I just got my first Playtest packet, and I'm intrigued. Just from a quick read through I have some initial impressions. This looks like a rules-medium system (if PF is rules-heavy, which my group feels it is) and there are things I like about it.
Things I like - Ability Score caps, racial subraces, Feats OR ability score bumps (and I love the way the feats are currently constructed), Advantage / Disadvantage (seems really powerful or awful to have Ad or DA), choosing a "path" (basically this encourages even RP-shy players to RP a little bit, it gives their character flavor), less spell slots and different ways to use them.
Things I don't like - Small characters being unable to wield 2 handed weapons (that there are no small versions I could find anyways), no animal companions, no "summoner" type class (yet at least), limited options for neutral / evil clerics (probably will change), the fact that a greatsword and a great axe look like they are exactly the same thing mechanically? Is balancing weapons yet making them different a very hard thing to do?
Unsure of - the "lore" system, no skill system (but I'm pretty sure I'll end up liking this since all these numbers to keep track of frustrate my group), the continuation of Attacks of Opportunity.
I probably won't get a chance to do more than talk about my impressions just from reading it. Will I find it interesting if I do play it, though? Will my group find it easier to navigate? If Paizo was doing this system I'd be sold, because Pathfinder is a good system with GREAT support giving the players what they want (Adventure Paths, Pawns, Flip-Mats, monthly crunch books, having a business plan (*glares at TSR*).
So basically my question to the people who have and are playing Next is : Do you think I'd like the system, if I like Pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still hard to say :) You'll be frustrated by some of the things left out (and happy about others) and annoyed / happy about some of the stuff included. It is a simpler system and easier to navigate without being, I think, overly simplified. But, it's still open to change (it is a playtest). Skills, for example, are supposed to make a return in the next (and last) playtest packet due mid September. They will, in all likelihood, be simpler than in PF. There are times when I grin like an idiot looking over the system and moments where I say "Really? They left that out?". One thing about it, it is identifiably D&D to anyone who played any pre 4E version. That's a plus for me.
In short; the jury is still out.
|
Still hard to say :) You'll be frustrated by some of the things left out (and happy about others) and annoyed / happy about some of the stuff included. It is a simpler system and easier to navigate without being, I think, overly simplified. But, it's still open to change (it is a playtest). Skills, for example, are supposed to make a return in the next (and last) playtest packet due mid September. They will, in all likelihood, be simpler than in PF. There are times when I grin like an idiot looking over the system and moments where I say "Really? They left that out?". One thing about it, it is identifiably D&D to anyone who played any pre 4E version. That's a plus for me.
In short; the jury is still out.
^^ Pretty much this. ^^
Is balancing weapons yet making them different a very hard thing to do?
From what I've seen, yes. There's always a clear "best in class", even if it isn't best by much.
|
I have a feeling it will be just fine for people who like Pathfinder. Question is, will folks who like pathfinder have any reason to play it?
I had all sorts of rotten experiences with Forgettable Realms. It really set me back on official settings. I was really apprehensive about Golarion but it turned out ok. A lot of that is probably the group I have now. Anyways, I see the settings as being a boon and a bane for Next. On one hand, the old settings have a following. On the other, you have your fan base split amongst so many settings its difficult to sell a lot of material to the base. A lot of Golarion haters say they don't like kitchen sink settings but to be honest I think its a much more viable position to be in.
The other thing to look at are features. First up are classes. Next is hitting the reset button so don't expect to have the myriad of choices you have with PF right now. Not only that but Paizo has their eliminate multi-classing book...err I mean advanced class guide due out next year. I see the ACG being a big hit for PF it might even drag a few 4E guys over. When it comes to Next, you are probably going to have to wait for the system to sink in and allow time for it to mature.
Bounded Accuracy was the one golden feature for me. Not sure if they are sticking to it or at least as strict as I would prefer. They also claim modularity to make your game simpler if you choose to. PF has the beginner box for simplicity. Its probably not as in depth as Next will be but its an awesome product for people who want it. WOTC needs to really do things right to lure the simple D&D crowd into Next.
For all the missing pieces in the OP just wait for the next packet it should be out any day now. You will see a more complete picture if the rumors are true. After that it will be up to launch to decide really who will find Next appealing. As it stands right now Next has its work cut out for it me thinks.
I have a feeling it will be just fine for people who like Pathfinder. Question is, will folks who like pathfinder have any reason to play it?
I had all sorts of rotten experiences with Forgettable Realms. It really set me back on official settings. I was really apprehensive about Golarion but it turned out ok. A lot of that is probably the group I have now. Anyways, I see the settings as being a boon and a bane for Next. On one hand, the old settings have a following. On the other, you have your fan base split amongst so many settings its difficult to sell a lot of material to the base. A lot of Golarion haters say they don't like kitchen sink settings but to be honest I think its a much more viable position to be in.
The other thing to look at are features. First up are classes. Next is hitting the reset button so don't expect to have the myriad of choices you have with PF right now. Not only that but Paizo has their eliminate multi-classing book...err I mean advanced class guide due out next year. I see the ACG being a big hit for PF it might even drag a few 4E guys over. When it comes to Next, you are probably going to have to wait for the system to sink in and allow time for it to mature.
Bounded Accuracy was the one golden feature for me. Not sure if they are sticking to it or at least as strict as I would prefer. They also claim modularity to make your game simpler if you choose to. PF has the beginner box for simplicity. Its probably not as in depth as Next will be but its an awesome product for people who want it. WOTC needs to really do things right to lure the simple D&D crowd into Next.
For all the missing pieces in the OP just wait for the next packet it should be out any day now. You will see a more complete picture if the rumors are true. After that it will be up to launch to decide really who will find Next appealing. As it stands right now Next has its work cut out for it me thinks.
I know what you mean about the Forgotten Realms. It's ironic how a setting can be so great to set novels in, yet disappoint to play in. I grew up reading FR novels along with Dragonlance... yet the best settings for me to play in turned out to be Eberron and Greyhawk. Golarion just doesn't capture my imagination in the least. It tries too hard to be everything to everyone all at once (land of science fiction? CHECK! land of gothic / Lovecraftian horror? CHECK! Recycling of the "Seven Deadly Sins?" CHECK!) You're right though, from a business standpoint it's much more viable. And I can understand that. Sadly, at Dragon Con Keith Baker seemed to think that support for Eberron in D&D Next was going to be lukewarm at best. In the end, the setting doesn't matter so much, because it's easy enough to convert campaigns into other settings or just make up your own as you go.
As to the myriad of choices we have now, it's almost too much. You inevitably get a broken class when you put out so much material and PF has the summoner. Hitting the reset button on power creep is always a big draw for a new edition.
I think you have a pretty good take on this thing, and my attitude is of cautious optimism about Next. I'll probably give it a go, but if it doesn't blow me away I'll just stick to PF. I have 4e books sitting on my shelf collecting dust as proof of that. Also, I have enough invested in PF material that if it's not readily convertible I might balk at that. (That was a huge issue for 4e for me was that the Monster Manual was nearly unreadable to my PF trained eyes). I'm just hoping for a combat system that doesn't immediately make archery (or melee but archery is the main offender right now) "king", balanced spellcasters, ways to fill party roles that don't necessarily lock a character into those roles full time, and general accessability. Thanks for your response, it definitely helped me sort out some of my feelings about this upcoming edition.
My impressions on 5th edition is a huge resounding "meh". I look through the player pdf, and I am just whelmed. Nothing in there screams "Play me!" when it comes to the classes. I find it strange that they went with odd ability score modifiers from races. Looking through that pdf, I think "I might be able to figure out something to play", and then I look at the monster pdf, and I scratch my head and ask wtf? Nothing in there makes much of any sense.
Maybe when they release the final playtest packet, I might see something that will make me go for it. But so far, nothing in there would make me give up Pathfinder.
Nothing in there screams "Play me!"
Still better than when it screams "Augh, quick, throw me on a fire!" like the last D&D book I read. :p
*Ahem*
Anyway. I've been in the playtest for a long time, and right now I'm just kinda waiting to see how it will turn out in the end. We've been having a fine time with what we've been presented with so far, but each playtest is somewhat fragmented, and I don't really have a good idea on the "big picture", so it's hard to form any meaningful opinion 'till you see the finished product.
IMHO.
Like the last D&D book I bought, I will at least give it a fair shake before deciding if it's something I want to spend time on.
PF has plenty of complexity for me and I love the adventures and support products. That leaves me going to D&D Basic (B/X, BECMI, RC, pick your flavor) when I want a simple no frills dungeon crawl game. I think for me the simple Next core could make it very easy to just run it like I currently run Basic with just a few minor changes. Houseruling a Basic/Next hybrid should be pretty easy.
So I want Basic, but want to add separate races and classes, ascending AC and the Advantage mechanic? Grab Next.
I want a 3E style game with skills and feats and a lot of class options, spells, monsters, etc. grab Pathfinder.
I want an RPG with more tactical combat options, grab 4E.
I feel like I can get plenty of use out of all of my materials.
Still hard to say :) You'll be frustrated by some of the things left out (and happy about others) and annoyed / happy about some of the stuff included. It is a simpler system and easier to navigate without being, I think, overly simplified. But, it's still open to change (it is a playtest). Skills, for example, are supposed to make a return in the next (and last) playtest packet due mid September. They will, in all likelihood, be simpler than in PF. There are times when I grin like an idiot looking over the system and moments where I say "Really? They left that out?". One thing about it, it is identifiably D&D to anyone who played any pre 4E version. That's a plus for me.
In short; the jury is still out.
I agree with this...though I am waitinmg for the final release format...and what their release schedule will be like.
|
|
My impressions on 5th edition is a huge resounding "meh". I look through the player pdf, and I am just whelmed. Nothing in there screams "Play me!" when it comes to the classes. I find it strange that they went with odd ability score modifiers from races. Looking through that pdf, I think "I might be able to figure out something to play", and then I look at the monster pdf, and I scratch my head and ask wtf? Nothing in there makes much of any sense.
Maybe when they release the final playtest packet, I might see something that will make me go for it. But so far, nothing in there would make me give up Pathfinder.
Can I ask what was the problems with the monsters?
Next actually made me want to DM again - 3e/PF had killed that in me.
My impressions on 5th edition is a huge resounding "meh". I look through the player pdf, and I am just whelmed. Nothing in there screams "Play me!" when it comes to the classes. I find it strange that they went with odd ability score modifiers from races. Looking through that pdf, I think "I might be able to figure out something to play", and then I look at the monster pdf, and I scratch my head and ask wtf? Nothing in there makes much of any sense.
Maybe when they release the final playtest packet, I might see something that will make me go for it. But so far, nothing in there would make me give up Pathfinder.
Can I ask what was the problems with the monsters?
Next actually made me want to DM again - 3e/PF had killed that in me.
My problems with the monsters is things don't make sense. Let me pull out the playtest real quick. *jeopardy theme plays* Most of my problem has to do with their categorization. For instance: Ankheg is a beast. A basilisk is a beast. The carrion crawler is a beast. But the displacer beast is a monstrosity. A chimaera, a creature composed of 3 creatures, is a monstrosity, but a griffon, a creature composed of 2, is a beast. Is this "monstrosity" category supposed to take the place of "magical beast"? Yet a medusa and harpy are also monstrosities. Also, if that was the case, basilisk and rust monster should be a monstrosity and the owlbear should be a beast.
My OCD and mild aspergers just really makes me want to strangle the people at WotC who came up with this idiotic and (to me) random formula for categorizing monsters. I mean, what exactly constitutes a monstrosity? Why is the minotaur (human with bull head) a monstrosity but the gnoll (human with hyena head and legs) a humanoid?
My problems with the monsters is things don't make sense. Let me pull out the playtest real quick. *jeopardy theme plays* Most of my problem has to do with their categorization. For instance: Ankheg is a beast. A basilisk is a beast. The carrion crawler is a beast. But the displacer beast is a monstrosity. A chimaera, a creature composed of 3 creatures, is a monstrosity, but a griffon, a creature composed of 2, is a beast. Is this "monstrosity" category supposed to take the place of "magical beast"? Yet a medusa and harpy are also monstrosities. Also, if that was the case, basilisk and rust monster should be a monstrosity and the owlbear should be a beast.
My OCD and mild aspergers just really makes me want to strangle the people at WotC who came up with this idiotic and (to me) random formula for categorizing monsters. I mean, what exactly constitutes a monstrosity? Why is the minotaur (human with bull head) a monstrosity but the gnoll (human with hyena head and legs) a humanoid?
They seem to be classifying them based somewhat on their status in dungeon ecology. A Chimera is a monster while a Griffon is a creature commonly used as a mount - that makes it basically an animal. Ankeg would seem to fit the same bill...its pretty much just a big insect. A Gnoll is a creature like a goblin that his civilization, intellegence and uses tools. At a guess they've decided to return to 1E Minotaurs...they are monsters that live in dungeons and kill adventurers. The Displacer Beast has tentacles and uses a Jedi Mind Trick to make you think its 3 feet from where it actually is...that is not an animal. Animals don't have Jedi Mind Tricks. Admittedly I'm having a hard time parsing the Basilisk here.
All that said there is no way to really nail this sort of thing down. Its not like you can base this stuff on bone structures or whatever. In effect if we took 100 monsters its doubtful one could find any two people that would classify them the same.
Actually that is sort of true in real life as well - I once saw an experiment where an artist made up a whole bunch of bugs and then gave them to various etymologists to classify...the etymologists did not come to the same conclusions.
In the end though my suspicion is there is a rough paragraph that states what each of the 'types' means. Then the individual making the monster decides what the monster is. So I say 'they decided minotaurs where 1E style monsters'. Actually whoever happened to be making the minotaur made that decision. There are no three hour group meetings to debate the pro's and con's of the different possible classifications of Minotaur...the people working on this have better things to do with their time then such a meeting. Especially in a system that is emphasizing simplicity. Chances are the different classifications have little actual bearing on much of anything. The designer should just pick a category and get on with designing the next monster.
Actually, the last playtest packet is due out soon (mid September). I would assume they want feedback from that. After this it's all in house at WotC and you won't see any "results" from the playtest until the game's released. What is a bit frustrating about their playtest is that rather than testing a whole game (although they provide a framework to play with) they are testing individual sub systems in each packet (that may not be in the next packet -- such as skills) and you may, or may not, see any results from the feedback. I gather skills (once again) and multi-classing are in this last packet among other things. We'll see.
Playtests are difficult animals, especially the way Mearls and his crew have gone about it. It has been fragmented and ever changing. So NOT having the big picture yet has been pretty much agreeable amongst most playtesters. That in itself is an issue because it has been claimed that we are at the end of the playtest and that WoTC will be off on their own now with no further input from playtesters needed. Hopefully the next packet does have that bigger picture flavor to it but I'm really skeptical on that right now.
SETTINGS: "It's ironic how a setting can be so great to set novels in, yet disappoint to play in.
Take this from an old hand. I met Arneson in Wisconisn when I was very young, a few years after Blackmoor came out. I grilled him with questions and he made the same statements that Gary did. USE YOUR IMAGINATION.
Any setting, whether it is Golarion, Forgotten Realms, etc... all of those are fluff. You can choose to make it the setting you want and in fact, if you are not playing that way already, you need to find a DM who understands that and go for it. Forgotten Realms is an awesome setting. ANY novel, fluff book, setting book, whatever, can be used to create your story/backstory in the realms. If a setting is disappointing to play in, point the finger at your DM and ask him/her to try again.
The following contains a lot of my personal opinions and feelings and should be taken as such, one man's humble opinion.
Admittedly, I WAS rather young, about 14, when I began DMing Forgotten Realms. The novels (espescially the ones about the Time of Troubles) were just so epic in scope that I wanted to play D&D there... and when I did, I was still so in awe of the setting that I felt like a guest, not the owner. And by the time I felt like returning to it, the completely-felt-contrived Spellplague happened and I barely recognized the setting I loved so much, and only a wistful drow ranger was still around to commiserate with me...but I digress.
A good or great setting will capture your imagination, and provide multiple hooks to kick starting your own ideas. That's why I like Eberron so much. Keith Baker left so many things open deliberately so you could decide yourself how the world evolved, what caused the Mourning, whether the gods were real, whether that even mattered, etc. FR took more of a heavy-handed approach, which I guess was my point, that it seemed to be a setting created more for novels to be set in than to be played in (it was Ed Greenwood's campaign world, and it never stopped feeling like "his" setting to me. Eberron, meanwhile, immediately suggested new directions and got my mind going.) Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the Forgotten Realms as a rich world that makes sense to me without trying to kitchen-sink it like Golarion (whose novels I'm still waiting to impress me, the one about Nidal halfway got there, then went right off the rails right when it could have really went deep on a fascinating corner of Golarion in Pangolais. Instead we got hellknights and strix and a generic wilderness. Bleh.)
You're right, of course. Using your imagination is what this gaming thing is all about. Sure, it's just fluff, but if you can't get excited about the starting point, you're better off with your own setting. And many, many people like having the starting point better than starting from scratch. Of course, tastes vary and everything is subjective in this regard. I hope Next includes setting support closer to 3e than to 4e. Some of my favorite reads are crunch-light fluff books on various settings just sitting on my shelf. (I'm looking at you, Five Nations and Forgotten Realms Adventures!)
I'm not a fan of the latest playtest. I'm hoping the latest isnt the final version. I would miss skills/feats and not happy with the new cleric. Our party is at level 3 and my evil cleric lost almost very cool spell he had from the previous edition. Cure wounds no longer works on undead (sure it was very powerful but they took it completely away). I switched to a mage (thanks DM) due to those changes.
I'm not a fan of the latest playtest. I'm hoping the latest isnt the final version. I would miss skills/feats and not happy with the new cleric. Our party is at level 3 and my evil cleric lost almost very cool spell he had from the previous edition. Cure wounds no longer works on undead (sure it was very powerful but they took it completely away). I switched to a mage (thanks DM) due to those changes.
Skills are supposed to be back with the next (and they say last) packet. And I'm sure there will be a raft of changes / additions. Pretty much every playtest packet has made significant changes. Given they still have internal play-testing to do as well as the feedback from the final playtest packet it's hard to say what the final product will look like...
So there is one more packet? Any idea on that release date? thanks
So there is one more packet? Any idea on that release date? thanks
it's supposed to be mid September. Hopefully they'll keep to that schedule...
Friday, during the Lich Queen's Beloved they said there will be a delay to incorporate feedback from the most recent batch of surveys.
Mike Mearls confirmed the slight delay on Twitter.
Probably before the end of the month for the last Public playtest packet.
After that there will be another closed Playtest for a while.
Thanks. If you have to have a delay a slight one is the kind to have...
Whats the Lich Queens beloved?
Old adventure iirc, reworked for DDN and video of it being played by the D&D R&D team up on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjXF01pu97c
|
Whats the Lich Queens beloved?
It was an adventure that appeared in Dungeon Magazine #100. It was a part of the "Incursion" Campaign that was introduced in Dragon Magazine #309 and Polyhedron #159 (which was a part of Dungeon Magazine #100 as well)...
No. That was the entire Incursion story. TLQB was meant as the capstone for that, namely
|
|
I started a D&D Next campaign. I basically needed AD&D 1E with modern rules (ascending AC, not having different Str caps for male/female characters, no level caps etc.). I have it.
Even if I never buy D&D Next the hardcovers, I could now play D&D with players who don't like some of the rules in AD&D. I can easily use AD&D 1E mods with it (now back in PDF form for those who need them), I can use Goodman Games modules with them, and really just about any OSR mod. I'm even converting Magic Compendium items to use.
It is the first current rules-medium D&D rule system in thirteen years and is backwards compatible with most of D&D (4E being the hardest to convert in my opinion). I don't use feats, I don't have to have minis and a map for every combat (or any if I don't want), and you don't have to have assumed magic items and/or wealth per level.
It is great. And free!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So far I like what I see. I will get the manuals, no question about that; it's D&D. Whether I'll switch over from Pathfinder, that remains to be seen. I have lots of games whose main job is looking pretty on the shelves, so I never know for certain whether I'll play something "for srs" or not.
But I'm happy about the direction D&D is taking.
Some new information from a WotC podcast on the Paladin and Druid for the last packet. For the Druid's, wildshape gives you the abilities of the shape you assume, hit points and all. When you run out of hp for the shape, the shape is dispelled and you're a Druid again. I gather it's like temporary hp with excess carrying over onto you(?). The Paladin has a new oath - Vengeance. Some speculation here from the boards at EN World but the release should be soon so we'll see...
They might have fixed some things but I don't really care. As long as they're owned by WotC/Hasbro I have no interest in their products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had all sorts of rotten experiences with Forgettable Realms. It really set me back on official settings. I was really apprehensive about Golarion but it turned out ok. A lot of that is probably the group I have now.
As someone mentioned upthread, the power to make a setting work in a gaming context is down to the DM. I've played in, and run, some awesome FR campaigns. I've played in, and run, some that have sucked. Same for other settings. The DM and the group have a lot to do with it. Problems in the setting itself are only problems if the DM chooses to employ those problems: that the Realms over-emphasises Drizzt as a signature character most people seem to agree is dull, but it should have zero impact on a campaign unless the DM chooses to roll out Drizzt and emo dark elves every five minutes.
Anyways, I see the settings as being a boon and a bane for Next. On one hand, the old settings have a following. On the other, you have your fan base split amongst so many settings its difficult to sell a lot of material to the base.
I don't see this as a problem. FORGOTTEN REALMS is and will be the #1 setting that WotC support for D&D. It's by far, in terms of both P&P material and spin-offs, their biggest-selling and most popular campaign setting. Nothing else in the D&D line touches it for campaign settings and expansions sold (or novels or computer games, for that matter).
What they do beyond FR for 5E I believe is up in the air still. Possibly EBERRON will make a reappearance and DARK SUN will depend on how well the 4E version did (I don't think it did great business). DRAGONLANCE they might bring back because it's the 30th anniversary of the setting and the original novels next year. But they will always prioritise the Realms because the fanbase it has eclipses that for everything else they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They might have fixed some things but I don't really care. As long as they're owned by WotC/Hasbro I have no interest in their products.
Why is someone always compelled to state their lack of interest in something? Doesn't that indicate an interest? Are they trying to convince themselves? Are they trying to convince others, and, if so, why? Is stating their opinion in random threads the point? Assuming it's not a poll of some type I always wander about this...
What they do beyond FR for 5E I believe is up in the air still. Possibly EBERRON will make a reappearance and DARK SUN will depend on how well the 4E version did (I don't think it did great business). DRAGONLANCE they might bring back because it's the 30th anniversary of the setting and the original novels next year. But they will always prioritise the Realms because the fanbase it has eclipses that for everything else they do.
I believe they also have an obligation to release a Forgotten Realms sourcebook every year or lose the rights to it. That's going to skew things given the board game, computer game and novels potential.
I believe they also have an obligation to release a Forgotten Realms sourcebook every year or lose the rights to it. That's going to skew things given the board game, computer game and novels potential.
What they do beyond FR for 5E I believe is up in the air still. Possibly EBERRON will make a reappearance and DARK SUN will depend on how well the 4E version did (I don't think it did great business). DRAGONLANCE they might bring back because it's the 30th anniversary of the setting and the original novels next year. But they will always prioritise the Realms because the fanbase it has eclipses that for everything else they do.
They included Warforged and Kender in the races on the new packet. I would guess that hints at a continuation of Eberron and Dragonlance in some form...
The 4E Eberron and Dark Sun campaign books seemed well received to me, so I'd be expecting them to continue. If there's a thirty year DragonLance anniversary imminent, that would make sense too.
|
The 4E Eberron and Dark Sun campaign books seemed well received to me, so I'd be expecting them to continue. If there's a thirty year DragonLance anniversary imminent, that would make sense too.
Yeah, it makes you wonder why they seemed to be determined to only have only three releases for any of the settings under 4E. That's one of its downfalls, in my opinion...it was too focused on generic supplements, and not enough setting and adventure material (a problem that 3.X shared).
I agree that was a problem. Although I guess there was quite a lot released through the DDI. Presumably the plan was to have a few books in game stores to catch people's eye and then sign everyone up for a DDI subscription for the actual content.
You may well be right. My guess would be that it wasn't that people didn't know about the DDI, so much as they didn't like the "bite sized" release of material compared to what you get out of a book. As ever though I may well be reading my own preferences onto the market.
|
|
Even worse than the 3.5 era.
I thought the 3.5 Eberron set of books was just about right, 14 setting books, 4 short (32 page) adventures and 1 bigger campaign. This is enough to really flesh out the setting, but not so much that if you want to be a completionist (which I do) you will struggle to buy and read all the books.
Forgotten Realms (due to its history in other editions) but also Golarion (because its the sole setting for PF) both have what I refer to as setting bloat (IMHO) - so much stuff that I can't feel that I can be a setting completionist which turns me off getting into the setting.
Eberron Setting Books
Eberron Campaign Setting
Sharn: City of Towers
Races of Eberron
Five Nations
Explorer’s Handbook
Magic of Eberron
Player's Guide to Eberron
Secrets of Xen’drik
Faiths of Eberron
Dragonmarked
Secrets of Sarlona
The Forge of War
Dragons of Eberron
City of Stormreach
Eberron Scenarios
Shadows of the Last War
Whispers of the Vampire's Blade
Grasp of the Emerald Claw
Voyage of the Golden Dragon
Eyes of the Lich Queen (the bigger campaign book)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is someone always compelled to state their lack of interest in something? Doesn't that indicate an interest?
They might have fixed some things but I don't really care. As long as they're owned by WotC/Hasbro I have no interest in their products.
I think Arikiel means that he won't be purchasing D&D Next while WotC / Hasbro own it, however I agree that he does care about how D&D Next does otherwise why comment.
If D&D Next was massively successful (it probably won't be) to the point that Pathfinder sales and player network is diminished to some extent, then I think Arikiel and many others would care about that.
I believe they also have an obligation to release a Forgotten Realms sourcebook every year or lose the rights to it. That's going to skew things given the board game, computer game and novels potential.
I've never heard that before, and would be surprised if that was the case. My understanding was that they bought the Realms off Ed Greenwood in perpetuity, and the Realms as-presented-by-TSR (and later WotC) are radically different to Greenwood's own original conception of the world anyway.
Forgotten Realms (due to its history in other editions) but also Golarion (because its the sole setting for PF) both have what I refer to as setting bloat (IMHO) - so much stuff that I can't feel that I can be a setting completionist which turns me off getting into the setting.
The digital releases take care of some of the problems there, but the main thing about the REALMS is that the setting as an overall conception seems to change between editions. I mean, the actual shape and size of Faerun is different (for no in-canon reason) between 2E and 3E anyway. I think you can get away with just starting with the 3E stuff, though to be honest I preferred the writing and fluff for the 1E-2E material, which the setting was envisaged more of a general setting rather than a high-level specialist setting which it really turned into in 3E.
No, it's genuine. The issue is that if a year goes by with no published Forgotten Realms books published, the rights revert to Ed.
Gaming materials, or does that include novels? And stuff on the D&D website or in the magazines?
|
|
stuff about how much Eberron was published under 3.5
I'm probably just a bit biased due to my favorite setting from TSR/WotC being Greyhawk...which despite being the "default" setting of 3.x, got the least support in the way of retail products.
Eberron is an interesting setting, though.
And I was never into the best-Forgotten Realms.
Yeah, but the problem was they didn't really let potential customers know that. If you didn't know anyone subscribed to DDI, then you saw that each campaign setting had a setting book, a player's guide, and a single adventure. And beyond that...nothing. Even worse than the 3.5 era.
I personally kind of like how they did settings with 4E with just needing a player and GM book (or in Dark Sun's case a campaign book and bestiary) and an adventure. It's a lot less to buy and leaves the setting more open for the DM to customize. Now, I believe it would be somewhat better if that adventure was an adventure path (at least 10 levels) in each case with considerably more campaign setting depth. I do think they should have had a three book approach (player options, DM guide to the setting with a starter adventure, and a bestiary) for each. Those three books could alternately be one boxed set and include maps. Assuming they maintain online DDI articles/magazines after Next releases, I hope they provide a lot of support for the settings there.
Lastly, I think they do need a lot of generic stand alone adventures of various levels and in each there should always be guidance on best ways to customize them to fit the official settings (past and present).
Why is someone always compelled to state their lack of interest in something? Doesn't that indicate an interest?
They might have fixed some things but I don't really care. As long as they're owned by WotC/Hasbro I have no interest in their products.I think Arikiel means that he won't be purchasing D&D Next while WotC / Hasbro own it, however I agree that he does care about how D&D Next does otherwise why comment.
If D&D Next was massively successful (it probably won't be) to the point that Pathfinder sales and player network is diminished to some extent, then I think Arikiel and many others would care about that.
Exactly! I care in that I'm afraid everyone might abandon Pathfinder for the shinny new game that I have no interest in being part of. Also I'm stuck here for several days with nothing to do but comment on forums and watch youtube videos. >.<
Exactly! I care in that I'm afraid everyone might abandon Pathfinder for the shinny new game that I have no interest in being part of. Also I'm stuck here for several days with nothing to do but comment on forums and watch youtube videos. >.<
If D&D Next was massively successful (it probably won't be) to the point that Pathfinder sales and player network is diminished to some extent, then I think Arikiel and many others would care about that.
I wouldn't worry about it.
I have no doubt some people will switch.I have no doubt some people will drift away to other games altogether.
I'm pretty sure enough of us are here because dammit we refuse to change rulesets yet again, that you'll have company.
Gaming materials, or does that include novels? And stuff on the D&D website or in the magazines?
I believe it's at least one, printed sourcebook/adventure.
I found it hard to believe, but it was widely circulated (and perhaps explains thing like murder in baldurs gate and so forth).