. A great number of spell limitations were originally outlined in the AD&D DMG rather than the PHB. Rules options should definitely be DM only right? After all, if they're not being used, there's no need for the players to know them. Frankly I've never been a huge fan of splitting the books into PHB and DMGs and especially so in this age of "player must know all the things". The DMs are players and player might be called on to DM. Were it up to me, the DMG would have nothing but philosophy and guidelines and suggestions. It might also contain some building tools. But I've long been of the opinion that anything considered a "rule" should be in the PHB. And if that means you get a 500 page PHB and a 100 page DMG, then so be it. That said, I don't think the decision about what things to put where has anything to do with encouraging or not encouraging a particular game style. If your DM is going to run a game where you're allowed to know everything about all the magic items, they'll let you read the DMG if the information is in there. If they don't, they're a **** and you have bigger issues than "what book is this information in"

if at any time a player needs to read the DMG, then the PHB failed. this means of course magic items, and any rules options.

not to mention the annoyance of having to pass one book around to everyone when you get to town and buy magic items (yes you many not do this but it is a common and valid playstyle and should be just as supported as any other)

the only rules that should only be in the DMG are things that the players would NEVER have a reason to need to know. players need to know the rules options that could effect them, just as they need to know what the magic item they just got does

obryn
2014-05-21, 03:00 PM
I predict it might be subscription-based, but the books come with a code that gets you a 1-year subscription "free."
I honestly doubt this. They had looked into this for 4e, and I don't think the logistical problems inherent to such a plan are solvable.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-21, 03:06 PM
not to mention the annoyance of having to pass one book around to everyone when you get to town and buy magic items (yes you many not do this but it is a common and valid playstyle and should be just as supported as any other)

No more annoying than having to pass the one PHB around.



the only rules that should only be in the DMG are things that the players would NEVER have a reason to need to know. players need to know the rules options that could effect them, just as they need to know what the magic item they just got does

And I'm asking you to define for me the things you think the players would NEVER have a reason to know. Bear in mind that I assume for the sake of argument here we're excluding all bestiary information. So what rules are there that you can think of that player will never need to know and that won't affect them?

captpike
2014-05-21, 03:15 PM
No more annoying than having to pass the one PHB around.

the difference is that any given group will only have one DMG, but that there should be more then one PHB, and honestly I dont feel sorry for a player who does not have the PHB.



And I'm asking you to define for me the things you think the players would NEVER have a reason to know. Bear in mind that I assume for the sake of argument here we're excluding all bestiary information. So what rules are there that you can think of that player will never need to know and that won't affect them?

mostly how to make combat encounters, rules for running NPCs.

honestly a good DMG (as you said) should be more "how not to screw up DMing 101" then rules.

Seerow
2014-05-21, 03:23 PM
I honestly doubt this. They had looked into this for 4e, and I don't think the logistical problems inherent to such a plan are solvable.

I think it's solvable if you reverse the order. Open up online subscriptions early and have some or all of the money spent on stubs count as credit towards buying books. (Basically have a universal coupon for DND material gained from online sub's)

1337 b4k4
2014-05-21, 03:35 PM
the difference is that any given group will only have one DMG, but that there should be more then one PHB, and honestly I dont feel sorry for a player who does not have the PHB.

I'm not asking you to feel sorry for them. I'm asking you to consider supporting that play style :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I've seen (and been in) far more groups that only some of the players (and the DM) have a PHB than groups where everyone does. The fact is to play D&D, like all games, you really only need one copy of the rules, and not every player wants to drop $50 (or even $25) for a book of rules that they can borrow from someone else at the table.

captpike
2014-05-21, 03:57 PM
I'm not asking you to feel sorry for them. I'm asking you to consider supporting that play style :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I've seen (and been in) far more groups that only some of the players (and the DM) have a PHB than groups where everyone does. The fact is to play D&D, like all games, you really only need one copy of the rules, and not every player wants to drop $50 (or even $25) for a book of rules that they can borrow from someone else at the table.

first putting player rules in the DMG is outright lying to them about what is in that book and the PHB. it also means that you dont need 2 books to learn the system, instead of just 1.

even if not every player has the PHB, they will be far more common then the DMG.

Yorrin
2014-05-21, 09:36 PM
the game should not try to encourage or discourage any playstyle, it should provide options for all the playstyles it supports. I dont want to buy a game that is passive agressive about magic items, that says "you can have magic items, but you cant know what they are or what they do" if I want to play a high magic game it should be as easy as a low magic game.

this is a "game for everyone" not a game for one very niche playstyle after all.

I think this is where you're having a fundamental disconnect with the design philosophy of DnDN. It's not a game for everyone. It's a game inspired by everyone. That's a major and important difference.

I want to specifically address magic items, since you seem to be hung up on those. Having magic items be entirely optional is a stated design goal, and oftentimes the implied intent is that players are not expected to know anything about magic items until that item is in their hands. Which means no "planning item builds." Moreover recent articles and the like have implies that beyond your basic +1weapon and +1armor that your character is unlikely to have more than about 3 magic items over the course of his or her career. This particular part of the game is intended to highlight the 2e source of inspiration, from what I can tell.

This means that magic item information is intended to be withheld from the players. Which makes it DMG content. Because unlike 4e, which was "power to the players," 5e is moving more in the direction of "power to the DM." And the advice they're giving to their newly empowered DMs is having more of a low magic setting when it comes to magic items.

Lokiare
2014-05-21, 09:49 PM
I think this is where you're having a fundamental disconnect with the design philosophy of DnDN. It's not a game for everyone. It's a game inspired by everyone. That's a major and important difference.

I want to specifically address magic items, since you seem to be hung up on those. Having magic items be entirely optional is a stated design goal, and oftentimes the implied intent is that players are not expected to know anything about magic items until that item is in their hands. Which means no "planning item builds." Moreover recent articles and the like have implies that beyond your basic +1weapon and +1armor that your character is unlikely to have more than about 3 magic items over the course of his or her career. This particular part of the game is intended to highlight the 2e source of inspiration, from what I can tell.

This means that magic item information is intended to be withheld from the players. Which makes it DMG content. Because unlike 4e, which was "power to the players," 5e is moving more in the direction of "power to the DM." And the advice they're giving to their newly empowered DMs is having more of a low magic setting when it comes to magic items.

That's really odd, because the magic item tables we've seen say that a party will have 30-40 magic items by level 20. That's a far cry from 3 items * 5 players = 15 magic items. Now do you understand what I'm saying when I say they don't seem to understand the math?

Yorrin
2014-05-21, 09:56 PM
That's really odd, because the magic item tables we've seen say that a party will have 30-40 magic items by level 20. That's a far cry from 3 items * 5 players = 15 magic items. Now do you understand what I'm saying when I say they don't seem to understand the math?

I'm not sure where you've seen those numbers? But if you add everyone's +1 weapon and +1 armor to that number you're up to around 25 for a party. Toss in a handful of macguffins and you're about there.

And because I'm sure you're going to ask for my soruces, a good example is the first two paragraphs here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140512). Which actually imply that a decent number of the rest of your magic items are going to be potions, scrolls, and other consumables.

Lokiare
2014-05-21, 10:04 PM
I'm not sure where you've seen those numbers? But if you add everyone's +1 weapon and +1 armor to that number you're up to around 25 for a party. Toss in a handful of macguffins and you're about there.

And because I'm sure you're going to ask for my soruces, a good example is the first two paragraphs here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140512). Which actually imply that a decent number of the rest of your magic items are going to be potions, scrolls, and other consumables.

I was talking about the random magic item charts used as monster treasure. You are supposed to have around 8-12 encounters per level depending on difficulty. That means you have 160-240 opportunities to find one or more magic items. If you have a 40% chance of finding a magic item, then that means you will find around 64-96 items over the course of a parties career.

2E Phoinex
2014-05-22, 12:58 AM
Moreover recent articles and the like have implies that beyond your basic +1weapon and +1armor that your character is unlikely to have more than about 3 magic items over the course of his or her career. This particular part of the game is intended to highlight the 2e source of inspiration, from what I can tell.

Respectfully, Yorrin I believe that you may be confusing the idea of attunement with ownership. Only being able to be attuned to 3 special items seems to be a thing, but that doesn't mean a player couldn't have found, and indeed own, far more items. Also, as a 2e DM, my players tend to acquire a lot more magic items than that over the course of their career, but I suppose the idea of limited access to magic is part of the systems philosophy.

Lokiare
2014-05-22, 07:43 AM
Respectfully, Yorrin I believe that you may be confusing the idea of attunement with ownership. Only being able to be attuned to 3 special items seems to be a thing, but that doesn't mean a player couldn't have found, and indeed own, far more items. Also, as a 2e DM, my players tend to acquire a lot more magic items than that over the course of their career, but I suppose the idea of limited access to magic is part of the systems philosophy.

Yes, a very limited play style that the math doesn't even work with.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-22, 12:55 PM
More updates from Mearl's twitter:

"About 15%" of the PHB will be available as a free PDF. This is in reference to the "step" between starter set and PHB that he mentioned earlier, and he states it's "part" of that step.

"More in-depth combat" will be in the DMG (Edit: Along with Point based magic)

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-22, 03:28 PM
More updates from Mearl's twitter:

"About 15%" of the PHB will be available as a free PDF. This is in reference to the "step" between starter set and PHB that he mentioned earlier, and he states it's "part" of that step.

"More in-depth combat" will be in the DMG (Edit: Along with Point based magic)

Soooo about 48 pages worth of PHB will be in a free PDF?

Hmm now I'm a bit curious as to what it will contain...

1337 b4k4
2014-05-22, 03:33 PM
Soooo about 48 pages worth of PHB will be in a free PDF?

Hmm now I'm a bit curious as to what it will contain...

If I had to guess (and I am), it's probably char gen rules and at least the prime 4 classes with their first 5 levels of advancement. That should fairly easily fit into ~50 pages, it would supplement the starter set (with pre-gens and no char generation). Depending on how much room each class and 5 levels of options takes up, you might be able to fit the first 5 levels of every class,.

da_chicken
2014-05-22, 03:43 PM
Yes, a very limited play style that the math doesn't even work with.

I'm beginning to suspect that "math doesn't work" is Lokiarese for "I don't like."

Felhammer
2014-05-22, 03:44 PM
My guess is that WotC will not include all of the options for each class they put into the PDF. A choice between option 1 and option 2 is more than enough to hold you over for a month. :smallsmile:

captpike
2014-05-22, 05:58 PM
More updates from Mearl's twitter:

"About 15%" of the PHB will be available as a free PDF. This is in reference to the "step" between starter set and PHB that he mentioned earlier, and he states it's "part" of that step.

"More in-depth combat" will be in the DMG (Edit: Along with Point based magic)

sigh, I wonder if they are doing this to make players who want a full game buy both the DMG and the PHB or if they honestly dont see the big problems with putting large parts of stuff the players need in a non-player book

1337 b4k4
2014-05-22, 07:47 PM
sigh, I wonder if they are doing this to make players who want a full game buy both the DMG and the PHB or if they honestly dont see the big problems with putting large parts of stuff the players need in a non-player book

Alternatively, they see a benefit to not overwhelming new players with a whole bunch of stuff they may or may not need. Not that dropping a 320 page rule book into your players laps isn't intimidating already, but if it was a 600 page book, it would be more so. Seriously, depending on how the extra rules "plug in", it's entirely possible that all players will always need to know what's in the PHB, but only some players will need to know what's in the DMG. If the option is stick everything in the PHB, make it a 500-600 page book and charge $75-$100 for all players, or stick what everyone needs into the PHB and stick all the optional stuff into the DMG and then only the people who want or need the optional stuff need pay for it, it makes sense that they're going for option B. They probably hamstrung themselves with the design goal of getting all the major classes into the PHB too.

captpike
2014-05-22, 08:05 PM
Alternatively, they see a benefit to not overwhelming new players with a whole bunch of stuff they may or may not need. Not that dropping a 320 page rule book into your players laps isn't intimidating already, but if it was a 600 page book, it would be more so. Seriously, depending on how the extra rules "plug in", it's entirely possible that all players will always need to know what's in the PHB, but only some players will need to know what's in the DMG. If the option is stick everything in the PHB, make it a 500-600 page book and charge $75-$100 for all players, or stick what everyone needs into the PHB and stick all the optional stuff into the DMG and then only the people who want or need the optional stuff need pay for it, it makes sense that they're going for option B. They probably hamstrung themselves with the design goal of getting all the major classes into the PHB too.

in the very least they should be honest enough to not call it a DMG then, because its not.

its a player option book with DM advise and should be labeled as such.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-22, 08:07 PM
The only alternate rule I could imagine being in the DMG that players would absolutely need to know everything about would be the Magic Items(mind you, D&D Next is designed to be relatively low-op in terms of magic and items.) Besides, if the alternate rules are necessary for players to know about, then it imparts an important aspect of DM'ing to people who use the DMG: Being a good DM and sharing the alternate rules with your party. One book with all the rules for everybody at the table doesn't really empower the DM to the point of being the one who guides adventurers through their journey; It promotes the idea that the DM is able to shape the world the players are in, to give them an understanding of what goes on in that big head of theirs. One man shapes the world, the players shape their characters.

Though I will admit the PC:NPC ratio is a little heavy-handed(what's 1 player to 1 billion level 1 commoners afraid of their own housecats?), but you get the idea; Dilution of content helps impart the DM's with the choice that they use to shape their world with the DMG while players shape their characters with the PHB, and as said, one megabook probably runs an unhealthy price for immersion into the system

captpike
2014-05-22, 08:16 PM
The only alternate rule I could imagine being in the DMG that players would absolutely need to know everything about would be the Magic Items(mind you, D&D Next is designed to be relatively low-op in terms of magic and items.) Besides, if the alternate rules are necessary for players to know about, then it imparts an important aspect of DM'ing to people who use the DMG: Being a good DM and sharing the alternate rules with your party. One book with all the rules for everybody at the table doesn't really empower the DM to the point of being the one who guides adventurers through their journey; It promotes the idea that the DM is able to shape the world the players are in, to give them an understanding of what goes on in that big head of theirs. One man shapes the world, the players shape their characters.

Though I will admit the PC:NPC ratio is a little heavy-handed(what's 1 player to 1 billion level 1 commoners afraid of their own housecats?), but you get the idea; Dilution of content helps impart the DM's with the choice that they use to shape their world with the DMG while players shape their characters with the PHB, and as said, one megabook probably runs an unhealthy price for immersion into the system

what about the (hopefully real) tactical mod? that gives combat depth? you would NEED to know those rules to play if you were using them.

its the players game as much as its the DM's they have a much right to know the rules as he does

DrBurr
2014-05-22, 08:48 PM
Placing the optional rules in the Dungeon Master's Guide just makes sense to me because these rules may not be present at every table.

While The Player's Handbook includes all the rules necessary to play the base game. All players in my game or your game or Mike Mearls game will need to know these rules to play the game. The DMG on the other hand includes rules for customizing the game to fit the Dungeon Master's campaign. So optional rules make sense to go in that book. Not everyone wants tactical combat or magic items. Whether or not a Fire Sword or Bull rushing shows up in the game is the Dungeon Master's decision because he or she is the Final Arbiter of the rules.

Presenting rules in the Player's Handbook states that it is the Player's decision over this optional content when it isn't. And There's no rule that says players can't read the DMG if they want, at least not since 1st edition where the DM was encouraged to hide rules, so what exactly is the issue? Is sharing a book so hard? I read it then you read then Mike reads it etc. or is explaining how the rules work no longer allowed? The Fire Sword grants +2 Attack and Fire Damage.

Just makes sense to me especially because the Player Handbook is already going to be huge because theres like 10 classes and races now, throwing in all the magic items, tactical combat rules and what ever other modules they'll be would just make it even more expensive.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-22, 08:50 PM
what about the (hopefully real) tactical mod? that gives combat depth? you would NEED to know those rules to play if you were using them.

its the players game as much as its the DM's they have a much right to know the rules as he does

Really, things like that are the DM's decision to include in the game; The players can easily have a say, and it's not a problem to know the ruleset even if you're playing and not DMing, but it's optional for a reason - on top of that, the DM has final say on its inclusion in the campaign they run. If a DM doesn't see an alternate system as giving any benefit to his image of the campaign he has every right to say no; Conversely, he can pick the alternates he wants and appropriate his players to the environment.

captpike
2014-05-22, 09:01 PM
its a problem because first they are outright lying to everyone who reads the title of the books, the DMG is not a DMG it has vital player rules (because odds are most groups will use some of the optional rules). the PHB does NOT contain the game, it only contains part of it, the bare minimum to play, it would be like if it only had one class and the rest were in the DMG.

secondly it means that if I want the entire game I have to buy both the PHB and the DMG even if I am not going to DM. $50 for a the game is high but reasonable, $100 just to understand the rules is not ok, particularly with the bait and swich they are pulling ("BUY THE PHB AND PLAY THE GAME", "wait this does not have all the rules" "THEN BUY THE DMG" "but I am not a DM...").

it also sends the wrong message that its wrong for the players to know the game. that they should not know what magic items do, or be able to plan out what ones to get.

also all your arguments could be used to put classes in the DMG, after all in my world there may be no divine magic, and I can always jsut buy a DMG if I want to build a cleric.

the PHB Is for players and should contain ALL players need to know for the game.


Really, things like that are the DM's decision to include in the game; The players can easily have a say, and it's not a problem to know the ruleset even if you're playing and not DMing, but it's optional for a reason - on top of that, the DM has final say on its inclusion in the campaign they run. If a DM doesn't see an alternate system as giving any benefit to his image of the campaign he has every right to say no; Conversely, he can pick the alternates he wants and appropriate his players to the environment.

the problem is that the players need to know those rules as much as the DM does, which means every player would need a DMG to play in such a game.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-22, 09:07 PM
secondly it means that if I want the entire game I have to buy both the PHB and the DMG even if I am not going to DM. $50 for a the game is high but reasonable, $100 just to understand the rules is not ok, particularly with the bait and swich they are pulling ("BUY THE PHB AND PLAY THE GAME", "wait this does not have all the rules" "THEN BUY THE DMG" "but I am not a DM...").

You do realize if they stuck it all in the PHB, the PHB would be ~$100 right? As for the "I have to buy all the books if I want the whole game" well yeah, that's sort of how these things work. If you don't have the DM parts, you don't have the whole game. Seriously, even if they stuck all the optional combat modules and magic items in the PHB, you wouldn't have the whole game without the DMG. If the DMG contains vital information for the DM on running the game, then you can't run the game without it.

captpike
2014-05-22, 09:13 PM
You do realize if they stuck it all in the PHB, the PHB would be ~$100 right? As for the "I have to buy all the books if I want the whole game" well yeah, that's sort of how these things work. If you don't have the DM parts, you don't have the whole game. Seriously, even if they stuck all the optional combat modules and magic items in the PHB, you wouldn't have the whole game without the DMG. If the DMG contains vital information for the DM on running the game, then you can't run the game without it.

let me put it another way, if I buy a PHB I exspect it to have all the rules a player could ever need. otherwise it is not a PHB its only part of one.

and it would hardly double the cost of the PHB, if that was the case then the DMG would ONLY have mods. even if that was the case then they should lable it as such. if they were called "basic rules and classes guide" and "modules and DMG" then I would less problems, patuarly if there were other ways of getting the mods without the DMG part.

Pink
2014-05-22, 09:52 PM
You do realize if they stuck it all in the PHB, the PHB would be ~$100 right?

Pathfinder would beg to differ on that front.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-22, 09:55 PM
let me put it another way, if I buy a PHB I exspect it to have all the rules a player could ever need. otherwise it is not a PHB its only part of one.

Presumably you protested severely when 4e released PHB 2 and 3? And Adventurers Vaults 1 & 2. Arcane Power, Divine Power, Primal Power And Martial Power. And Page 42 of the DMG? And the inclusion of Aquatic, Mounted and Flying combat and Disease / Poison rules in the DMG. I mean let's be completely honest here, if you want the "whole" D&D game, you have always had to buy multiple books. From day one it was a 3 book set.



and it would hardly double the cost of the PHB, if that was the case then the DMG would ONLY have mods. even if that was the case then they should lable it as such. if they were called "basic rules and classes guide" and "modules and DMG" then I would less problems, patuarly if there were other ways of getting the mods without the DMG part.

Sure, I agree they could stand to have different titles, but realistically, it's not that huge of a deal. There have always been 3 books, and you could never play D&D without at least the PHB and the DMG. They could just title the things Book 1, Book 2 and Book 3 and it would be the same. You're pretty much grasping at straws here.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-23, 12:09 AM
Pathfinder would beg to differ on that front.

That'd be well and all if we're talking about Pathfinder(whose core rulebook only includes the necessary chapters from the DMG with their revised ruleset), but no matter how you slice it we're talking about a completely different beast here. Besides, the way the book is marketed, it already IS like the Pathfinder Core Rulebook - It's supposed to contain everything for running a game, which(going off of both Pathfinder Core and 3.5 PHB) would/should include exploration, role playing, combat, and the like. D&D Next doesn't have prestige classes, and doesn't need magic items, so there can't be a terrible amount of content that the Player's Handbook would need to cover to be on-par with Pathfinder's Core Rulebook to still be considered playable in it's form.

captpike
2014-05-23, 12:49 AM
Presumably you protested severely when 4e released PHB 2 and 3? And Adventurers Vaults 1 & 2. Arcane Power, Divine Power, Primal Power And Martial Power. And Page 42 of the DMG? And the inclusion of Aquatic, Mounted and Flying combat and Disease / Poison rules in the DMG. I mean let's be completely honest here, if you want the "whole" D&D game, you have always had to buy multiple books. From day one it was a 3 book set.

sigh, OF COURSE there are going to be more books, but that does not mean they need to cut the PHB in half, call it a whole and sell it to you using lies (that it is all you need to play).

also the PHB1 had the entire rule set you had know the play, that never changed, the PHB2 did not have vital rules you HAD to know to play, like the mods are.

as a DM you always had to buy 2-3 books, as a player you had to buy 1. there is no reason for that to change, but now it is without even the honesty to tell us in so many words.



Sure, I agree they could stand to have different titles, but realistically, it's not that huge of a deal. There have always been 3 books, and you could never play D&D without at least the PHB and the DMG. They could just title the things Book 1, Book 2 and Book 3 and it would be the same. You're pretty much grasping at straws here.

no I am not, they are SAYING THAT THE PHB IS ALL YOU NEED and it is not, they are saying that the DMG is only for DMs and it is not only for DMs.

when I pay money for something I except to to have inside what the outside says it will, these books don't.

Envyus
2014-05-23, 01:24 AM
sigh, OF COURSE there are going to be more books, but that does not mean they need to cut the PHB in half, call it a whole and sell it to you using lies (that it is all you need to play).

also the PHB1 had the entire rule set you had know the play, that never changed, the PHB2 did not have vital rules you HAD to know to play, like the mods are.


They are not vital is the thing. There is a reason they are called optional rules.

Pink
2014-05-23, 01:51 AM
That'd be well and all if we're talking about Pathfinder(whose core rulebook only includes the necessary chapters from the DMG with their revised ruleset), but no matter how you slice it we're talking about a completely different beast here. Besides, the way the book is marketed, it already IS like the Pathfinder Core Rulebook - It's supposed to contain everything for running a game, which(going off of both Pathfinder Core and 3.5 PHB) would/should include exploration, role playing, combat, and the like. D&D Next doesn't have prestige classes, and doesn't need magic items, so there can't be a terrible amount of content that the Player's Handbook would need to cover to be on-par with Pathfinder's Core Rulebook to still be considered playable in it's form.

Woah Woah, don't get my point out of context. I just said that Pathfinder was able to publish a book that was the combined volume of both a PHB and DMG without having it be in the price range of $100. I'm just talking price point stuff here, not about content and set up.

Felhammer
2014-05-23, 03:04 AM
Most games are not going to use the tactical module, those that do probably will not be using it all of the time. There is no reason to put it into the PHB. It is just a useless piece of filler that is non-applicable to most games (and that is how people who do not use the sub-system would view that section of the PHB).

One of D&D Next's philosophies was swinging the pendulum away from player entitlement and back towards a more powerful DM. The DM gets to decide if his/her game will be using the optional rules or not - it is his choice, not the player's. By putting things like magic items in the DMG, the designers are saying, "The DM has the power over this aspect of the game". If magic items were in the PHB, then the assumption would be that the players would have control over them and would thus feel entitled to pick and choose whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted (so long as they had the funds to purchase it and were in a reasonable locale to do so). As a player in D&D Next, you cannot assume you have the ability to walk into a town and buy a +2 Flaming Dire Flail the way you can buy a horse, a backpack or a pint of ale. It is not in the player's handbook, it is not something for the player to decide or even demand. The DM gets to decide if the +2 Flaming Dire Flail is in town, or even if such exotic and powerful items exist in his world. This was true in other editions as well but the presumption that the DM had sole control over the distribution magic items was something that slowly faded away over the course of 3.x's life and most especially in 4E.

The default assumption will be the following: DM's world, DM's rules, DM's playstyle. If the DM wants to use a given sub-system, then he will show you the book or explain it. If you want to know more, then you can buy the DMG.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-23, 07:57 AM
sigh, OF COURSE there are going to be more books, but that does not mean they need to cut the PHB in half, call it a whole and sell it to you using lies (that it is all you need to play).

The PHB does have everything you need to play if you want to play the base D&D game as the designers wrote it. The rules that appear in the DMG are all optional, by definition you don't need them unless you're using them. They are not required to play the game any more than the rules that appear in any of the supplements that get published are required to play.



also the PHB1 had the entire rule set you had know the play, that never changed, the PHB2 did not have vital rules you HAD to know to play, like the mods are.

Again, there's nothing in the DMG that as a player you NEED to know to play any more than the stuff in PHB2 was things to NEED to know. If you were playing with PHB2 classes and powers then yes, you NEEDED PHB2, which meant either everyone had to buy it, or they had to share a book. If you play with the OPTIONAL rules in the DMG then yes you NEED the DMG which means everyone needs to buy it or you have to share the book. It's the exact same thing, with the difference being that you can (more or less) guarantee every group is going to have at least one DMG, but you can't guarantee that every group would have PHB 2



no I am not, they are SAYING THAT THE PHB IS ALL YOU NEED and it is not, they are saying that the DMG is only for DMs and it is not only for DMs.

when I pay money for something I except to to have inside what the outside says it will, these books don't.

Again, it is all you need. Would it make you feel better if the books were titled "Players Handbook", "Monster Manual" and "Dungeon Master's Guide with Bonus Player's Supplements 1-4"?

Edit
-----------

Incidentally, at current amazon pre-order prices, you can order the entire 3 book collection for $112, or just the PHB and DMG for $72

Fwiffo86
2014-05-23, 08:20 AM
it also sends the wrong message that its wrong for the players to know the game. that they should not know what magic items do, or be able to plan out what ones to get.



On principle I disagree with this statement. Granted, my view is coming from "I don't know how a particle collider works but it sounds really neat. Maybe I have to do some research and find out if its useful to me or not."

This of course is an "in character" thought process. I have always disagreed with planning out every level of a character. Largely due to, life (even RP life) should be unexpected and you make your decisions as they present.

Have yourself a reasonably intelligent human fighter who's been on the front lines for too long and is growing weary of getting covered in gore? Maybe he decides to petition a Mage college and become a wizard.

But again.... my reasons are Roleplay reasons. Which by the look of things, has little sway here.

That being said, I do agree that 50 USD per book seems awfully high. I'm hoping Barnes & Noble does their usual and give a 45% off discount the first week its released. If not, I may have to wait a bit or put money aside now.

Lokiare
2014-05-23, 08:59 AM
I'm beginning to suspect that "math doesn't work" is Lokiarese for "I don't like."

Nope, sorry. Please stop with the personal attacks.

We've been over this in a multitude of other threads. Here is a short list where the developers did not know how the math affected their game:

1. The developers claimed the default game would be low or no magic and then put in magic item charts that will average around 100+ magic items for the group over the course of their career.

2. The developers put in class features that allowed you to trade out having advantage for another effect, not realizing that keeping advantage in most circumstances was a better deal.

3. The developers put in class features that allowed you to take disadvantage in order to get some kind of other bonus, not realizing that the other bonus would need to be 10x as high as it was to compensate.

4. The developers claim the game has bounded math not realizing a fighter with a +3 weapon will deal around 100 extra damage per round at the higher levels totally destroying their bounded system.

5. The developers put in many of the most broken spells, not realizing that failing a save 60% of the time and being defeated (killed or locked down to the point of the encounter being a cake walk) was more powerful than dealing a certain amount of damage each level.

6. The developers failed to realize that a condition like 'paralyzed' on the players can make a fight exponentially more difficult until after they threw some ghouls at their play testers. That's simple math you look at the chance of failing a save and then multiply it by the number of expected rounds and realize there is a near 100% chance of a TPK because of it.

I could go on and on and on, but these points here prove without a doubt they don't understand the underlying math of their own game.

captpike
2014-05-23, 10:47 AM
The PHB does have everything you need to play if you want to play the base D&D game as the designers wrote it. The rules that appear in the DMG are all optional, by definition you don't need them unless you're using them. They are not required to play the game any more than the rules that appear in any of the supplements that get published are required to play.



Again, there's nothing in the DMG that as a player you NEED to know to play any more than the stuff in PHB2 was things to NEED to know. If you were playing with PHB2 classes and powers then yes, you NEEDED PHB2, which meant either everyone had to buy it, or they had to share a book. If you play with the OPTIONAL rules in the DMG then yes you NEED the DMG which means everyone needs to buy it or you have to share the book. It's the exact same thing, with the difference being that you can (more or less) guarantee every group is going to have at least one DMG, but you can't guarantee that every group would have PHB 2



Again, it is all you need. Would it make you feel better if the books were titled "Players Handbook", "Monster Manual" and "Dungeon Master's Guide with Bonus Player's Supplements 1-4"?

Edit
-----------

Incidentally, at current amazon pre-order prices, you can order the entire 3 book collection for $112, or just the PHB and DMG for $72

you can say the same for classes. that you only NEED one class in the PHB, after all the game would work with only the fighter in the PHB, class availability is up to the DM anyway. you should just borrow his DMG if you want to play a wizard

calling things their correct name would be better yes, but "Players Handbook" is not correct, unless they put something to the effect of "Basic rules only, see DMG for full rule set" under the title.

something like "basic rules and classes guide" and "module rules and Dungeon master guide" would be ideal, it would be the honest titles to the book.

if I am using a modual, those rules are as important to me as any other. they need to be in the PHB for me to be able to play the game.

at least in 4e if something was a player book they called it that, the are not doing that with 5e, and they are forcing people to buy alot of what they don't want (players who want the module in the DMG but don't want to DM) to get small parts of what they do (modules).


On principle I disagree with this statement. Granted, my view is coming from "I don't know how a particle collider works but it sounds really neat. Maybe I have to do some research and find out if its useful to me or not."

This of course is an "in character" thought process. I have always disagreed with planning out every level of a character. Largely due to, life (even RP life) should be unexpected and you make your decisions as they present.

Have yourself a reasonably intelligent human fighter who's been on the front lines for too long and is growing weary of getting covered in gore? Maybe he decides to petition a Mage college and become a wizard.

But again.... my reasons are Roleplay reasons. Which by the look of things, has little sway here.

That being said, I do agree that 50 USD per book seems awfully high. I'm hoping Barnes & Noble does their usual and give a 45% off discount the first week its released. If not, I may have to wait a bit or put money aside now.

those are perfectly valid, and I cant argue with them.

they should support both playstyles, and the only way to do that is to include ALL the player stuff in the PHB, I can plan to my heart's content, you can ignore it until you level. we both win

Sartharina
2014-05-23, 11:25 AM
what about the (hopefully real) tactical mod? that gives combat depth? you would NEED to know those rules to play if you were using them.

its the players game as much as its the DM's they have a much right to know the rules as he doesI don't think you understand the balance of power in a D&D Game (THe answer being - "It's all in the DM. Players can play or walk")

It is the DM's job to relay the rules, decide which modules to use, determine what game will be played and its tone, and decide which options are available to players of his or her campaign.

Player's Handbook teaches players how the game runs and interacts with their characters. Modules generally don't interact with the characters, but instead the DM/Player dynamic and things that indirectly affect players.

Fwiffo86
2014-05-23, 12:09 PM
Removed for incorrect placement

EDIT
--------

archaeo
2014-05-23, 12:42 PM
I could go on and on and on
You weren't doing that before?

1337 b4k4
2014-05-23, 01:16 PM
you can say the same for classes. that you only NEED one class in the PHB, after all the game would work with only the fighter in the PHB, class availability is up to the DM anyway. you should just borrow his DMG if you want to play a wizard

Yes, you could say the same thing about classes, and if this game has been designed with certain classes considered optional and not as part of the main game, they also could go in the DMG.



calling things their correct name would be better yes, but "Players Handbook" is not correct, unless they put something to the effect of "Basic rules only, see DMG for full rule set" under the title.

It is correct. You can play D&D with the players handbook. You can play the complete game with the players handbook. Your players can play a full a complete campaign with only the information found in the PHB.



if I am using a modual, those rules are as important to me as any other. they need to be in the PHB for me to be able to play the game.


And yet, every edition of D&D has had optional rules to the system in books other than the PHB. Would you be as annoyed if they sold the PHB, the MM, a 150 page DMG and then a 4th 150 page "Advanced Play Companion" book?



at least in 4e if something was a player book they called it that, the are not doing that with 5e, and they are forcing people to buy alot of what they don't want (players who want the module in the DMG but don't want to DM) to get small parts of what they do (modules).


Unless you wanted aquatic, mounted, or flying combat rules. Then you still had to buy the DMG. Seriously though, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. Every group is going to have at least one copy of the PHB and one copy of the DMG, there is no issue with optional rules being in the DMG and more than there are issues with them releasing additional books with optional rules.

Pink
2014-05-23, 01:21 PM
I don't think you understand the balance of power in a D&D Game (THe answer being - "It's all in the DM. Players can play or walk")

Except, this is real life. Where you have a group of friends playing presumably. RPGs should not be dictatorships. Yes, in game, during play time, the GM controls the world and arbitrates the rules. But the campaign and the rules they play by are formed from the group. Really, a good game should be decided by an amount of collaboration as to what the group wants to play. In the reality of "Play or walk" without compromise, you end up with a lot of walking and bitter Player/GM stories. How many of the horror stories we read can be summed up by uncompromising play styles?

If D&D 5 is supposed to have these modules that make meaningful differences in how the game is played, they should be published under a different name than DMG. If for nothing else than player's wanting to know those rules so they know their opinion on them. Some people may like the core game just fine, but some people may not be so satisfied, and desire a playstyle that is achieved under one of the optional rules, but never know about it and simply not play a system that doesn't satisfy them.

D&D 5 is supposed to be a sort of bridging the gap game between different eras of RPGs, with different optional rules to supplement the game to different playstyles. So far, they seem to be bridging that gap towards the "GM Fiat" style game play of older gen-style games. However, if they insist on marketing rules that can significantly effect gameplay as being for GMs, with the intention that only GMs need to know them and can dole them out to players as needed, they are not bridging the gap towards 'Player empowered by rules' style games. Considering that some of the biggest markets, Pathfinder and 4e, that WotC should be trying to latch onto as costomers are part of this "Player empowered by rules', this seems a significantly bad move.

Sartharina
2014-05-23, 01:51 PM
Yes, you could say the same thing about classes, and if this game has been designed with certain classes considered optional and not as part of the main game, they also could go in the DMG.And D&D did do this, at least in 3rd Edition. In which core rulebook (Not optional splat) are Prestige classes and the rules for them located? (Tip - Not the Player's Handbook)


Or should "Unearthed Arcana" (The 'proper' place for optional rules/modules) be considered Core Rulebook IV for D&D Next?

Pink
2014-05-23, 02:01 PM
And D&D did do this, at least in 3rd Edition. In which core rulebook (Not optional splat) are Prestige classes and the rules for them located? (Tip - Not the Player's Handbook)


Or should "Unearthed Arcana" (The 'proper' place for optional rules/modules) be considered Core Rulebook IV for D&D Next?

I think, at the core, the argument isn't that optional rules shouldn't be put in the DMG. Rather, that for the majority of people, these rules aren't as optional as spell points or a No armour AC system. Two of the major markets that will be looking at 5e are from 4e and 3.5/PF. These markets clearly enjoy an amount of tactical combat, and probably the planning of character advancement that typically includes looking for strategically advantage giving magical items. The 'optional' for people coming from these markets becomes a lot less certain, and therefore so does their placement in the DMG instead of the players guide.

Knaight
2014-05-23, 08:01 PM
You do realize if they stuck it all in the PHB, the PHB would be ~$100 right? As for the "I have to buy all the books if I want the whole game" well yeah, that's sort of how these things work. If you don't have the DM parts, you don't have the whole game. Seriously, even if they stuck all the optional combat modules and magic items in the PHB, you wouldn't have the whole game without the DMG. If the DMG contains vital information for the DM on running the game, then you can't run the game without it.
This (http://www.burningwheel.com/store/index.php/front-page/burning-wheel-gold.html) is a complete game that is even more rules heavy than D&D 3.5. It's also 25 dollars new. The books are as expensive as they are because WotC keeps a decent profit margin, likes glossy paper, uses a ridiculous amount of colored ink, etc. Other than D&D I can't think of a single RPG that cost $150 new, and only a few that even came close to $100. They don't need to make things as expensive as they do, and the expectation that every player needs a $50 book, and access to another $50 book is ridiculous. Again, using Burning Wheel as an example, that's 1 $25 book that covers everything. It also released the first 70ish pages (which include the basic mechanics and character creation) as a free .pdf, so there's really no reason for the group to have more than 1 book.

Sartharina
2014-05-24, 02:36 AM
I like the glossy pages and full color in the D&D books. It helps present D&D as the tabletop experience for imagination and adventure, instead of some bargain-bin knockoff fantasy heartbreaker.

It's also the big reason I don't like the new logo - it looks cheap. 3rd Edition's books had the big, awesome "Dungeons&Dragons" logo in fancy text on a golden plaque with that cool sword dividing the words, and the tome theme across all the (The PHB cover had the cool sword buckle design on the cover. The monster manual had the monster eye peering back at you from the center of the book's core. And the DMG had the lock, hinting at the secrets not fit for player eyes within.) And all the supplements had the same tome theme and logo, with a painting giving a glimpse of what was inside and setting the theme.

And inside, the coloration and edging of the pages had a huge impact on me, giving it a unifying theme, and the illustrations were something I could flip through admiring for hours - from the technical sketches at the start of each chapter on the beige pages, to the colorful paintings and drawings illustrating the assorted situations that happen in the game. And color helped a LOT.

D&D 4e had clear titles, its own recognizable logo (Spelling out the name of the game), consistent cover blocking and format, and a picture teasing the content within. D&D Next's covers just seem to be disjointed fantasy illustrations without any unifying theme, and the most bland text on the cover I've ever seen in a TTRPG.

Lokiare
2014-05-24, 06:24 AM
You weren't doing that before?

Well after I totally and completely prove a point to where no one can argue or deny it, and then a few days later someone comes back questioning it like I didn't, I guess I have to list the facts again.


I like the glossy pages and full color in the D&D books. It helps present D&D as the tabletop experience for imagination and adventure, instead of some bargain-bin knockoff fantasy heartbreaker.

It's also the big reason I don't like the new logo - it looks cheap. 3rd Edition's books had the big, awesome "Dungeons&Dragons" logo in fancy text on a golden plaque with that cool sword dividing the words, and the tome theme across all the (The PHB cover had the cool sword buckle design on the cover. The monster manual had the monster eye peering back at you from the center of the book's core. And the DMG had the lock, hinting at the secrets not fit for player eyes within.) And all the supplements had the same tome theme and logo, with a painting giving a glimpse of what was inside and setting the theme.

And inside, the coloration and edging of the pages had a huge impact on me, giving it a unifying theme, and the illustrations were something I could flip through admiring for hours - from the technical sketches at the start of each chapter on the beige pages, to the colorful paintings and drawings illustrating the assorted situations that happen in the game. And color helped a LOT.

D&D 4e had clear titles, its own recognizable logo (Spelling out the name of the game), consistent cover blocking and format, and a picture teasing the content within. D&D Next's covers just seem to be disjointed fantasy illustrations without any unifying theme, and the most bland text on the cover I've ever seen in a TTRPG.

The solution would be to have two print runs. One a softcover black and white paperback that is dirt cheap and the other which is the gold foil leather bound full color glossy page one. That way they can satisfy all people. That they don't have the business sense to do this shows their business acumen.

Oh and fantasy heartbreakers are only heartbreakers because the authors don't have the resources and money to make it as big as D&D and WotC can.

Sartharina
2014-05-24, 11:58 AM
Well after I totally and completely prove a point to where no one can argue or deny it, and then a few days later someone comes back questioning it like I didn't, I guess I have to list the facts again.Except the points are flawed and the 'facts' aren't.

Lokiare
2014-05-24, 12:05 PM
Except the points are flawed and the 'facts' aren't.

Care to refute my points with facts and math or is this more 'I said so' stuff that doesn't mean anything?

captpike
2014-05-24, 12:08 PM
Except the points are flawed and the 'facts' aren't.

then say what they are, just saying "your wrong" is worse then worthless.

Sartharina
2014-05-24, 12:51 PM
The biggest one is his assertation that a full set of +3 magic items can increase a person's power (+9 levels, right?) is a boost comparable to ~60 HP, +2 or 3 Proficiency Bonus, 2-3 Ability Score boosts/Feats, 3-7 new class features, and 3-5 new spell levels (And corresponding spell slots).

captpike
2014-05-24, 04:47 PM
The biggest one is his assertation that a full set of +3 magic items can increase a person's power (+9 levels, right?) is a boost comparable to ~60 HP, +2 or 3 Proficiency Bonus, 2-3 Ability Score boosts/Feats, 3-7 new class features, and 3-5 new spell levels (And corresponding spell slots).

first extra hp is only worth anything if it stops you from dying, or from using important resources.

if I end a fight with 1hp or with 100 it does not really matter.

secondly alot of class features are just extra damage. that is all ability score boots, and extra attacks are too. that means if at level 10 I would do 20 damage on average, and at 15 I would do 40. but if I get enough magic items at 10 to do 40 then there is very little difference between me and where I should be at 15.

archaeo
2014-05-25, 04:15 AM
The solution would be to have two print runs. One a softcover black and white paperback that is dirt cheap and the other which is the gold foil leather bound full color glossy page one. That way they can satisfy all people. That they don't have the business sense to do this shows their business acumen.

I mean, WotC is certainly taking advantage of early adopters to a certain extent, but so do all book publishers and the creators of fine entertainment and tech companies and basically everybody. A new thing of any kind has value just for being new; add some handsome art and lots of glossy pages just slathered in ink, jeez. At $50, it's between "impulse buy" at say $25-35 and "collector's edition" at like $75-100, capturing a lot of well-off nerds who grew up on the game, as well as plenty of parents happy to buy their kids even an expensive book. Not to mention numerous institutional buyers like libraries, though one imagines they see a different price.

I think WotC is giving money away if they don't release PDFs in the near future, however. Really, this price may be a concession to that, a small built-in pirate tax, if they're planning on making it digitally available in the medium term. But WotC could sell the entire set as a PDF and just print money if they wanted.

It'll be interesting to see. But I think it's a mistake to spend much time grousing over the price point. It's what the company thought the market would bear, and I tend to think the huge corporation has a better handle on business than a bunch of people who spend time writing on an Internet forum. I don't doubt many people in this thread will plunk down that cash/swipe that credit card. It will eventually be cheaper. So it goes.

Lokiare
2014-05-25, 06:35 AM
I mean, WotC is certainly taking advantage of early adopters to a certain extent, but so do all book publishers and the creators of fine entertainment and tech companies and basically everybody. A new thing of any kind has value just for being new; add some handsome art and lots of glossy pages just slathered in ink, jeez. At $50, it's between "impulse buy" at say $25-35 and "collector's edition" at like $75-100, capturing a lot of well-off nerds who grew up on the game, as well as plenty of parents happy to buy their kids even an expensive book. Not to mention numerous institutional buyers like libraries, though one imagines they see a different price.

I think WotC is giving money away if they don't release PDFs in the near future, however. Really, this price may be a concession to that, a small built-in pirate tax, if they're planning on making it digitally available in the medium term. But WotC could sell the entire set as a PDF and just print money if they wanted.

It'll be interesting to see. But I think it's a mistake to spend much time grousing over the price point. It's what the company thought the market would bear, and I tend to think the huge corporation has a better handle on business than a bunch of people who spend time writing on an Internet forum. I don't doubt many people in this thread will plunk down that cash/swipe that credit card. It will eventually be cheaper. So it goes.

We aren't really dealing with a huge corporation so most of that doesn't apply. We are dealing with 3-5 full time workers in the D&D subdivision of WotC which is a separate business entity from Hasbro (it was in their buy out contract).

Felhammer
2014-05-26, 04:17 PM
We aren't really dealing with a huge corporation so most of that doesn't apply. We are dealing with 3-5 full time workers in the D&D subdivision of WotC which is a separate business entity from Hasbro (it was in their buy out contract).

The guys who make D&D are not the ones who set price points, and even if they were WotC (and Hasbro) would have the power to adjust those price points.

Lokiare
2014-05-26, 09:44 PM
The guys who make D&D are not the ones who set price points, and even if they were WotC (and Hasbro) would have the power to adjust those price points.

Possibly. It might explain why its so high. If they are looking for a 200% profit on each book, they are probably going to be disappointed because they don't understand the laws of supply and demand which state that as price goes up demand goes down and as demand goes up price can go up. So they are just trading quantity sold for more profit on each book. They'll get about the same amount of money either way.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-26, 10:00 PM
The solution would be to have two print runs. One a softcover black and white paperback that is dirt cheap and the other which is the gold foil leather bound full color glossy page one. That way they can satisfy all people. That they don't have the business sense to do this shows their business acumen.

Or they're planning on walking the price curve. Sell the hard cover expensive books to all the people who can't wait and want it now, all the people that are willing to buy the expensive books, and all the people that wouldn't buy them if they had a different option, but will because the hard covers are the only option. Then later on, they run a different print run with lower cost materials at lower expense and lower sales price. Microeconomics 101.



Oh and fantasy heartbreakers are only heartbreakers because the authors don't have the resources and money to make it as big as D&D and WotC can.

Explain the success of small press RPGs like Burning Wheel and Dungeon World then.

da_chicken
2014-05-26, 11:23 PM
I don't think so. The PHB pre-order is down to $30 on Amazon already. The fact that it's already 40% off and not released until August suggests to me that WotC knows exactly what they're doing.

The MM and DMG are higher, but those are always in less demand and they're a few months out from the PHB.

archaeo
2014-05-27, 02:28 AM
...and the base game goes free-to-play. So much for all that speculation, huh? Premium books for premium purchasers, and a game free for everybody else, plus plenty of easy room to sell big beautiful adventure boxes and setting stuff.

A bold move. And one that I imagine will earn WotC a lot of cheerful fans. What a Memorial Day surprise!

e: I suppose on the other hand, the fact that all but the "core four" classes are outside the "core rules" means that this free game requires some pretty hefty "microtransactions," which is to say that they're macrotransactions for anybody who wants to be a sorcerer. I find myself broadly okay with that, esp. since the books will end up heavily discounted, but nonetheless.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-27, 03:10 AM
Possibly. It might explain why its so high. If they are looking for a 200% profit on each book, they are probably going to be disappointed because they don't understand the laws of supply and demand which state that as price goes up demand goes down and as demand goes up price can go up. So they are just trading quantity sold for more profit on each book. They'll get about the same amount of money either way.
Supply and demand absolutely does not work that way. There's one price which gives optimal profit, and going too high or too low from there results in a loss. If you think a company will get the same amount of money regardless of their pricing, well, I'd suggest taking a few econ classes.

Lokiare
2014-05-27, 07:55 AM
Supply and demand absolutely does not work that way. There's one price which gives optimal profit, and going too high or too low from there results in a loss. If you think a company will get the same amount of money regardless of their pricing, well, I'd suggest taking a few econ classes.

Its actually a range. Within that range one compensates for the other. If its slightly too cheap it will sell more copies to make up for any loss in profits. If its too high a small portion will pass it up and fewer people will buy it, but it will still make the same amount of money. I took a few economics classes, that's why I know this. The price point between $20-$50 is about within that range.

Of course when they are giving away the one sub-class each of the core four classes and the basics to play the game from level 1-20, there is no telling if they will make enough money from the books on sale or not. The idea is they are trying to give it away for free to get you hooked and then selling supplements. I'm not sure this will work because it requires a level of quality that they don't appear to be able to meet.

Pink
2014-05-27, 08:19 AM
I'm going to remain skeptical about this Basic D&D thing until I see the full pdf. Mainly how much it will contain for for the rules of play instead of character creation and whatever spells they decide to release. It honestly sounds a lot closer to a limited sample or preview than Basic rules with which to play the games. Not saying it's a bad idea. Just saying I'll be very surprised if there is a significant population that uses these Basic rules to play games instead of picking up the advanced ones to use. Basically, until I see otherwise, it kinda sounds they're marketing it as being of the same usefulness of the 3.5 SRD, when I imagine it will be significantly constraining.

I was going to chime in about the economic range thing too, but seems it's been covered.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-27, 08:30 AM
I'm going to remain skeptical about this Basic D&D thing until I see the full pdf. Mainly how much it will contain for for the rules of play instead of character creation and whatever spells they decide to release. It honestly sounds a lot closer to a limited sample or preview than Basic rules with which to play the games. Not saying it's a bad idea. Just saying I'll be very surprised if there is a significant population that uses these Basic rules to play games instead of picking up the advanced ones to use. Basically, until I see otherwise, it kinda sounds they're marketing it as being of the same usefulness of the 3.5 SRD, when I imagine it will be significantly constraining.

I was going to chime in about the economic range thing too, but seems it's been covered.

My guess, take a look at the last playtest packet. Cut out everything not related to the core 4 classes, clean it up and polish it a bit, add any missing core rule elements and clarifications since the playtesting went private, then add artwork and formatting and there's your Basic D&D.

Kurald Galain
2014-05-27, 09:13 AM
Its actually a range. Within that range one compensates for the other.
No, it's not. It's a second-degree (or higher) function, of which you take the derivative to find its optimal point.


I took a few economics classes, that's why I know this.
Riiiight :smallbiggrin:


The price point between $20-$50 is about within that range.
Really now. Do you have any source for that? Because the vast majority of RPG books on the market are priced well below that range. It would be rather silly if WOTC would make the exact same profit if they sell their books at less than half the price.


I'm going to remain skeptical about this Basic D&D thing until I see the full pdf. Mainly how much it will contain for for the rules of play instead of character creation and whatever spells they decide to release. It honestly sounds a lot closer to a limited sample or preview than Basic rules with which to play the games.
Perhaps it is comparable to the HOFL book? Yes, that had a higher page count, but they were tiny pages at a big font. Anyway, it does have four classes, playable to max level, with only marginal customization options, but otherwise the full combat rules.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-27, 09:47 AM
Incidentally, for those of you who still want to play 4e material, Mearls has mentioned in his tweets that the 4e online tools will remain "as long as enough people are subscribed".

captpike
2014-05-27, 01:13 PM
Incidentally, for those of you who still want to play 4e material, Mearls has mentioned in his tweets that the 4e online tools will remain "as long as enough people are subscribed".

given how much we can trust his word, that means absolutely nothing.

Felhammer
2014-05-27, 02:57 PM
given how much we can trust his word, that means absolutely nothing.

Cynical much?

Why would they throw away free money? Makes zero sense. There is, however, a certain threshold below which the cost of maintaining the servers will be unprofitable (or at the very least not profitable enough), therefore the service will be shut down.

captpike
2014-05-27, 04:18 PM
Cynical much?

Why would they throw away free money? Makes zero sense. There is, however, a certain threshold below which the cost of maintaining the servers will be unprofitable (or at the very least not profitable enough), therefore the service will be shut down.

there is no good reasons I agree

there are however a few bad ones. for example the idea that if character builder stops working people will find it annoying enough to switch to a system that does have a working character builder (5e)

1337 b4k4
2014-05-27, 04:32 PM
there is no good reasons I agree

there are however a few bad ones. for example the idea that if character builder stops working people will find it annoying enough to switch to a system that does have a working character builder (5e)

You have noticed that WotC has learned they can make money off their back catalog right? Seriously for the number of people they might convert with such a move, they'd probably lose about twice as many for pulling such a **** move. Since it can't cost them that much to leave the site up (since they're not updating any more monsters / powers, it's mostly flash updates at this point), it makes a ton more sense to keep it up and keep the subscription money on their back catalog than take the chance that they can convert some of those people to 5e.

captpike
2014-05-27, 04:45 PM
You have noticed that WotC has learned they can make money off their back catalog right? Seriously for the number of people they might convert with such a move, they'd probably lose about twice as many for pulling such a **** move. Since it can't cost them that much to leave the site up (since they're not updating any more monsters / powers, it's mostly flash updates at this point), it makes a ton more sense to keep it up and keep the subscription money on their back catalog than take the chance that they can convert some of those people to 5e.

I agree, why I said it was a bad reason. however that does not mean some big wig wont order it done in a year or two.

Lokiare
2014-05-27, 05:19 PM
No, it's not. It's a second-degree (or higher) function, of which you take the derivative to find its optimal point.

You mean this algorithm https://www.inkling.com/read/managerial-economics/chapter-2/marginal-revenue-and-marginal yeah, see you are meant to use that to get close and then decide based on other factors whether to go up or down. It really is a sliding scale within a range. Based mostly on whether you want to sell more products or not.


Riiiight :smallbiggrin:


Really now. Do you have any source for that? Because the vast majority of RPG books on the market are priced well below that range. It would be rather silly if WOTC would make the exact same profit if they sell their books at less than half the price.


Perhaps it is comparable to the HOFL book? Yes, that had a higher page count, but they were tiny pages at a big font. Anyway, it does have four classes, playable to max level, with only marginal customization options, but otherwise the full combat rules.

WotC has the name brand of D&D which they think will sell quite a few books just on brand recognition alone. The last few editions have been priced similarly. What most people aren't taking into account is the loss of the value of the dollar which means they are selling it nearly at the same price as they always have.

Personally I think they've squandered the brand identity of D&D and 5E won't sell very well at all except for the small niche group of people who's play style it supports.

captpike
2014-05-27, 05:25 PM
the real telling point will be after the rush for the core threeish books, seeing how well spat's will sell will be the best indicator of how well the game is received.

DrBurr
2014-05-27, 07:08 PM
You have noticed that WotC has learned they can make money off their back catalog right? Seriously for the number of people they might convert with such a move, they'd probably lose about twice as many for pulling such a **** move. Since it can't cost them that much to leave the site up (since they're not updating any more monsters / powers, it's mostly flash updates at this point), it makes a ton more sense to keep it up and keep the subscription money on their back catalog than take the chance that they can convert some of those people to 5e.

Plus everytime a 4e Subscriber goes to use Character Builder or Adventure Tools, they need to visit Wizards website, so its easy advertising, which will likely lead into some Basic Players and hopefully book sales.

captpike
2014-05-27, 07:11 PM
Plus everytime a 4e Subscriber goes to use Character Builder or Adventure Tools, they need to visit Wizards website, so its easy advertising, which will likely lead into some Basic Players and hopefully book sales.

you are subscribing to the notion the people who are making the calls have both a moderate level of common sense and intelligence. that very well might not be true.

I dont think they wil drop 4e support. but it would not surprise me if in a year or two they did it. or when 5e sales drop after the core books come out they try to force people to change.

its a bad idea, but they still might do it.

RSSwizard
2014-05-27, 08:41 PM
Im sure as hell not buying it.

In fact I will probably get it through underhanded means, to even see if it is worth playing. They damaged my trust with 4E and they cant just get it back without proving themselves worthy of it again.

The skill system better be as simple as it was in 4E though, that was the only thing about 4E that I liked. Pathfinder and Star Wars came a little closer but they still had too many skills.

====

Im also a firm believer in Spells which cost a fixed amount of Mana, and you have a Mana pool to cast from. You can make it refresh every hour if you want to keep the spellcastors on a shorter leash, but this is what I expect from a competent game manufacturer. Its simple and straightforward and doesn't play shenanigans. Only time D&D has ever acknowledged this was with psionic power points and the spell points variant from unearthed arcana, and both were still pathetic by their complexity.

(you should have to write down both the spell chosen, and in parenthesis how much Mana it costs. This way you can have spells which are really powerful or large for a given spell level but compensate by costing more than usual)

If they want to make ME happy, they will have done this, and abandoned both their Spell Slots and Powers bull.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-27, 09:45 PM
Im sure as hell not buying it.

In fact I will probably get it through underhanded means, to even see if it is worth playing. They damaged my trust with 4E and they cant just get it back without proving themselves worthy of it again.

The skill system better be as simple as it was in 4E though, that was the only thing about 4E that I liked. Pathfinder and Star Wars came a little closer but they still had too many skills.

====

Im also a firm believer in Spells which cost a fixed amount of Mana, and you have a Mana pool to cast from. You can make it refresh every hour if you want to keep the spellcastors on a shorter leash, but this is what I expect from a competent game manufacturer. Its simple and straightforward and doesn't play shenanigans. Only time D&D has ever acknowledged this was with psionic power points and the spell points variant from unearthed arcana, and both were still pathetic by their complexity.

(you should have to write down both the spell chosen, and in parenthesis how much Mana it costs. This way you can have spells which are really powerful or large for a given spell level but compensate by costing more than usual)

If they want to make ME happy, they will have done this, and abandoned both their Spell Slots and Powers bull.

I'd like to say that 3rd edition actually had a spell points variant where all spellcasters(instead of just psionic characters) used a cache of spell points instead of slots per day to cast spells. Mike Mearls has thrown "Spell Points" around when discussing the new rulebooks, implying that this system will also be present in Next. Always look around for alternate systems that sound more enticing than other aspects of gameplay. If you don't like them, then homebrew them; The greatest tool available to a human is their imagination, and you know how you want your system to work.

Also, with regards to the skill system, the skills are pretty compact, expansive, and streamlined short of just using ability checks. You get base skill check bonuses are your ability modifiers(so athletics is your strength modifier, your stealth is your dexterity modifier, etc.) Your class gives you a bonus to a few that you select that increases as you level(called a proficiency bonus; This is also your to-hit and saving throw bonus).

That said, and I don't mean to be rude here, but your post really just sounds like you complaining that they didn't tailor make a game to fit your specifications, which they really couldn't(wouldn't/shouldn't) do. But there is absolutely nothing invalid with making a particular game system one way, even if it's just not what you wanted out of it. A game is meant to entertain, and it won't entertain everybody, but they'll try their best to entertain what people really like. People really responded to the Vancian(spell slots) magic system, so it's the standard; I can almost guarantee that they'll publish support for a spell points system akin to what you're looking for, but it's not the core game because it wasn't what people wanted out of the core game. The majority actually really liked Vancian over a similar system because it gave it that distinct separation from typical modern roleplaying games, particularly video games like some of the most classic RPGs. D&D has always had this distinction of Vancian magic being it's real unique aspect to gameplay for spellcasting classes. It's certainly iconic at this point, but they are definitely considerate of people who don't appreciate it.

Just making one person happy with a systematic aspect isn't going to make back the revenue that went into development, design, creation, publishing, and marketing of this product; The will overwhelmingly decide to go with the system that the majority preferred to make the game more accessible, initially more likeable, and more marketable to people who may be familiar with the product(as they're slightly more interested in the market than people trying to get into the game for the first time that have never played with a Vancian magic system). But they know that there's a niche that won't prefer something so they'll consider changing it. And even if they didn't, don't forget; You have that power too. It's the most empowering thing about tabletop pen and paper games is that the players and DMs have the ability to coordinate and change things; If one feels like that's too much work, then they're just wasting the most precious aspect of the game(it's modular nature, not being coded to specifically work one way just like a video game would be). And to me, being able to play this game at all is worth the initial investment as a player, and if I truly don't like something after I've gotten my hands on the product, I always have the liberty to change it.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-27, 09:48 PM
Im sure as hell not buying it.

In fact I will probably get it through underhanded means, to even see if it is worth playing. They damaged my trust with 4E and they cant just get it back without proving themselves worthy of it again.

The skill system better be as simple as it was in 4E though, that was the only thing about 4E that I liked. Pathfinder and Star Wars came a little closer but they still had too many skills.

====

Im also a firm believer in Spells which cost a fixed amount of Mana, and you have a Mana pool to cast from. You can make it refresh every hour if you want to keep the spellcastors on a shorter leash, but this is what I expect from a competent game manufacturer. Its simple and straightforward and doesn't play shenanigans. Only time D&D has ever acknowledged this was with psionic power points and the spell points variant from unearthed arcana, and both were still pathetic by their complexity.

(you should have to write down both the spell chosen, and in parenthesis how much Mana it costs. This way you can have spells which are really powerful or large for a given spell level but compensate by costing more than usual)

If they want to make ME happy, they will have done this, and abandoned both their Spell Slots and Powers bull.

You won't have to buy it or illegally download it to try it.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?351940-Basic-D-amp-D-Announced!-D-amp-D-going-Free-To-Play

or more specifically

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140527

Edit:

Also I was trying to find a polite way of saying what the person above me said but Chaosvii7 said it quite well.

1337 b4k4
2014-05-27, 09:49 PM
Im sure as hell not buying it.

In fact I will probably get it through underhanded means, to even see if it is worth playing. They damaged my trust with 4E and they cant just get it back without proving themselves worthy of it again.

You could just download the free version when they release it.


Mike Mearls has thrown "Spell Points" around when discussing the new rulebooks, implying that this system will also be present in Next.

In fact, he explicitly stated in his recent tweets that a spell points system will be in the DMG.

captpike
2014-05-27, 10:02 PM
In fact, he explicitly stated in his recent tweets that a spell points system will be in the DMG.

I wonder if they are just throwing it together at the last second and putting it in the DMG with a "optional" label to hide the fact they are terrible...

1337 b4k4
2014-05-27, 10:14 PM
I wonder if they are just throwing it together at the last second and putting it in the DMG with a "optional" label to hide the fact they are terrible...

:smallsigh:
:smallsigh::smallsigh:
:smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh:

Personally I wonder if they aren't just trolling the entire world and they're going to release a My Little Ponies RPG instead of a new version of D&D. After all, we can't be sure the higher ups who clearly don't know how to run a company, much less a multi billion dollar conglomerate haven't simply disbanded the entire D&D team and used this all as an elaborate ruse to generate hype for the new Ponies and Prancing: The Friendshipening game.

...

Can we be done with the insanely unjustified pessimism of everything WotC says and does yet? It's irritating when the OSR Grognards do it, it's irritating when the 4e grognards do it too.

captpike
2014-05-27, 10:18 PM
sure we can just ignore the large gap between what they have said and the truth. their apparent lack of competence at making an RPG, I am sure those things are totally irreverent to the mater at hand.

EDIT: besides its not like there is a good reason to put it in the DMG, its player rules by definition. there IS not good reason to hide those in the DMG.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-27, 11:01 PM
sure we can just ignore the large gap between what they have said and the truth. their apparent lack of competence at making an RPG, I am sure those things are totally irreverent to the mater at hand.

If you lack either interest or faith in their product then I seriously question why you insist on spending free time coming into this forum topic to berate the people who do have faith and interest in the product.

And if you have it, then why are you skeptical? Until evidence is brought before you there's little reason to be incredily skeptical; There's little reason to have bias towards them until the release of the product. At which point I'd be fine with you calling to attention things you dislike about the system and any proposed changes you have, but in my opinion it's a waste of energy to constantly come here to talk poorly of a game that is literally in a schrodinger's game state until the first book gets shipped to somebody's doorstep, and until you've been able to experience the final product and get a good idea of it.

In addition, I have no problems listening to gripes with the system; Especially so if they come with solutions or alternatives to it(Lokiare is a good example; He's got interesting mathematics changes that he wants to implement with the stuff he's seen and more power to him, I'd just prefer he be careful with his choice of words. :smalltongue:)

You could be using the energy it takes to badmouth WoTC to already implement changes to the final playtest that you would like to see. Or, if you are so inclined, you can just make your own game system instead. These are both options that don't require you try to bring down others' experiences and impressions of WoTC while still getting your points across.

captpike
2014-05-27, 11:07 PM
If you lack either interest or faith in their product then I seriously question why you insist on spending free time coming into this forum topic to berate the people who do have faith and interest in the product.

And if you have it, then why are you skeptical? Until evidence is brought before you there's little reason to be incredily skeptical; There's little reason to have bias towards them until the release of the product. At which point I'd be fine with you calling to attention things you dislike about the system and any proposed changes you have, but in my opinion it's a waste of energy to constantly come here to talk poorly of a game that is literally in a schrodinger's game state until the first book gets shipped to somebody's doorstep, and until you've been able to experience the final product and get a good idea of it.

In addition, I have no problems listening to gripes with the system; Especially so if they come with solutions or alternatives to it(Lokiare is a good example; He's got interesting mathematics changes that he wants to implement with the stuff he's seen and more power to him, I'd just prefer he be careful with his choice of words. :smalltongue:)

You could be using the energy it takes to badmouth WoTC to already implement changes to the final playtest that you would like to see. Or, if you are so inclined, you can just make your own game system instead. These are both options that don't require you try to bring down others' experiences and impressions of WoTC while still getting your points across.
if the truth hurts then you should be hurt.

there is plenty of evidence to both not trust them, and to believe they don't know what they are doing (the entire playtest for example).

there however is not certainty, and wont be until we get the final product. its possible for example they have been hiding all the good work and only put the worst of the worst out on the playtest

besides its always more useful and interesting to bring up the problems with a system then say "its awesome"

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-27, 11:37 PM
if the truth hurts then you should be hurt.

there is plenty of evidence to both not trust them, and to believe they don't know what they are doing (the entire playtest for example).

there however is not certainty, and wont be until we get the final product. its possible for example they have been hiding all the good work and only put the worst of the worst out on the playtest

besides its always more useful and interesting to bring up the problems with a system then say "its awesome"

That's why I prefer to say that it's awesome (and explain what exactly is awesome about it) instead of just its awesome.

Lot more stuff to talk about that way.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-27, 11:44 PM
besides its always more useful and interesting to bring up the problems with a system then say "its awesome"

Not arguing there, but it helps if the problems lie beyond how they produce, publish, and market it as opposed to just the content. If the spell points system were in the DMG or PHB, it wouldn't matter if it were so poor that nobody wanted to use it. At the very least, you could be pointing out problems you see with rules constructs and mathematics and giving ideas for improvements, as opposed to making a big deal about which rulebook it shows up in.

All of that stuff is important, but I like to believe that the actual content of the game is more important.

Thank you so much for being understanding and toning it down for us, I'd say that we could do with criticism around here, so much as it's constructive and not just someone stating that they don't like the system or the company. I think it'd be in your best interests to look at ways you'd take the content you have access to already and making it different for what you believe to be the betterment of the game health and share it with others. You have everybody's support to experiment with the system and make the game experience your own.

Also do remember that some people really enjoyed the playtest(everybody at my FLGS was enraptured with it), and I suspect I'll still like the playtest more than the final proudct. But I'm dumb and a product of an advantageous capitalist society, so I'll still buy the final product and play with it for 4-7 years either way. I can understand if your poor view of the playtest is shaped from negative experiences with it and disliking the content compared to other rulesets and ideologies of play, and I do respect that.

captpike
2014-05-27, 11:52 PM
That's why I prefer to say that it's awesome (and explain what exactly is awesome about it) instead of just its awesome.

Lot more stuff to talk about that way.

ya but no one learns anything that way, no one gains new insights or knowledge.

Bezhukov
2014-05-28, 12:04 AM
ya but no one learns anything that way, no one gains new insights or knowledge.

Most people I know learn best from success. If you look at what makes something awesome, there is much that can be learned.

Sartharina
2014-05-28, 12:43 AM
ya but no one learns anything that way, no one gains new insights or knowledge.
Yes you do. When solving any problem, getting something right gives a LOT more information than getting something wrong. Especially if you can then analyse what made it right.

captpike
2014-05-28, 12:46 AM
Yes you do. When solving any problem, getting something right gives a LOT more information than getting something wrong. Especially if you can then analyse what made it right.

when dealing with a complex system it can be hard to find out why it works well, at least well enough to help.

finding what is wrong is easier, and often more helpful.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-28, 05:46 AM
when dealing with a complex system it can be hard to find out why it works well, at least well enough to help.

finding what is wrong is easier, and often more helpful.

No. If you focus on this then your project gets scrubbed or will be considered a failure no matter how good it is.

You will never find out what works well if you go into the process by only/mostly looking for what is wrong. Or with that attitude.

Also my previous post was commenting on the difference between its and it's.

DrBurr
2014-05-28, 01:00 PM
if the truth hurts then you should be hurt.

there is plenty of evidence to both not trust them, and to believe they don't know what they are doing (the entire playtest for example).

there however is not certainty, and wont be until we get the final product. its possible for example they have been hiding all the good work and only put the worst of the worst out on the playtest

besides its always more useful and interesting to bring up the problems with a system then say "its awesome"

Theres a difference between stating problems with the system and people just screaming that ever since 4e they never trusted Wotc or how they think Mike Mearls is incompetent. Seriously what does that add to the conversation?

Lokiare
2014-05-28, 01:48 PM
Theres a difference between stating problems with the system and people just screaming that ever since 4e they never trusted Wotc or how they think Mike Mearls is incompetent. Seriously what does that add to the conversation?

First off no one is screaming. Its more of a conversational matter of fact tone. Second, WotC and Mearls has EARNED their bad reputation over the course of 4+ years with the business practices they've done. Some people were never affected because they only stayed on the fringe and only rarely bought books, but the rest of us had to deal with bait and switch, broken promises, and faulty products.

We don't just randomly decide to get up in the morning and pull a companies name out of a hat and hate on it. There are underlying reasons for it.

Knowing that a developer doesn't understand their previous or current product can be a good way to make people cautious so they don't just run out and waste a bunch of money on a product they may not like.

I wish people would quit looking at my criticism so negatively...

1337 b4k4
2014-05-28, 02:10 PM
I wish people would quit looking at my criticism so negatively...

It might help if you didn't interpret everything in the worst possible light. On more than one occasion in these threads you have either directly twisted or inferred the worst possible outcome from the information that we've been given. When you do that repeatedly it moves beyond mere criticism and caution into pessimism and inhospitality.

Heck, just look at the thread about the Basic D&D announcement. You couldn't even let yourself compliment a move WotC made without following it up with a sneering remark about how you don't think the game will work for you or most anyone else so it's actually not a good thing at all. You even had to go back and edit your post to put it in, it wasn't even your initial thought. If people perceive you as negative, it might be because you've done things like that which foster that point of view.

Edit
------------------

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't criticize things you think are wrong, nor that you shouldn't warn caution if you feel it's warranted. But it really does appear that you go out of your way to find interpretations that aren't warranted even with caution. I mean at a certain point, you have to trust WotC is a game company and can make a game. It may not be the game you want to play, but it will be a game, and chances are it will be a decent and fun game if not a good game. If you sincerely believe that WotC is incapable of making a good game, then at a certain point there's no point in criticizing or providing feedback because they would be equally incapable of applying that criticism or feedback.

Lokiare
2014-05-28, 02:28 PM
It might help if you didn't interpret everything in the worst possible light. On more than one occasion in these threads you have either directly twisted or inferred the worst possible outcome from the information that we've been given. When you do that repeatedly it moves beyond mere criticism and caution into pessimism and inhospitality.

Heck, just look at the thread about the Basic D&D announcement. You couldn't even let yourself compliment a move WotC made without following it up with a sneering remark about how you don't think the game will work for you or most anyone else so it's actually not a good thing at all. You even had to go back and edit your post to put it in, it wasn't even your initial thought. If people perceive you as negative, it might be because you've done things like that which foster that point of view.

Edit
------------------

I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't criticize things you think are wrong, nor that you shouldn't warn caution if you feel it's warranted. But it really does appear that you go out of your way to find interpretations that aren't warranted even with caution. I mean at a certain point, you have to trust WotC is a game company and can make a game. It may not be the game you want to play, but it will be a game, and chances are it will be a decent and fun game if not a good game. If you sincerely believe that WotC is incapable of making a good game, then at a certain point there's no point in criticizing or providing feedback because they would be equally incapable of applying that criticism or feedback.

That was sarcasm by the way.

Its not pessimism its realism. Due to past experience with this company and Mearls in particular we know that they are hit or miss on understanding their own games. There is nothing inhospitable about the truth. You'll notice I don't name call or anything like that. I state facts and predictions based on my past experiences with these people. That some people seem eternally optimistic no matter what is just really annoying to me. It doesn't help anything and puts you in danger of getting hurt quite a bit more than analyzing things as they are in reality.

For instance my comment that you reference above is a cautionary statement to WotC. If they release their basic game for free they will scare away quite a few people that don't like the play style WotC is catering to with 5E. There will be lost sales because of it. Its up to WotC to realize they are going to lose customers because of that statement. There is nothing pessimistic in that statement either. Its a simple fact: 5E is geared toward a very narrow play style. Releasing it for everyone to see for free will only cause them to lose customers that don't like that play style but were willing to buy the game sight unseen.

It helps if people don't take every word I say in the worst possible light and maybe try to weigh what I say against the known facts in an impartial manner.

Felhammer
2014-05-28, 02:59 PM
I am so tired of reading a minority of people's negativity, especially on these boards. I come here for a discussion, not read a repeated list of vitriolic complaints. Thank goodness there is an ignore button. :smallsmile:

I, for one, am very excited for this new edition, flaws and all. I've already pre-ordered the starter set and am waiting with baited breath. I want to dive into this game and have some fun.

I wonder how many monsters they are going to include in the start set. I hope it includes some of the more iconic monsters (goblins, kobolds, orcs, maybe even something big and scary like an ogre, etc.) I hope the first real adventure comes with some customized monsters (orcs wearing heavy armor, dragon-touched goblins, etc.).

DrBurr
2014-05-28, 04:56 PM
First off no one is screaming. Its more of a conversational matter of fact tone. Second, WotC and Mearls has EARNED their bad reputation over the course of 4+ years with the business practices they've done. Some people were never affected because they only stayed on the fringe and only rarely bought books, but the rest of us had to deal with bait and switch, broken promises, and faulty products.

We don't just randomly decide to get up in the morning and pull a companies name out of a hat and hate on it. There are underlying reasons for it.

Knowing that a developer doesn't understand their previous or current product can be a good way to make people cautious so they don't just run out and waste a bunch of money on a product they may not like.

I wish people would quit looking at my criticism so negatively...

Where did I ever mention you? I simply came in here and commented that Keeping the 4e tools up was a good way to pull some basic players in, and I was met with everyone at Wotc is an idiot. Reading through the entire thread there are plenty of these comments about how people think Mearls is a moron or how 4e ruined everything . Comments like those are just whining there not constructive and I was commenting on how comments like those never add anything to the conversation.

da_chicken
2014-05-28, 06:12 PM
I am so tired of reading a minority of people's negativity, especially on these boards. I come here for a discussion, not read a repeated list of vitriolic complaints. Thank goodness there is an ignore button.

I agree.


I, for one, am very excited for this new edition, flaws and all. I've already pre-ordered the starter set and am waiting with baited breath. I want to dive into this game and have some fun.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Although, it's "bated breath". It's a corruption of "abated". :)


I wonder how many monsters they are going to include in the start set. I hope it includes some of the more iconic monsters (goblins, kobolds, orcs, maybe even something big and scary like an ogre, etc.) I hope the first real adventure comes with some customized monsters (orcs wearing heavy armor, dragon-touched goblins, etc.).

Well, they'll have to have an assortment 1-20. It would be pretty unfair to call it "the true heart of the game and could easily provide a lifetime of gaming" if it didn't have any combat challenges at high level.

Felhammer
2014-05-28, 06:38 PM
I agree wholeheartedly.

Although, it's "bated breath". It's a corruption of "abated". :)

I had no idea! Reminds me of chomping at the bit, which is actually a corruption of champing at the bit. :smallsmile:




Well, they'll have to have an assortment 1-20. It would be pretty unfair to call it "the true heart of the game and could easily provide a lifetime of gaming" if it didn't have any combat challenges at high level.

Fair point.

I wonder if they will include the most iconic enemy - the Red Dragon.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-05-28, 07:00 PM
Fair point.

I wonder if they will include the most iconic enemy - the Red Dragon.

I could see them go either way with Tyranny of Tiamat coming out relatively soon they might just wait for that book to release the dragons.

Or they may want to preview HOW dragons (and lairs, i really loved the idea of lairs being deadly) work before Tyranny of Tiamat comes out so that we get wanting for moar dragons.

captpike
2014-05-28, 07:48 PM
were the game made with good math and whatnot you could probably put out all that was absolutely needed for NPCs in no more then 5 or 6 pages.

not as easy as having alot of pre-made creatures but certainly possible.

da_chicken
2014-05-28, 08:04 PM
I could see them go either way with Tyranny of Tiamat coming out relatively soon they might just wait for that book to release the dragons.

Or they may want to preview HOW dragons (and lairs, i really loved the idea of lairs being deadly) work before Tyranny of Tiamat comes out so that we get wanting for moar dragons.

I'm still hoping whatever gets released won't be the dragons in the playtest packet I have. I will miss more epic dragons, I think.

Lokiare
2014-05-29, 07:17 AM
I am so tired of reading a minority of people's negativity, especially on these boards. I come here for a discussion, not read a repeated list of vitriolic complaints. Thank goodness there is an ignore button. :smallsmile:

I am so tired of reading a minority of people's positivity, especially on these boards. I come here for a discussion, not to read a repeated list of blindly optimistic complements. Thank goodness they are using the ignore button. :smallsmile:


I, for one, am very excited for this new edition, flaws and all. I've already pre-ordered the starter set and am waiting with baited breath. I want to dive into this game and have some fun.

The starter set from my perspective is a waste of money. I bought the 4E red box for my nephews and regret wasting that money. In the case of 5E you are essentially buying some dice, some tokens/miniatures, a short adventure and the rules for levels 1-5 printed out (which are free online). If you have any of that already the price point is too high.


I wonder how many monsters they are going to include in the start set. I hope it includes some of the more iconic monsters (goblins, kobolds, orcs, maybe even something big and scary like an ogre, etc.) I hope the first real adventure comes with some customized monsters (orcs wearing heavy armor, dragon-touched goblins, etc.).

Well it won't matter because you'll be able to pick up more monsters in the free PDF.


Where did I ever mention you? I simply came in here and commented that Keeping the 4e tools up was a good way to pull some basic players in, and I was met with everyone at Wotc is an idiot. Reading through the entire thread there are plenty of these comments about how people think Mearls is a moron or how 4e ruined everything . Comments like those are just whining there not constructive and I was commenting on how comments like those never add anything to the conversation.

No one said you mentioned me. You claimed people were yelling and screaming. I haven't been doing that and I haven't seen anyone else doing that. Actually if you know the details about Mearls and WotC history from the end of 3.5E until now, then they are spot on. It isn't that everyone at WotC is an idiot. Its that they have game developers making marketing, legal, and PR choices. Then of course they don't seem to understand how their game works or why people liked it. Those are simply observations. They are not insults, they are what we feel like after seeing Mearls and WotC stumble around like the blind on their own products. Those comments are some of the most constructive you can make. It warns people not to blindly trust in the quality of 5E and to be cautious about purchases.

Chaosvii7
2014-05-29, 08:06 AM
The starter set from my perspective is a waste of money. I bought the 4E red box for my nephews and regret wasting that money. In the case of 5E you are essentially buying some dice, some tokens/miniatures, a short adventure and the rules for levels 1-5 printed out (which are free online). If you have any of that already the price point is too high.

Well that would be all well and good had you bought the red box for yourself; But in buying it for your nephews you did it to give them the accessibility of the game, which is an investment that will require them to play the red box adventure, enjoy D&D, and continue to play it for a fairly extended period of time. You didn't buy it for yourself to get yourself into D&D. And even if you would have felt more comfortable letting your nephews just use your books and they can get supplemental materials themselves, the appeal of buying the redbox is to give them the entitlement to play the game on their own, without having to rely on you for materials to play a basic adventure to the point where they can get an interest in the game.

Starter sets are not designed for people who are hardcore veterans, and probably don't take people who playtested the game in mind with regards to Next; It's simply a pre-generated adventure with some added embellishments. 1 set of dice is $6-8 through Chessex IIRC, and a 1-5 adventure is definitely an investment above $10, citing the Red Hand of Doom adventure from 3.5($29.95 USD when released in 2006). So the set's gonna be worth it's salt for a starting adventure, especially so for a group of first time players who are looking for an entry-level way into D&D.

Lokiare
2014-05-29, 11:17 AM
Well that would be all well and good had you bought the red box for yourself; But in buying it for your nephews you did it to give them the accessibility of the game, which is an investment that will require them to play the red box adventure, enjoy D&D, and continue to play it for a fairly extended period of time. You didn't buy it for yourself to get yourself into D&D. And even if you would have felt more comfortable letting your nephews just use your books and they can get supplemental materials themselves, the appeal of buying the redbox is to give them the entitlement to play the game on their own, without having to rely on you for materials to play a basic adventure to the point where they can get an interest in the game.

Starter sets are not designed for people who are hardcore veterans, and probably don't take people who playtested the game in mind with regards to Next; It's simply a pre-generated adventure with some added embellishments. 1 set of dice is $6-8 through Chessex IIRC, and a 1-5 adventure is definitely an investment above $10, citing the Red Hand of Doom adventure from 3.5($29.95 USD when released in 2006). So the set's gonna be worth it's salt for a starting adventure, especially so for a group of first time players who are looking for an entry-level way into D&D.

The problem is they got tired of it about 2 months after I bought it and I didn't have the income to buy them the core books. So it really was a waste of money.

It might be worthwhile for the small set of people that are new to the game that have never played before and don't know what an TTRPG is. Then its a nice cheap introduction. If you have an idea of what a game is and know what you like the free PDF will beat the starter set out every time. Its a very narrow group of people that will find the starter set useful.

Sartharina
2014-05-29, 03:30 PM
were the game made with good math and whatnot you could probably put out all that was absolutely needed for NPCs in no more then 5 or 6 pages.The math is fine - It does what it's supposed to, and it does it well. It doesn't have the same need or emphasis as the math of 4e did.

DrBurr
2014-05-29, 03:40 PM
No one said you mentioned me. You claimed people were yelling and screaming. I haven't been doing that and I haven't seen anyone else doing that. Actually if you know the details about Mearls and WotC history from the end of 3.5E until now, then they are spot on. It isn't that everyone at WotC is an idiot. Its that they have game developers making marketing, legal, and PR choices. Then of course they don't seem to understand how their game works or why people liked it. Those are simply observations. They are not insults, they are what we feel like after seeing Mearls and WotC stumble around like the blind on their own products. Those comments are some of the most constructive you can make. It warns people not to blindly trust in the quality of 5E and to be cautious about purchases.

Your post implied it though by stating that you were tired of people taking your criticisms negatively in a response to my post. I infact like most of your posts because you explain why you don't like something or how math doesn't work I may not feel the same way about it as you but I still respect the fact you put together and argument.

I claimed people were screaming which is a synonym for complaining. And when people just state mistrust without listing any reasoning its just baseless complaining to other readers. And no baseless complaining isn't constructive we all are already cautiously looking at this new game if we weren't then why would we be posting it what is basically a speculation thread, and there are plenty of these posts in this thread and other 5e threads and really its just obnoxious to post in a thread and be told that your wrong because that'd logical.

Lokiare
2014-06-06, 05:15 PM
Your post implied it though by stating that you were tired of people taking your criticisms negatively in a response to my post. I infact like most of your posts because you explain why you don't like something or how math doesn't work I may not feel the same way about it as you but I still respect the fact you put together and argument.

I claimed people were screaming which is a synonym for complaining. And when people just state mistrust without listing any reasoning its just baseless complaining to other readers. And no baseless complaining isn't constructive we all are already cautiously looking at this new game if we weren't then why would we be posting it what is basically a speculation thread, and there are plenty of these posts in this thread and other 5e threads and really its just obnoxious to post in a thread and be told that your wrong because that'd logical.

Screaming != (not equal to) complaining. Screaming is a raised or panicked voice. In text it is ALL CAPS. None of that was going on. Complaining is any negative comment about a subject. You can complain without screaming and you can scream without complaining.

Well if you want a list just off the top of my head:

1. Promised products that were not released for whatever reason (software, books, etc...etc...)
2. Moving previously free products behind a pay wall.
3. Poor quality products.
4. Constantly delaying products with little or no explanation.
5. Changing products with no warning to a different format, thus making yearly paid subscriptions a bad idea.
6. Lack of communication (an occasional blog post is not communication).
7. Using a hard to use company to take money or cancel.

If I took the time I could list every single instance in the past few years that WotC has done this kind of stuff, but I won't. I'll leave that to the reader to investigate.

da_chicken
2014-06-06, 09:29 PM
Screaming != (not equal to) complaining. Screaming is a raised or panicked voice. In text it is ALL CAPS. None of that was going on. Complaining is any negative comment about a subject. You can complain without screaming and you can scream without complaining.

(I think he was being hyperbolic.)


Well if you want a list just off the top of my head:

1. Promised products that were not released for whatever reason (software, books, etc...etc...)
2. Moving previously free products behind a pay wall.
3. Poor quality products.
4. Constantly delaying products with little or no explanation.
5. Changing products with no warning to a different format, thus making yearly paid subscriptions a bad idea.
6. Lack of communication (an occasional blog post is not communication).
7. Using a hard to use company to take money or cancel.

If I took the time I could list every single instance in the past few years that WotC has done this kind of stuff, but I won't. I'll leave that to the reader to investigate.

I had to change my credit card because WotC wouldn't stop charging me for D&D Insider. They did it for 4 months after I cancelled, so I reported the card "lost/stolen". That's why I don't particularly care if they have an online component with 5e. They ain't getting squat from me directly.

Lokiare
2014-06-07, 09:05 PM
(I think he was being hyperbolic.)



I had to change my credit card because WotC wouldn't stop charging me for D&D Insider. They did it for 4 months after I cancelled, so I reported the card "lost/stolen". That's why I don't particularly care if they have an online component with 5e. They ain't getting squat from me directly.

Yeah, the problem is I think people read my posts and because I don't use apologetic speech patterns or certain words and phrases they assume I'm yelling at them or angry or something like that, when half the time I'm smiling or giggling and in a light hearted mood. The other half of the time I'm face palming due to the repetition of memes that were put to rest years ago.

pwykersotz
2014-06-09, 01:47 PM
Yeah, the problem is I think people read my posts and because I don't use apologetic speech patterns or certain words and phrases they assume I'm yelling at them or angry or something like that, when half the time I'm smiling or giggling and in a light hearted mood. The other half of the time I'm face palming due to the repetition of memes that were put to rest years ago.

Just use smileys. :smallsmile: Tone and body language is most of human interaction, and without it all we have are your words. Smileys work as a halfway decent substitute for body language.

Example:

If I took the time I could list every single instance in the past few years that WotC has done this kind of stuff, but I won't. I'll leave that to the reader to investigate. :smallwink:

I should note that I have read just about everything you have posted regarding 5e on these boards, and I think you have a lot of reasonable points. You have definitely helped frame some pitfalls for me, and I'm grateful for it. Still, even as I respect what you've said in terms of facts, often the perceived antagonism has caused my hackles to raise a bit. Gotta use the smileys when you can to keep people from getting the wrong idea. :smallsmile:

Lokiare
2014-06-10, 07:22 AM
Just use smileys. :smallsmile: Tone and body language is most of human interaction, and without it all we have are your words. Smileys work as a halfway decent substitute for body language.

Example:


I should note that I have read just about everything you have posted regarding 5e on these boards, and I think you have a lot of reasonable points. You have definitely helped frame some pitfalls for me, and I'm grateful for it. Still, even as I respect what you've said in terms of facts, often the perceived antagonism has caused my hackles to raise a bit. Gotta use the smileys when you can to keep people from getting the wrong idea. :smallsmile:

I tried that on another forum. People still claimed I was being trollish... :)

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-10, 07:42 AM
I tried that on another forum. People still claimed I was being trollish... :)

Better than me, when I first tried the smiley route (on another forum years ago) I was called a perv... I wasn't trying to be or anything but yeah... Totally take being a troll :smallbiggrin:

Lokiare
2014-06-10, 07:44 PM
Better than me, when I first tried the smiley route (on another forum years ago) I was called a perv... I wasn't trying to be or anything but yeah... Totally take being a troll :smallbiggrin:

The problem is people build up this false image of you in their minds and then read all your posts using that false image. Its the same thing as when you talk to a person on the phone or hear them on the radio and then meet them in person and they look completely different than you imagined they would look like.

Chaosvii7
2014-06-10, 10:44 PM
Its the same thing as when you talk to a person on the phone or hear them on the radio and then meet them in person and they look completely different than you imagined they would look like.

But if you're a rational person you're not going to judge anyone or anything based on just that. Nobody is falsified by an illusion of what they think to be the perfect system, they're interested in a system that appeals to them. If the system doesn't appeal to you I don't see why you've got to devote so much energy towards talking people out of it. It's not your decision if somebody is interested in something, and even if you had all of the logic, math, and fact to back it up, that doesn't mean that it's a bad system; You take out of these things what you want, and you not wanting 5e doesn't mean that everyone has to not want 5e. You're allowed to voice your opinions, and I recall you wanting to make houserules that would bring it back in line with 4e, that's all fine. But the way I see it you're not really painting yourself to be somebody who wants to be tolerant and accepting of other peoples' opinions.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-11, 09:37 AM
But if you're a rational person you're not going to judge anyone or anything based on just that. Nobody is falsified by an illusion of what they think to be the perfect system, they're interested in a system that appeals to them. If the system doesn't appeal to you I don't see why you've got to devote so much energy towards talking people out of it. It's not your decision if somebody is interested in something, and even if you had all of the logic, math, and fact to back it up, that doesn't mean that it's a bad system; You take out of these things what you want, and you not wanting 5e doesn't mean that everyone has to not want 5e. You're allowed to voice your opinions, and I recall you wanting to make houserules that would bring it back in line with 4e, that's all fine. But the way I see it you're not really painting yourself to be somebody who wants to be tolerant and accepting of other peoples' opinions.
Lol rational people on a D&D forum.... :smallbiggrin:

da_chicken
2014-06-11, 10:56 AM
Lol rational people on a D&D forum.... :smallbiggrin:

Are you coming on to me?

Person_Man
2014-06-11, 11:59 AM
Lol rational people on a D&D forum.... :smallbiggrin:

As illustrated by Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-11, 12:55 PM
Are you coming on to me?

Hell yeah, because everyone knows if a guy is nice or even gives you a sentence or a smile, they must be flirting with you...:smalltongue:

Person_Man
2014-06-11, 03:49 PM
Hell yeah, because everyone knows if a guy is nice or even gives you a sentence or a smile, they must be flirting with you...:smalltongue:

Spoken like a true Director of Human Resources. :)

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-11, 05:23 PM
Spoken like a true Director of Human Resources. :)

Nah just a married guy who gets way to many phone numbers just cause I'm polite and social.

As a qualifier, my wife finds it hilarious. Makes her feel like she won.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 03:16 AM
But if you're a rational person you're not going to judge anyone or anything based on just that. Nobody is falsified by an illusion of what they think to be the perfect system, they're interested in a system that appeals to them. If the system doesn't appeal to you I don't see why you've got to devote so much energy towards talking people out of it. It's not your decision if somebody is interested in something, and even if you had all of the logic, math, and fact to back it up, that doesn't mean that it's a bad system; You take out of these things what you want, and you not wanting 5e doesn't mean that everyone has to not want 5e. You're allowed to voice your opinions, and I recall you wanting to make houserules that would bring it back in line with 4e, that's all fine. But the way I see it you're not really painting yourself to be somebody who wants to be tolerant and accepting of other peoples' opinions.

I'm a rational person talking to irrational people educated by a system that doesn't teach critical thinking until the second or third year of college. You do the math on that one.

I am more pointing out the realities of the system than telling people they should like it or not. I'm sorry that sometimes I have to burst some peoples bubbles on occasion to do that, but it must be done by someone.

I'm also devoting time and effort to it because WotC keeps making the false claim that the game is for everyone who's ever played D&D, when in fact its mainly aimed at people that played a little 2E and a lot of 3E. Its aimed at a very narrow play style that includes fantasy vietnam and tier based classes. If WotC just came out and admitted they didn't intend to include 4E in their 'everyone' then I would walk away right now and stop posting about it, but they won't so I'm not either.

Its a bad system because its not living up to its goals. A car that doesn't have an AC or radio is not a bad car if it gets you from point A to point B safely and on time. It is badly designed if they claimed it would be for people that like all temperatures and like to listen to things as well as stay silent on drives.

The main thing is WotC didn't come out and say "we are making a slightly below average 2e/3E retroclone and if you don't want that you probably won't like 5E." other wise I wouldn't have said a word and moved on the moment it got announced.

I'm completely tolerant of peoples opinions when they are based on facts and the truth. When they are based on lies they heard through the rumor mill, then I will correct the lies. I never dictate opinions to people. That's what other people do.

Millennium
2014-06-12, 07:16 AM
I'm completely tolerant of peoples opinions when they are based on facts and the truth. When they are based on lies they heard through the rumor mill, then I will correct the lies. I never dictate opinions to people. That's what other people do.
Who are you, and what have you done with Lokaire?

obryn
2014-06-12, 08:15 AM
I am more pointing out the realities of the system than telling people they should like it or not. I'm sorry that sometimes I have to burst some peoples bubbles on occasion to do that, but it must be done by someone.
The problem, of course, is that you're not. You're basing it - like with your wild-magic-means-TPK-every-11-encounters bit - on incomplete information, half-truths, and your own personal WotC mythology you've invented.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-12, 09:17 AM
The problem, of course, is that you're not. You're basing it - like with your wild-magic-means-TPK-every-11-encounters bit - on incomplete information, half-truths, and your own personal WotC mythology you've invented.

See, for me, it isn't that the party will be TPK with wild magic. It is more to do with the Paladin Syndrome.

When you have a class feature that causes problems for the party, you will have problems at some point. Unless of course you only play with close friends which... I know some people do but a lot of people play with random strangers for however long.

Making a class that will cause friction between people who don't know each other is a bad idea and there should be an option to make the issue shrink or go away completely.*

Many people play Paladins as stick up their ass "my way or the highway" because of their fluff and Class Features that screw them over for not playing an alignment. I could see people start playing wild magic as the "crazy dude" and be just as annoying as the 2e/3e/PF Paladin type (which went away in 4e, one of the greatest things for the paladin was getting rid of that rule because it gave more people freedom to be the character and not the alignment).

Even if the wild magic only hurt the caster, it would still hinder the party.

Essentially, it seems like they are setting up wild magic to be another "oh, you are playing one of them? Siiigh" type of classes. Like the guy who brings Psionics to the table pre-3.5 or the Spell to Power class in 3.5, or a Paladin, or or... Yeah...

I don't want wild magic gone, just fixed.

Edit: while keeping the class feature because wild magic can be fun if implemented right. And plus a lot of people like random craziness.

obryn
2014-06-12, 09:33 AM
See, for me, it isn't that the party will be TPK with wild magic. It is more to do with the Paladin Syndrome.

When you have a class feature that causes problems for the party, you will have problems at some point. Unless of course you only play with close friends which... I know some people do but a lot of people play with random strangers for however long.
Oh no, as I mentioned here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17612078&postcount=56), I'm completely on board, there. I kinda hate wild magic. I like comedy, I like fun, but I just think it's disruptive and kind of dumb.

There's a difference between "I don't like this because of the playstyle implications" and "I don't like this because it will DEFINITELY TPK YOUR PARTY EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT."

Sartharina
2014-06-12, 09:40 AM
The main thing is WotC didn't come out and say "we are making a slightly below average 2e/3E retroclone and if you don't want that you probably won't like 5E." other wise I wouldn't have said a word and moved on the moment it got announced.

If they said they were making a slightly below average 2e/3e retroclone they'd be lying, because so far the system's been far superior to those games while providing a similar experience.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-12, 09:47 AM
Oh no, as I mentioned here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17612078&postcount=56), I'm completely on board, there. I kinda hate wild magic. I like comedy, I like fun, but I just think it's disruptive and kind of dumb.

There's a difference between "I don't like this because of the playstyle implications" and "I don't like this because it will DEFINITELY TPK YOUR PARTY EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT."

Yeah I remember your post, however for myself I didn't want to come across as one of the " I don't like this because it will DEFINATELY TPK YOUR PARTT EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT" .

I think, if done correctly, even someone like yourself (or anyone) could enjoy wild magic.

However, I would like, well absolutely love, to see a campaign setting where the entire plane was cursed and every time you performed certain actions, everyone, produced a wild magic effect. As a setting, that would be amazing. Maybe it manifests when you come of age?

Get rid of things that directly killed people and it could be fun. It would be like Bizzarro Darksun...

Millennium
2014-06-12, 10:38 AM
Knowing that a developer doesn't understand their previous or current product can be a good way to make people cautious so they don't just run out and waste a bunch of money on a product they may not like.
Indeed, it can be, but the point is moot, because you're not doing that. What you're doing is conflating "I don't like this" with "This thing is bad", and that's another matter entirely.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 06:08 PM
See, for me, it isn't that the party will be TPK with wild magic. It is more to do with the Paladin Syndrome.

When you have a class feature that causes problems for the party, you will have problems at some point. Unless of course you only play with close friends which... I know some people do but a lot of people play with random strangers for however long.

Making a class that will cause friction between people who don't know each other is a bad idea and there should be an option to make the issue shrink or go away completely.*

Many people play Paladins as stick up their ass "my way or the highway" because of their fluff and Class Features that screw them over for not playing an alignment. I could see people start playing wild magic as the "crazy dude" and be just as annoying as the 2e/3e/PF Paladin type (which went away in 4e, one of the greatest things for the paladin was getting rid of that rule because it gave more people freedom to be the character and not the alignment).

Even if the wild magic only hurt the caster, it would still hinder the party.

Essentially, it seems like they are setting up wild magic to be another "oh, you are playing one of them? Siiigh" type of classes. Like the guy who brings Psionics to the table pre-3.5 or the Spell to Power class in 3.5, or a Paladin, or or... Yeah...

I don't want wild magic gone, just fixed.

Edit: while keeping the class feature because wild magic can be fun if implemented right. And plus a lot of people like random craziness.

Yeah, they did Wild magic right in 4E with the Wild Sorcerer. The effects of their spells were random, but always beneficial. The worst thing that could happen is to roll a 1 on an attack roll which is an automatic miss in 4E, but for the wild sorcerer it meant every creature within 10 feet was push away from you. If you got a 20 it meant the target was pushed away from you.


The problem, of course, is that you're not. You're basing it - like with your wild-magic-means-TPK-every-11-encounters bit - on incomplete information, half-truths, and your own personal WotC mythology you've invented.

I'm basing it on the facts available as more facts are revealed my opinion will change also. I've created no 'mythology' I've only noted the pattern that WotC follows. If that pattern changes so will my opinion of WotC. It hasn't, so I'm not.

Now it might come up that you only roll on that chart if you cast a certain spell which casts another spell in memory but also rolls on the chart to see what happens. that would be perfectly fine and if that is revealed next month, I'll be glad to change my opinion on the subject. If it doesn't happen I will retain my opinion. See how it works? My opinions are based on the information available, not on hoping something isn't true or hoping something is true. Its called realism. You should try it sometime.


Oh no, as I mentioned here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17612078&postcount=56), I'm completely on board, there. I kinda hate wild magic. I like comedy, I like fun, but I just think it's disruptive and kind of dumb.

There's a difference between "I don't like this because of the playstyle implications" and "I don't like this because it will DEFINITELY TPK YOUR PARTY EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO EVIDENCE ABOUT THAT."

The funny thing here is I showed my evidence and the math behind it, yet you are still claiming 'NO EVIDENCE'. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Things like this are why society is going to crap.


Indeed, it can be, but the point is moot, because you're not doing that. What you're doing is conflating "I don't like this" with "This thing is bad", and that's another matter entirely.

I'm saying for my particular play style this thing is bad. Then backing it up with articles on types of fun and explaining how that feature invalidates the type of fun I enjoy most. What part of that is confusing? I'm saying its bad for me and those with my play style. I'm also saying that many people who played 4E use my play style and therefore WotC is going to lose customers. Its all based in logic and fact if you know where to look.

obryn
2014-06-12, 06:19 PM
I'm basing it on the facts available as more facts are revealed my opinion will change also. I've created no 'mythology' I've only noted the pattern that WotC follows. If that pattern changes so will my opinion of WotC. It hasn't, so I'm not.

Now it might come up that you only roll on that chart if you cast a certain spell which casts another spell in memory but also rolls on the chart to see what happens. that would be perfectly fine and if that is revealed next month, I'll be glad to change my opinion on the subject. If it doesn't happen I will retain my opinion. See how it works? My opinions are based on the information available, not on hoping something isn't true or hoping something is true. Its called realism. You should try it sometime.
...
The funny thing here is I showed my evidence and the math behind it, yet you are still claiming 'NO EVIDENCE'. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Things like this are why society is going to crap.
You're making wild suppositions and calling it evidence. This leads to incorrect math.

Chaosvii7
2014-06-12, 06:28 PM
I'm also saying that many people who played 4E use my play style and therefore WotC is going to lose customers.

Yes, it's how you play 4e. It's probably how you run the game as well, so anybody who plays 4e with or under you will be exposed to the style, and may or may not accept it as their own. If you inherited it from somebody, it's true for that person. I can't imagine it to be the all-encompassing playstyle of the majority of WoTC's sales figures. I can't imagine any charts, surveys or studies that heavily support that this one playstyle is dominant among the top 60% of the sales of 4th edition material.

Envyus
2014-06-12, 06:28 PM
See, for me, it isn't that the party will be TPK with wild magic. It is more to do with the Paladin Syndrome.

When you have a class feature that causes problems for the party, you will have problems at some point. Unless of course you only play with close friends which... I know some people do but a lot of people play with random strangers for however long.

Making a class that will cause friction between people who don't know each other is a bad idea and there should be an option to make the issue shrink or go away completely.*

Many people play Paladins as stick up their ass "my way or the highway" because of their fluff and Class Features that screw them over for not playing an alignment. I could see people start playing wild magic as the "crazy dude" and be just as annoying as the 2e/3e/PF Paladin type (which went away in 4e, one of the greatest things for the paladin was getting rid of that rule because it gave more people freedom to be the character and not the alignment).

Even if the wild magic only hurt the caster, it would still hinder the party.

Essentially, it seems like they are setting up wild magic to be another "oh, you are playing one of them? Siiigh" type of classes. Like the guy who brings Psionics to the table pre-3.5 or the Spell to Power class in 3.5, or a Paladin, or or... Yeah...

I don't want wild magic gone, just fixed.

Edit: while keeping the class feature because wild magic can be fun if implemented right. And plus a lot of people like random craziness.

Did you look at the chart there is only 3 things that harm the party, the rest are mild annoyances, meaningless or help.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-12, 06:29 PM
See how it works? My opinions are based on the information available, not on hoping something isn't true or hoping something is true. Its called realism. You should try it sometime.

...

The funny thing here is I showed my evidence and the math behind it, yet you are still claiming 'NO EVIDENCE'. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Things like this are why society is going to crap.


I'm going to repeat my recommendation from the other thread. I'm begging you, Lok, walk away from the keyboard, go on a jog or something. You'll feel better and these conversations will be much better when whatever is bugging you is worked out some other way.

Envyus
2014-06-12, 06:31 PM
Yeah, they did Wild magic right in 4E with the Wild Sorcerer. The effects of their spells were random, but always beneficial. The worst thing that could happen is to roll a 1 on an attack roll which is an automatic miss in 4E, but for the wild sorcerer it meant every creature within 10 feet was push away from you. If you got a 20 it meant the target was pushed away from you.



Note that 4E also has a wild/chaos sorcerer, and that this sorcerer has an at-will power, available straight from level one, that's an energy bolt that has a 50% chance of passing on to a second creature, 25% chance of bouncing to a third, and so on. This spell explicitly targets creatures, not enemies, so it will occasionally fry one of your party members.

Granted, the odds against this chaos bolt causing a TPK are astronomical, but then the odds of 5E's wild surge causing TPK through summoning a stampede of wild flumphs are also incredibly low. Many people just love options that have both a risk and a reward, not just a plain reward with never any negative consequences.

That does not seem always beneficial.



Now it might come up that you only roll on that chart if you cast a certain spell which casts another spell in memory but also rolls on the chart to see what happens. that would be perfectly fine and if that is revealed next month, I'll be glad to change my opinion on the subject. If it doesn't happen I will retain my opinion. See how it works? My opinions are based on the information available, not on hoping something isn't true or hoping something is true. Its called realism. You should try it sometime.

100% certain you did not even look at the chart.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-12, 06:43 PM
That does not seem always beneficial.

Indeed it doesn't, and 4E includes a few other elements that are (or can be) wildly detrimental to your own party. Of course, these aren't popular with certain audiences (e.g. WOTC's charop boards) but that doesn't mean those are the only audiences. It all depends on how risk-averse your playstyle is.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 09:51 PM
Indeed it doesn't, and 4E includes a few other elements that are (or can be) wildly detrimental to your own party. Of course, these aren't popular with certain audiences (e.g. WOTC's charop boards) but that doesn't mean those are the only audiences. It all depends on how risk-averse your playstyle is.

The key is the only detrimental effect you are required to take is the push effect on 1 and its not so devastating that it has a chance to kill your party. It might require someone to pop some kind of reaction power to negate the movement or get into a better position, but its not like a 5d6 fireball going off centered on you when you only have 5-10 hp (starting hp for a Wizard in 5E).

Not so in 5E unless they have something we aren't seeing. If there is a 5% chance of a fireball going off centered on you then it could lead to horrible consequences, and statistically you can only buck the odds so long.

Lokiare
2014-06-12, 10:24 PM
That does not seem always beneficial.

That's not accurate. The caster chooses the target. So while there is a small chance it will hit everyone on the battlefield, there is almost no chance it will hit someone that shouldn't be hit. The caster will always choose an enemy first and then after that they will choose those most likely to survive.


100% certain you did not even look at the chart.

I looked at the chart. In fact it gets worse than you think:


01-02 Roll on this table at the start of each of your turns for the next minute

This vastly increases your chance of getting deadly results.


07-08 You cast fireball as a 3rd-level spell centered on yourself.

This is deadly to low hp classes like Wizards even at 3rd level (when I'm guessing you pick this up) you'll only have around 14 hp. which means the average 6d6 = 3.5 * 6 = 21 = death for half your party and the other half are left to deal with the encounter.


13-14 You cast confusion centered on yourself

Yep, nothing could possibly go wrong with that. At minimum confusion will disrupt any sense of tactics your party has as people wander off, or attack the wrong target, or attack a party member.


19-20 You cast grease on yourself

Well lets see what does grease do again? Oh that's right prone and difficult terrain. Yep that couldn't cause a TPK could it?


27-28 For the next minute, all your spells with a casting time of one action have a casting time of 1 bonus action.

So basically unless you are hasted you can't cast most of your spells.


41-42 You turn into a potted plant until the start of your next turn. While a plant, you are incapacitated and have vulnerability to all damage. If you drop to 0 hit points your pot breaks and you form reverts.

You take double damage and you can't do anything. Its even possible that you could be coup de grace'd. This on a class with extremely low hp to start with. It may not lead to a TPK, but it will lead to a WSK (Wizard Self Kill)


73-74 A random creature within 60 feet of you becomes poisoned for 1d4 hours.

This can lead to party members becoming poisoned. We don't know what the rules for being poisoned are, but its likely to be a negative effect.


77-78 You cast polymorph on yourself. If you fail the saving throw, you turn into a sheep.

Well that takes you out of the fight. About all you can do is run for a round or two (since polymorph requires concentration).


83-84 each creature within 30 feet of you takes 1d10 necrotic damage. You regain hit points equal to the sum of the necrotic damage dealt

This is extremely deadly at low level and can easily cause a TPK because wizard at full hp without the rest of their party is not going to be able to win an encounter (unless they get lucky and are rolling twice and get to cast an area spell to end the encounter, but the chances of that are super low).


87-88 YOu cast fly on a random creature within 60 feet of you.

Giving the BBEG or even just a goblin the ability to fly could cause a TPK. Its a high level spell for a reason.

About 1/3 of the options on that table can cause a TPK and we don't know how often it will kick in. If you can avoid the effects 100% of the time then sure, great idea. If you have a 5% chance every time you cast a spell, woe to the party that has a wild mage in it.

Envyus
2014-06-12, 10:35 PM
That's not accurate. The caster chooses the target. So while there is a small chance it will hit everyone on the battlefield, there is almost no chance it will hit someone that shouldn't be hit. The caster will always choose an enemy first and then after that they will choose those most likely to survive.



I looked at the chart. In fact it gets worse than you think:



This vastly increases your chance of getting deadly results.



This is deadly to low hp classes like Wizards even at 3rd level (when I'm guessing you pick this up) you'll only have around 14 hp. which means the average 6d6 = 3.5 * 6 = 21 = death for half your party and the other half are left to deal with the encounter.



Yep, nothing could possibly go wrong with that. At minimum confusion will disrupt any sense of tactics your party has as people wander off, or attack the wrong target, or attack a party member.



Well lets see what does grease do again? Oh that's right prone and difficult terrain. Yep that couldn't cause a TPK could it?



So basically unless you are hasted you can't cast most of your spells.



You take double damage and you can't do anything. Its even possible that you could be coup de grace'd. This on a class with extremely low hp to start with. It may not lead to a TPK, but it will lead to a WSK (Wizard Self Kill)



This can lead to party members becoming poisoned. We don't know what the rules for being poisoned are, but its likely to be a negative effect.



Well that takes you out of the fight. About all you can do is run for a round or two (since polymorph requires concentration).



This is extremely deadly at low level and can easily cause a TPK because wizard at full hp without the rest of their party is not going to be able to win an encounter (unless they get lucky and are rolling twice and get to cast an area spell to end the encounter, but the chances of that are super low).



Giving the BBEG or even just a goblin the ability to fly could cause a TPK. Its a high level spell for a reason.

About 1/3 of the options on that table can cause a TPK and we don't know how often it will kick in. If you can avoid the effects 100% of the time then sure, great idea. If you have a 5% chance every time you cast a spell, woe to the party that has a wild mage in it.

Notice how every one of them was centered on the wild mage. Meaning if the party keeps a distance from the wild mage when casting they won't be effected by it. Most of these won't effect a party that has more then a few levels anyway and it is unlikely for you to draw them.

Sartharina
2014-06-13, 12:35 AM
There's no fun in playing a Wild Mage if the only variability is "How big the boon is" - that's how you end up with a bland wildmage (Like 4e and 3.5's Wildmages.) A true wildmage is supposed to be both a boon and a risk. Not necessarily just as likely to be a risk as a boon (Otherwise you shouldn't be a party member), but the average between boon and risk should be enough of a benefit to count as a character - making them potentially extremely powerful with luck, or a walking TPK without it.

If they're going to sterilize it the way they did for 3.5 and 4e, I'd rather they not include it at all.

That said, it's not impossible to make the class scale with level, so that when the wildmagic is extra beneficial, it gives something like +33% party effectiveness (Or decreases enemy effectiveness by ~25%), and when it's a detriment, it increases the effective CR of the encounter by the same amount, or decreases party effectiveness.

While your math points out the risk of TPK as being near-guarantee by level 5, you completely failed to account for the other side - the chance of the Wild Mage saving the party from TPK (That said, your math was also wrong by being built on incorrect assumptions), which is also a thing that happens.

Also - the point of a Wild Mage is to disrupt tactics on all sides of the battlefield, favoring a balls-to-the-wall high-risk, no-sense gameplay style. You DON'T want the class if you value tactics and strategy (And not everyone does) - and against a more tactically aware foe (Such as, say, the side of the battle controlled by a single player able to smoothly synergize and control his pawns, instead of the side made up of 3-5 competing egos that have to try to communicate with each other, balance their self-worth with team value, and desire for glory with supporting their allies), throwing the board into disarray may be a desirable strategy.

People should NOT make their characters independent of each other in any D&D game - party cohesion should be one of the priorities during character creation.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-13, 07:27 AM
Did you look at the chart there is only 3 things that harm the party, the rest are mild annoyances, meaningless or help.

"Oh great here comes that wild mage, he's going to screw something up for us"

Paladin syndrome


Notice how every one of them was centered on the wild mage. Meaning if the party keeps a distance from the wild mage when casting they won't be effected by it. Most of these won't effect a party that has more then a few levels anyway and it is unlikely for you to draw them.

Hurting the wild mage does hurt the party, if the wild mage is taken out of the fight you are a man down.

So go into every fight as if you are a man down, you can't count on the wild mage always being there.

Though I agree with Lokair on the table, the grease one isn't a issue. If grease is a targeted spell like eairler renditions then the caster won't fall down but be super slick. Now that one is fun.


There's no fun in playing a Wild Mage if the only variability is "How big the boon is" - that's how you end up with a bland wildmage (Like 4e and 3.5's Wildmages.) A true wildmage is supposed to be both a boon and a risk. Not necessarily just as likely to be a risk as a boon (Otherwise you shouldn't be a party member), but the average between boon and risk should be enough of a benefit to count as a character - making them potentially extremely powerful with luck, or a walking TPK without it.

If they're going to sterilize it the way they did for 3.5 and 4e, I'd rather they not include it at all.

People should NOT make their characters independent of each other in any D&D game - party cohesion should be one of the priorities during character creation.

I have you know I know tons of people who find the 4e wild sorcerer to be fun. Thanks for your opinion but it isn't fact.

Also guess what? I'm in two games right now with people I never met before! Never even talked with them before the first session. Sometimes, and this may be a shocker, random people get together and play D&D. A core class should be able to be used in any game. I brought a Paladin and the first thing the guy sitting across from me said "well damn, really?" Which I replied with "Lawful Good, not Lawful-stick-up-my-butt". We had to get that out of the way because of the problems that usually come with the class due to a class feature that tends to screw over parties.

I'm not saying the wild magic has to only be boons, I'm saying that there are better ways of doing it than "Lol screw the party".

Perhaps look at the Wilder from Pathfinder? They have Wild Surge that could be a good basis of wild magic (which I recently refluffed the class and a friend is using it as a wild sorcerer not knowing it is a wilder haha).

1337 b4k4
2014-06-13, 08:59 AM
A core class should be able to be used in any game. I brought a Paladin and the first thing the guy sitting across from me said "well damn, really?" Which I replied with "Lawful Good, not Lawful-stick-up-my-butt". We had to get that out of the way because of the problems that usually come with the class due to a class feature that tends to screw over parties.


Isn't this somewhat counter to your point. You brought an unmodified Paladin to a game and used it. That seems to work just fine then. The fact that so many people have interpreted "Lawful Good" to mean "Lawful *******" doesn't mean the problem is with the class or the class' mechanics. That isn't to say there isn't a problem, but the problem isn't with the Paladin, because nothing about the Paladin requires you to play "Lawful *******", only DMs and poor rules interpretations require that.

Edit
-----------------

Heck, even Gygax himself weighed in on this issue: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-alignment-by-gygax.html



Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies.

...

Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

...

Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless. Pacifism in the fantasy milieu is for those who would be slaves. They have no place in determining general alignment, albeit justice tempered by mercy is a NG manifestation, whilst well-considered benevolence is generally a mark of Good.

obryn
2014-06-13, 09:12 AM
This vastly increases your chance of getting deadly results.
...and good results, which might end an encounter, too.


This is deadly to low hp classes like Wizards even at 3rd level (when I'm guessing you pick this up) you'll only have around 14 hp. which means the average 6d6 = 3.5 * 6 = 21 = death for half your party and the other half are left to deal with the encounter.

Yep, nothing could possibly go wrong with that. At minimum confusion will disrupt any sense of tactics your party has as people wander off, or attack the wrong target, or attack a party member.

Well lets see what does grease do again? Oh that's right prone and difficult terrain. Yep that couldn't cause a TPK could it?

So basically unless you are hasted you can't cast most of your spells.

You take double damage and you can't do anything. Its even possible that you could be coup de grace'd. This on a class with extremely low hp to start with. It may not lead to a TPK, but it will lead to a WSK (Wizard Self Kill)

This can lead to party members becoming poisoned. We don't know what the rules for being poisoned are, but its likely to be a negative effect.

Well that takes you out of the fight. About all you can do is run for a round or two (since polymorph requires concentration).

This is extremely deadly at low level and can easily cause a TPK because wizard at full hp without the rest of their party is not going to be able to win an encounter (unless they get lucky and are rolling twice and get to cast an area spell to end the encounter, but the chances of that are super low).

Giving the BBEG or even just a goblin the ability to fly could cause a TPK. Its a high level spell for a reason.

About 1/3 of the options on that table can cause a TPK and we don't know how often it will kick in. If you can avoid the effects 100% of the time then sure, great idea. If you have a 5% chance every time you cast a spell, woe to the party that has a wild mage in it.
So you're interpreting anything which has any potential downside whatsoever as a potential TPK? That doesn't strike you as maybe ... a stretch?

"Oh no, I missed my attack roll! It might cause a TPK!"
"Oh no, the monster hit me! That might cause a TPK!"
"Oh no, I got Grease cast on me! That might cause a TPK!"

Kurald Galain
2014-06-13, 09:30 AM
"Oh no, I missed my attack roll! It might cause a TPK!"
"Oh no, the monster hit me! That might cause a TPK!"
"Oh no, I got Grease cast on me! That might cause a TPK!"

I've met one player who actually talked that way all the time; he basically wanted the XP without any risk, and complained any time when that didn't happen. Predictably, we no longer play with him.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-13, 10:27 AM
Isn't this somewhat counter to your point. You brought an unmodified Paladin to a game and used it. That seems to work just fine then. The fact that so many people have interpreted "Lawful Good" to mean "Lawful *******" doesn't mean the problem is with the class or the class' mechanics. That isn't to say there isn't a problem, but the problem isn't with the Paladin, because nothing about the Paladin requires you to play "Lawful *******", only DMs and poor rules interpretations require that.

Edit
-----------------

Heck, even Gygax himself weighed in on this issue: http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/06/on-alignment-by-gygax.html

The problem is that the Wild Mage won't be left up to RP interpretation. It will have specific mechanics that roleplaying can't stop.

Just fix the mechanics so that both types of groups can use the wild mage and things will be fine. You fix the mechanics and then everything should be fine.

Give the player/group/DM two options.

1: Wild Magic is possibly deadly or at least a hindrerance to the party every so often.

2: Wild magic is annoying to the party but doesn't pose the problem of someone TPK or offing themselves base on random chance.

It would be like if the attack rules said "On a roll of a natural 1 you hit yourself or an ally adjacent to you. Roll to confirm a crit. Refer to the table below to see the effect of your hit wither it is a crit or not."

I would hate that rule so damn much. And I would say that you would need an optional rule to play it like that OR to play it as a 1 is just a miss. This way everyone can play the class and it is up to the group/DM/player to decide. The order of operations for deciding would be Player then DM then the Group.

Kurald Galain
2014-06-13, 10:34 AM
Give the player/group/DM two options.
I don't think you'll please a lot of people with a "technically but not really" chaos mage that has random effects but they all happen to be safe. People who like wild mages don't mind the risk, people who don't like wild mages don't want the toned-down version either.

Rather, the two options should be whether or not to allow the chaos mage. That basically means it's fine as it is, but it arguably shouldn't be in the PHB1 (but we've already pointed that out earlier).

Sartharina
2014-06-13, 11:21 AM
The problem is that the Wild Mage won't be left up to RP interpretation. It will have specific mechanics that roleplaying can't stop.

Just fix the mechanics so that both types of groups can use the wild mage and things will be fine. You fix the mechanics and then everything should be fine.

Give the player/group/DM two options.

1: Wild Magic is possibly deadly or at least a hindrerance to the party every so often.

2: Wild magic is annoying to the party but doesn't pose the problem of someone TPK or offing themselves base on random chance.

It would be like if the attack rules said "On a roll of a natural 1 you hit yourself or an ally adjacent to you. Roll to confirm a crit. Refer to the table below to see the effect of your hit wither it is a crit or not."

I would hate that rule so damn much. And I would say that you would need an optional rule to play it like that OR to play it as a 1 is just a miss. This way everyone can play the class and it is up to the group/DM/player to decide. The order of operations for deciding would be Player then DM then the Group.This is a false equivalence - you're comparing a class feature to a core mechanic. Also, a lot of people like critical fumble rules (Which is why they get houseruled in so often). However, the equivalent would be having a class based around being unpredictable in combat, with normal combat proficiency AND a class feature that allows critical fumbles while also expanding critical hits, with some abilities that might turn a critical fumble into a success (You fail at failing), or mitigate a critical hit a bit as well. And lay down 'Confusion fields' that cause others around them to critically fumble or expand critical hits.

Lokiare
2014-06-15, 11:53 AM
I don't think you'll please a lot of people with a "technically but not really" chaos mage that has random effects but they all happen to be safe. People who like wild mages don't mind the risk, people who don't like wild mages don't want the toned-down version either.

Rather, the two options should be whether or not to allow the chaos mage. That basically means it's fine as it is, but it arguably shouldn't be in the PHB1 (but we've already pointed that out earlier).

The best solution would be a spell that can be cast that casts another spell, but then has a chance of upping the power of the second spell or rolling on the table. Then you could have a choice of whether the spell actually does that kind of thing.

Chaos Spell
You cast a spell using the whim of fate causing either detrimental effects or greatly increased spell power, rarely causing a completely random thing to happen.
Effect: When you cast this spell, choose another spell of the same level that you have prepared. Roll 1d20 on a 1 or 2 roll on the random wild magic effect table. If you roll a 18-20 the spell is considered to be cast from a spell slot one higher.
Special: Wild Mages automatically prepare this spell and it doesn't count against their prepared total.

Wild Mage Class Feature
If you roll a 19-20 on a spells attack roll or the target rolls a 1 or 2 on the saving throw, the spells effect is one level higher. If you roll a 1-2 or the target rolls a 19-20 the spells effect is one level lower.

Wild Mage Spells:
Color Spray
Prismatic Spray
Prismatic Wall
etc...etc...
Basically spells that have random chances of doing different things when cast. That way you can get the whole 'randomness' thing without having a chance of doing stuff to the party. Then if you really want to go wild you can use the Chaos Spell I just created above. This allows everyone to play the way they want. If you want wild possibly TPK effects you just cast every spell using Chaos Spell. If you don't want that you never cast it. Everyone wins.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-16, 08:36 AM
I wonder about making it "too" non-threatening. From an RP standpoint, you are talking about a character that has already made the decision to attempt to control something that inherently can't/shouldn't be controlled. Chaos is like that. Shouldn't the system reflect the inherent danger in playing a character that decides to fiddle with powers they likely cannot completely understand?

I'm thinking if the system represents this decision as completely safe, the essence of it is lost. Sure, you don't want something that has a good chance to destroy a party (especially one the DM can't control), but if there is no danger, why bother at all?

I'm thinking of the Wild Mages from 2e. I loved the concept, but in play, they were clunky and slowed everything down due to chart checking. But when I think about it, you really can't dump the chart, because any alternative I can think of right now forces me to come up with a different chart. At least in keeping with the concept of the class that is.

Summary:

Toying with Chaos is dangerous. There should be risks, including damaging the character or his allies. No matter the system, if the dice hate your players one night, that can be a TPK too. The deciding factor is the DM, to allow, or disallow, or if need be, to fudge.

Knaight
2014-06-16, 05:33 PM
Toying with Chaos is dangerous. There should be risks, including damaging the character or his allies. No matter the system, if the dice hate your players one night, that can be a TPK too. The deciding factor is the DM, to allow, or disallow, or if need be, to fudge.

There are other ways to handle risk. Take a classic wizard spell - Fireball. The typical way it works is 30 foot radius, however much damage. Now say the wild mage rolls for it, and the radius varies from 20-40 feet (though the easiest way to do this involves dice the d20 system doesn't use, as 30+5*2dF feet/ 6+2dF squares is about as simple as it gets). Suddenly it's risky to use - if you're putting a target in the reliable blast radius and someone is in melee with them, there's a good chance that you'll have some friendly fire. Alternately, if you put your person out of range, there's a good chance the blast will be too small. There's risk right there, and there's a balance of it that can be interesting. Other spells could be similar. The random table method just feels clunky.

da_chicken
2014-06-16, 07:28 PM
You can't mitigate this risk. That's right. It's not just chaos. It's unmitigated chaos.

Lokiare
2014-06-17, 07:16 AM
Conclusion: There are a lot of ways to make this friendly to everyone. Will WotC choose one of them or do like they've done to most everything else and build toward a very specific narrow play style? We'll see in a month or two.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-17, 12:27 PM
This is a false equivalence - you're comparing a class feature to a core mechanic. Also, a lot of people like critical fumble rules (Which is why they get houseruled in so often). However, the equivalent would be having a class based around being unpredictable in combat, with normal combat proficiency AND a class feature that allows critical fumbles while also expanding critical hits, with some abilities that might turn a critical fumble into a success (You fail at failing), or mitigate a critical hit a bit as well. And lay down 'Confusion fields' that cause others around them to critically fumble or expand critical hits.

I never said that no one likes critical fumbles, my whole point is to allow different options for Chaos Magic so that each table can have chaos magic that fits their style.

I'm not sure how that can be a problem? Or is allowing different tables to use Chaos Magic differently to chaotic?

Actually my new stance on this is that you get three options each with its own chaos table.

1: High risk to party
2:Moderate Risk to party
3: Low risk to the party

Normal rules: Roll 1d3 each game session, this is how your magic behaves for that session.

Optional rule 1: Table votes on 1, 2, or 3 from the above table.

Optional Rule 2: GM picks which one to use.

Optional Rule 3: Roll 1d3, on a 1 you roll on the table above, 2 the table votes, 3 the DM must choose.

Optional Rule 4: Player of chaos magic can choose any rule to use.

Chaos!

Also does it bug anyone else that there is a discussion on chaos magic and how it should work within a game and it must have very specific rules to use?

Edit!

Actually the normal table will have a random number of slots with each slot filled with one of the options above (main rules table) also a few "roll again", "cat", " 3.14159", and "go down the table 2d4 spaces". Then use a random number generator that is set on every number between 0 and a randomly generated number. This is how you determine how you chaos magic will behave each session. Each step must be redone each session.

Chaos!

Person_Man
2014-06-18, 10:36 AM
I'm thinking of the Wild Mages from 2e. I loved the concept, but in play, they were clunky and slowed everything down due to chart checking. But when I think about it, you really can't dump the chart, because any alternative I can think of right now forces me to come up with a different chart. At least in keeping with the concept of the class that is.

Yeah, the "chart problem" was actually a huge issue in 1st and 2nd ed that dramatically slowed down the game, where pretty much everything had a chart or had to be looked up somewhere in a book. This was mitigated somewhat in 3.X/PF, where you might spend hours upon hours making your character and writing everything down, but once your character was done you only had to look stuff up at the game table if you were a spellcaster. In 4E it was a rare occasion, especially if you had Power Cards. In this respect 5E appears to be going backwards to the 3.X/PF model, where some classes can easily be summarized and other classes will need to keep books open for charts and spell lists (since non-Key Word using spell descriptions are can be hard to fit on index cards, and you might change out your spells several times in one sitting, each time you rest, which also dramatically slows down the game if you have access to 100+ spells).

Millennium
2014-06-18, 10:49 AM
Conclusion: There are a lot of ways to make this friendly to everyone. Will WotC choose one of them or do like they've done to most everything else and build toward a very specific narrow play style? We'll see in a month or two.
It seems to me that your playstyle is the narrow one. You've consistently argued for a playstyle where the PCs are never in actual danger because the dice don't matter, where no one has to think on their feet because the important choices are all made at build time, and where everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator for fear of introducing a learning curve.

4e catered, very specifically, to your playstyle over all others. It had its chance to shine and be crowned as The One True Style, and it failed. Now it is time for it to rejoin all the other non-default playstyles. This is not Wizards "building toward a very specific narrow playstyle": it is returning your playstyle to its rightful place as only one among many. Your style has had its time as the default, and that time is over.

captpike
2014-06-18, 05:14 PM
It seems to me that your playstyle is the narrow one. You've consistently argued for a playstyle where the PCs are never in actual danger because the dice don't matter, where no one has to think on their feet because the important choices are all made at build time, and where everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator for fear of introducing a learning curve.

4e catered, very specifically, to your playstyle over all others. It had its chance to shine and be crowned as The One True Style, and it failed. Now it is time for it to rejoin all the other non-default playstyles. This is not Wizards "building toward a very specific narrow playstyle": it is returning your playstyle to its rightful place as only one among many. Your style has had its time as the default, and that time is over.

you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

4e could be just as deadly as a low level game of 2e, all the DM has to do is make the encounters that way. the difference is that in 4e its only deadly if the DM wants it to be, in 2e it WILL be deadly, no one has any choice in the matter.

in a well made system its choice that matters, the DM's choice on how hard to make encounters, the PCs choices in combat. not just random luck.

also you are talking as if 4e was an abject failure or something, rather then being at least as much of a success as 3e.

EDIT: for those who dont know, its really easy to tune encounters in 4e to be however hard you like, from very easy, to where it could TPK the party but they have a fair chance to win.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 05:30 PM
...deadly as a low level game of 2e, all the DM has to do is make the encounters that way.

This section of your statement is true of every edition. Every game. Every day. Which goes to point out, that as DM, you have control of the deadliness of the system. You indicate that you agree with this methodology. I am not discussing how hard or easy it will be to change encounters. I am not commenting on edition vs. edition.

I am pointing out that your over arching argument about 5e seems to boil down to DM control. This feat should do this (DM opinion of feat = DM change feat). This module is ridiculous/amazing (DM opinion of module = DM change or trash module). This system is poor/awesome (DM opinion of game system = DM disregard or use).

You don't like it. That is clear. We understand.

We only ask that you understand some of us like it that way. I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. I like the 5e changes. All of them. For every reason you point out that they are bad. Not because I want to disagree with you, but because those are the aspects of the game I like.

My understanding of 4e is limited. But based on your descriptions, it takes all decision making out of your hands once character creation is done. Which is fine. GURPS is like that too, and I like GURPS. But as a D&D system, I will pass. Not my thing.

I like danger. I like feats not working the way a player thought they would. I like that bad decision making can't be saved by character abilities/powers/etc. I like that if my players make the decision to tackle an elder dragon in its lair by themselves, that I can safely say the dragon's damage per round is 1d4 player characters unless they specifically prepare to tackle that dragon by research, and careful planning.

You like something different. I'm fine with that. Why are you not fine with me liking my way as well?

captpike
2014-06-18, 06:04 PM
This section of your statement is true of every edition. Every game. Every day. Which goes to point out, that as DM, you have control of the deadliness of the system. You indicate that you agree with this methodology. I am not discussing how hard or easy it will be to change encounters. I am not commenting on edition vs. edition.

I am pointing out that your over arching argument about 5e seems to boil down to DM control. This feat should do this (DM opinion of feat = DM change feat). This module is ridiculous/amazing (DM opinion of module = DM change or trash module). This system is poor/awesome (DM opinion of game system = DM disregard or use).

You don't like it. That is clear. We understand.

We only ask that you understand some of us like it that way. I cannot speak for anyone other than myself. I like the 5e changes. All of them. For every reason you point out that they are bad. Not because I want to disagree with you, but because those are the aspects of the game I like.

My understanding of 4e is limited. But based on your descriptions, it takes all decision making out of your hands once character creation is done. Which is fine. GURPS is like that too, and I like GURPS. But as a D&D system, I will pass. Not my thing.

I like danger. I like feats not working the way a player thought they would. I like that bad decision making can't be saved by character abilities/powers/etc. I like that if my players make the decision to tackle an elder dragon in its lair by themselves, that I can safely say the dragon's damage per round is 1d4 player characters unless they specifically prepare to tackle that dragon by research, and careful planning.

You like something different. I'm fine with that. Why are you not fine with me liking my way as well?

your right, you don't know how 4e works.

yes its easy to make a deadly fight in any edition, making one where the PCs can win, but only just is hard.

most editions cant do that, you can tweak a encounter in 4e to do it. you can quite easily have a fight that is hard, even close to leathal but is not quite enough to TPK the group. or you can make a fight that could TPK the party, but they have a fair chance to win.

the bolded is good for you, but it should be up to the DM not the system. if you want to add in plot devices that are needed to kill the dragon, then do so. the system should not add them to the creatures.
things that will and should change from one setting to another should not be hard-coded into the system.
how to add such things to the game would be a good thing to add to the DMG.

and no feats should work the way they say they do. making a system with the idea of lying to the people who are paying you money for it is NEVER a good idea. particularly when your talking about something as important as a feat in 5e. they may make mistakes, that is ok. but saying or implying a feat does anything then what it does is not acceptable.

and no, there is more important decision making in a 4e combat then a 3e combat by far. the difference is that 4e is honest, if a feat does X it will say so. it tries to make things balanced so if you have a choice of A,B or C it really is a choice, you don't have A be undepowered, B is average and C is overpowered.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 06:39 PM
your right, you don't know how 4e works.

yes its easy to make a deadly fight in any edition, making one where the PCs can win, but only just is hard.

most editions cant do that, you can tweak a encounter in 4e to do it. you can quite easily have a fight that is hard, even close to leathal but is not quite enough to TPK the group. or you can make a fight that could TPK the party, but they have a fair chance to win.

the bolded is good for you, but it should be up to the DM not the system. if you want to add in plot devices that are needed to kill the dragon, then do so. the system should not add them to the creatures.
things that will and should change from one setting to another should not be hard-coded into the system.
how to add such things to the game would be a good thing to add to the DMG.

and no feats should work the way they say they do. making a system with the idea of lying to the people who are paying you money for it is NEVER a good idea. particularly when your talking about something as important as a feat in 5e. they may make mistakes, that is ok. but saying or implying a feat does anything then what it does is not acceptable.

and no, there is more important decision making in a 4e combat then a 3e combat by far. the difference is that 4e is honest, if a feat does X it will say so. it tries to make things balanced so if you have a choice of A,B or C it really is a choice, you don't have A be undepowered, B is average and C is overpowered.

You see, there is our fundamental disagreement. I see a feat and think, what is this feat trying to accomplish . you look and seem to think this is not specific enough. Therefore it can be abused. Therefore it is poor game design.

You look at statements like " game for everyone" and think this is gospel, and because your super detailed description, every avenue explained in mind numbing detail expectation is not met, that obviously they are lying to everyone.

Has it ever occurred to you that you may be in the minority? That you are not the target market? It seems to me, and this is only an opinion mind you, that you are so caught up in tearing apart a play test, that you can't see the forest through the trees.

I recommend sticking with what you like. I don't believe 5e is for you. which is perfectly fine. There are plenty of other editions to pick from.

captpike
2014-06-18, 07:13 PM
You see, there is our fundamental disagreement. I see a feat and think, what is this feat trying to accomplish . you look and seem to think this is not specific enough. Therefore it can be abused. Therefore it is poor game design.

You look at statements like " game for everyone" and think this is gospel, and because your super detailed description, every avenue explained in mind numbing detail expectation is not met, that obviously they are lying to everyone.

Has it ever occurred to you that you may be in the minority? That you are not the target market? It seems to me, and this is only an opinion mind you, that you are so caught up in tearing apart a play test, that you can't see the forest through the trees.

I recommend sticking with what you like. I don't believe 5e is for you. which is perfectly fine. There are plenty of other editions to pick from.

the game being very specific about what things do is never bad for anyone or any playstyle.

when judging 5e I am using their own goals, if their goal was "a game for people who love 2e" then I would not criticize them in the way I have been. its a "game for everyone" that means every playstyle they don't include is a failure by they own definition.

I am in fact in the second most important audience they have if they want to make the numbers they profess to want (4e players). nor would it matter if I was in a minority of 10% most of what I said would either work for everyone, or not have any disadvantages for any playstyles.

Stubbazubba
2014-06-18, 07:20 PM
if their goal was "a game for people who love 2e" then I would not criticize them in the way I have been.

Right, you'd criticize them for making that their goal, and then for implementing it wrong, too. The volume or severity of criticism would not change, just the specific words that make it up.

captpike
2014-06-18, 07:25 PM
Right, you'd criticize them for making that their goal, and then for implementing it wrong, too. The volume or severity of criticism would not change, just the specific words that make it up.

"a game for everyone" is their stated goal, have they repealed that or at any time explicitly said "we are not making a game for everyone anymore"?

EDIT: you also are talking like criticism is bad, criticism is how people learn. if I agreed with everything they were doing the only reason to ever comment on the game would be to correct people who misread it.

saying "everything about this game is awesome" is not useful in the least, saying "X sucks, because of A,B and C. 4e did that part better here, and here maybe you should look at it" is useful and interesting.

da_chicken
2014-06-18, 07:42 PM
"a game for everyone" is their stated goal, have they repealed that or at any time explicitly said "we are not making a game for everyone anymore"?

"Everyone" includes people that want a very simple game and people who want a game similar to 2e. That's why they've said they're building the game in a very modular fashion. The advanced modules, they've said, are going to be in the Dungeon Master's Guide. That book is scheduled to be released over four months from now. Indeed, the first book containing just the standard game is still over a month away from release. The free PDF containing the barest of core essentials of the game is still two weeks out.

You're complaining about the lack of desserts when you haven't even been served your soup yet.

captpike
2014-06-18, 07:55 PM
"Everyone" includes people that want a very simple game and people who want a game similar to 2e. That's why they've said they're building the game in a very modular fashion. The advanced modules, they've said, are going to be in the Dungeon Master's Guide. That book is scheduled to be released over four months from now. Indeed, the first book containing just the standard game is still over a month away from release. The free PDF containing the barest of core essentials of the game is still two weeks out.

You're complaining about the lack of desserts when you haven't even been served your soup yet.

we have yet to see any real evidence that modules exist, let alone that they will do what they say they will.

I have already stated my problem with putting player material in the DMG.
in short everything and anything a player could need goes in the PHB, everything else goes in the DMG. if they don't want to do that they should rename the products so they don't end up baldfaced lying to everyone who buys a PHB. its not called the "basic rules and classes guide" afterall

the problem with a number of the things they are claiming will be in the DMG as modules is that you cant just slap them together. the tactical module will have far reaching implications and could effect how every part of every class works. same with magic items, if they really do make a "game for everyone" then their needs to be a dial for magic items that goes from 0-10ish. that again effects alot about the game balance, and needs to be kept in mind when making the classes.

EDIT: also the 2e players are far less important then the new players or the 4e players. odds are the 2e players already have a game they like, and most probably don't even know or care about 5e.
most 4e players know about 5e, and are much more likely to move on to a new edition just because its new (or they played in LFR and now want a new living campaign)

Stubbazubba
2014-06-18, 08:00 PM
EDIT: you also are talking like criticism is bad, criticism is how people learn.

Some people.

...

Another way people learn is by models. Lokiare at least has the decency to go through and write up a proposed alternative. Not many people particularly like what he comes up with, but he produces a lot of content.

Why don't you show us how this could be done, and run us through an example? We won't fault you for some specifics being hand-waved, just give us a reasonable framework. That would be something to talk about that's not just meaningless bickering between preferences and your crusade to hold WotC to a standard that no one cares about besides you. We all seem to realize that "a game for everyone" in its literal definition is not only impossible, but undesirable, and have accepted that that's just a marketing thing, like a "World's Best Coffee" sign. We come to evaluate the game on our own notions of fun and good design, and that can actually be very productive.

So you want to have Difficulty options? I'm thinking the easiest way to do that is player-side. Monsters should just remain as they are; we just beef the PCs up a bit to be less squishy against them. So, just tweak the HP and defenses calculations at level 1 and call it good, right? Frankly, people have been house-ruling extra HP at level 1 for years, so making it an official option shouldn't be controversial, and increasing defenses across the board wouldn't even be that hard. You might also want to increase player offense to prevent turning every encounter into 45-minute slug fests, although by exactly how much would need to be tested.

The problem with increasing defense and offense is that it invalidates Bounded Accuracy, but that's also true of every good design decision we could make in this game. However, to avoid rewriting the entire game, you could just bump HP and damage and leave defense/offense alone.

Does that sound terribly difficult to house rule?

Edit: Forgot Save or Dies: This one is trickier to address without changing items line-by-line. A good start, though, since we need to keep the 2e lethality option open, as well, is to let players make an extra roll against these effects once they have already been hit. What I mean is, after rolling too low on your saving throw, you then roll another d20, and on an 11 or up you are hit with the effect, while on a 10 or lower, you are not. This pads the PCs even more. If you wanted to really put the kid gloves on and avoid some of the worst effects, you could make some of the more debilitating effects temporary, or semi-permanent (save ends kind of thing). A 1-page document could probably still cover most of the little tweaks you would need. It would not be precise, it won't be fine-tuned at all, but it would achieve the broad goal of allowing a range of lethality within the same system.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 08:15 PM
His argument will be that you shouldn't have to house rule anything, because a game for everyone will already include this option. Otherwise they aren't doing their job. Or living up to what they "claimed". Which is fine. He has his argument.

As far as your idea of house ruling HP, yes, ever GM I have ever known has done the same since Basic. Especially when Wizards only had a d4 hit dice. Its an unwritten rule you could say. (nudge nudge) Oh wait, I can't say that can I? Cause we shouldn't have to house rule anything.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-18, 08:22 PM
the game being very specific about what things do is never bad for anyone or any playstyle.


Weren't you the one complaining about e game being very specific about what paladins do?

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-18, 09:18 PM
His argument will be that you shouldn't have to house rule anything, because a game for everyone will already include this option. Otherwise they aren't doing their job. Or living up to what they "claimed". Which is fine. He has his argument.

As far as your idea of house ruling HP, yes, ever GM I have ever known has done the same since Basic. Especially when Wizards only had a d4 hit dice. Its an unwritten rule you could say. (nudge nudge) Oh wait, I can't say that can I? Cause we shouldn't have to house rule anything.

But but... That is half the fun of D&D :smalleek:

Actually, what they should do is make a game under the assumption that people will in fact houserule stuff. Give tones of options, as many as possible, but make them so that they are houserule friendly. Make them so that people playing the game can recreate them in other ways and show how they effect the math and such...

You can still have all your rules and such, but just don't assume that everyone will always follow them.

obryn
2014-06-18, 09:29 PM
It seems to me that your playstyle is the narrow one. You've consistently argued for a playstyle where the PCs are never in actual danger because the dice don't matter, where no one has to think on their feet because the important choices are all made at build time, and where everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator for fear of introducing a learning curve.

4e catered, very specifically, to your playstyle over all others. It had its chance to shine and be crowned as The One True Style, and it failed. Now it is time for it to rejoin all the other non-default playstyles. This is not Wizards "building toward a very specific narrow playstyle": it is returning your playstyle to its rightful place as only one among many. Your style has had its time as the default, and that time is over.
Hey now. If my 4e game isn't dangerous, if it doesn't force players to weigh risks, and if there's no chance of failure, I'm running it wrong, as far as I'm concerned.

Let's not conclude Lokiare and captpike are typical of 4e fans, here.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-18, 09:33 PM
Hey now. If my 4e game isn't dangerous, if it doesn't force players to weigh risks, and if there's no chance of failure, I'm running it wrong, as far as I'm concerned.

Let's not conclude Lokiare and captpike are typical of 4e fans, here.

+1+2

My thoughts exactly

captpike
2014-06-18, 09:40 PM
Some people.

...

Another way people learn is by models. Lokiare at least has the decency to go through and write up a proposed alternative. Not many people particularly like what he comes up with, but he produces a lot of content.

Why don't you show us how this could be done, and run us through an example? We won't fault you for some specifics being hand-waved, just give us a reasonable framework. That would be something to talk about that's not just meaningless bickering between preferences and your crusade to hold WotC to a standard that no one cares about besides you. We all seem to realize that "a game for everyone" in its literal definition is not only impossible, but undesirable, and have accepted that that's just a marketing thing, like a "World's Best Coffee" sign. We come to evaluate the game on our own notions of fun and good design, and that can actually be very productive.

So you want to have Difficulty options? I'm thinking the easiest way to do that is player-side. Monsters should just remain as they are; we just beef the PCs up a bit to be less squishy against them. So, just tweak the HP and defenses calculations at level 1 and call it good, right? Frankly, people have been house-ruling extra HP at level 1 for years, so making it an official option shouldn't be controversial, and increasing defenses across the board wouldn't even be that hard. You might also want to increase player offense to prevent turning every encounter into 45-minute slug fests, although by exactly how much would need to be tested.

The problem with increasing defense and offense is that it invalidates Bounded Accuracy, but that's also true of every good design decision we could make in this game. However, to avoid rewriting the entire game, you could just bump HP and damage and leave defense/offense alone.

Does that sound terribly difficult to house rule?

I agree bounded Accuracy does make it hard to make a good game.

its not that I would like to have the ability to know how hard a fight will be when I make it, its that I NEED to know that.
the DM NEEDS to know if a fight is going to be easy or hard. I don't want to have boss fights that take half a round, or random fights with wild pigs that kill someone (even though I made it to hardly be a challenge).
its a basic need of the system, that has no disadvantages whatsoever to it.

were I in charge I would at least start with the 4e system and see if it needed to be changed

there are 4 basic types of creatures
minon:(worth 1/4 of a PC of its level) these are weak creatures that die to any single meaningful hit (any damage at all will kill them, but a miss will not)
standard:(worth 1 PC of its level) about on par with a PC of its level.
elite:(worth 2 PCs of its level) these are strong creatures, they can generaly attack two targets at one with a weak attack, have a encounter or two
Solo:(worth 4 PCs of its level) these are dragons, beholders ect. creatures that are fights onto themselves. they often, but not always have some minions or something to go with them.

the main way to tune how hard an encounter is is how high the level is, that and the number of PCs give you an XP budget. this conforms to the above if you are fighting something of your level, and changes

in general a Level-2 fight is about as easy as a fight can be and still be worth pulling out the grid for.
a level+4 fight is very hard, this is a boss fight, the kind of thing that the DM has no problem with going for the kill with.

there is more to it, but that is the gist of how 4e does it.

if I was going to run a gritty game where every fight was deadly I would only do +3 or +4 fights, with boss fights being +5 (with two solos maybe).
or I could do the opposite if I wanted it to be easy, or for the game to more about attrition or long term resources I could have longer days with +0 to +2 fights.



Weren't you the one complaining about e game being very specific about what paladins do?

something saying you must be lawful good is specific, but that does not make it good.

all well written rules are specific, but not all specific rules are good.

the game should be specific in those areas it outlines (say the range and damage of a fireball) but there are some areas that it should not cover (like trying to forcing RP)

so for example, "should probably be lawful good" is bad both because its not specific, and because no class should mandate an alignment.

Envyus
2014-06-18, 09:45 PM
we have yet to see any real evidence that modules exist, let alone that they will do what they say they will.


The fact that you can't even accept them saying they are making something as truth is why you won't be taken seriously. (That and how often you contradict yourself.) You just straight up are not giving this a chance.

1337 b4k4
2014-06-18, 09:53 PM
something saying you must be lawful good is specific, but that does not make it good.

all well written rules are specific, but not all specific rules are good.

the game should be specific in those areas it outlines (say the range and damage of a fireball) but there are some areas that it should not cover (like trying to forcing RP)

so for example, "should probably be lawful good" is bad both because its not specific, and because no class should mandate an alignment.

So then we're agreed that this:


the game being very specific about what things do is never bad for anyone or any playstyle.


is wrong?

captpike
2014-06-18, 10:42 PM
trust is a two way street, its irrational to trust someone who has shown they don't care about keeping their word.


So then we're agreed that this:



is wrong?

do you enjoy twisting what others say to your own ends?

fine, if you need it spoon feed like child I will do so.

given a choice between "paladins should probably be lawful good, in most cases" or "Paladin's must be lawful good" I would take the second, its bad but at least I know what its saying.

if they are going to have a rule about something it should be as specific as possible, that does not mean everything needs a rule. an important part of making a game is know what NOT to make rules for. part of makes 4e good is that fact they DON'T have rules for some things.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-18, 11:26 PM
do you enjoy twisting what others say to your own ends?

fine, if you need it spoon feed like child I will do so.

given a choice between "paladins should probably be lawful good, in most cases" or "Paladin's must be lawful good" I would take the second, its bad but at least I know what its saying.

if they are going to have a rule about something it should be as specific as possible, that does not mean everything needs a rule. an important part of making a game is know what NOT to make rules for. part of makes 4e good is that fact they DON'T have rules for some things.

You also seem to be conveniently forgetting that "just as Archer is a concept" Paladins are a concept. A concept based on Holy Knights, who lived by extremely strict codes of behavior and were granted special privileges because of it. I use this as an example http://www.knightstemplar-uk.co.uk/originaltemplarrules.html . That being said, the very CONCEPT of a paladin, requires a lawful alignment. We can see you disagree. No need to reiterate it here.

That makes it a "rule" yes, if you want to be a divine power wielding warrior, free of the codes that so impinge upon your character concept, you will either have to custom build a class, or simply use a best fit scenario. Neither of these options will appeal to you. Because as you have stated, the system must be flexible to account for such a change. See below for how that would work in my game. (this is just how I would run it, and is by no means a representation of how anyone should run their game)

If it were my game, you could play your paladin. You would make the character as per normal, write down all of the powers, etc. Then, as soon as you stepped out of line (break lawful alignment) you would lose your paladin powers. If you do not seek atonement (essentially giving the finger to the gods that grant you your power in the first place) this loss would be permanent, thus becoming x empty levels of warrior. The Paladin or should I say, ex paladin, will then have to deal with having been excommunicated from his church for failure to live up to the high ideals of his order, generally spit on by anyone who recognized him as a failure, and basically having a terrible existance. But then, were talking concept here, and not roleplaying. Because we wouldn't want to role play in a roleplaying game or anything. Since my example is all about the roleplaying, feel free to disregard it as I'm sure you have.

captpike
2014-06-18, 11:56 PM
You also seem to be conveniently forgetting that "just as Archer is a concept" Paladins are a concept. A concept based on Holy Knights, who lived by extremely strict codes of behavior and were granted special privileges because of it. I use this as an example http://www.knightstemplar-uk.co.uk/originaltemplarrules.html . That being said, the very CONCEPT of a paladin, requires a lawful alignment. We can see you disagree. No need to reiterate it here.

That makes it a "rule" yes, if you want to be a divine power wielding warrior, free of the codes that so impinge upon your character concept, you will either have to custom build a class, or simply use a best fit scenario. Neither of these options will appeal to you. Because as you have stated, the system must be flexible to account for such a change. See below for how that would work in my game. (this is just how I would run it, and is by no means a representation of how anyone should run their game)

ummmm...no
sure at one the Knights Templar may have been the entirety of what it meant to be a paladin, but times change. now palidan means "protector" more then "follows this one code, only cares about LG gods" no matter the campaign setting.

that is too specific to be the basis for a class in the same way that ANY class that "must be X alignment" is too specific.

and again if they make the paladin the way I said EVERYONE GETS WHAT THEY WANT, you world only have LG palidans? cool you tell your players that. however in my world ALL the gods care about protecting their followers not just a few.



If it were my game, you could play your paladin. You would make the character as per normal, write down all of the powers, etc. Then, as soon as you stepped out of line (break lawful alignment) you would lose your paladin powers. If you do not seek atonement (essentially giving the finger to the gods that grant you your power in the first place) this loss would be permanent, thus becoming x empty levels of warrior. The Paladin or should I say, ex paladin, will then have to deal with having been excommunicated from his church for failure to live up to the high ideals of his order, generally spit on by anyone who recognized him as a failure, and basically having a terrible existance. But then, were talking concept here, and not roleplaying. Because we wouldn't want to role play in a roleplaying game or anything. Since my example is all about the roleplaying, feel free to disregard it as I'm sure you have.
out of curiosity why do only LG gods in your world want to protect their followers?

what is wrong with having paladins that worship a CG god of freedom? why do the laws of the universe say they cant exist?

do you make every druid be a tree hugging hippie, and every warlock be evil too? I mean why even have players if your going to RP For them like that.

in my game I like to have some roleplay done by my players, they are allowed to make their own backstory.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 12:10 AM
out of curiosity why do only LG gods in your world want to protect their followers?

I don't recall ever making this claim. Why do you think only paladins can protect people? Don't clerics do the same thing? Don't warriors who believe in a faith do the same thing? Don't the armies of the nation protect people?


what is wrong with having paladins that worship a CG god of freedom? why do the laws of the universe say they cant exist?

There is nothing wrong with that and they don't. Watch, I'll change just one thing and you can have your paladin. Substitute Must be Lawful with Must be Neutral. The paladin would still be expected to do whatever he can, to free those who are repressed, imprisoned, etc. (hey, look, a code!) Failure to do these things, will result in the loss of his paladin powers. This is still a code, just a far more lenient one.


do you make every druid be a tree hugging hippie, and every warlock be evil too? I mean why even have players if your going to RP For them like that.

Actually no. I do make druids respect nature (or nature dieties) or they lose their powers. This does not require them to actively attack people who cause harm to the forest. Nature is unforgiving (predators and prey) and the strong survive. Nature is also uncaring (rules are meaningless other than survival of the fittest) Nothing about that requires you to prove your strength. As far as Warlocks being evil? Sure if they ally themselves and draw power from an evil source. If they pull from the fey, I would expect them to be a tad flighty (chaotic). If they got their powers from a Celestial source (good) I would expect them to behave similar to paladins or very kind priests.

Lets examine what Roleplaying means. Its acting. You assume a role/persona. Someone other than yourself. You place yourself in that mindset and you make decisions not as the player would, but as the character would. At least that is the idea.


in my game I like to have some roleplay done by my players, they are allowed to make their own backstory.

You see, we aren't discussing what is modular or not. Alignment restrictions can be changed at the drop of a hat. Character backstory can be changed and formed as you see fit. We aren't discussing that. We are discussing that the concept of a paladin is their code. It is related to alignment, but is not defined by it. You are asking for a mechanic that already exists.

captpike
2014-06-19, 12:28 AM
I don't recall ever making this claim. Why do you think only paladins can protect people? Don't clerics do the same thing? Don't warriors who believe in a faith do the same thing? Don't the armies of the nation protect people?

the purpose of palidans is to protect people. it stands to reason that any god who wants to protect their followers would have paladins (so basically every non-Chaotic evil god).



There is nothing wrong with that and they don't. Watch, I'll change just one thing and you can have your paladin. Substitute Must be Lawful with Must be Neutral. The paladin would still be expected to do whatever he can, to free those who are repressed, imprisoned, etc. (hey, look, a code!) Failure to do these things, will result in the loss of his paladin powers. This is still a code, just a far more lenient one.

so your argument is that I am right? that they should not have any requirement on alignment?
or do you want them to have one, for for everyone to houserule it away?



Actually no. I do make druids respect nature (or nature dieties) or they lose their powers. This does not require them to actively attack people who cause harm to the forest. Nature is unforgiving (predators and prey) and the strong survive. Nature is also uncaring (rules are meaningless other than survival of the fittest) Nothing about that requires you to prove your strength. As far as Warlocks being evil? Sure if they ally themselves and draw power from an evil source. If they pull from the fey, I would expect them to be a tad flighty (chaotic). If they got their powers from a Celestial source (good) I would expect them to behave similar to paladins or very kind priests.

Lets examine what Roleplaying means. Its acting. You assume a role/persona. Someone other than yourself. You place yourself in that mindset and you make decisions not as the player would, but as the character would. At least that is the idea.




You see, we aren't discussing what is modular or not. Alignment restrictions can be changed at the drop of a hat. Character backstory can be changed and formed as you see fit. We aren't discussing that. We are discussing that the concept of a paladin is their code. It is related to alignment, but is not defined by it. You are asking for a mechanic that already exists.

they can only be changed if they don't have rippling effects. if several class features and powers are tied to alignment its harder. particularly if your character cares for something else more then alignment (say an undead hating palidan).

to use a simple example, if I am playing an LE paladin who is helping the mostly good PCs take down an evil tyrant then having smite good, or detect good will not be useful. and that is a problem if that means that half my class just went away.

Lokiare
2014-06-19, 12:34 AM
Some people.

...

Another way people learn is by models. Lokiare at least has the decency to go through and write up a proposed alternative. Not many people particularly like what he comes up with, but he produces a lot of content.

Why don't you show us how this could be done, and run us through an example? We won't fault you for some specifics being hand-waved, just give us a reasonable framework. That would be something to talk about that's not just meaningless bickering between preferences and your crusade to hold WotC to a standard that no one cares about besides you. We all seem to realize that "a game for everyone" in its literal definition is not only impossible, but undesirable, and have accepted that that's just a marketing thing, like a "World's Best Coffee" sign. We come to evaluate the game on our own notions of fun and good design, and that can actually be very productive.

So you want to have Difficulty options? I'm thinking the easiest way to do that is player-side. Monsters should just remain as they are; we just beef the PCs up a bit to be less squishy against them. So, just tweak the HP and defenses calculations at level 1 and call it good, right? Frankly, people have been house-ruling extra HP at level 1 for years, so making it an official option shouldn't be controversial, and increasing defenses across the board wouldn't even be that hard. You might also want to increase player offense to prevent turning every encounter into 45-minute slug fests, although by exactly how much would need to be tested.

The problem with increasing defense and offense is that it invalidates Bounded Accuracy, but that's also true of every good design decision we could make in this game. However, to avoid rewriting the entire game, you could just bump HP and damage and leave defense/offense alone.

Does that sound terribly difficult to house rule?

Edit: Forgot Save or Dies: This one is trickier to address without changing items line-by-line. A good start, though, since we need to keep the 2e lethality option open, as well, is to let players make an extra roll against these effects once they have already been hit. What I mean is, after rolling too low on your saving throw, you then roll another d20, and on an 11 or up you are hit with the effect, while on a 10 or lower, you are not. This pads the PCs even more. If you wanted to really put the kid gloves on and avoid some of the worst effects, you could make some of the more debilitating effects temporary, or semi-permanent (save ends kind of thing). A 1-page document could probably still cover most of the little tweaks you would need. It would not be precise, it won't be fine-tuned at all, but it would achieve the broad goal of allowing a range of lethality within the same system.

I've already explained multiple times how this could be accomplished with modules. The first thing you do is make everything run off keywords like Fear, Blind, Petrified, etc...etc... then you define what those keywords mean in a module:

0E, 1E, and 2E Fantasy Vietnam module
Fear - Make a Charisma save. If you fail you run for your life the straightest route out of sight of the creature or object that caused the effect for 1d4 minutes. If you succeed you are shaken and have disadvantage on all attacks, checks, and rolls for 1d4 rounds.

Blind - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you are permanently blind taking a -5 to attacks and all visual rolls have disadvantage. A remove curse or remove blindness spell can cure you.

Petrified - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you permanently turn to stone. In this state you have resistance to all damage. Any damage taken in this form carries over if you are cured such as limb broken off or general weathering. A stone to flesh spell can cure you. When this effect is removed make another Constitution save vs. DC 15. If you fail this save the shock of turning back from stone causes you to instantly die.

3E Difficult but realistic module
Fear - Make a Charisma save. If you fail you run for your life the straightest route that does not provoke opportunity attacks out of the sight of the creature or object that caused the effect for 1d4 rounds.

Blind - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you are blind until you take an extended rest or receive a remove curse or remove blindness spell. You have disadvantage on all attacks, checks, and rolls that require sight.

Petrified - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you permanently turn to stone. In this state you have resistance to all damage. A stone to flesh spell can cure you.

4E Tactical module
Fear - Make a charisma save. If you fail on your turn you must move your speed the safest way away from the origin of this effect. At the end of each round make another save. A success removes the effect.

Blind - Make a Constitution save. If you fail your are blind having disadvantage on all attacks, checks, and rolls that require sight. At the end of each round roll a save. Success removes the blindness.

Petrified - Make a Constitution save. If you fail, you become dazed and immobilized. If you failed the first save the next round make another save. If you fail this save you are Paralyzed. If you failed the previous save, the next round make another save. If you fail this save you are turned to stone. You have resistance to all damage. A stone to flesh spell can remove this condition.

Secondly each module would dictate hp:

Fantasy Vietnam
Starting hp: Roll your hit dice, and add your constitution modifier.
Hp at new levels: Levels 1-10 Roll your hit dice, and add your constitution modifier. Levels 11+ use the chart below.


Hit Die
Hp


d4
1 + Con Modifier


d6
2 + Con Modifier


d8
3 + Con Modifier


d10
4 + Con Modifier


d12
4 + Con Modifier



Difficult, Realistic
Starting Hp: Max hit dice, add your Constitution modifier.
Hp at new levels: Roll your hit dice, and add your constitution modifier.

Tactical
Starting Hp: Max hit dice + Constitution score.
Hp at new levels: Use the chart below.


Hit Die
Hp


d4
3


d6
4


d8
5


d10
6


d12
7



Monster and NPCs also get their HP in this way.

Thirdly Each module would dictate how defenses work:
Each power/spell/trait would list the save modifier from the originators point of view like "Constitution Save/Defense: 13/+3 (Charisma)" the ability in parenthesis tells you where the numbers come from and give a quick reference for all modules. So in the example case the +3 is based on charisma so if the creature gets a penalty to charisma then the penalty applies to this effect.

Fantasy Vietnam and Difficult, Realistic
The target rolls 1d20 and adds the bonus from the ability listed at the start of the save/defense type. If they roll higher than or the same as the number on the left they succeed at the save. If they roll under they fail the save.

Tactical
The attacker rolls 1d20 and adds the bonus listed as the second number. If they roll higher than or the same as the ability score listed at the start of the save/defense info of the target, they hit with the effect. If they roll lower, they fail to hit with the effect.

You can basically go through all of the editions and put things into modules for 5E that would please each play style. Then at the end of it all you can print 3-4 sets of books. One set of books would be the 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' that would list all options. Then you would have your Fantasy Vietnam books that only list the things in the Fantasy Vietnam module. Next you would have your Difficult, Realistic books that only list the things in the Difficult, Realistic module. Last you would have your Tactical books that would only list the things in your Tactical module.

Then everyone gets what they want out of the game.


"Everyone" includes people that want a very simple game and people who want a game similar to 2e. That's why they've said they're building the game in a very modular fashion. The advanced modules, they've said, are going to be in the Dungeon Master's Guide. That book is scheduled to be released over four months from now. Indeed, the first book containing just the standard game is still over a month away from release. The free PDF containing the barest of core essentials of the game is still two weeks out.

You're complaining about the lack of desserts when you haven't even been served your soup yet.

Sure and everyone should get what they want. Instead we are getting a game that supports a very narrow play style when they claim its for everyone. If they didn't make that claim, I wouldn't even be here constructive criticizing.


His argument will be that you shouldn't have to house rule anything, because a game for everyone will already include this option. Otherwise they aren't doing their job. Or living up to what they "claimed". Which is fine. He has his argument.

As far as your idea of house ruling HP, yes, ever GM I have ever known has done the same since Basic. Especially when Wizards only had a d4 hit dice. Its an unwritten rule you could say. (nudge nudge) Oh wait, I can't say that can I? Cause we shouldn't have to house rule anything.

My 2E DM never did that. I played a 2 hp Wizard through one encounter before the DM had me roll up a Cleric. Now when I played as DM, I did house rule that everyone gets max starting hp.


The fact that you can't even accept them saying they are making something as truth is why you won't be taken seriously. (That and how often you contradict yourself.) You just straight up are not giving this a chance.

Um...no. Not only have they proven untrustworth, they have also told us what their supposed 'rules modules' are, and none of them would be huge game changing things. Their idea of rules modules is a tiny change that doesn't affect more than one thing. Think 2E option rules in the DMG. In other words not enough to matter.


You also seem to be conveniently forgetting that "just as Archer is a concept" Paladins are a concept. A concept based on Holy Knights, who lived by extremely strict codes of behavior and were granted special privileges because of it. I use this as an example http://www.knightstemplar-uk.co.uk/originaltemplarrules.html . That being said, the very CONCEPT of a paladin, requires a lawful alignment. We can see you disagree. No need to reiterate it here.

That makes it a "rule" yes, if you want to be a divine power wielding warrior, free of the codes that so impinge upon your character concept, you will either have to custom build a class, or simply use a best fit scenario. Neither of these options will appeal to you. Because as you have stated, the system must be flexible to account for such a change. See below for how that would work in my game. (this is just how I would run it, and is by no means a representation of how anyone should run their game)

If it were my game, you could play your paladin. You would make the character as per normal, write down all of the powers, etc. Then, as soon as you stepped out of line (break lawful alignment) you would lose your paladin powers. If you do not seek atonement (essentially giving the finger to the gods that grant you your power in the first place) this loss would be permanent, thus becoming x empty levels of warrior. The Paladin or should I say, ex paladin, will then have to deal with having been excommunicated from his church for failure to live up to the high ideals of his order, generally spit on by anyone who recognized him as a failure, and basically having a terrible existance. But then, were talking concept here, and not roleplaying. Because we wouldn't want to role play in a roleplaying game or anything. Since my example is all about the roleplaying, feel free to disregard it as I'm sure you have.

Actually knights templar are more like Clerics than Paladins. See Clerics wear medium to heavy armor and wield weapons of war just like the knights templar.

The idea of a Paladin is actually a zealot to a cause that sacrifices everything in order to help that cause. If you've watched Vikings, then Floki would make a perfect Paladin. He does things that annoy his friends even when its not socially acceptable. Like when he chastised the guy that got baptized to become christian and wouldn't hang around him, until the guy proved that he was faithful by killing a large number of Christians. That's a Paladin. Not all paladins have to be lawful good aligned, just as not all Clerics have to be lawful good aligned even though they are designed around the concept of the knights templar.

Envyus
2014-06-19, 12:36 AM
the purpose of palidans is to protect people. it stands to reason that any god who wants to protect their followers would have paladins (so basically every non-Chaotic evil god).


so your argument is that I am right? that they should not have any requirement on alignment?
or do you want them to have one, for for everyone to houserule it away?





they can only be changed if they don't have rippling effects. if several class features and powers are tied to alignment its harder. particularly if your character cares for something else more then alignment (say an undead hating palidan).

to use a simple example, if I am playing an LE paladin who is helping the mostly good PCs take down an evil tyrant then having smite good, or detect good will not be useful. and that is a problem if that means that half my class just went away.

Man you sure know how to miss the point. Palidins sole job is not to protect people they are Holy Warriors. Also lots of Pallies have nothing to do with LG Gods lots just server the concept of good and some worship lawful neutral and Neutral Good gods they are lawful because of their code they keep. The Paladin of Freedom which is a Chaotic good Paladin was brought up as well.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-19, 09:03 AM
I've already explained multiple times how this could be accomplished with modules. The first thing you do is make everything run off keywords like Fear, Blind, Petrified, etc...etc... then you define what those keywords mean in a module:

0E, 1E, and 2E Fantasy Vietnam module
Fear - Make a Charisma save. If you fail you run for your life the straightest route out of sight of the creature or object that caused the effect for 1d4 minutes. If you succeed you are shaken and have disadvantage on all attacks, checks, and rolls for 1d4 rounds.

Blind - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you are permanently blind taking a -5 to attacks and all visual rolls have disadvantage. A remove curse or remove blindness spell can cure you.

Petrified - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you permanently turn to stone. In this state you have resistance to all damage. Any damage taken in this form carries over if you are cured such as limb broken off or general weathering. A stone to flesh spell can cure you. When this effect is removed make another Constitution save vs. DC 15. If you fail this save the shock of turning back from stone causes you to instantly die.

3E Difficult but realistic module
Fear - Make a Charisma save. If you fail you run for your life the straightest route that does not provoke opportunity attacks out of the sight of the creature or object that caused the effect for 1d4 rounds.

Blind - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you are blind until you take an extended rest or receive a remove curse or remove blindness spell. You have disadvantage on all attacks, checks, and rolls that require sight.

Petrified - Make a Constitution save. If you fail you permanently turn to stone. In this state you have resistance to all damage. A stone to flesh spell can cure you.

4E Tactical module
Fear - Make a charisma save. If you fail on your turn you must move your speed the safest way away from the origin of this effect. At the end of each round make another save. A success removes the effect.

Blind - Make a Constitution save. If you fail your are blind having disadvantage on all attacks, checks, and rolls that require sight. At the end of each round roll a save. Success removes the blindness.

Petrified - Make a Constitution save. If you fail, you become dazed and immobilized. If you failed the first save the next round make another save. If you fail this save you are Paralyzed. If you failed the previous save, the next round make another save. If you fail this save you are turned to stone. You have resistance to all damage. A stone to flesh spell can remove this condition.

Secondly each module would dictate hp:

Fantasy Vietnam
Starting hp: Roll your hit dice, and add your constitution modifier.
Hp at new levels: Levels 1-10 Roll your hit dice, and add your constitution modifier. Levels 11+ use the chart below.


Hit Die
Hp


d4
1 + Con Modifier


d6
2 + Con Modifier


d8
3 + Con Modifier


d10
4 + Con Modifier


d12
4 + Con Modifier



Difficult, Realistic
Starting Hp: Max hit dice, add your Constitution modifier.
Hp at new levels: Roll your hit dice, and add your constitution modifier.

Tactical
Starting Hp: Max hit dice + Constitution score.
Hp at new levels: Use the chart below.


Hit Die
Hp


d4
3


d6
4


d8
5


d10
6


d12
7



Monster and NPCs also get their HP in this way.

Thirdly Each module would dictate how defenses work:
Each power/spell/trait would list the save modifier from the originators point of view like "Constitution Save/Defense: 13/+3 (Charisma)" the ability in parenthesis tells you where the numbers come from and give a quick reference for all modules. So in the example case the +3 is based on charisma so if the creature gets a penalty to charisma then the penalty applies to this effect.

Fantasy Vietnam and Difficult, Realistic
The target rolls 1d20 and adds the bonus from the ability listed at the start of the save/defense type. If they roll higher than or the same as the number on the left they succeed at the save. If they roll under they fail the save.

Tactical
The attacker rolls 1d20 and adds the bonus listed as the second number. If they roll higher than or the same as the ability score listed at the start of the save/defense info of the target, they hit with the effect. If they roll lower, they fail to hit with the effect.

You can basically go through all of the editions and put things into modules for 5E that would please each play style. Then at the end of it all you can print 3-4 sets of books. One set of books would be the 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' that would list all options. Then you would have your Fantasy Vietnam books that only list the things in the Fantasy Vietnam module. Next you would have your Difficult, Realistic books that only list the things in the Difficult, Realistic module. Last you would have your Tactical books that would only list the things in your Tactical module.

Then everyone gets what they want out of the game.



Sure and everyone should get what they want. Instead we are getting a game that supports a very narrow play style when they claim its for everyone. If they didn't make that claim, I wouldn't even be here constructive criticizing.



My 2E DM never did that. I played a 2 hp Wizard through one encounter before the DM had me roll up a Cleric. Now when I played as DM, I did house rule that everyone gets max starting hp.



Um...no. Not only have they proven untrustworth, they have also told us what their supposed 'rules modules' are, and none of them would be huge game changing things. Their idea of rules modules is a tiny change that doesn't affect more than one thing. Think 2E option rules in the DMG. In other words not enough to matter.



Actually knights templar are more like Clerics than Paladins. See Clerics wear medium to heavy armor and wield weapons of war just like the knights templar.

The idea of a Paladin is actually a zealot to a cause that sacrifices everything in order to help that cause. If you've watched Vikings, then Floki would make a perfect Paladin. He does things that annoy his friends even when its not socially acceptable. Like when he chastised the guy that got baptized to become christian and wouldn't hang around him, until the guy proved that he was faithful by killing a large number of Christians. That's a Paladin. Not all paladins have to be lawful good aligned, just as not all Clerics have to be lawful good aligned even though they are designed around the concept of the knights templar.

To be fair, there really isn't much difference between a Cleric and Paladin in D&D. Their fluff is mostly identical, paladins for whatever reason seem more like extremist than Clerics... but they are both armored up, magical, smite you because my god said so kind of classes. They just have different mechanics to do so.

I would love to see them actually get separated by fluff, give an in game reason why they are two classes and why the Paladin just isn't an archetype of the Cleric (since cleric is one of the main 3).

Even if the Paladin is its own class I would love to see a Fighter, Cleric, and Druid "paladin archetype" for each class.

Hmm, maybe archetypes are the way to go for multiclassing?

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 09:20 AM
the purpose of palidans is to protect people. it stands to reason that any god who wants to protect their followers would have paladins (so basically every non-Chaotic evil god).


so your argument is that I am right? that they should not have any requirement on alignment?
or do you want them to have one, for for everyone to houserule it away?

No, my argument is that we aren't arguing. ( I retract my statement in the previous post about requiring Lawful - Reason: traditionally living by a code implied lawful alignment. This is not always the case and invalidates my previous statement) Paladins live by codes. Feel free to determine that code. Even if it's as simple as "protect the followers of X faith". Changing Alignment requirements ceased to be a thing for paladins with the PHB2 in 3.5. Its when they break their code that they lose their abilities.


they can only be changed if they don't have rippling effects. if several class features and powers are tied to alignment its harder. particularly if your character cares for something else more then alignment (say an undead hating palidan).

And yet, Paladins no long have smite evil. They have SMITE. Which works on undead and extraplanar. No longer tied to alignment. Did you read the packet at all?


to use a simple example, if I am playing an LE paladin who is helping the mostly good PCs take down an evil tyrant then having smite good, or detect good will not be useful. and that is a problem if that means that half my class just went away.

This is not a 5e example and is irrelevant. It is true of other editions. But that has been changed. And if you think the paladin's ability to smite/detect alignment is half of his class options, you should give them another reading through.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-19, 09:39 AM
The idea of a Paladin is actually a zealot to a cause that sacrifices everything in order to help that cause. If you've watched Vikings, then Floki would make a perfect Paladin. He does things that annoy his friends even when its not socially acceptable. Like when he chastised the guy that got baptized to become christian and wouldn't hang around him, until the guy proved that he was faithful by killing a large number of Christians. That's a Paladin. Not all paladins have to be lawful good aligned, just as not all Clerics have to be lawful good aligned even though they are designed around the concept of the knights templar.

Ok. This is actually a waste of both our time and efforts. You have your view of paladin, I have mine. Arguing about it will actually get us no where because its completely irrelevant. What consistently amazes me is the things you argue about. It's staggering.

I agree that the paladin could use some retooling to further distinguish it from Clerics. Lets focus on something important.

Your modular system seems reasonable. However, how much are you willing to pay for a book that's 4-5oo pages long? I'm not seeing the market possibilities for that. Sure, some people will buy a game that's got rules for everything, but I can't imagine the larger portion shelling out that kind of money. I for one wouldn't spend 100 dollars on a book that I'm only going to use 1/5th of. Isn't this the same as combining all the splat into one book? You don't think that's unreasonable? This is the vision you have for the game? Or are you simply clinging to the idea that because they said "game for everyone" that that is the rule of the universe because you can?