So D&D Next looks interesting. Is it?


4th Edition

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Well Paizo hit 11.2 million in sales and have been getting 30% growth rate. I stopped buying Paizo stuff at the end of last year with the Ultimate Campaign PDF being the last one off purchase earlier in the year. We've been playing retroclones and last night we rolled up PCs for one of them and used the 2nd ed Fighters Handbook.

Seems hard to see how D&DN will not take some customers off Paizo. Its not an awful system although for me it doesn't tick enough of the "i s this D&D boxes". To much 4th ed and balance in it. I want a better balanced game than 3.x but not to the extent it sucks out all the fun hence retroclones.

If Paizo can maintain their growth rate through 2013,2014 thought they will be close to 20 million a year in sales which is around 66-80% of the old 3.5 revenue stream so either everyone is buying more Paizo books or most of the player base had followed Paizo. I suspect 4th ed sold as well as it did initially due to the popularity and goodwill 3rd ed had built up.
Leaning towards D&DN being a big hit or a big flop. Just not sure which way it will go.


Zardnaar wrote:
Well Paizo hit 11.2 million in sales...

Where did you hear that?


Steve Geddes wrote:

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).

Has there been any printed FR sourcebooks this year? I thought D&D was on hiatus until 5E/Next launched?

Quote:
Well Paizo hit 11.2 million in sales...

PATHFINDER has sold more than half of the combined number of sales of all the D&D core rulebooks across all editions since 1974?

That doesn't sound right. Although, if true, congrats to Paizo! :)

Is that the core rulebook or everything combined?


Werthead wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

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).

Has there been any printed FR sourcebooks this year? I thought D&D was on hiatus until 5E/Next launched?

Murder at baldur's gate is an adventure they just released (with no statblocks - you download those based on what system you want to play).

Quote:
Quote:
Well Paizo hit 11.2 million in sales...

PATHFINDER has sold more than half of the combined number of sales of all the D&D core rulebooks across all editions since 1974?

That doesn't sound right. Although, if true, congrats to Paizo! :)

Is that the core rulebook or everything combined?

I presumed it was a dollar value, not number of units.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:
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.

That's only if the contract to purchase them actually states that. More than likely they purchased the rights in perpetuity, than the only issue is WOTC's copyright on the material published under their banner. Forgotten Realms now includes a whole crapton of material which Greenwood had nothing to do with. Greenwood would not get rights to that under any circumstances.


No, but they may lose the rights to publish any more (and he may reclaim the rights to publish new stuff) which was how I understood things to be. I've obviously never seen it, but the claim I've heard was that it was part of the contract when TSR bought the rights.


Steve Geddes wrote:
I presumed it was a dollar value, not number of units.

Indeed. I remember in the 90s things cost less then half as much as they do now. Sure they didn't have all the pretty art but the idea of spending more then $20 for a core rulebook was considered obscene. These days $50 is normal.


Arikiel wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I presumed it was a dollar value, not number of units.
Indeed. I remember in the 90s things cost less then half as much as they do now. Sure they didn't have all the pretty art but the idea of spending more then $20 for a core rulebook was considered obscene. These days $50 is normal.

On the flip side, it's more like a 100 bucks here. And so it was in the 90s. Sure, it's crazy, but at least it's stable crazy.


LazarX wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
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.
That's only if the contract to purchase them actually states that. More than likely they purchased the rights in perpetuity, than the only issue is WOTC's copyright on the material published under their banner. Forgotten Realms now includes a whole crapton of material which Greenwood had nothing to do with. Greenwood would not get rights to that under any circumstances.

It was put in a magazine and reported on Enworld. Dollar value btw. 4.4 million in 2009, 11.2 million 2012 30% annual growth rate. Paizo broke the top 5000 fastest growing companies in America (2800 or something like that).


I just read through the last and final playtest packet. I must admit that I was impressed. While not for everyone the rules set works for me.


The final add to the last playtest packet is being released tomorrow (10/15). It is an update to the Druid's wildshape ability. Essentially you take on the stats of the animal form, keeping your own mental stats and gain the animal shapes hp as temp hps. Run out you revert to your own shape and damage left over is taken by you. Magic items / gear is subsumed by the form but does not give you any bonuses while in wildshape. Interesting. No mention of the additional Paladin material in the article.

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20131014

Liberty's Edge

Looking forward to it!


Me too. I am going to print out a copy for me and a "players book" in binders with sheet protectors. Then it's a play testing we shall go. At 200 plus pages for me and half that for the PCs that's a tree or two, but, I hope worth it :)

I like the wildshape rules. Pretty straight forward. I can already see things I want to homebrew or borrow from 3.x but it looks fairly good overall.

Sovereign Court

Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?


I have a tablet (and the Sager gaming laptop I'm typing this on) but not all of my players do. And it's easier to page through a properly divided print out than a bunch of separate PDFs. Changes and notes can be written in on paper. And my desire to hold a book weighs in too :)


I have a question for those playing spellcasters. When you hit level 4 are you adding points to ability scores to improve spell Dc's or are you taking feats. Does anyone elese think the spell DC's are very weak and spells like charm person/hold person etc are 2 risky to attempt? My characters spell DC is 11 and unless i improve intelligence it will always be 11 regardless of level?


Spell save DC for a Mage is 8+Int modifier plus proficiency bonus if you're using some sort of implement. The last goes up automatically, so unless you forgo implements then your save DC will go up.

And frankly, save DCs may seem weak but saving throws are lower than in any previous edition.


wicked cool wrote:

I have a question for those playing spellcasters. When you hit level 4 are you adding points to ability scores to improve spell Dc's or are you taking feats. Does anyone elese think the spell DC's are very weak and spells like charm person/hold person etc are 2 risky to attempt? My characters spell DC is 11 and unless i improve intelligence it will always be 11 regardless of level?

Likely intentional as this is very old school. One of the reasons 1st edition mages kept using fireball and magic missile was because higher level creatures had better saves so dominate was phenomenal...but only had a 15% chance of working...fireball on the other hand was going to do something.


so is the +1 to ability score more valuable than a feat for a wizard/cleric?

so if you are using an implement (forgot to add that in) than my bonus can go up based on BAB?


wicked cool wrote:

so is the +1 to ability score more valuable than a feat for a wizard/cleric?

so if you are using an implement (forgot to add that in) than my bonus can go up based on BAB?

If you're holding a magic focus, your proficiency bonus gets added to your spell save DC, along with your casting stat bonus. Your maximum Save DC would appear to be 6 (proficiency) + 5 (stat) +8 (base) = 19. That may sound low, but it's important to remember that there is no base save advancement in DDN beyond getting your proficiency bonus added to a save; unless I've missed something in the latest packet, your max saving throw bonus is +11. Lord knows what will end up on the shelves, but it looks like they want the advantage/disadvantage mechanic to have a make or break effect saves.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?

Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!

We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!

Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...

;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
wicked cool wrote:

I have a question for those playing spellcasters. When you hit level 4 are you adding points to ability scores to improve spell Dc's or are you taking feats. Does anyone elese think the spell DC's are very weak and spells like charm person/hold person etc are 2 risky to attempt? My characters spell DC is 11 and unless i improve intelligence it will always be 11 regardless of level?

Likely intentional as this is very old school. One of the reasons 1st edition mages kept using fireball and magic missile was because higher level creatures had better saves so dominate was phenomenal...but only had a 15% chance of working...fireball on the other hand was going to do something.

IMO, one of the biggest factors in caster/martial imbalance in the changes 3.0 made.

This doesn't seem anything like as drastic and is probably really just more of the bounded accuracy approach - numbers don't grow as fast.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?

Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!

We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!

Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...

;)

In the 80s, Coka-Cola wasn't the only coke that some groups did.

Sovereign Court

Stefan Hill wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?

Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!

We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!

Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...

;)

I'll turn you into a newt if you dont hold that tongue! Ha-Ha it does feel good being considered today's youth I suppose, I'm starting to feel old I stopped getting carded when I was 20. I know some people are dead set on dead tree format but tech has made my life a hell of a lot easier. If using tech is wrong I don't want to be right!


it feels really ....packaged....

Pick A B or C ok here is your first pile of stuff
Now Pick D,E or F ok here is your next pile of stuff
and so on.

Ok that is pretty much the case from previous editions (Pick your Race, Pick your Class, Pick a Kit)but it feels like they went overboard with it this time.

Most of it is "meh, good enough" but nothing has really excited me or my group so far.

I do like some of the spellcasting changes (EX: Fixed Damage for spells unless you want to use a higher spell slot. I think that combined with Metamagic feats would cut down a lot of the Spell Bloat) but other parts feel too simplified

it's good enough, has some decent ideas, hope it does well

but it's not for me and my group

Liberty's Edge

Pan wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?

Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!

We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!

Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...

;)

I'll turn you into a newt if you dont hold that tongue! Ha-Ha it does feel good being considered today's youth I suppose, I'm starting to feel old I stopped getting carded when I was 20. I know some people are dead set on dead tree format but tech has made my life a hell of a lot easier. If using tech is wrong I don't want to be right!

In all seriousness I hope they do both, PDF's/Software and dead-trees. Like I hope they have an optional extra of battle-mat play. I don't like battle-mats one bit but others grew up on them. I like 5e because it is allowing me to play in a way I haven't since 1e/2e.

Glad I could make you feel young again!

Sovereign Court

Stefan Hill wrote:
Pan wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Pan wrote:
Why not use a lappy or tablet and save the tree and extra work?

Burn the witch! D&D is a Pen & paper game. Modern technology should play no part in D&D. The only tablets available of use in the 80's were caffeine and aspirin and these were taken along with sugary (not diet) Coke-Cola while playing week long, no sleep D&D sessions!

We even rebelled against the introduction of the 'white board' and 'erasable marker pens'. We mapped on large bits of paper with felt-tipped pens that when they marked the mark stayed marked!

Youth of today - or perhaps an old fart like me pretending to like new technology, really...

;)

I'll turn you into a newt if you dont hold that tongue! Ha-Ha it does feel good being considered today's youth I suppose, I'm starting to feel old I stopped getting carded when I was 20. I know some people are dead set on dead tree format but tech has made my life a hell of a lot easier. If using tech is wrong I don't want to be right!

In all seriousness I hope they do both, PDF's/Software and dead-trees. Like I hope they have an optional extra of battle-mat play. I don't like battle-mats one bit but others grew up on them. I like 5e because it is allowing me to play in a way I haven't since 1e/2e.

Glad I could make you feel young again!

I am positive that dead tree is not going anywhere. That is a format that is still very much desired by gamers. Sometimes folks get into my way not your way arguments but the nice thing about D&D is that it can afford to cater to both formats.

Cool thing about next is even though rules wise its not terribly exciting, it seems they are embracing multiple play-style preferences. I hope you can enjoy the recent iteration as well as your past favorites Mr. Hill.


Sorry no. Rules wise its worse than any other edition. The fact that it might be available in PDF format as well as dead tree format won't save it...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
lokiare wrote:
Sorry no. Rules wise its worse than any other edition. The fact that it might be available in PDF format as well as dead tree format won't save it...

What makes it the worst edition rules wise?

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Probably the fact that it's not an edition he plays.


I'm digging it pretty well. There's still plenty of things I'm not too keen on. I'm kinda hoping that not too long after release I can mod 5E into more or less 2e with some 3e/PF and 4e elements that I enjoyed (all without having to do much homebrew work on my end!) I've been testing out the mage. It's not bad from my experience. I still human their layout for humans though. A tack-on option to allow a bonus feat or something would be welcome.

Also, I didn't think Lokiare was ever a fan of 5e (even when I was active on the Wizards forums)


Doctor Necrotic wrote:
A tack-on option to allow a bonus feat or something would be welcome.

I wrote something to this effect in last test feedback.


The latest 5e packet isn't bad. But IMO they made fighters too complex* (and maybe too powerful) while weakening Mage (Wizard) further by going to 8 + Int + Proficiency Save DC instead of the prev 10 + same.

Taking a 1st level PF Wiz with Int 17 casting Color Spray against a Wis 10 Fighter, the fighter has a +0 vs. a save DC of 14 so needs a 14 roll.

In Next that DC is 12 assuming implement in hand, so Fighter needs a 12 roll.

When you consider 5e Mage has less spells and the spells themselves are weaker, and you add weaker saves ... I just think Mage needs help.

*I like a base fighter option in the game for newbs and casuals, IMO they should save the 'complex fighter' option for a Fighter subclass


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mcintma wrote:


The latest 5e packet isn't bad. But IMO they made fighters too complex* (and maybe too powerful) while weakening Mage (Wizard) further by going to 8 + Int + Proficiency Save DC instead of the prev 10 + same.

Taking a 1st level PF Wiz with Int 17 casting Color Spray against a Wis 10 Fighter, the fighter has a +0 vs. a save DC of 14 so needs a 14 roll.

In Next that DC is 12 assuming implement in hand, so Fighter needs a 12 roll.

When you consider 5e Mage has less spells and the spells themselves are weaker, and you add weaker saves ... I just think Mage needs help.

*I like a base fighter option in the game for newbs and casuals, IMO they should save the 'complex fighter' option for a Fighter subclass

Weakening the Mage is a reaction to the Wizard being, in most peoples opinions, the most powerful class in the game in 3.x (and previous editions). Many say "overpowered". I hate the term myself (right up there with "broken"), but past low levels the Wizard is generally tops. Reducing that disparity is fairly reasonable and why they have made the Mage less dominating. As for simplicity for Fighters, DDN is simpler than 3.x. At this stage (playtest) it's hard to say what will be in the basic game and what will be optional as well.


R_Chance wrote:


Weakening the Mage is a reaction to the Wizard being, in most peoples opinions, the most powerful class in the game in 3.x (and previous editions). As for simplicity for Fighters, DDN is simpler than 3.x. At this stage (playtest) it's hard to say what will be in the basic game and what will be optional as well.

I fully agree they're reacting to the LFQW thing (setting aside whether I agree with it or not), I just think they went too far is all.

You raise a good point that optional rules may be in this packet - I'll hope for that 'simple' (powerful, but simple to play) Ftr in basic with 'complex' Ftr subclass options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mcintma wrote:
R_Chance wrote:


Weakening the Mage is a reaction to the Wizard being, in most peoples opinions, the most powerful class in the game in 3.x (and previous editions). As for simplicity for Fighters, DDN is simpler than 3.x. At this stage (playtest) it's hard to say what will be in the basic game and what will be optional as well.
I fully agree they're reacting to the LFQW thing (setting aside whether I agree with it or not), I just think they went too far is all.

Meh, I'm not seeing the part where wizards are under-powered. Sure, their starting DC is 8 + Intelligence modifier + proficiency but that's pretty decent. If, for example, the Wizard has an Intelligence 18 (+4) and uses a wand, his DC 13, which is rather difficult when most monsters at that level only have a Wisdom modifier of -1 to +2 and puts their chances for saving against the spell, at best, 45%. To me, that's pretty decent.

mcintma wrote:


You raise a good point that optional rules may be in this packet - I'll hope for that 'simple' (powerful, but simple to play) Ftr in basic with 'complex' Ftr subclass options.

I think the "Warrior" sub-class of Fighter is pretty straight forward. There's little complexity for that class besides the choice of Weapon Style. The Weaponmaster (something I feel is mis-named) does offer a bit more of a choice in complexity in the terms of round-to-round combat.


Played last night as a dwarven wizard. I love buffed magic missiles. 4d4+4 in a second level slot with autohit/no save seems to be better than most second level offensive spell choices


But we need more info for it to have meaning, don't we? What is the standard Hit Point spread for monsters encountered by a party with access to Second level Spells?


Arikiel wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I presumed it was a dollar value, not number of units.
Indeed. I remember in the 90s things cost less then half as much as they do now. Sure they didn't have all the pretty art but the idea of spending more then $20 for a core rulebook was considered obscene. These days $50 is normal.

Not only that but incomes haven't increased by anything NEAR 250% so this hobby keeps getting more exclusive/costly :(

Sovereign Court

Daenar wrote:
Arikiel wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I presumed it was a dollar value, not number of units.
Indeed. I remember in the 90s things cost less then half as much as they do now. Sure they didn't have all the pretty art but the idea of spending more then $20 for a core rulebook was considered obscene. These days $50 is normal.
Not only that but incomes haven't increased by anything NEAR 250% so this hobby keeps getting more exclusive/costly :(

50 dollars or even 100 for a PHB is a damn bargain for what you are paying for. I know people that blow 50 bucks at the drop of a hat for a video game and nobody cries about how they used to be 20 bucks in the NES days. Not sure why TTRPG gamers are so cheap.


Daenar wrote:
Arikiel wrote:


Indeed. I remember in the 90s things cost less then half as much as they do now. Sure they didn't have all the pretty art but the idea of spending more then $20 for a core rulebook was considered obscene. These days $50 is normal.
Not only that but incomes haven't increased by anything NEAR 250% so this hobby keeps getting more exclusive/costly :(

To be pedantic about it, wages would 'only' have to increase by 150% (to 250% - the number you started from is the other 100%).

If something costs $20 and goes up in price by 5% a year, after 20 years it will cost $53. Admittedly, 5% is a little over the average rate of inflation, so that's still a relative increase.


Have just played an afternoon of this.
It's elegant and quick and seemed to have less faffing about than PF at low level and its great the numbers don't get unwieldy

If the adventures don't suck I'm gonna invest


I like it. I'll be picking up the core books for sure. Not sure if I'll abandon my current 3.X campaign for it though. More accurately, if I'll convert my current sandbox game to DDN. I've run the same sandbox campaign from OD&D on. In any event I'll still be buying PF RPG line books (as I do now). The only D&D edition I haven't collected was 4E. Fortunately I make enough to keep up with both DDN and PF game lines.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / So D&D Next looks interesting. Is it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in 4th Edition