I'm just not all that excited by 5e

[Unbeliever]

I feel like I'm going to repeat this till the day I die.  How is this a 3E thing?  Is there really some story out there in the world that gamers only became a hidebound fractious lot willing to argue till the wee hours over a minor rules thing b/c of 3E D&D? 

Yes.  There's a viewpoint that 3E D&D promoted player empowerment at the expense of the DM by codifying more and more things into rules.

There's also the fact that Frank Trollman was a big name in 3.X circles for a time, and he and many folks the Gaming Den had an annoying tendency to deride even light DM Fiat as tyrannical or "Magical Tea Party" and start flame wars on other forums.

I'll certainly believe that people think this way.  I'm in no position and not nearly as plugged into RPG culture to really dispute it.  However, it's incredibly untrue.  There were long, vehement debates about every picayune issue you can imagine in previous editions of D&D.  Just crack open any old issue of Dragon Magazine and you'll see extensive debates about the relative merits of scimitars vs. longswords and how this spell works or interacts with that spell or magic item. 

D&D has never been particularly free-form.  I can't really remember any statement in an older iteration of it about DM fiat or empowerment that does not have a nearly identical parallel in 3E.  In other words, there was no sense or statement to the effect of "you, DM, are the lord and master of all you survey, and you should feel free to run roughshod over your players with the rules at your whim."  No more so than was contained in 3E, at least, basically the Rule 0 type of thing. 

And, I don't think it would have mattered one way or the other.  Just imagine if there were.  Would that make you feel any better about a DM that made what you perceived as systematically mistaken, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules as written game rulings?

EDIT:  it's possible that these observations have gotten lost in either nostalgia or just b/c many fans did not participate in or witness those earlier brawls.  Whereas they can see, say, long-winded sharp debates regarding later editions.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

(minor tangent, though connected ...)


Anybody have an idea about how big the Retroclone market is ??
Sales and/or $$ of say 1e 2e and similars.

[Libertad]

And, I don't think it would have mattered one way or the other.  Just imagine if there were.  Would that make you feel any better about a DM that made what you perceived as systematically mistaken, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules as written game rulings?

EDIT:  it's possible that these observations have gotten lost in either nostalgia or just b/c many fans did not participate in or witness those earlier brawls.  Whereas they can see, say, long-winded sharp debates regarding later editions.

That is definitely a factor.  In regards to OSR folks, one of their biggest proponents, James Maliszewski of Grognardia blog, actually only played old-school D&D relatively recently, and although he did a good job of researching the hobby's history, he did have some personal biases.  Like a negative viewpoint on Dragonlance on how it marked the end of a golden age of dungeon-crawling goodness when at the time the adventure series was competing with Forgotten Realms in sales figures.

There's a similar strain of thought, where certain things within OSR get popularized to the point that where "authentic old-school" ends and "personal preferences" begins can be hard to tell by a newcomer, or be contradictory at times.  For example, I don't recall as many early AD&D modules containing Weird Fantasy Body Horror tropes (see Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Teratic Tome for popular OSR stuff).  Or the fact that many OSR folks actively shy away from the complicated rulesets of 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D and stick with Basic D&D.  On another note, they tend towards the lower level of the power spectrum, with hardly any support for adventures and campaigns beyond 9th level.  Dreams of Ruin got attention by selling itself as a high-level apocalyptic horror scenario of a growing sentient forest of malign intentions.

(minor tangent, though connected ...)


Anybody have an idea about how big the Retroclone market is ??
Sales and/or $$ of say 1e 2e and similars.

Depends on whether you count Pathfinder as a retroclone or not.  A thing to keep in mind, however, is that OSR focuses heavily on Original and Basic D&D, with scant support for AD&D.  There's a growing movement of "O5R" of folks creating 5th Edition adventures with old-school sensibilities or dual-statted, but as of now there's not a lot of them out yet.

It's not Official D&D big, or Pathfinder fandom big, but in terms of sales figures and sheer product it's a pretty good size.  There are about 1,500 OSR/retroclone products on OneBookShelf (Drive-Thru RPG/RPGNow), which is nearly double the amount for Mutants & Masterminds (about 800), less than Pathfinder (about 5,000), and a lot more than FATE (344) or Apocalypse World engines (343).

Several Kickstarters for OSR products have been rather successful, and they congregate heavily on Google Plus, so it's not hard to find an eager market if you tick all the right boxes and do something to set yourself apart from the Low Fantasy Settings and "go into the foreboding ruins" adventure types crowding the marketplace.  According to James Raggi (Lamentations of the Flame Princess), his first print run of core rules was 2,000 and sold out.  Vornheim, White Star, and Scarlet Heroes are all at least Best Gold Sellers on either DTRPG or RPGNow.


But back on topic, I will say one thing:

I'm actually interested in seeing how O5R types change and accommodate 5th Edition mechanics and tropes to fit their desired implied settings, if at all.  On a surface level examination, I don't think that a drow blade pact warlock would mesh well with an LotFP-like setting.  But if they're someone whose magic is Lovecraft-level dangerous to their soul, then that can totally work as an adequate explanation for why they're an adventurer seeking out forlorn realms and arcane lore in the first place.

[TenaciousJ]

Sixth is a fanbase who gets really teed off when you get rapid-shooting crossbowmen or warlords or other cool non-magic things.

Yes, I realize that the PF fandom mirrors the last point of contention in places, but at least they have Path of War.

That's a valid complaint but I can at least say that the complaints about awesome mundane stuff is mostly a forum thing from a couple of very vocal posters who frequent multiple boards.

Out in the real world, the rapid-shooting crossbowmen are popular, and I have never heard a complaint about the power level of hand crossbows in person.  The warlord is not adequately covered yet, but I seriously doubt they're listening to some vocal forum whiners as opposed to their polls which scream "bring back the warlord."

[pelzak]

Hi,

I love 5 ed. I was playing 2 ed which had some flaws that were irritating. I was playing 3 ed which had some flwas that were irritating. I was playing 3.5 ed which had some flaws that were irritating. I'm playing 5 ed which also have some irritating flaws. But by the end of the day non of my players need PhD in order to play the game effectively or create useful character. Which in turn makes my life easier.

Br,
pelzak

[awaken_D_M_golem]

And, I don't think it would have mattered one way or the other.  Just imagine if there were.  Would that make you feel any better about a DM that made what you perceived as systematically mistaken, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules as written game rulings?

EDIT:  it's possible that these observations have gotten lost in either nostalgia or just b/c many fans did not participate in or witness those earlier brawls.  Whereas they can see, say, long-winded sharp debates regarding later editions.

That is definitely a factor.  In regards to OSR folks, one of their biggest proponents, James Maliszewski of Grognardia blog, actually only played old-school D&D relatively recently, and although he did a good job of researching the hobby's history, he did have some personal biases.  Like a negative viewpoint on Dragonlance on how it marked the end of a golden age of dungeon-crawling goodness when at the time the adventure series was competing with Forgotten Realms in sales figures.

There's a similar strain of thought, where certain things within OSR get popularized to the point that where "authentic old-school" ends and "personal preferences" begins can be hard to tell by a newcomer, or be contradictory at times.  For example, I don't recall as many early AD&D modules containing Weird Fantasy Body Horror tropes (see Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Teratic Tome for popular OSR stuff).  Or the fact that many OSR folks actively shy away from the complicated rulesets of 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D and stick with Basic D&D.  On another note, they tend towards the lower level of the power spectrum, with hardly any support for adventures and campaigns beyond 9th level.  Dreams of Ruin got attention by selling itself as a high-level apocalyptic horror scenario of a growing sentient forest of malign intentions.

(minor tangent, though connected ...)


Anybody have an idea about how big the Retroclone market is ??
Sales and/or $$ of say 1e 2e and similars.

Depends on whether you count Pathfinder as a retroclone or not.  A thing to keep in mind, however, is that OSR focuses heavily on Original and Basic D&D, with scant support for AD&D.  There's a growing movement of "O5R" of folks creating 5th Edition adventures with old-school sensibilities or dual-statted, but as of now there's not a lot of them out yet.

It's not Official D&D big, or Pathfinder fandom big, but in terms of sales figures and sheer product it's a pretty good size.  There are about 1,500 OSR/retroclone products on OneBookShelf (Drive-Thru RPG/RPGNow), which is nearly double the amount for Mutants & Masterminds (about 800), less than Pathfinder (about 5,000), and a lot more than FATE (344) or Apocalypse World engines (343).

Several Kickstarters for OSR products have been rather successful, and they congregate heavily on Google Plus, so it's not hard to find an eager market if you tick all the right boxes and do something to set yourself apart from the Low Fantasy Settings and "go into the foreboding ruins" adventure types crowding the marketplace.  According to James Raggi (Lamentations of the Flame Princess), his first print run of core rules was 2,000 and sold out.  Vornheim, White Star, and Scarlet Heroes are all at least Best Gold Sellers on either DTRPG or RPGNow.


But back on topic, I will say one thing:

I'm actually interested in seeing how O5R types change and accommodate 5th Edition mechanics and tropes to fit their desired implied settings, if at all.  On a surface level examination, I don't think that a drow blade pact warlock would mesh well with an LotFP-like setting.  But if they're someone whose magic is Lovecraft-level dangerous to their soul, then that can totally work as an adequate explanation for why they're an adventurer seeking out forlorn realms and arcane lore in the first place.

Danka.
That Grognadia guy comes to his grog via a rather strange route.
Almost like Star Lord discovering Ain't No Mountain High.

Some of the 1e stuff, has no class features at all.
And should be ~easy "grog-proof" conversions.

[Libertad]

I made a new thread about it here DM Golem.  You, me, and other folks are more than welcome to continue the conversation there.

[veekie]

After GMing a 5E game for a while...it's actually pretty great for low prep sessions, as the looser defined rules make it psychologically easier to quickly eyeball minor rule judgments on the spot(mostly skill difficulties) than to look up a specific rule that covers that issue, and thus getting it wrong from group members with better eye for detail and memories.
It also scales better to the group, since as we all know, published numbers can rapidly grow irrelevant depending on party loadout and individuals.

Effect standardization is also a thing, though it cuts down on variety, you really don't need to differentiate between a dozen different types of debuffs in the game narrative when disadvantage covers most of the basics without having a lot of fiddly numbers which can add up to something monstrous or unexpected.

[Strill]

The discussion went pretty much the way I expected. I will say that "they haven't finished it yet" isn't a good excuse for a on-sale system. Core 3e seemed far more ... playable. I am curious how far 5e has to go before we have characters with stats in the 40s.

Welcome to the boards Strill! In order:
I find myself wondering about how to adjudicate the missing spell stats (I assume there are defaults buried somewhere; I didn't look very hard).

Spell attack bonus and DC are listed in each class's description.

I do prefer that a system is honest about what it is presenting: "We are taking the psionics system from Third Edition and simplifying it. If you love Psionics in 3e, you'll be okay with our new casting mechanics."

What? Casting mechanics in 5e are most similar to Sorcerers in 3e.

Knock+silence?

Wizards don't have Silence, and Clerics don't have Knock. Furthermore, casting Silence just for the sake of Knock is a huge cost.

I don't find a +stat or +attack iteration a full class feature. I'm used to getting those weak things for free...

It's not an iteration, it's a full extra attack. Same attack bonus. As for the stats, take a feat instead.

Uneven means not even, especially when compared to another thing. Spell progressions refers to the spell learning tables. Uneven spell progressions are ... not equal! See all the arguments as to why Paladin casting was worthless in 3e

Uneven compared to what? It seems about as even as can be to me. For full casters, every odd level you get a new spell level. Every even level you get an extra spell slot of your highest level. For half casters, it's the same but spread out more.

Paladin casting in 3e was weak because their caster level and spell DC was low, and they were much worse than the fighter at fightery things. None of those are an issue anymore, so I don't know what your problem is.

[Centinull]

D&D 5E runs smoother than all previous editions, makes attributes and skills matter, without astronomical target numbers.

My gaming group has been together for the past 20+ years and most of us have played through all the editions, and we all love 5E.
5E is more flexible than 1st or 2nd, less complicated than 3/3.5/Pathfinder, and feels more like D&D than 4E.

That being said, I would still gladly play Pathfinder, but I find it much easier to DM 5E.

That being said, I miss the feat at 1st level.

[TenaciousJ]

That being said, I miss the feat at 1st level.

I reward one for people who write a page of character background information.  It didn't seriously unbalance the game, so just houserule it in if you're the DM of the games.  Some variant on that rule seems to be a very common houserule.

[SorO_Lost]

I reward one for people who write a page of character background information.  It didn't seriously unbalance the game, so just houserule it in if you're the DM of the games.  Some variant on that rule seems to be a very common houserule.

That sounds like a pretty good idea, if by page you mean "good idea" and by write you mean "said something". 

[TenaciousJ]

I reward one for people who write a page of character background information.  It didn't seriously unbalance the game, so just houserule it in if you're the DM of the games.  Some variant on that rule seems to be a very common houserule.

That sounds like a pretty good idea, if by page you mean "good idea" and by write you mean "said something". 

I require writing/typing, because I weave so many webs that I need the reminder.  Being a DM is being a seller in a seller's market where I am.

I meant that the first level bonus feat won't unbalance the game.  No one has to copy my method.

[SorO_Lost]

I require writing/typing, because I weave so many webs that I need the reminder.  Being a DM is being a seller in a seller's market where I am.

I meant that the first level bonus feat won't unbalance the game.  No one has to copy my method.

Nah I like it, it's just to me 1st level characters don't have a story to tell. So while the benefit is fitting, the expectation of a "page" detailing what it's like to grow up on a farm or apprentice as a wizard is pretty much worthless fluff that'll draw the most generic back stories ever because they only thing they can answer is "I choose paladin & obviously great weapon master" or w/e. A storytelling about punching an orc in the face, well where's the XP for it? That one time you save the caravan and hence the "feature" of being able to trade in the area? Well why aren't you second level already? etc.

I like my flavor and mechanics to line up together and you can't have a worthwhile backstory unless you start at higher levels. So there's where my idea of shorting it comes from, to make it more applicable.

[TenaciousJ]

I require writing/typing, because I weave so many webs that I need the reminder.  Being a DM is being a seller in a seller's market where I am.

I meant that the first level bonus feat won't unbalance the game.  No one has to copy my method.

Nah I like it, it's just to me 1st level characters don't have a story to tell. So while the benefit is fitting, the expectation of a "page" detailing what it's like to grow up on a farm or apprentice as a wizard is pretty much worthless fluff that'll draw the most generic back stories ever because they only thing they can answer is "I choose paladin & obviously great weapon master" or w/e. A storytelling about punching an orc in the face, well where's the XP for it? That one time you save the caravan and hence the "feature" of being able to trade in the area? Well why aren't you second level already? etc.

I like my flavor and mechanics to line up together and you can't have a worthwhile backstory unless you start at higher levels. So there's where my idea of shorting it comes from, to make it more applicable.

Level 3 is a good starting point in 5E unless you're dealing with complete newbies to tabletop gaming.

I ask for background info, not a life story because life stories tend to be boring.  One guy in my current game playing a monk wrote the philosophy of his monk order (which was based on emulating the actions and mindset of 5 year olds on a playground) and I ran with ideas for it that are still active in the campaign at 19th level.

Another guy wrote about the war stories of the unit he had been a fresh recruit in close to the end of the last war.  I ended up using some of his surviving war buddies as NPCs that helped him out later, and one of the villains of the campaign wants to wipe out his old unit for killing his father.

[LordBlades]

D&D 5E runs smoother than all previous editions, makes attributes and skills matter, without astronomical target numbers.

How exactly does 5e make attributes and skills matter?
Talking about skill system, you're rolling a modifier+d20, and unless you're a Rogue or a high level character rolling on a maxed stat, the modifier is quite small. For example a mid level character with an above average stat (12-14) barely beats +5-+6 in a skill. I find that awfully small compared to the amount of variation rolling a d20 introduces.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

...I do prefer that a system is honest about what it is presenting: "We are taking the psionics system from Third Edition and simplifying it. If you love Psionics in 3e, you'll be okay with our new casting mechanics."

What? Casting mechanics in 5e are most similar to Sorcerers in 3e.

So it's just a few details ...
in 3e/3.5e/3.PF if you were:

a level 5 Wizard and you cast
Magic Missile you got the CLs
above level 1 = CL 1, for free.

a level 5 "Wizard" and you -fested
a "Force""Bolt" you got the CLs
above level 1 at a cost of 1 spell point
per 1 CL above 1.


5e has gone ahead and shmushed
Caster Level and Spell Level into
the same thing, effectively doing the
oh too hard 2x-1 calculation for free.

You don't get the "Caster" Level boost
to spells now for free, you have to pay
for it like Psi.

(this ignores the half-walk-back-of-(2x-1)
of the 5e spell points system).


And then there's the Warlock's Slots, which are
even more like Psi, but with a judicious blend
of making 'Lock Players play their PC's with a
smidge more care than they knew they wanted to.

[Centinull]

How exactly does 5e make attributes and skills matter?

Because the target numbers are lower and you can achieve them without having a +15 in a skill.

In 3E if you didn't put the maximum amount of adds into a skill it didn't scale with the difficulties you would encounter.
Heck, anything less than 10 adds to a skill was usually junk, as DCs were frequently 20+
If you didn't put anything in a skill in 3E, you likely didn't have any real chance of succeeding.

Now in 5E with lower DCs, and lower skill totals, those Attribute bonuses matter more.

In 3E by 10th level, you had +13 adds + your attribute bonus. Your attribute bonus, unless it was huge, was only a small percentage of that skill check.
In 5E having a +5 from attribute is equal to the skill bous you wouldn't achieve until 15+. The attribute bonus matters as much, if not more, than the skill bonus.

[LordBlades]

How exactly does 5e make attributes and skills matter?

Because the target numbers are lower and you can achieve them without having a +15 in a skill.

And how do you achieve that? By rolling well. In 5e, at least as far as skill checks are concerned, what you roll is way more important than what your character's abilities in that field are. The dice results in a number between 1 and 20, while a character's total bonus to a skill check cannot exceed +11 (assuming non-rogues and no ability score cap breaking items or class features), which is barely a bit more than the average of a d20.

[Centinull]

<redacted>