Ok...so for those of you without a grounding in economics (seriously, not a dig):
Paper is expensive. Ink is expensive. Every copy printed carries a marginal cost. Printed books are heavy and bulky. They cost money to store, distribute, and sell. Modern printed books are printed on paper that is chemically unstable.
Conversely, digital copies are free. Displays are getting smaller, cheaper and more ubiquitous every day. In the not so distant-future, we will do away with physical displays altogether with projection or holograms, or possibly by going straight onto the retina.
The simple fact is that printing isn't going to make sense from a resource allocation point-of-view for very much longer.
I think you're missing the demand side of the equation. It's understandable (I can't fathom people's desire for electronic books, for example) but in my case at least, I'm happy to keep paying for books - even though digital is going to be much cheaper.
As an indication of the strength of my feelings, I've spent several thousand dollars a year on RPG products over many years (though that includes miniatures which distorts the picture significantly). If there were only digital offerings, I'm confident I'd have spent nothing.
Whether there are enough people like me to keeps books viable or enough people like you to swing the balance to the point where a mainstream publisher can safely ignore printed media is something of a moot point.
I certainly agree with you that we're both entitled to say what we want, which is probably the most important point from your recent posts. :)
I think you're missing the demand side of the equation. It's understandable (I can't fathom people's desire for electronic books, for example) but in my case at least, I'm happy to keep paying for books - even though digital is going to be much cheaper.
As an indication of the strength of my feelings, I've spent several thousand dollars a year on RPG products over many years (though that includes miniatures which distorts the picture significantly). If there were only digital offerings, I'm confident I'd have spent nothing.
Whether there are enough people like me to keeps books viable or enough people like you to swing the balance to the point where a mainstream publisher can safely ignore printed media is something of a moot point.
I certainly agree with you that we're both entitled to say what we want, which is probably the most important point from your recent posts. :)
My rebuttal to that would be: You aren't going to live forever. Both of my teenage boys, for example, greatly prefer to read on their Kindles. And while it's true that anecdotes aren't data, I do think there is a generational factor at play here...a factor that will probably get stronger over time. After all, it's hard to fall in love with books if you've never seen one. That might sound crazy, but I've actually had a nephew fail to recognize the purpose and nature of a rotary phone.
But some good points have been raised. Although I believe the demise of print is a foregone conclusion, I may well be wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My rebuttal to that would be: You aren't going to live forever. Both of my teenage boys, for example, greatly prefer to read on their Kindles. And while it's true that anecdotes aren't data, I do think there is a generational factor at play here...a factor that will probably get stronger over time. After all, it's hard to fall in love with books if you've never seen one. That might sound crazy, but I've actually had a nephew fail to recognize the purpose and nature of a rotary phone.
But some good points have been raised. Although I believe the demise of print is a foregone conclusion, I may well be wrong.
Yeah, I dont pretend to know which way it's going to go - but I dont particularly care about the market once I'm dead. :)
I just think the cost analysis of print-vs-digital misses a significant element of the economics question.
I had a 3PP argue with me at length once because he couldnt understand my view that a PDF is not a substitute for a book (not even a poor substitue). His view was "I'm giving you all the same information" and I couldnt explain that when I buy a book, I'm not assigning significant value to the information. That's almost an incidental consideration to me (not quite, in that I'll buy an RPG book over a book about fishing, but it doesnt factor in much more than that).
Yeah, I dont pretend to know which way it's going to go - but I dont particularly care about the market once I'm dead. :)
I just think the cost analysis of print-vs-digital misses a significant element of the economics question.
I had a 3PP argue with me at length once because he couldnt understand my view that a PDF is not a substitute for a book (not even a poor substitue). His view was "I'm giving you all the same information" and I couldnt explain that when I buy a book, I'm not assigning significant value to the information. That's almost an incidental consideration to me (not quite, in that I'll buy an RPG book over a book about fishing, but it doesnt factor in much more than that).
Oddly enough, I don't view a PDF as a substitute for a book, either -- yet. The technology isn't quite there. I'm just convinced that it will inevitably get there. For now, however, print and PDF are presently very supplemental -- I want both.
In the case of 5E, though, my frustration goes beyond missing the utility offered by PDFs. The mishandling of 4E still rankles. I just don't have the heart to watch another edition of a game I have played for thirty years get mismanaged into oblivion by clueless, MBA-toting Thurston Howell-alikes.
In the case of 5E, though, my frustration goes beyond missing the utility offered by PDFs. The mishandling of 4E still rankles. I just don't have the heart to watch another edition of a game I have played for thirty years get mismanaged into oblivion by clueless, MBA-toting Thurston Howell-alikes.
Although I dont get the reference, I share the concern.
In my case I'm less pessimistic, since they keep saying there's going to be some form of digital support and some form of Licensing (and I dont share the antipathy to the DDI model that many did - it seems to me you got much better value on a $/page basis, it's just they didnt store the PDFs for you so it was different to the usual method of purchasing PDFs).
It does seem odd that they dont have a clearly articulated position though. Maybe it's an attempt to drive sales of the print books early and then shift to electronic sales as the product matures. Or maybe it's an attempt to foster goodwill with Brick-and-mortar stores - that's one area where WotC presumably have the upper hand in comparison to Paizo (given the latter's subscription model).
Then again, maybe it's just not a big deal to the market overall - the paizo forums are presumably not a representative sample of 5E's intended audience.
Although I dont get the reference, I share the concern.
I can honestly say, that when print books become no more (as in, everything switches to digital and no new physical product is being made) is the day that I stop. Same with movies and video games. Music I don't really give a damn about because I have never liked every single song on an album, save for 3 albums (Linkin Park's "Hybrid Theory" and "Meteora", and Evanescence's "Fallen"), so digital music I have no problem with. But that's because staring at a screen is getting on my nerves.
I am happy for those that enjoy digital books, movies, games, etc., and hope they can continue to get it. But I have found a lot of digital enthusiasts don't share those feelings towards those of us that do not enjoy it. It's already hard enough for me to find physical copies of PC games.
I am sure 5th edition will get digital versions of their books sometime early-ish next year (within the first 6 months), so WotC get's their desired amount of physical sales of the 3 core books. Once the DMG is out for 2-3 months, I expect them to say something about digital.
Yes, and I still have that option, only it is going to take a separate distribution contract, and I haven't made up my mind about that yet, and the fact the hard copy editions were a disaster (turns out I am a terrible writer, go figure).
Pretty much every successful author ever has been rejected time and again, both by publishers and in the market. Just because you haven't found success yet doesn't mean you won't.
My recent issue with not being smart enough to keep up with Pathfinder is all the new "extra" bits offered to give certain classes that special quality.
What do we have nowMonks - Ki
Gun fighters - Grit
Swashbucklers - panacheand I think there are others.
When will we actually see
Chutzpah
Snark
Gumption
I can understand the later half of the post, but not as much when it is started with this because unique abilities are everywhere in class based games and 5th edition is no exception.
Barbarian - Rages (uses based on level, recover on long rest)
Bard - Bardic Inspiration (uses based on Charisma, recover on long rest)
Cleric - Channel Divinity (uses based on level, recover on short rest)
Druid - Wild Shape (2 uses per short rest)
Fighter - Action Surge/Superiority Dice (Increase with level, recover on short rest)
Monk - Ki Points (uses increase with level, recover on short rest)
Paladin - Lay on Hands (uses increase with level, recover on long rest)
Sorcerer - Sorcery Points (uses increase with level, recover on long rest, interacts with spells)
Warlock - Spell Slots/Spells/Invocations (uses increase with level, recover some on short rest, some on long rest)
Ranger - None
Rogue - None
Wizard - None for the most part, but you are a wizard.
I certainly could do a very similar bit with Pathfinder class list with similar results and compare the classes (like the Pathfinder Paladin which has many different daily resources to they have to manage compared to the 5th edition Paladin), but you can't say that Pathfinder is more likely to tap into the Chutzpah points compared to 5th edition.
If there were gunslingers in 5th edition, I could easily see them with grit points and the same thing with panache for swashbucklers.
|
I spent about 20 minutes yesterday looking at pictures of thingies in the 5e Monster Manual, and I enjoyed them all greatly.
I have also spent lots of time looking at the awesome character portraits at Minotaur Character sheets, so I'd call it even.
Mechanically, I find 5e much faster, and simpler, which is good, considering the fact that I'm mostly playing with less expirienced players. However, the fact that a guy picked up the PHB and managed to start running The Lost Mines of Phantelever (don't know if that's how you spell it) in a week, with no need to reference the rules more than once per session, is quite amazing.
For now, I dislike the low amount of customisation options in 5e, but understand the fact that it is (mostly) meant to be played in WotC's universes, but some things are quite lacking. I was, however, able to play a sneaky, double-hatcheting, pickpocketing and lying paladin, with just the GM allowing me to use Two Weapon as a fighting skill, so that's also pretty cool.
I also slightly dislike the fact that Dex is a really, really good stat in 5e. If I can provide some suggestions, if you're DMing 5e, please enforce the (much, much improved) carrying capacity rules *dodges rotten vegetables*, because people who made the choice to be Str-based are, honestly, kind of screwed.
If you are not a casting class, you can get away with starting with 20 in the stat, if you're not using arrays. if that stat is Dex, you can have just 1 less AC than the guy in full flate, while still having advantages, such as being able to stealth, doing more damage (because you have +5 modifier on your bow/rapier), spending much, much less money, and most likely more HP as well, due to higher Con. The only two advantages a high Str guy would have is his carrying capacity and his ability to initiate maneouvres. You can protect with Dex against them too.
As a whole, I'm quite interested in 5e, but I feel it needs quite a bit more material to be the game for me. Also, I am hoping that WotC will put out some more content, but not in the way of "There's some new stuff, doing the same thing as the last thing." Also, some new exotic weapons (guns, mostly), and maybe some ship rules, but I can't think of anything else obvious right now.
TL;DR: Simple in a good way, Somewhat lacking in options, Martials good(and simple), Dexterity much too good while Mental stats fixed.
|
I also slightly dislike the fact that Dex is a really, really good stat in 5e. If I can provide some suggestions, if you're DMing 5e, please enforce the (much, much improved) carrying capacity rules *dodges rotten vegetables*, because people who made the choice to be Str-based are, honestly, kind of screwed.
This actually is the one thing that really bothers me in 5E. Dex is a god stat, for certain. The only real way STR has an advantage is from the Great Weapon Master feat, and that's STILL pathetic compared to the ranged-equivalent Sharpshooter feat.
I'll probably still go STR when I feel it fits the character concept, but I don't like feeling gimped for it.
I also slightly dislike the fact that Dex is a really, really good stat in 5e. If I can provide some suggestions, if you're DMing 5e, please enforce the (much, much improved) carrying capacity rules *dodges rotten vegetables*, because people who made the choice to be Str-based are, honestly, kind of screwed.
This actually is the one thing that really bothers me in 5E. Dex is a god stat, for certain. The only real way STR has an advantage is from the Great Weapon Master feat, and that's STILL pathetic compared to the ranged-equivalent Sharpshooter feat.
I'll probably still go STR when I feel it fits the character concept, but I don't like feeling gimped for it.
I can understand, but i see where they were going with the Dex thing, but I think that was done to up Weapon Finesse from past editions to also give a damage bump to Dex-based characters as well, and it's only with finesse weapons, so I think the damage of a STR-based vs. Dex-based characetr should be about equal.
i actually do like the new saving throw system, as you really cant have a true dump stat.
And the new ability score limitations are excellent. Not being able to go above 20 without magical means or a feat/class feature is a nice wat to tone down the rediculousness a little.
Overall I think they did a great job with the books so far. I mean, even the monsters in the MM get these cool little abilities that makes them a bit more challenging than "oh, it's a couple of goblins. No biggie".
I like the new saving throw system in theory; in practice, the number of effects targeting each save needs to be normalized.
I like the new saving throw system in theory; in practice, the number of effects targeting each save needs to be normalized.
Sorry, by normalized do you mean that the saves per ability score need to be more evenly spread out, hopefully effectively eliminating true dump stats without a very real consequence? I may have misinterpreted.
I like the new saving throw system in theory; in practice, the number of effects targeting each save needs to be normalized.Sorry, by normalized do you mean that the saves per ability score need to be more evenly spread out, hopefully effectively eliminating true dump stats without a very real consequence? I may have misinterpreted.
It's funny the evolution, if you will, of the saving throw. In 1e/2e, there were 5 that were set and very little affected them except for character level and some racial/magic item effects. Then in 3e/3.x/PF, it went to 3, with tons of things to modify it. Then to 4e, with the saves becoming targetable defenses like AC. Now with 5e, basically every Ability score is a save, with very little modifying that. It's been a very interesting ride.
I like the new saving throw system in theory; in practice, the number of effects targeting each save needs to be normalized.Sorry, by normalized do you mean that the saves per ability score need to be more evenly spread out, hopefully effectively eliminating true dump stats without a very real consequence? I may have misinterpreted.
You have it right. The spells in the PHB, for example, are heavily skewed toward Wis (Will), Dex (Reflex), and Con (Fortitude) saves. I wish they have been more evenly distributed.
You have it right. The spells in the PHB, for example, are heavily skewed toward Wis (Will), Dex (Reflex), and Con (Fortitude) saves. I wish they have been more evenly distributed.I like the new saving throw system in theory; in practice, the number of effects targeting each save needs to be normalized.Sorry, by normalized do you mean that the saves per ability score need to be more evenly spread out, hopefully effectively eliminating true dump stats without a very real consequence? I may have misinterpreted.
Excellent. And I absolutely agree, I wish they wouldve made it so there are no "dumpable" stats without possibly severe consequences. It's fun to make the Wizard who has a 10 STR nervous when you say "everyone make a Strength save" LOL. Maybe they will come out with a "Spell Compendium"-type book that will add more spells and fix the skew.
I think one of the reasons the saves in 5e were not evenly distributed is that many creatures, like animals for instance, have some stats that are always low (like intelligence). This makes them extremely vulnerable to spells that target that stat.
That being said, the percentage of STR, INT, and CHA save spells being lower just means that the ones that target those stats will be more frequently used.
Personally, I really like the stat-buy system. The cap of 15 on a starting stat, and the way the costs are weighted, feels like it encourages me to end up with a much more well-rounded character compared to point-buy in earlier editions.
The 5e point-buy chart is simply an adaptation of the Pathfinder point-buy chart; except that it uses 8 as the base instead of 10, and it limits itself to ability scores 8 through 15.
The default 27 point buy is equal to Pathfinder's 15 point buy.
Still, I do like 5e's default assumption that the ability scores you can buy are 8 through 15, for balance purposes. (I use this with my own players.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I really like the stat-buy system. The cap of 15 on a starting stat, and the way the costs are weighted, feels like it encourages me to end up with a much more well-rounded character compared to point-buy in earlier editions.The 5e point-buy chart is simply an adaptation of the Pathfinder point-buy chart; except that it uses 8 as the base instead of 10, and it limits itself to ability scores 8 through 15.Or more accurately, of the 3.5 point-buy chart, except for the limits. Since PF copied from that and changed the start from 8 to 10.
That isn't the case. The point buy chart isn't part of the OGL so when Pathfinder they created a similar but different chart. Comparing Pathfinder point buy to the chart from my 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide shows that they link up until 14 at which point the Pathfinder chart is a bit more costly than it's predecessor with the gap growing slowly until the end.
The 5th edition point buy chart does however match the Pathfinder Point Buy chart once you normalize it to 8. Though as I was originally going to respond to The Rot Grub, I don't think that is a terribly accurate description to call the 5th edition version an adaptation of from Pathfinder. If you look at the 4th edition point buy and start from 8, that also matches the point buy costs in 5th edition (it however doesn't match Pathfinder as they deviate from one another at 16).
Even if they did match, it is still a very small chart. There are not many combination you can rework a point buy chart while keeping the numbers trivial easy to manage.
|
|
Additional thoughts after playing a few more 5E sessions. Some of these are just observations, rather than a judgment on whether it's superior to PF:
Rangers suck
Wow, do they suck. After years of getting used to Fighters being such a disappointment that I'd just play a Ranger, I'm finding the reverse to be true. There's nothing a Ranger gets that a Fighter won't do better. And the new Favored Enemy bonuses are so situational that they'll almost never be used at most tables. The Beast Master archetype is the lamest thing I've ever seen. You sacrifice your attack to make your companion take a (much weaker) attack. Perhaps someone here sees something I don't, since I'm still new to it obviously, but I can't find much redeemable about them. Seems like Rangers are the Rogue/Monk of 5E. Speaking of which -
Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are kind of spectacular
Part of that, of course, is the new feat system. But also considering the bonded accuracy and the Monks Dex-to-Attack/Damage option being built into the class, you have a pretty amazing build from Level 1. A TWF Fighter is probably the best damage option at early levels, with a Dueling fighter coming in close behind. Rogues are at the top of the skills again, providing something very different from Bards. (Excellent mods in a couple of important skills for the Rogue versus good mods in all of them for the Bard.) And with the way crits work now, more damage dice is actually better than a flat modifier.
Magic is broken, still
I think I see where they were going with this. The idea is that, even with bonded accuracy, a Fighter will put more points into Dex/Str than a Wizard, and have more weapon options, so he'll come out ahead. Which he does, kinda --- but really, a Sorc/Wiz will probably use a finesse weapon and pump Dex, so it's all the same. Spells (especially Cantrips) should've been weakened or their accuracy dropped.
Magic is improved, kinda
A lot of 1st-Level spells are actually weaker now, but they also work in a better way. QED, I'm playing a Cleric with the War Domain in a friend's game. One of my 1st level spells is Divine Favor, which lets me add 1d4 Radiant(Holy) damage to each of my attacks for 1-minute. Not really that much, but it also lets me cast as a bonus action - so I get to cast and attack. I love this. It's not system-breakingly powerful, but it lets me buff at the beginning of combat and do damage in a way that highlights how my battle cleric is different from a strict martial.
The difference is very GM/Player dependent
I know, that seems obvious. But the two biggest mechanics in the game - Advantage and Inspiration - require the GM to remember and use them. They aren't built into stat blocks or attacks the way most PF bonuses are. Last game we played our GM didn't remember either and it played very similar to a Pathfinder session, but with smaller total numbers. I forgot during an encounter with some Worgs and found my players stomping over it like they often do with PF characters. (Those pack tactics probably would've ripped the group to shreds, in retrospect.) When I remembered to use Inspiration, I saw a profound change in the behavior of my players. You will always have the different gaming types, but my combat-lovers were thinking through ways to fight *in-character*, rather than just trying to find the "best" options. 5E is a lot easier to learn to play than PF, but I think it requires much more advanced GMing --- you need to be at a level where you're comfortable taking a lot of initiative yourself. Even a module will require you to think on your feet and be on the lookout for opportunities to foster role-play or play up smart tactics so your baddies can have Advantage/negate Disadvantage to provide a real challenge.
It is much easier to say, "Hey, great RP with your action, you regain Inspiration" rather than saying, "Hey, great RP, let me spend a few minutes thinking up a good way to reward that or a way to make your stunt work or etc".
This is perfectly doable in any system. 5E may make it a bit easier in that particular area because it provides a single mechanic to do so, but I've played with many DMs in many different systems, including 3.x/PF, who have done similar things with virtually no difficulty or extra time required. It's an interesting mechanic, but far from groundbreaking and unique.
I did not read through all the replies here, so I apologize in advance if I repeat anything that has already been posted.
For the OGL, when I was paying attention to the playtest and reading the weekly columns and Q&A's that Mearls and Co posted, I remember one where he was asked about the OGL and he said maybe Jan or Feb, though he was not allowed to give more specifics at the time. They basically wanted all of the core books out first, so that 3rd party companies could have all the official printed rules to make compatible product with.
As for the actual question in the title of this thread, I prefer 5th because of the streamlining and simplification that has been, and can be, done with the rules. Sometimes you want to play something detailed and complex and sometimes you just want something that is quick and easy, especially if you are introducing it to someone new to gaming.
By the way, anyone know when 5th Edition will get it's own sub-forum so that it can be distanced from 4th Edition?
Why does it need to be distanced from 4th edition?
|
|
Why does it need to be distanced from 4th edition?
So people can discuss each edition separately?
So that those who wish to discuss 4th edition for example, do not have to wade through thread after thread of people talking almost exclusively about 5th edition; kind like "3.5/d20/OGL" has its own forum for that same reason (i.e. placing like topics with other like topics)...
|
|
This forum is the one for threads about all editions of D&D that aren't 3e. That includes older as well as newer editions. Unless there are going to be separate forums for 1e/2e/BECM, I don't see why 5e should get one or need one.
Actually, prior to 4th edition, THIS sub-forum did not exist. It was created whole-cloth specifically for discussions about 4th edition. Talk concerning prior editions to 3rd (because the "3.5/d20/OGL" sub-forum already existed), was typically handled in the "Other RPGs" forum, and it wasn't until the D&D Next playtest, that the "(and Beyond)" moniker was added to THIS sub-forum's name...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I hate to pose such an off topic question, but how is it handled at WotC? Do they have any "Talk about Pathfinder" or "Talk about other versions of D&D" forums. I can't access their site on most of the computers I use
I do not see any forums on their site for anything other than their products. But that makes sense, since they only sell their products. Paizo has forums for other products because they sell gaming stuff other than Pathfinder.
They have a 5th edition section, D&D Community section (which has their 4th edition subforums), D&D Worlds (with "other published worlds" subforum where I would assume there's talk of Pathfinder), 4th edition Errata forum, and D&D Previous Editions forum area.
None that specifically call out Pathfinder. Looking through Other Published Worlds section, there are no threads about Pathfinder on the first page (with the last thread dating august 2011). Of course, it seems there is some rather excessive hatred towards Pathfinder from a number of forum-goers over there. More than the anti-4th edition spewers on this forum.
So, it doesn't look like there is any subforum for Pathfinder on the WotC forums. Of course, there isn't a store on their website that also sells other things. Also of note, it is understandable that Paizo has the 3rd edition/d20/ogl forum on here since they started out with that, but they had no reason to add this one in other than they wanted to. Which makes me like Paizo that much more.
|
I do not see any forums on their site for anything other than their products.
RPGs General Discussion on Wizards forums.
Why does it need to be distanced from 4th edition?So people can discuss each edition separately?
So that those who wish to discuss 4th edition for example, do not have to wade through thread after thread of people talking almost exclusively about 5th edition; kind like "3.5/d20/OGL" has its own forum for that same reason (i.e. placing like topics with other like topics)...
What' so hard about putting a [4e] or [5e/Next] tag in the topic description line?
"Lets talk about Warforged [4E]"
"Lets talk about Tieflings [5e]"
pretty easy to figure out which edition the topic wants to discuss....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"let's talk about why 'Dwarf' should be a class and not a race" [BECMI]
no, seriously let's talk about that?
Because Dwarves are all class!