D&D 5E Comment on the negative article by John Dodd

[Tony Vargas]

-Some number of people are waiting for the DMG to form an opinion

Only fair thing to do, really, as that's the point at which 5e is supposed to deliver on the 'modularity' and 'inclusiveness' promises made when "Next" was announced.

This really could go either way. I also suspect that more than any other edition, 5th edition runs the risk of early player loss. They seem to have been designing around Organized Play, and made some decisions that over time could rub people the wrong way, so it is possible that we'll see in a year or so a lot of "I liked it at first but...

I don't see it. Organized play is looking to be a bit more, well, organized - less casual - true, but that's about it. How does 'rub people the wrong way over time' lead to '/early/ player loss?'

IMHO, 5e's presentation, long lead-in, more modest release pace are all in it's favor. It's had 2 years to build up momentum, an early-adopter portion of the fanbase starved of new material for that whole time, and only has to make good sales on it's 3 core books to declare 'success.' It doesn't have anything riding on extras like project morningstar, the way 4e had on the DDI or VTT, it doesn't have to radically out-perform the industry to prove it's worth independent of WotC's consistent CCG cashflow.

The only real challenge is Pathfinder, and that hinges on the form of the OGL this time around - and how not-4e 5e can be. AFAICT, 5e out-not-4e's even Pathfinder, the game that made it's fortune on being not 4e.

 

[ren1999]

the general feeling toward 5e?

He compares the two beginner starter sets. The Pathfinder set and the 5th Edition set.

While he is correct that the formatting and art of Pathfinder box is very good, the formatting and art of the new 5E starter set is good.

I didn't see much of a review on how the two systems are compared when beginners read the rules and actually play the game.

I certainly have already tested this. When I got the Pathfinder Beginner Box, I tested it on new players. I then conducted more than 2 tests with the 5E box. Though my new players stopped playing because they were a little upset that their characters died, 5e played a lot better than Pathfinder. The reason is that all the rules were written specifically. There was and still is a bit of guessing when it comes to Pathfinder rules.

But the Beginner Boxes are not a good way to compare the systems. At low levels, Pathfinder 3.5 Edition plays just fine. But at higher levels, the math just drags out the game. People stop playing it. 5E FIXES THAT at higher levels.

These limited numbers are so important that I believe Pathfinder will switch over to bounded accuracy.

I love Pathfinder's adventures. I think that Paizo should come on over and support the new 5th Edition system so that people can do more than just read the modules. They can play them.

I think that all Pathfinder DM's can back me up on this. If you purchase 6 adventure path modules, the game plays great about the first 3 to 4 modules. Then 5 and 6 start to drag out and players lose focus.

 

[drjones]

Ok, everyone - as a public service, I offer you this:

Click here.

You're welcome.

Yeah but that guy's biased! He runs a game store, he WANTS people to have fun and enjoy games!
</sarcasm>

 

[delericho]

Something to note with that Pathfinder price at 14.27 is that does not include the 4.75 in shipping fees

Good spot, I hadn't seen that.

Honestly though, we're picking nits on the price at this point.

Yes.

Thats why you should stick with the MSRP when comparing, its the most balanced approach. I mean its no surprise that WotC/HASBRO have better and cheaper outlets of distribution that Paizo lol.

Absolutely. And $35 vs $20 is definitely significant.

delericho is the reviewer?

'fraid not. I haven't had a chance to look through the D&D 5e set in any detail.

Though when I do, I hope it's excellent. Until a few years ago, we hadn't had a good starter set for more than a decade. Assuming the 5e set is good, we'll now have two (four if you include Dragon Age and Star Wars). In which case we all win.

 

[Zardnaar]

I have not received my copy of the starter set yet and it cost me $23 USD to get it posted to New Zealand. The $13 price tag I am jealous of and here that would get you a large big mac combo with an extra burger. At $23 it is the price of a large steak at a decent restaurant.

I have seen the PF beginner boxed set and was impressed but did not know the price of it. It more or less costs the same as a hard cover book ($35). Whatever edition you prefer there is a difference in price as one is almost twice as expensive.

I'm actually preferring the cheaper option. Most of my retroclone and PDF purchases in the last 2-3 years have been in the $5-$10 range. Even if I get a stinker it is so cheap I do not care that much. The $23 even if it sucks I will still have a pretty box for my D&D collection, I paid $150 for 4E and had buyers remorse.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Here’s the thing: I picked up the D&D starter set because it was…D&D.

It looked, smelled and felt like D&D too (unlike some previous editions). I don’t know how much use I’ll give the set, when the Player’s Handbook et al. get released in a month or so, but I still wanted to see how the game was shaping up. I am pleased with the direction it is heading. I was pleasantly surprised that the adventure provided was pretty decent, the character sheets were neat and the text was written on glossy paper too. I will probably use the box for storing other D&D books and dice.

I didn’t feel the need to pick up the Pathfinder Box set, despite hearing good things about it a couple of years ago….because it wasn’t D&D. I don’t need or want a D&D clone. I don’t want to play a RPG based on grid-based miniatures combat either.

It doesn’t matter what the comparison people want to make about the two products. One suits what I want and the other doesn’t. I’m not surprised the Pathfinder box wants to be twice as good (and twice the price!) - it has to try twice as hard to get D&D fans like me to buy it.

 

[Wrathamon]

Maybe if they also included the Icons of the Realms Starter Set + the D&D Start Set and compared that to the Pathfinder Beginners box ... They are pretty much the same price.


I personally didn't like the PF box. I am not a paper chit fan, I dont like them in play. They are easily blown off the table and they dont look good. I also have plenty of miniatures so it was just a waste of paper to me. I also didnt like that it wasnt the actually game, which means I needed to teach the game again when we moved on to the book. I ended up ditching PF because it just felt like endless options book after endles options book.

Hopefully that doesnt happen with 5e

 

[Evenglare]

I don’t know how much use I’ll give the set, when the Player’s Handbook et al. get released in a month or so, but I still wanted to see how the game was shaping up.

Pfft MONTH? 9 days my friend. 9. days.

 

[Manbearcat]

Pretty silly. You can buy it for 11.99 online. The review should basically read:

"You can buy D&D's new game for a small pizza. That is potentially hundreds of hours of enjoyment versus 1. I'm pretty sure you like pizza. Well, 100 > 1."

 

[Dausuul]

But see, you're adding to the Starter Set product in order to reach that expandability. Should we add the online stuff for Pathfinder to what we can do with the Beginner Box too?

If expandability is the concern, then yes! If people finish the boxed game and want to expand, and the boxed game tells them "Here's free stuff online you can expand with," then the free stuff online should count toward the total value of the boxed game. That includes Basic D&D for the Starter Set and the Pathfinder SRD for the Beginner Box.