Paizo puts out 2 APs per year, just like what WotC plans to do. The difference is Pazio seperates them into 6 nearly 100 page softcover adventures (at $22.99 each) for the print version, or about $15.99 for the pdfs (which WotC doesn't offer). So, for around 600 pages, you can pay $137.94 spread over 6 months, or you can spend (looking at Amazon) $32.99 (with strikethrough text of $49.99) for 255 pages. Going with the full $50 price (these don't include tax or such), you pay about $0.23 per page for Paizo APs, and about $0.20 per page for Princes of the Apocalypse. Of course, they could split it up like with Tyranny of Dragons, which would cost you more. This also takes into account a printed version of the Paizo AP.
Of course, the quality of these products really determine if the price is worth it or not, and that differs from person to person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh*
Just once, I'd love it if we could talk about D&D without talking about Pathfinder and vice versa. Ditto (but even moreseo) with discussing Paizo and WotC.
They're different companies, making different games for different audiences. As I understand it, so far 5E has been a terrific success and Pathfinder sales haven't dipped in response. What's not to be glad about, no matter what game you play?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to be as objective as possible, I think a lot of gamers still bear a lot of animosity towards WOTC for the poor execution of their transition from 3E to 4E, and want to see them fail.
I admit I was biased against 4E for precisely that reason. I eventually got roped into playing it and bought a fair number of hardcovers and modules. But it just wasn't as good as Pathfinder or 3.5 in my experience, so I focused on Pathfinder.
Having done that once, it's extremely hard to want to go back and do it again, even if it appears WOTC has put out in 5E a far superior gaming experience to 4e.
Enough time has passed for me that I now longer begrudge WOTC their success, and in fact recognize it is better for gamers as a whole for them to be successful, to bring in new participants.
So back to the topic at hand, I do feel that WOTC in not putting out more adventures is limiting growth opportunities, in that I believe that a sizeable proportion of old and new gamers would like to have more adventures available.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only disappointment with the interview is that apparently they are going to only focus on one setting at a time, and they have started with the Forgotten Bloat...er...Realms. Which essentially means they probably won't ever move on to one of the settings I give a damn about (Greyhawk, Spelljammer, or Ravenloft are my official D&D settings of choice).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough (I did pay cold, hard cash for the printed copy). I guess I don't really see what's missing out of it - granted there's no classes (or new paths) this time around, but that doesn't seem to have been ruled out as such, going forward.
I appreciate the perspective anyhow - as I said, I'm not trying to persuade anyone, just understand. It sounds to me like pathfinder is the best choice for you and I'm personally glad that the two systems are serving different markets in that way.
That dude in the interview said "story" so much it kind of lost all meaning. >_> Sorry, two adventures a year is not enough. What a depressing interview.Yet some people here can't stop fanwanking over Paizo's APs. The Module line is an afterthought for both the fans and the company.
And how many of those APs does Paizo put out per year? Let me get out my counting fingers....
Since nobody was able to confirm how big a "story" is your comment does not mean much right now.
I'm lucky enough to be able to sample lots of different systems. Sadly I never get time to play them all. In that respect, even paizo don't put out enough stuff for me. :)
As far as the interview goes, I'll be interested to see how the splatbook situation develops. He said they were going to listen to the fans in that regard. It seems to me that there's strong demand for more mechanical options. Time will tell whether that is any more than lip service.
Since nobody was able to confirm how big a "story" is your comment does not mean much right now.That dude in the interview said "story" so much it kind of lost all meaning. >_> Sorry, two adventures a year is not enough. What a depressing interview.Yet some people here can't stop fanwanking over Paizo's APs. The Module line is an afterthought for both the fans and the company.
And how many of those APs does Paizo put out per year? Let me get out my counting fingers....
Tyrranny of Dragons was about 160 pages of adventure material (not counting the appendices which had the statblocks and Magic items, nor the online material).
Princes of the Apocalypse had 180 pages (also excluding appendices and the PDFS material).
I'd rank them as "about the same" size. Part of the increased page count in the latter story was due to a "side quest" section, so it seems likely a group wouldn't use all of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I have mentioned many times in threads discussing 5th edition, this is the best edition WotC has put out (yes, even better than 3rd edition, and I loved that edition). Seeing such poor support for the RPG from WotC (I believe mainly because of Hasbro) greatly saddens me. Like I said earlier, I feel WotC is shackled by the Neverwinter mmorpg. Yes, Neverwinter Online is made by another company, but that doesn't mean they don't have that game's "hands" wrapped around their throats. If anyone here has followed that game, it follows closely to 5th edition. When the new edition's PHB was released, we also saw the release of Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure. About that time, Neverwinter Online released the first portion of their Tyranny of Dragons "module" storyline. Rise of Tiamat gets released in October, Neverwinter Online released the final portion of that storyline. They announce their Elemental Evil storyline around December. March rolls around, WotC says the Princes of the Apocalypse adventure is being delayed until April 7th. What does Neverwinter Online devs do? They make up some excuse to justify them pushing the release of their Elemental Evil storyline back to April (magically releasing April 7th, just like the print adventure), without saying "WotC pushed back their adventure release, so we are being told we must wait to release the patch until the print adventure releases."
While the release of the Neverwinter Online patches seems to be dependant on the print release, the frequency seems to be dictated by the mmorpg. It takes quite a bit of time to create something for the computer game, which I feel is why they will only be releasing adventures every 6 months or so, and nothing else. Maybe if Hasbro canned the Neverwinter Online game, or the interdependence of the tabletop and that game, and had one created based on the 5th edition rules, then maybe we would see more "splat books" for the tabletop. I feel this is a big contributing factor in why they are focusing on Forgotten Realms to the exclusion of any other setting (including Eberron)
I have no evidence of any of this, and it is all based on impressions I have been getting these past few months. There is a rather large outcry for more splat books. Are people clammoring for the amount released for 3rd or 4th editions? No, but they do want some. I don't care if we don't get another PHB. I would love more class options, race options, and spells. They don't have to be in another 300 page PHB. Give me theme based 40-or-so page softcover books for $10-15, with race/class/spell options around certain themes (like elemental, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc), along with a monster book around the same theme (like Monsters of Faerun). I get tired of seeing people say "But there are thousands of combinations you can play in the PHB. Have you played them all already? Why would you need more?" Please smack yourself with a nail covered bat. Not every concept someone wants to play can be recreated by the limited options offered in the PHB. What if someone wants to play a psionic character? A sorcerer that isn't descended from dragons or sows chaos wherever it goes? A cleric who worships a water deity?
I have not seen anyone say they want what happened with 3rd edition, but I have seen many people say they don't want ANY new options for classes or races and such, and those that do can just suck it, despite those who don't want more can just ignore those and not use them.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since nobody was able to confirm how big a "story" is your comment does not mean much right now.
Maybe they just don't have a set size. That way, the authors don't have to pad or compress their vision.
Tyrranny of Dragons was about 160 pages of adventure material (not counting the appendices which had the statblocks and Magic items, nor the online material).
Princes of the Apocalypse had 180 pages (also excluding appendices and the PDFS material).
Due to my disinterest in the Forgettable Realms, I haven't picked either of them up. It should be noted that about half of each AP book isn't adventure, it's gazetteers, fiction, monsters, etc. So saying that an AP is 600 pages of adventure is disingenuous at best. It's much closer to 300.
Due to 5e's relative simplicity, I find it very easy to run it with adventures from ANY edition. Hell, I find it easy to run with non-D&D adventures as well. Really, the only rule supplements I feel a great need for is more monsters. Because you can never have enough monsters. I'd love it if they put out enough monster books where EVERY SINGLE MONSTER that has ever been created for any edition of D&D was given a 5e version.
|
I have felt a particular dearth, as I finally read through the current Monster Manual, of creatures of challenge rating above 8. Outside of some iconic examples, there are few that inhabit the space above CR 10. It would seem that even in this the game favors lower level play. Perhaps that is by design, but it is here that I foresee more growth being most necessary.
I'm surprised they haven't licensed the other settings out.
Of course, the edition is young, so they still may do so, but they have so many settings that I would think this would be the way to go.
Pick a trusted partner (like Kobold Press) and let them run with Greyhawk or Planescape or Ravenloft....
Not that I'm playing 5E, but the problem I have with "story story story" is that I prefer site-based adventures (Rappan Athuk, Slumbering Tsar) where story is not the primary driver.
Of course, should they decide to use the OGL (or similar license), any such criticism instantly goes away as others could take up such a mantle.
|
|
Of course, should they decide to use the OGL (or similar license), any such criticism instantly goes away as others could take up such a mantle.
Partially. Even with the OGL, they would have to license out the settings. A 3PP, even with the benefit of the OGL, can't just throw the Greyhawk name onto their products.
137ben - They also licensed out Ravenloft during 3e.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find 3.5 to be very "non-D&Dish" - one of the reasons I prefer 5E (and preferred 4E-post essentials) is that it felt more like what I grew up with - a kind of hodge-podge of 0E and 1st edition AD&D.
I think it's all dependant on what core things you consider to constitute "being D&D". Character customisation over random determination feels much more to me like GURPS than D&D to me. Similarly with the rewarding of hyper-specialisation.
3.5's emphasis on objective rules subsystems and de-emphasis of DM fiat is another stumbling block for me when I play it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find 3.5 to be very "non-D&Dish" - one of the reasons I prefer 5E (and preferred 4E-post essentials) is that it felt more like what I grew up with - a kind of hodge-podge of 0E and 1st edition AD&D.
I think it's all dependant on what core things you consider to constitute "being D&D". Character customisation over random determination feels much more to me like GURPS than D&D to me. Similarly with the rewarding of hyper-specialisation.
3.5's emphasis on objective rules subsystems and de-emphasis of DM fiat is another stumbling block for me when I play it.
Agreed. To me, 5E is the first edition since 2000 that has felt like D&D.
I think every edition "feels" like D&D, just in different ways. Each one has its own distinction on what what it focuses on but overall, the game pretty much plays the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing D&D since 1979, finding something good in every system. And 5th edition has finally done what even 4E couldn't manage, and driven me away from my very first RPG.I'm scratching my head at this statement. You stayed for 4E, but not for 5E? Nothing can match the perfection that is 3.PF, but at least 5E feels like D&D. When I was thumbing through 4E's PH, I actually closed the book to make sure I was actually reading a D&D book, it was so alien to me.
Perfection........? Now THAT is the real head scratcher
This interview rubbed me the wrong way. It had a very 'corporate America' feel to it, and left me a bit discouraged for the future of 5e.
In contrast when I've read/heard interview from Mike Mearls or Jeremy Crawford I've liked what I heard. They at least sound like gamers.
He wasn't talking about WotC finances, he was talking about the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find 3.5 to be very "non-D&Dish" - one of the reasons I prefer 5E (and preferred 4E-post essentials) is that it felt more like what I grew up with - a kind of hodge-podge of 0E and 1st edition AD&D.
I think it's all dependant on what core things you consider to constitute "being D&D". Character customisation over random determination feels much more to me like GURPS than D&D to me. Similarly with the rewarding of hyper-specialisation.
3.5's emphasis on objective rules subsystems and de-emphasis of DM fiat is another stumbling block for me when I play it.Agree absolutely, Steve.
D&D 5th feels like D&D to me, unlike many previous editions.
Except...
... they released stuff for other editions.
Which is why I'm here. PF/3.5 is far from perfect for me. But it's still alive.
I'd have to disagree. 3.5 and even PF feels more like D&D than 5e (which is still pick and multiclass as you want, with a ton of unnecessary skills...but now...Wizards can hit the same as a fighter because they both get a +6... AT LEVEL 20 for goodness sake).
Of course, PF and 3.5 don't really feel like the AD&D and OD&D stuff to me either (they are like...completely separate and different games).
So...take that as you will...but if given a choice between which feels more like D&D to me, 5e or 3e or PF...I'll go with a 3e or PF choice every time.
What's odd is people say they don't feel like 4e was like D&D, but then turn around and say 5e does...did they play the same 4e I did?
5e is basically taking the same concepts of 4e and doing away with the daily and encounter powers (well for the most part, they still have a limited version of that in 5e but call it other items). Heck, they even have the basic same armor system in place...and even the same abilities to hit are there, but instead of having it ability reliant (so whereas in 4e a Rogue may use DEX for martial attacks while a Cleric uses WIS for martial attacks and a Fighter uses STR...they all use the same bonded accuracy stuff instead now).
At first I was on the fence, but the more I've played it, the more I've decided I don't like 5e, and much of that is because it DOES NOT feel like D&D to me.
Granted, as I stated before 3e and it's descendants didn't feel like AD&D or BECMI to me.
On top of that, AD&D and BECMI don't feel like the OD&D (with just the three booklets...after you add in ALL the supplements, OD&D actually DOES feel a lot like AD&D) to me either.
But 4e actually feels far more like 5e than 5e feels like D&D (or at least OD&D to AD&D).
The biggest difference for me...I actually enjoyed playing 4e (still do) whereas I really haven't had fun playing in a 5e campaign thus far, and I'm pretty sure it's not the DM.
Give me PF any day over 5e for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my view, 5E essentially plays like levels 5-9 (maybe 5-11) of AD&D over 20 levels. (The so-called "sweet spot" of the 1E/2E game.)
I think if playing levels 5-11 in AD&D was your favorite level range to play, then you're going to love (or, at least like) 5E.
Yeah, that's a good summation, I think (as far as it's possible to summarise such things). I find 5E PCs a little too powerful for my tastes, but once AD&D characters get up to name levels I feel the same way.
I find 3.5 to be very "non-D&Dish" - one of the reasons I prefer 5E (and preferred 4E-post essentials) is that it felt more like what I grew up with - a kind of hodge-podge of 0E and 1st edition AD&D.
I think it's all dependant on what core things you consider to constitute "being D&D". Character customisation over random determination feels much more to me like GURPS than D&D to me. Similarly with the rewarding of hyper-specialisation.
3.5's emphasis on objective rules subsystems and de-emphasis of DM fiat is another stumbling block for me when I play it.Agree absolutely, Steve.
D&D 5th feels like D&D to me, unlike many previous editions.
Except...
... they released stuff for other editions.
Which is why I'm here. PF/3.5 is far from perfect for me. But it's still alive.
I'd have to disagree. 3.5 and even PF feels more like D&D than 5e (which is still pick and multiclass as you want, with a ton of unnecessary skills...but now...Wizards can hit the same as a fighter because they both get a +6... AT LEVEL 20 for goodness sake).
Of course, PF and 3.5 don't really feel like the AD&D and OD&D stuff to me either (they are like...completely separate and different games).
So...take that as you will...but if given a choice between which feels more like D&D to me, 5e or 3e or PF...I'll go with a 3e or PF choice every time.
What's odd is people say they don't feel like 4e was like D&D, but then turn around and say 5e does...did they play the same 4e I did?
5e is basically taking the same concepts of 4e and doing away with the daily and encounter powers (well for the most part, they still have a limited version of that in 5e but call it other items). Heck, they even have the basic same armor system in place...and even the same abilities to hit are there, but instead of having it ability reliant (so whereas in 4e a Rogue may use DEX for martial attacks while a Cleric uses WIS for martial attacks and a Fighter uses STR...they...
What do you consider is entailed by "feeling like D&D?
What do you consider is entailed by "feeling like D&D?
Overall, those are different things to different people, but when you get to it...here are some key items that signify D&D to me in it's feel.
4 key classes or groups - Fighters, Clerics, Magic-Users, and Thieves. Almost all other characters can fall into one of those four groups. (5e has this).
General Elves are better at Dexterity and have bad constitution, General Dwarves have good Constitution and can be bad at CHA, Halflings have good DEX and bad STR, and Humans tend to be the baseline. (5e fails at this as for starters, the baseline of each of the 4 core races is actually two fold, and those two choices have at least one choice which varies from tradition).
Fighters get better at hitting than everyone else. This is represented typically by them getting what is equivalent of a +1 to hit at every level to show that they get a LOT better at hitting things quickly, far quicker than someone like a Wizard (not represented by 5e).
Fighters get at least a D10 to HP typically, and can use any weapon and any armor. They have more HP than anyone else.
Theives have at a lot lower HP than fighters, but are normally a second tier in regards to fighting. They are not as good at fighting or hitting as Fighters (so they do not get a +1 every level to hit) but they are NOT as bad as spellcasters. (5e does not replicate this)
Thieves get a LOT of abilities that they eventually excel at (though not necessarily at first). Everyone might be able to move quietly or Hide behind objects or see if they can hear people speaking or moving, but Thieves get an extra chance and better ability eventually. These would be normal rogue skills such as Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Open Locks, Climb Walls, Pick Pockets, Find and Remove Traps, Read Languages (eventually even Magical), Detect Noise and so forth. These are done by a percentile roll which represents that they are almost useless in using these skills above and beyond others at first, but eventually become masters of their craft. (Neither 5e nor PF replicate this percentile skill thing nor that these are skills that are above and beyond the normal character's chance to do similar items, the Rogue can do the normal person's thing, their skills, or BOTH [which means for some DM's it gives them multiple chances]).
Spellcasting is relatively simple. The spellcaster has multiple slots to cast spells per day. Normally they memorize these spells. These spells come from a list which they are either granted or have in their collection. A spellcaster memorizes these spells to the slots and then can cast them. There is no other "special" limitation on these slots like 5e. (obviously as I specified it, 5e does NOT replicate this system).
Spellcasters can be disrupted in the middle of their spells if they are hit or take damage (neither 5e or PF replicate this system).
Clerics are also second tier in fighting, similar to thieves. They can wear any armor. They can be restricted in weapons, typically only able to use blunt weaponry. They typically have a D8 HD. (Neither 5e or PF replicate this. 2e also did not replicate this, though a DM could tailor it to do so).
Clerics gain spells from their Deity and cast spells in that manner. They use Holy symbols. They can turn undead (or control them if evil).
Magic-users are the worst at fighting. This is represented by them having the worst to hit bonuses (or their + to hit gain per level is the worst compared to anyone else). They also tend to have HP which is lower then anyone else and the lowest gain of the game. (5e does not replicate this).
Magic users have spellbooks. These spellbooks contain their spells. This is where they gather their spells to cast each day.
The above list is a VERY BASIC list of VERY SIMPLE AND CORE ideas of what makes D&D...D&D from the Greyhawk Pamphlets onwards to AD&D. As you can see, 5e fails at a majority of the items as it doesn't replicate them. PF fails to replicate some, but is FAR MORE successful at replication than 5e.
My list is far longer, but I think just showing some of the VERY BASIC items demonstrates why I consider PF far closer to the feel of D&D than 5e.
That's far more specific than my take on "feels like D&D". This is more like "Is AD&D". It seems like you're focusing more on specific details than on how things actually play. Fighters may not get a +1 to hit at every level, but they're still much better at fighting, which is the important part - they attack more often, do more damage, etc.
And I still think 4E breaks more of that list than 5E does. (At least in the original Core rules. I didn't really look at most of the expansions or Essentials.)
Thieves are nothing like AD&D thieves. They have normal skills, just more of them. They're a primary damage-dealing class (Striker), despite having a lower bonus to hit. 5E, I think, moves them away from that role and back closer to their original role, but I haven't actually seen that in play.
Spell casting in 4E was far more different than in 5E. Most of it was just the equivalent of SLA, though wizards technically had spellbooks and a few more choices than other classes. Nothing like the options in AD&D or 5E. While 5E changed how spell preparation and slots work, the basic spell casting mechanism would be more familiar to an AD&D player than 4E's Encounter spells and Daily spells (which wizards could choose from the handful of options in their spellbook!)
It's also interesting which things you pick as fundamental. I'd say one of the fundamental things about races in AD&D was that non-humans could multiclass (gestalt-style) and humans could switch classes. Also that demi-humans were level limited and humans weren't. All that got dropped in 3.0 and never picked up again, but I'm not sure why it's any less fundamental than most things on your list.
Personal taste, pretty much. Which is fine, since we're talking about feelings.
All I can say is that from the start of looking at it, 4E didn't scratch the D&D itch for me. 5E feels like it will, though I haven't gotten the chance to actually play it yet. 3.x and PF did too.
4E wasn't a bad game, just a bit Uncanny Valley. Too much like D&D to...
As I said, it's just the most basic items of my list, not the entire list. The entire list gets too lengthy to go into. These basic items I listed were in OD&D (expanded, so from around 1975...But NOT in the original three booklets necessarily) through AD&D 1e (and most, but not all, made the transition to 2e).
I don't think I said 4e was like D&D to me anymore than 5e, just that I enjoyed it more than 5e (I actually enjoyed playing 4e to tell the truth). In many ways, 4e and 5e are very similar in how representative of D&D they are, but 4e for me simply was far more fun to play than 5e has been. Perhaps it was because at it's core, 4e had simpler character creation (no choosing a race, than a sub race, then choose a class and a background, it was choose race and class and your done) than 5e has (though within the class itself it could be more complex with your power choices). Or maybe it's because with the character creator, you could make a character even quicker than 5e (of course that's relying on electronic measures instead of purely P&P).
I've noticed most people that say 5e is more like the original D&D or feel are not basing it off of the actual rules or representation but this idea that there are not as many rules, and hence easier for GM's to do their thing. Of course, all 5e is from my view is a VERY simplified 4e (the 4e essentials fighter basically shows a LOT of what is seen in 5e, but like Bo9S was a forerunner of 4e, the essentials in some ways were a forerunner of 5e).
Instead of daily and encounter powers, you have the abilities granted at each or every other level. Races are not subraces and such, but they are given their choice of one of two ability scores to choose to add their bonus to (like how you do with subraces, but applying only to ability scores).
On the otherhand, the new spellcasting system they came up with (not really the AD&D or PF Vancian style) is a NEW thing entirely.
But in the end, people seem to say 5e is like older editions because they can houserule it easier without worrying about rules. Of course, you could say the same thing about Castles and Crusades or DCC, but apparently that doesn't seem to arrive on people's scope.
For me, the feel goes into what the rules actually are and how they adhere to other rules.
I suppose the easiest way to use an example would be to use the SW RPG. Those who are going for the feel out of the experience would say all the SW RPGs are the same as they all have that same feel of SW. A guy like me would say the WEG, WOTC, and FFG versions are all different and have completely different feels because the rules are nothing like each other.
But overall, for someone like me, where rules are what defines the feel of a game in many ways, 5e is just as big a departure as 4e with the only real difference is I like the codification (rules heavy) of 4e more than the rules lite of 5e. AT least thus far.
(Opinions change over time after all! Who knows what the future will hold).
|
|
I suppose that ultimately 5e is not so much about emulating D&D in the classical sense, as OSR is already doing a suitable job of that. Given the number of flavors of OSR, I imagine that there is something out there for anyone, or that it could be reproduced with minimal effort.
It is likely better to say that 5e is, to some, a return to a sensibility of playing Dungeons and Dragons that cleaves to certain elements; having regulated party roles similar to OD&D, following certain adventure schema, moving away from a strict tactical focus. etc.
5e is certainly not old school as we have come to understand it, but the pieces of it that are inherent are a matter of taking the old school and trying a new approach; an attempt at improvement, shall we say. Many people like it so far, and it was in many senses a community effort that shaped the system.
I don't think we'll see D&D return to its roots, as that goal is maintained more thoroughly through the OSR movement. D&D as an entity is only going to move forward with what Dungeons and Dragons means in a more modern context. This is of course why edition wars are so prominent, of course, but that is another discussion entirely.
|
But in the end, people seem to say 5e is like older editions because they can houserule it easier without worrying about rules. Of course, you could say the same thing about Castles and Crusades or DCC, but apparently that doesn't seem to arrive on people's scope.
I have the same reaction when seeing all of those comments praising 5e for being a return to older editions, when there are currently supported rulesets out there that do an even better job of it.
|
|
What do you consider is entailed by "feeling like D&D?
For me, at least, it's very hard to put into words. It literally is just a feeling that I get, and to be honest 5e is really the only game that's ever given it to me outside of games that are built using the engines of the pre-2000 D&D editions (ie; the official pre-2000 D&D and AD&D games, retro-clones thereof, and other games built upon the same systems like Mutant Future, Silent Legions, etc).
What do you consider is entailed by "feeling like D&D?Overall, those are different things to different people, but when you get to it...here are some key items that signify D&D to me in it's feel.
4 key classes or groups - Fighters, Clerics, Magic-Users, and Thieves. Almost all other characters can fall into one of those four groups. (5e has this).
General Elves are better at Dexterity and have bad constitution, General Dwarves have good Constitution and can be bad at CHA, Halflings have good DEX and bad STR, and Humans tend to be the baseline. (5e fails at this as for starters, the baseline of each of the 4 core races is actually two fold, and those two choices have at least one choice which varies from tradition).
Fighters get better at hitting than everyone else. This is represented typically by them getting what is equivalent of a +1 to hit at every level to show that they get a LOT better at hitting things quickly, far quicker than someone like a Wizard (not represented by 5e).
Fighters get at least a D10 to HP typically, and can use any weapon and any armor. They have more HP than anyone else.
Theives have at a lot lower HP than fighters, but are normally a second tier in regards to fighting. They are not as good at fighting or hitting as Fighters (so they do not get a +1 every level to hit) but they are NOT as bad as spellcasters. (5e does not replicate this)
Thieves get a LOT of abilities that they eventually excel at (though not necessarily at first). Everyone might be able to move quietly or Hide behind objects or see if they can hear people speaking or moving, but Thieves get an extra chance and better ability eventually. These would be normal rogue skills such as Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Open Locks, Climb Walls, Pick Pockets, Find and Remove Traps, Read Languages (eventually even Magical), Detect Noise and so forth. These are done by a percentile roll which represents that they are almost useless in using these skills above and...
Cheers.
The "feeling" of D&D, for me, is pretty general because I tend to think of D&D as the Original trope Fantasy RPG. Other games need to distance itself from D&D, not the other way around. Because of that, I tend to D&D a very large margin of variation. Things that stick out as distinctly D&D are:
• Wizards use Intelligence and spellbooks to ready and cast their spells. Every edition so far as had this feature.
• Fighters are tough, weapon-specializing warriors that excel in combat. AD&D and 4E (and to an extent 5E) did this pretty well while 3E, v3.5, and PF need specific builds to make this true (mostly due to excelling in combat part).
• Clerics are mortal instruments of their deities and channel their divine power in wondrous displays of magics and miracles. Again, every edition so far has had this feature.
• Rogues and Thieves are cunning knaves who use a specific set of weapons and tools for unscrupulous acts. Every edition has met this so far.
• Monsters should include Dragons, Mindflayers, and Beholders.
Done
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has already been said, but the truth is there isn't the 80/90's market around anymore. I have nearly every supplement from the 2e era, I didn't eat some weeks to afford the next Ravenloft splat book. That rabid desire in the 21st century is for video game based entertainment. My hours and hours of time spent reading the 1e/2e paper printed (no PDF's) monster manuals thinking of adventures to inflict on my players (which I had NO problems finding, in fact I had a waiting list) is more likely now spend on Destiny or Halo etc.
Nothing WotC (or Paizo) can do will change that. The table-top game is now a shadow of its former self. I don't blame Hasbro for wanting to make money, they are not a charity (neither is Paizo), and computer based entertainment is where it is at.
I don't think TTRPG's will die, thanks to companies like Paizo and WotC (D&D) running in a financially viable way our niche (very niche now) hobby will continue to tick over for decades to come.
So I do not think WotC - D&D is evil, in fact I thank the people in the D&D pen & paper division keeping the paper version available. It must be a hard sell and getting harder to convince Hasbro to commit resources each year. The team at WotC are all that stands between D&D TTRPG and D&D being solely an electronic game based brand.
S.
