Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2012 14:38:24 GMT -8
I have a feeling that they are going to have more than 2 "Player Handbooks" at the start, ala essensials. They did say that they are going to include all the PH 1 classes ever, so if I am not forgetting anything: Monk, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Warlock, Warlord, Illusionist (!), Assassin, Sorcerer, Ranger, Paldin, Druid, Bard, Barbarian. That's a lot of classes! Also keep in mind that 5e claims to be the most customizable dnd edition, it would take a Huge-Ass book to contain all the class options, rules, spells, equipment etc. I don't think this suits Wotc so much since they are marketing their products to players as well as GMs and not many players would buy a Hero-Sized tome of 1d8 damage.
|
|
|
Post by jughead5187 on Feb 9, 2012 16:21:33 GMT -8
I like their modular idea to make it an edition that "plays well" with other editions. Also i hope the follow through on their idea that they can make a basic class like the fightee have a very basic concept. "I run up to it and i hit it."
Then you can add on modules to turn it into something more conplex if you choose. They are also apparently working on a way to makethe basic class play well with its modular upgrade. Neither one will be over powered, etc.
That is their plan and i hope for the best
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Feb 11, 2012 9:45:02 GMT -8
There is so much stuff out there on the googles and twitters that my head is spinning.
Is the 5th edition going to have hundreds of thousands of feats and DDI account that lists them all? It seems that this keeps people from buying the books.
I like some of the change ideas that people have been coming up with. My hope is that they get a great product to play and have fun. My disappointment would be if DDI comes back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 16:10:49 GMT -8
Did they screw themselves completely with DDI? Paizo seems to do good business selling adventures, for example. WOTC only does adventures in DDI, which gamers don't see at their local stores and there's no word of mouth about good adventure paths. All that DDI content is floating around out there and in a group maybe a player knows someone who knows someone who's a subscriber and said there's interesting new content in the latest Dragon. I just found out about Dragon #405, for example. It contains a bunch of older edition spells that are now spun as rituals, like Alarm and Tongues. The issue came out late last year and I had no idea it existed or had content I would like to share with my group. I'm not going to pay a subscription fee to get one issue, either.
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Feb 11, 2012 16:32:23 GMT -8
DDI was in my mind a bad idea. It did stifle their content availability. I agree with sentinel that the information was just floating about. Unless you and your friends sit around a computer screen and share the DDI experience, which sounds boring, you never get the information. Please no more DDI.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 11, 2012 17:48:29 GMT -8
I think it was WOTC wanting to enjoy the lack of printing costs of online distribution without the piracy of .pdf sales.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2012 19:58:18 GMT -8
And by doing that they ensured their Dragon and Dungeon content is being seen by fewer eyes. Books and pdfs are the two models for RPG distribution. They invented a third model with the advantages of neither. If you're 14 in a Barnes & Noble you see books on the shelf. With no printed magazines the young audience isn't going to know about all this extra content existing. And if they found out about it on forums then they need their parents' credit card for a subscription. Who would ever buy someone a DDI subscription as a gift for someone they know to be a gamer? No one is going to see cool issues on any other online stores, either, like DriveThruRPG. They completely took their content out of the spotlight.
It's like when a TV network pulls their shows off Hulu and builds their own proprietary site. All you see as a fan is that the show you liked isn't on the internet anymore. You have no idea it's on a different website. And those who do stumble onto the new site find it doesn't work as well as Hulu. They have to register, sit through more ads, the site hates Chrome, or they have to install Silverlight. It doesn't work. You put your content in a box and few people care to open it.
|
|
wyrmfoe
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 4
|
Post by wyrmfoe on Feb 22, 2012 13:49:42 GMT -8
From what I've read, there seems to be a combination of things going wrong for D&D at WotC/Hasbro. The first has been poor sales. People have simply refused to buy into the new edition as much as was anticipated. The backbone of the edition was the access to premium digital content, requiring a DDI subscription. Again, this has failed to meet their expectations.
So rather than shelf the line and cut losses, they are trying to see if a new edition - one that combines elements from all previous editions in a "have it your way" buffet - might solve their problems and generate more revenue. I can see that this might attract some people from the old school and 3E/Pathfinder sets, but I don't see them leaving in droves. They have what they need. Hell, WoTC is giving the old school crowd a Christmas present in April by reprinting the 1st edition core books. Pathfinder is not going away any time soon. Unless there is something in D&D5 that is truly novel I am afraid it will not work as well as anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Mar 11, 2012 17:37:10 GMT -8
After seeing some of the responses to other threads, I think that 5th Ed can benefit from flexibility in the need of different classes in the party. I know that classes will not go away but maybe the need to have a fighter, healer, rogue, cleric and magic user will.
|
|
lilappleblossom
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 51
Preferred Game Systems: 3.5, Dark Heresy, Only War, Grimm, Savage Worlds
|
Post by lilappleblossom on Mar 20, 2013 11:26:08 GMT -8
I'm simply staying with 3.5 as my D&D system, for now. It's what I started with, I didn't have fun with 4.0 and I don't have the money to spend on books even if I like 5e and so I will keep my 3.5 books and will continue running my game in 3.5, it's just easier for me. Though I am excited to hear of any new ideas coming from 5e and may find a way to incorporate or tweak them to fit in 3.5 but that's probably as far as I will go. If I ever do spend money on D&D books again it will likely be on the reprints of the 3.5 books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2013 12:49:30 GMT -8
I want it to bring back the old-school D&D feel, but keep the open ended amount of things that Pathfinder/3.5 could handle. There was a spot somewhere between 2nd ed and 3rd edition that would have made me SUPER happy. 5th ED really seems to be getting back to D&D's roots, but without arbitrary stifling of options (Like Elves being unable to be rangers)
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 22, 2013 1:50:22 GMT -8
(Like Elves being unable to be rangers) Great for world building, when you think about it. I use it, including racial level caps. I also state Elves in my world play the music of Strauss while the Dwarves are more like Wagner. I mean unless the world is supposed to be like a gigantic Halloween dress up party. The Elves only need Spock ears (like Half-Elves) and a few dice mechanics having nothing to do with depicting deep story, racial, cultural differences. Bob the Elf, Bob the gnome, Bob the Half-Orc, bob the Beholder.... Of course, AD&D 1e pronounces throughout the guidebook from preface to Appendix that everything was left to the GM. That, to me, is the magic of the hobby and that game. I dislike to play a game I feel stiffled by or railroaded by "if/then decision tree statements." I am reading allot of If/Then statements being hardwired into 5e. I cannot determine at this stage if the game will rely more on guidebooks (active-game) or rulesbooks (passive-game) so I withhold my judgement. But I have my preference between player passive and player assertive games.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2013 7:18:18 GMT -8
(Like Elves being unable to be rangers) Great for world building, when you think about it. I use it, including racial level caps. I also state Elves in my world play the music of Strauss while the Dwarves are more like Wagner. I mean unless the world is supposed to be like a gigantic Halloween dress up party. The Elves only need Spock ears (like Half-Elves) and a few dice mechanics having nothing to do with depicting deep story, racial, cultural differences. Bob the Elf, Bob the gnome, Bob the Half-Orc, bob the Beholder.... Of course, AD&D 1e pronounces throughout the guidebook from preface to Appendix that everything was left to the GM. That, to me, is the magic of the hobby and that game. I dislike to play a game I feel stiffled by or railroaded by "if/then decision tree statements." I am reading allot of If/Then statements being hardwired into 5e. I cannot determine at this stage if the game will rely more on guidebooks (active-game) or rulesbooks (passive-game) so I withhold my judgement. But I have my preference between player passive and player assertive games. I dunno, I think that SOME class restrictions of the older editions were GREAT for flavor, but the no-elves-as-rangers always irked me. No dwarven wizards was awesome, and a rule I still use in my setting, but the wierder ones like Gnomes can be wizards but only illusionists and Halflings can't be clerics ....etc always pissed me off...every race should have clerics unless they dont believe in the gods.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 22, 2013 8:25:52 GMT -8
I definitely agree with you Shoe. Even to your no Elven Rangers qualm because I agree the double barrel of woodsmen/magic-users is immediately applicable to Elves. I agree that some restrictions do break the cookie cutter feel of a race.
If all Dwarves are Scottish, it is easier to get a quick feel for them. But not all Dwarves need to be tight penny pinchers. That depends on the personality the character imbues into the PC.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 22, 2013 14:46:03 GMT -8
Great for world building, when you think about it. I use it, including racial level caps. I also state Elves in my world play the music of Strauss while the Dwarves are more like Wagner. I mean unless the world is supposed to be like a gigantic Halloween dress up party. The Elves only need Spock ears (like Half-Elves) and a few dice mechanics having nothing to do with depicting deep story, racial, cultural differences. Bob the Elf, Bob the gnome, Bob the Half-Orc, bob the Beholder.... Of course, AD&D 1e pronounces throughout the guidebook from preface to Appendix that everything was left to the GM. That, to me, is the magic of the hobby and that game. I dislike to play a game I feel stiffled by or railroaded by "if/then decision tree statements." I am reading allot of If/Then statements being hardwired into 5e. I cannot determine at this stage if the game will rely more on guidebooks (active-game) or rulesbooks (passive-game) so I withhold my judgement. But I have my preference between player passive and player assertive games. I dunno, I think that SOME class restrictions of the older editions were GREAT for flavor, but the no-elves-as-rangers always irked me. No dwarven wizards was awesome, and a rule I still use in my setting, but the wierder ones like Gnomes can be wizards but only illusionists and Halflings can't be clerics ....etc always pissed me off...every race should have clerics unless they dont believe in the gods. To be fair that was corrected in 1e with unearth arcana - all races were opened to clerics and elves could be rangers or cavaliers and half elves (depending on parentage) could be Paladins. Level caps were also raised dependent of ability scores and whether one was Multi or single classed. In 2e in the core rules there were several side bar optional rules to dispense with level caps for Demi humans. Dwarves clerics yes, dwarven wizards - well no . . . If you're highly resistant to magic how can you use it successfully. Clerical magic being the channelling of divine power works because that's what it is. If a dwarf were a wizard I'd make him roll each time for total spell failure using the same chance of a magic ring just not working and dropping off - plus he'd be really old even at 1st level cause he'd have flunked half a dozen classes and had to repeat them til he succeeded for exactly the same reason ;a dwarf wizard is like a one legged man in an arse kicking competition. Aaron
|
|