This time, they asked people what they wanted, and what they wanted right now was shaped in large part by the rose colored glasses looking at the comparatively distant past; therefore, it does not surprise me that most people are not seeing any problems with the new system yet. It gave them exactly what they wanted to see from their current perspective.
That's certainly some conjecture. You're using rose colored glasses to demean a years long process of democratic selection and refinement. That puts it up toward hyperbole. It's also entirely counter to my experience. So, to paint everyone who likes 5e as 'they' with your attributions is simply wrong.
I was never heavily involved in playing 3rd edition. I played a couple games here and there with some friends but couldn't regularly participate because they lived in another city that was a significant drive. When the PF beta came out, I was in the transnational session that exposed me to the rules, and I've played PF vastly more regularly since it actually released. So, the exact tint on my rose colored glasses is minimal. I can objectively say that 5e's core compared to PF's is simply superior. PHB vs CRB, I want the game the game the PHB describes much more than what the CRB describes.
|
That's certainly some conjecture. You're using rose colored glasses to demean a years long process of democratic selection and refinement. That puts it up toward hyperbole. It's also entirely counter to my experience. So, to paint everyone who likes 5e as 'they' with your attributions is simply wrong.
Agreed and seconded. So far I'm liking what I see. Not sure if I will ever run let alone play it. For the first time in a long time I want to play a Paladin. I do think that 5E may give PF a run for it's money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And before someone tries to claim I hate WotC or am in love with PF, at this point I would approach something new like 5E the same regardless of who was making it or why; I already have that niche filled, and don't need yet another game in that style of play. If I want fighters and wizards, I already have both 3.x and PF, and even a couple of late AD&D books. The main reason I am still interested in PF is that they aren't sticking to just fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue, the way that WotC is beating it into the ground yet again. I get the strong nostalgia factor for D&D, but I'm actually getting to the point where I respect 4E a lot more than I did initially precisely because they didn't rely on just nostalgia.
Are they? I flipped through the players book at a bookstore the other day, and it seems like they had all of the classes that are in the Pathfinder core rulebook (+ warlock). It doesn't seem fair to say they are focusing just on a handful of classes when the game just came out. And really...I tend to think that "slow and steady" is the best way to introduce new classes, lest you overwhelm people.
And nostalgia...well it works as a business strategy. I know lots of people online are only trying the game because it reminds them of earlier editions, in some way or another.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think 5e will compete pretty strongly with PF simply for the fact that it is D&D. That brand means a lot. Just look at the edition wars - what's that all about? At it's most fundamental level, It's about being D&D players. Why else would people go to such effort to criticize 4e or backlash against those criticisms? Why else would people cling to their favorite sacred cows/sacred cow hamburger? It's because they want to be D&D players (or still be D&D players) and have the currently supported edition be an edition they can identify themselves as D&D players with.
That's going to be pretty stiff competition.
The real reason is that D&D was the one game that rules them all. Its the most popular game out there with the most support. The difference bewteen D&D and other games could fill the grand canyon. Now some folks like variety or are willing to put forth the effort to play a less popular game and make up for lack of support. Though really the D&D path has so much less resistance its remarkable. So the fight is on to make D&D each persons ideal TTRPG so they get both the access to a pool of avilable and willing players and on going support. Paizo shook this up a bit but its still a tiny market so the fight rages on. This round I believe will be all about support. Can 5E bring the adventures and rule support? If so I think it will compete well. If they dont it will taper off. Im hoping it raises the bar and paizo matches them toe for toe. Having one king in the industry is no good, IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed and seconded. So far I'm liking what I see. Not sure if I will ever run let alone play it. For the first time in a long time I want to play a Paladin. I do think that 5E may give PF a run for it's money.
Holy crap yes. Paladins don't have to be mindless husks of a god anymore. They can be dark, brooding, and seething with hate, even. Most of the 'why can't paladins do/be x' is solved in 5th's rendition.
That makes me curious, though. Given all the critiques and complaints of Pathfinder here, I wonder if Wizards took those into consideration with the intent of drawing in those who shared those views.
This round I believe will be all about support. Can 5E bring the adventures and rule support? If so I think it will compete well. If they dont it will taper off. Im hoping it raises the bar and paizo matches them toe for toe. Having one king in the industry is no good, IMO.
And this is the area that so far at least, I'm really not convinced that WotC is concerned about doing much, at least directly. Adventure support seems to be there, but everything else, not so much. I think the best hope here is a robust open license, or at least active seeking out of selective licensing to trusted partners. I just don't see WotC themselves putting out the kind of support needed to sustain that level of competition.
|
|
That makes me curious, though. Given all the critiques and complaints of Pathfinder here, I wonder if Wizards took those into consideration with the intent of drawing in those who shared those views.
I am positive they did. Really PF is just a houseruled version of 3E. The things people complain about in PF are some of the very same things people complained about in 3E. I think most notibly would be bounded accuracy being a design decision of 5E.
And nostalgia...well it works as a business strategy. I know lots of people online are only trying the game because it reminds them of earlier editions, in some way or another.
Nostalgia is a great hook, but it doesn't automatically make great campaigns, which is the meat of the tabletop game. Going back to a "simpler" game appeals to a lot of people in many ways, but it also brings back many of the challenges that both DMs and players had with that kind of system that led to the more formalized ruleset of 3rd edition in the first place. 4E had exactly the same problem. Both it and this system make the actual adventure easier to run, but overall the amount of DM effort is basically the same to maintain a campaign; the areas that are complex and the areas that are simple are simply shifted. There are no training wheels to help new DMs/groups/players out; that is going to lead a lot of frustration, and a lot of people will turn to something else (this was far less of an option back when these types of rules were popular last time) that comes easier rather than working through the frustration. It's a bit easier to DM perhaps, but from the player's side, it's not actually that much easier to play; looking up rules is replaced by asking the DM basically everything. With the right DM it works and works well, but all it takes a one really bad experience to get someone to walk away and never look back.
Nostalgia is a great short term strategy, but not so much for long term. It has a way of wearing off quickly at precisely the wrong times. This won't be a problem for established groups that already have most of the social issues worked out, but with new players, organized play, and those stuck with playing in random groups or in groups of people with different goals and expectations, the nostalgia factor will wear off very quickly and that's going to be the true test of the system. DM centric games can make amazingly good experiences; they can also be complete disasters. WotC has to find a way to provide enough of a baseline to prevent total disasters while leaving room for the DM freedom that so many crave; so far they've met the latter, but that's always been the easy part. Giving both DMs and players of all experience levels enough tools to do the former and/or repair the disasters after they have happened is a far bigger challenge and one in which nostalgia will have no real influence at all.
And nostalgia...well it works as a business strategy. I know lots of people online are only trying the game because it reminds them of earlier editions, in some way or another.Nostalgia is a great hook, but it doesn't automatically make great campaigns, which is the meat of the tabletop game. Going back to a "simpler" game appeals to a lot of people in many ways, but it also brings back many of the challenges that both DMs and players had with that kind of system that led to the more formalized ruleset of 3rd edition in the first place. 4E had exactly the same problem. Both it and this system make the actual adventure easier to run, but overall the amount of DM effort is basically the same to maintain a campaign; the areas that are complex and the areas that are simple are simply shifted. There are no training wheels to help new DMs/groups/players out; that is going to lead a lot of frustration, and a lot of people will turn to something else (this was far less of an option back when these types of rules were popular last time) that comes easier rather than working through the frustration. It's a bit easier to DM perhaps, but from the player's side, it's not actually that much easier to play; looking up rules is replaced by asking the DM basically everything. With the right DM it works and works well, but all it takes a one really bad experience to get someone to walk away and never look back.
As you said, a lot of the "issues" in that eventually led to 3E and 4E are brought back up in 5E. Presumably though the people who are nostalgic for 1E, for instance, don't have problems with those issues, and have access to tables where this sort of game style will work fine.
I mean...I don't think 5E will win away Pathfinder players and 3.X fans. Presumably people who love that game will stick with Pathfinder, because a lot of their concerns that you list as problems are addressed. But there is some good sized number of players who prefer to not have things so codified. and one could argue that the simplified rules will help get people in. There is probably less need for training rules in 5E than 3E.
I don't know...my feelings are that a lot of your concerns may be tied to a preference for 3E over whats available for 5E, and evaluating the system as a derivation of 3E, not as a completely new game.
I'm just not convinced that the general market is going to be anymore receptive to 5E than they are to PF, making most of the changes largely a wash in long term impact. Getting casual gamers was tough before 3rd edition when other entertainment options were limited. 5E goes back to the system where it's entirely DM dependent and that may not work all that well when players can go any number of other places and get exactly what they want when they want like they can now. 5E will do a good job of bringing back really old players, but just like every other edition, leave other players behind, and the challenges of getting new players will be about the same. So, I'm just not seeing a reason for excitement in regards to it's impact on the greater market long term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thinking is that, unlike with 4E, the game plan for this edition is not to gain huge numbers of people who have never played a RPG before, but rather to retain 4E users and earn back fans of earlier editions.
If they can get new people into the hobby, great. But that is not the main goal of the marketing as far as I can tell.
I think they want to keep the brand "viable", in that they are supporting a system, but everything I have heard makes it sound like they might be mostly keeping DnD alive for the purpose of novels, computer games, and other multimedia
Maybe I've just been lucky or maybe it's something about my approach to gaming, but I've never had a GM I wanted to play with that I needed rules to protect me from. I've certainly played with GMs that screwed me over despite the rules. Just not for long.
You've been lucky and you've apparently had your choice of GMs, so another bit of luck. A lot of people are stuck in places where the available DMs and fellow gamers aren't numerous enough to have that choice. Success with DM oriented systems becomes a lot more hit or miss in those circumstances.
Now that the PH is out, has their been any official talk about some Greyhawk support or is WOTC silent on the matter still? Beyond the MM and DM Guide and modules for Forgotten Realms are their any other future product releases announced? Has WOTC made any kind of announcement about their splat book support?
It's a bit easier to DM perhaps, but from the player's side, it's not actually that much easier to play; looking up rules is replaced by asking the DM basically everything.
As a frequent player of Pathfinder and 5e, and a lover of both, I find this statement entirely foreign to my experience with the game. The cull of fiddly cruft (stacking modifiers, stacking buffs, stacking debuffs, skill rank allocation, long feat chains, strict grid rules, etc.) from the core rules makes the game so much easier to play, it's not even funny. Less stuff to keep track of at any one time equals more headspace you can devote to the stuff that's happening in the game proper.
As a frequent player of Pathfinder and 5e, and a lover of both, I find this statement entirely foreign to my experience with the game. The cull of fiddly cruft (stacking modifiers, stacking buffs, stacking debuffs, skill rank allocation, long feat chains, strict grid rules, etc.) from the core rules makes the game so much easier to play, it's not even funny. Less stuff to keep track of at any one time equals more headspace you can devote to the stuff that's happening in the game proper.
This is my experience as well. And I DM. Not once have I had to field questions about how do x and y work outside of character creation. In play it's all 'I do x' or a bit of roleplay, I roleplay back or explain what happened with x, and it's the next person's turn. It's really freaking snappy.
My thinking is that, unlike with 4E, the game plan for this edition is not to gain huge numbers of people who have never played a RPG before, but rather to retain 4E users and earn back fans of earlier editions.
If they can get new people into the hobby, great. But that is not the main goal of the marketing as far as I can tell.
I think they want to keep the brand "viable", in that they are supporting a system, but everything I have heard makes it sound like they might be mostly keeping DnD alive for the purpose of novels, computer games, and other multimedia
That may be, but that does rely on trusting them to pull off the novels, computer games, and other stuff. Aside from Drizzt, which many people don't really associate with D&D directly, they have none of that, and haven't been able to get anything like it going consistently despite more than a decade of trying. So those things fall firmly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. Even if any of that is successful, there's no guarantee that success in one area will be based on or bleed over to success in other areas. It's not the best strategy for long term success of the brand. Right now WotC has nothing firm beyond 5E; 5E merely being viable may not be enough if the other projects fall through.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read the thread, but I'm just going to answer the original question because that seems to be the thrust, still, of the thread. Reasons:
1. It's a new edition and those are all interesting. I've played since 1974 and I've played, mostly DMing, every edition except 4E. It is not that I thought 4E was "bad" btw, it just wasn't a game I wanted to put my limited time into. And, I would have had to trash my homebrew setting completely to run it, which even 3E didn't make me do.
2. While I like 3.X / PF it has tended to stray away from what interests me, to whit the world and players interactions with it and the NPCs in it. Conversations about "builds" and class comparisons don't have that much interest for me. I'll glance through them, consider how it applies to my game, say a silent thank you for the players I have and move on.
3. Rules light systems don't produce better stories / games but they certainly allow you more time to focus on them. The less prep time occasioned by game crunch the more time to run the game. The restraints on casters, and magic in general, will, imo, make it easier to deal with magic as well.
4. 5E does have that aura of familiarity; it's definitely D&D. Something I found missing from 4E. It seemed like a decent game, just not the game I'd been playing or wanted to play.
5. I'm not tied to any setting but my own for "D&D". I don't use APs (or modules), I do my own. Golarion is interesting as reading material, but then so were Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and Blackmoor. And while I have used other settings for other games (EPT and Traveller for example) world building is just... fun. Really fun. It ties into my degrees in history and anthropology, my love of literature and mythology. For me, it's about whether or not the rules set will allow me to express my world properly to my players (and, of course, whether or not they will enjoy it). And I think both 3.X (does) and 5E (will) do so.
6. Which brings it back to practical issues. 5E is looking good for reduced prep time (in the long run). Conversion seems pretty straight forward. I haven't decided on "one or the other" and I may run both at different times. We'll see.
But yeah, I'm excited about the new edition :) Why not be?
*Edit* That won't keep me from buying both PF core material and 5E. I'm financially stable and that makes me lucky. I'm glad I don't have to chose over budget reasons. My only constraint is time :(
That may be, but that does rely on trusting them to pull off the novels, computer games, and other stuff. Aside from Drizzt, which many people don't really associate with D&D directly, they have none of that, and haven't been able to get anything like it going consistently despite more than a decade of trying. So those things fall firmly in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category. Even if any of that is successful, there's no guarantee that success in one area will be based on or bleed over to success in other areas. It's not the best strategy for long term success of the brand. Right now WotC has nothing firm beyond 5E; 5E merely being viable may not be enough if the other projects fall through.My thinking is that, unlike with 4E, the game plan for this edition is not to gain huge numbers of people who have never played a RPG before, but rather to retain 4E users and earn back fans of earlier editions.
If they can get new people into the hobby, great. But that is not the main goal of the marketing as far as I can tell.
I think they want to keep the brand "viable", in that they are supporting a system, but everything I have heard makes it sound like they might be mostly keeping DnD alive for the purpose of novels, computer games, and other multimedia
Are you so certain about that? I recall reading in the past that the novel lines + certain video games such as Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate were far far more profitable many times than the actual DND lines. I don't know what the state is currently, but it doesn't seem like a bad policy.
Also, WoTC doesn't need to make 5E an amazing hit that brings in millions of new gamers. Their bread and butter are card games; Hasbro doesn't actually care that much about the DnD portion, other than owning the DnD IP.
IF 5E is a relatively solid product that makes more money than it costs to develop, I think WoTC will be happy. Tabletop RPG's are a niche market...as long as it does well in that market, I would consider it a success
|
From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?
Are you so certain about that? I recall reading in the past that the novel lines + certain video games such as Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate were far far more profitable many times than the actual DND lines. I don't know what the state is currently, but it doesn't seem like a bad policy..
The bolded part is key. Most of those successes didn't come under WotC's watch. The novels have held on, but nothing major has come out of it the entire time under WotC's control. Neverwinter nights 1 & 2 did well, but they are still over a decade old. Internet wise, they have DDI, which while good, still fell far short of their goals. And that's the highlights of their efforts in those areas. Not exactly a strong track record to build confidence off of. It's not a bad idea, just one that WotC has been trying for a long time and not succeeding at. It's not impossible, but at this point it very much is I'll believe when I see it.
Havent they brought out about one single-player game a year for the last three years, plus two MMOs (one with two million registered players)?
As I understood it, there was a holdup due to legal dispute with Atari which WotC eventually won (or settled, perhaps) and then the release of computer games continued and have been generally well received.
I dont actually play any computer games, so that's all third hand or so - but I dont think it's right to say that "nothing major" has come out since WotC took over.
I wouldn't call either of the MMOs huge successes; not failures, but definitely as niche as the system itself. Registered players gets into tricky territory when it comes to MMO anymore because there's no real baseline to measure it off of when every company uses their own metrics of what precisely that means for the game; Neverwinter's business model, like many f2p models, tends to make that particular number less useful. If they've done single player games, that's news to me; I take that back, I vaguely recall one single player game early in 4th edition that was flat out terrible. They're trying, but the level of success is highly debatable; there's nothing since Neverwinter Nights that's really been a clear success.
|
|
I'm curious Sunshadow do you have anything good to say about 5E or Wotc? It's like listening to a broken record. We get it you don't like 5E or Wotc. I can respect that even is I don't agree with it. Could not keep repeating yourself by downplaying everything Wotc has achieved. Or the merits of 5E. It's not even a month since the 5E release and your nothing but doom and gloom.
I wouldn't call either of the MMOs huge successes; not failures, but definitely as niche as the system itself. Registered players gets into tricky territory when it comes to MMO anymore because there's no real baseline to measure it off of when every company uses their own metrics of what precisely that means for the game; Neverwinter's business model, like many f2p models, tends to make that particular number less useful. If they've done single player games, that's news to me; I take that back, I vaguely recall one single player game early in 4th edition that was flat out terrible. They're trying, but the level of success is highly debatable; there's nothing since Neverwinter Nights that's really been a clear success.
I have no idea on how successful they were, but According to this wikipedia list there have been many releases since WotC took over. I dont think they have to be very successful to have been more profitable than RPGs.
Similarly, their D&D boardgames have been very well received and I think have to count as a success in the 4E period.
Their output of novels didnt seem to slow down in recent years (although I have no real connection here, so dont know how true that is or whether they've dropped off in sales). The fact people dont necessarily identify Drizz't with D&D isnt very relevant to revenue calculations.
Based on some fragmentary commentary from recent months, I think this is their strategy going forward. To broaden what D&D means from the hardly profitable TTRPG market to the more signifcant "other" markets. It wouldnt surprise me if in several years time WotC's fanbase will be largely computer gamers, boardgamers and novel-readers together with "that odd bunch playing D&D without a computer - how weird".
From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?
That's quite a hyperbole, but there is significantly less choices than in Pathfinder (and I don't mean just due to overall content).
You don't allot skill points each level-- you chose skills and have maximum proficiency in them.
You don't get skill increases and feats every couple levels-- you chose a feat or attribute increase (2 points) every 4 levels.
Archetypes are there but you can't stack them and they are mandatory.
And backgrounds exist to greatly increase variety (giving you proficiency in additional skill and tools while also granting players small thematic benefits).
The game very much stresses roleplay and has systems to encourage it and if embraced characters should still feel perfectly unique. Players interested in more crunch probably will not be interested though.
I'm curious Sunshadow do you have anything good to say about 5E or Wotc? It's like listening to a broken record. We get it you don't like 5E or Wotc. I can respect that even is I don't agree with it. Could not keep repeating yourself by downplaying everything Wotc has achieved. Or the merits of 5E. It's not even a month since the 5E release and your nothing but doom and gloom.
WotC and 5e has done a lot of good things; it clearly appeals to a lot of people. I am impressed that I haven't seen anything that feels like a major failing point; that is a major step forward from both 3rd and 4th edition. In some ways, though, that kind of safe, compromising design does limit it's overall appeal, which has an impact on how well it's likely to do in the broader market, both in the tabletop game and in other endeavors.
My biggest frustration right now is understanding their business plan going forward. They are being massively conservative in the one product and market they have the best chances of getting away with not being conservative, while taking all the risks in areas that they have the least amount of support to recover from any notable failures. They have no core they are trying to build around, it's just put as many products out there as possible and hope enough of them make enough money. It's an odd strategy, even if the tabletop market is a fairly small one; they risk giving up a solid position within the tabletop market to maybe be occasionally competitive in many markets. It may end getting them more raw income for a while, but eventually, it will water down the brand if they don't pick one aspect to be the main focus eventually. To be fair, WotC is not the only company I dislike for following this kind of strategy. In fact, they aren't even the worst company in my mind. It's just that while my excitement for the system is actually growing and if I ever find myself in a group that's playing it, I will join in without hesitation, my excitement for the brand is not keeping pace. That is a large part of many posts that seemingly repeat the same things; it's an effort to figure out precisely where that boundary is and what is causing it.
I don't think they can get away with being more aggressive. At least, it wouldn't be smart for them to. Their last edition was very much like that. It blew up in their face. Sure, they have a great release with the PHB but for their planning right now, they can't have known that for sure. I hope the subsequent releases and feedback keep being good so they can ramp up a release schedule as time goes on. That will take time.
I don't think they can get away with being more aggressive. At least, it wouldn't be smart for them to. Their last edition was very much like that. It blew up in their face. Sure, they have a great release with the PHB but for their planning right now, they can't have known that for sure. I hope the subsequent releases and feedback keep being good so they can ramp up a release schedule as time goes on. That will take time.
Is that time they are going to have? They are going to need to get out at least a standard press release before the DMG comes out, or they will probably lose momentum during the vital quarter following that release. Adventures aren't going to hold the attention of the average player, and even many DMs won't be all that interested. I understand they don't want to flood the market with supplements, but they can't afford to space new books out too far either without losing momentum each book could add to the process. The lack of any new announcements at GenCon, while not a sign for panic, doesn't exactly help the perceptions still being built around the system.
Also, as far being aggressive is concerned, 4E's problem wasn't ultimately that it was aggressive, it was that the aggressiveness was not well framed and supported by the marketing and PR. 3E was in many ways just as aggressive and was ultimately well received, so packaging very clearly makes a difference. I honestly think that if people had been able to get a fuller glimpse of precisely what was coming with 4E, a lot more people would have been accepting of it, rather than getting a major shock at release. At the very least, more people would have known more clearly it wasn't for them and simply said nothing. 5E could have gotten away with being more bold in the changes, given that the play test gave many people a pretty decent idea of what to expect, making it easier to manage expectations and responses. I can understand to some degree why it wasn't, but it's still a bit of a missed opportunity.
From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?
It depends on quite a few factors. For one, are you using Feats? Are you using the PHB races or just Basic races? Are all the sub-paths open? Stuff like that.
So far I've found the mechanical crunch far below that of both v3.5/PF and 4E. Options, especially early at 1st - 3rd level, extremely bare. A 1st level paladin, for example, gets Divine Sense (senses undead, celestial, demonic creatures) and Lay on Hands. That's it. No feats. No prayers or spells, no smite, nothing. So when you roll up your character, your decision points are Abilities, Race, Class [Paladin], Skills, Background, and Gear. That's about it. What differentiates one paladin from another mechanically is the weapons, armor, and backgrounds they choose.
Compare this to 4E's Paladin with 4 at-wills to choose from, 4 encounter powers, 4 Dailies, 1 to 2 feats (which opens other options), weapons, a theme, background, race and possible racial powers that come with it.
And to v3.5 and PF's version where feats and race play a large factor as well. AND you get things like Smite.
But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all fairness a robust system of options is only a great advantage if some choices don't severely outclass others.
For 3rd many feats are just plain bad while others are simply auto picks for a given character type.
In reality 5th ed characters have more options on their turn at first level since they can innately do many things 3rd requires you to have feats to perform.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all fairness a robust system of options is only a great advantage if some choices don't severely outclass others.
For 3rd many feats are just plain bad while others are simply auto picks for a given character type.
In reality 5th ed characters have more options on their turn at first level since they can innately do many things 3rd requires you to have feats to perform.
Yes, some feats were bad (Toughness, for example). Some feats were meh and some where auto-picked. Yet there were a LOT that were chosen for flavor and fun. As for more options, in 5e its largely allowed due to DM fiat. For example your only cleaving if the DM says so. Your only bull rushing and attacking if the DM allows it.
|
|
First gamers complained they were too liberal in the changes and what they did with 4E. I really don't blame Wotc for being conservative. Given how rpgs are not as popular as before and comptetion from other forms of entertainment. Better to be safe imo. As for releasing stuff and hope it sells Paizo is doing the same thing imo. When PF was first released they did not release as many books. Once it took off we have a bunch of stuff that comes out every month.
But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.
Seconded. Players want to make characters asap. If it means less choices than so be it. I don't agree with that type of philosophy yet understand it.
Also, as far being aggressive is concerned, 4E's problem wasn't ultimately that it was aggressive, it was that the aggressiveness was not well framed and supported by the marketing and PR. 3E was in many ways just as aggressive and was ultimately well received, so packaging very clearly makes a difference. I honestly think that if people had been able to get a fuller glimpse of precisely what was coming with 4E, a lot more people would have been accepting of it, rather than getting a major shock at release. At the very least, more people would have known more clearly it wasn't for them and simply said nothing. 5E could have gotten away with being more bold in the changes, given that the play test gave many people a pretty decent idea of what to expect, making it easier to manage expectations and responses. I can understand to some degree why it wasn't, but it's still a bit of a missed opportunity.
I don't know...at this point I say we are left with "Agree to disagree". To me, WoTC business strategy seems mostly sound, and the lack of announcements on rule updates make sense in the context that they are taking the game slow, and might very well be giving the core material breathing space to get comments before pitching the next round of books. Yes, I think They should have said something at Gencon, but I don't feel it will sink them, especially since DnD has more media clout and can probably get the word out without Gencon about upcoming projects.
Also I think the design goals of 5E were pretty successful. It's a simpler game that manages to incorporate aspects of all editions, and has been packaged in an appealing way that front loads lots of races and classes into a single book.
But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.Seconded. Players want to make characters asap. If it means less choices than so be it. I don't agree with that type of philosophy yet understand it.
Couldn't they have also created "packages" for those who don't want to bother with the option minutia? I mean, if someone wants to play a "Knight", there could've been a simple "make these your best scores with this background and class" rather than removing all the other things that someone could take ala-carté. Instead we get two levels of "meh" until most classes first big choice in career path occurs at 3rd level. I know I can always just start at 3rd level but I feel zero-level or pre-level rules would've fit the bill FAR easier.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new PHB is excellent IMO. Streamlined & intuitive but still interesting and complete. I look forward to mixing in a Hoard of the Dragon Queen / Tiamat campaign on nights we don't have a quorum for our usual PF WotR campaign (which, btw, now that we're already up to 7th level / 2nd tier despite only being halfway through book 2 is a seriously awesome AP).
PF has the hyper-granularity my 40-something professional friends want and need (maybe the better word is crave), but this version of D&D will make alternative game night a joy to run.
It's true there's no maps (had to buy the set for Hoards from the artist for $17.50), but for speed I was thinking about accepting the default gridless approach anyway. How weird will that be after all this time: "How far away are they?" They're a closing round away," used to work fine in 1e & 2e, I guess I can get my mind around it again now.
No D&D PDFs for art cannibalization either. Flip maps and PDF artwork are things I love about Paizo products, they just bring the extras in a way D&D never did and never will.
Still, kudos to Wizards and (esp.) Mike Mearls for pulling the franchise out of the fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Couldn't they have also created "packages" for those who don't want to bother with the option minutia? I mean, if someone wants to play a "Knight", there could've been a simple "make these your best scores with this background and class" rather than removing all the other things that someone could take ala-carté. Instead we get two levels of "meh" until most classes first big choice in career path occurs at 3rd level. I know I can always just start at 3rd level but I feel zero-level or pre-level rules would've fit the bill FAR easier.
But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.Seconded. Players want to make characters asap. If it means less choices than so be it. I don't agree with that type of philosophy yet understand it.
Diff, how different would those be from the quick build entries that are already included with every class? If you follow those, the only choices you're required to make are race and class. As for two levels of "meh," I'm a grognard who thinks Fantasy Viet Nam is a feature not a bug, so "meh" me up! :P
From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?
It's interesting because that's exactly what I thought of 4th edition.
Simplifying character generation is essential for making the game more playable. One of the reasons I hesitate to GM pathfinder nowadays is because I simply don't have the time to make NPCs.
|
From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?That's quite a hyperbole, but there is significantly less choices than in Pathfinder (and I don't mean just due to overall content).
You don't allot skill points each level-- you chose skills and have maximum proficiency in them.
You don't get skill increases and feats every couple levels-- you chose a feat or attribute increase (2 points) every 4 levels.
Archetypes are there but you can't stack them and they are mandatory.
And backgrounds exist to greatly increase variety (giving you proficiency in additional skill and tools while also granting players small thematic benefits).The game very much stresses roleplay and has systems to encourage it and if embraced characters should still feel perfectly unique. Players interested in more crunch probably will not be interested though.
It's worth noting that the majority of Pathfinders options are trap options/Timmy cards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that the majority of Pathfinders options are trap options/Timmy cards.From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?That's quite a hyperbole, but there is significantly less choices than in Pathfinder (and I don't mean just due to overall content).
You don't allot skill points each level-- you chose skills and have maximum proficiency in them.
You don't get skill increases and feats every couple levels-- you chose a feat or attribute increase (2 points) every 4 levels.
Archetypes are there but you can't stack them and they are mandatory.
And backgrounds exist to greatly increase variety (giving you proficiency in additional skill and tools while also granting players small thematic benefits).The game very much stresses roleplay and has systems to encourage it and if embraced characters should still feel perfectly unique. Players interested in more crunch probably will not be interested though.
I disagree.
IF you are ONLY optimizing, they may seem like that, and in many instances are, but otherwise, I feel that you can take what an optimizer may consider non-optimal and have a valid and useful character.
In fact, perhaps you have a Fighter that takes toughness at first level...why...for the flavor of what they have in mind (maybe they want a fighter that had just that twinge of more oomph when starting out...who knows).
I think the options may not all be optimal for the road ahead...but the good thing is with a good group...you don't need to be optimizers to play AP's or other things in PF...you can play it as you want.
At least normally....there are some exceptions.
Back on the topic though...5e still hasn't grabbed me yet. I am playing the rogue...a two weapon fighting rogue with a shortsword and dagger.
I've thought maybe I should have tried a rapier instead or something else.
Not to late to change, but combatwise probably went suboptimal in 5e.
Still, even if I were a combat beast...I don't think it would kill the meh feeling. Even with the group, though I enjoy the socializing...I can't stop and wish we were trying out the new classes in the ACG (which I just got), or if we want simpler, just playing C&C instead (which is even simpler and smoother in running IMO than 5e even).
The system right now seems fine...but something just doesn't seem to be coming out and GRABBING me like it did with PF or C&C or even D&D.
Maybe that's my problem (some may call it nostalgia...but PF is rather new to be calling it nostalgia already), I'm waiting for that gotcha moment where it just hits me and I fall in love with the game...thus far it hasn't happened with 5e.
I do see it seems to have struck some in the thread though, and I suppose that's good.
Isaac Daneil - I only disagree in that I also see a lot of ideas culled from 1st and 2nd edition. You're selling it short by saying that it only pulls from 3rd and 4th editions.
I'm guessing he's young enough not to have much experience playing before 3.5 came along about 11 years ago.
Well, we do have an interesting thing going on with the Barbarian. He didn't optimize really either, though he is the biggest dealer of damage in combat really.
He chose to have a sailor background, and as such, he decided to use a trident as his main weapon of choice.
|
|
I'll still play pathfinder but I'm done running it. Alan nailed it. The first time I made a 5e character it felt like I was making that. A character. Not a build trying to optimize a mechanic but a real character. Now stormwind fallacy blah blah blah sure enough but what about the times when you're playing with new players who are your friends? New players require much more rigid bearings to bridge the link between sheet and fictional character. it's super hard to get them excited for playing a fantasy rpg with more convoluted rules than the US tax code. I even have to use a turbo tax software just so character generation doesn't take hours.
I think that's super important. When was the last time a new person joined your game? I mean brand new to dnd. What did their face look like when you showed them all those feats? When you said OK pick one! Oh and it's super important to pick the right one...
5e has been much much easier for players to get the concept of their characters personality and mechanics. That's why I'm using it. Less rules talk and more play.
I copied this over from another thread but I think it points out some potential excitment for folks about 5E. 3E/PF compelxity is nothing to the old hands but its a steep learning curve for the new initiate. I think 5E has a bit of a tighter chargen process which will make it more attractive to some folks, maybe even exciting.