D&D 5E Is long-term support of the game important?

[Bluenose]

Conversion from AD&D to 3e was completely doable. It involved much more work than 1e to 2e, but things primarily worked the same enough to allow it. A 5th level wizard looked remarkably similar in 3e as he did in 2e, controlling for feats and magic items. They had access to the same spells, fireball worked pretty much the same, etc. That is not do-able with 4e due to the nature of the powers structure and the development over 30 levels.

The thing it, the individual elements may have "worked pretty much the same". The combination didn't. To use Fireball as an example, it still did the same damage, it was still third level, it still said the same things in the spell. And it was being targeted at creatures with more hit points and poorer saving throws, and instead of being a spell that would take off a high proportion of creatures hit points it became one that would take off a moderate proportion. Plus it was in competition with spells that when successful made difficult encounters into easy ones - the SoS/SoD variety - that when you note the deliberate way saving throws were made much harder in 3e than 2e were significantly more reliable. So yes, 3e uses the same names as AD&D much more than 4e does. But in play, it was D&D In Name Only.

 

[delericho]

I don't think converting a 5th level wizard to 4e is particularly hard at all: stat up a 5th level artillery creature, label its at-will power "Magical bolt" and label its encounter powers "Fireball" and/or "Lightning bolt" as appropriate. (And add in one utility effect if desired: eg as a minor action give it Blindsight until E its NT 1x/enc", to replicate Detect Invis and/or ESP.)

Indeed. The complexity with converting older edition adventures to 4e isn't the stat-blocks (which are pretty easy). The complexity is that encounters in 4e tend to be different - in order to get the best results from the tactical combat engine characters need room to maneuver, and you're much better using a mixed set of opponents (that is, multiple different monster roles).

Obviously, you can decide not to worry about one or both of these, but then you're not going to get the best from the system.

 

[Mistwell]

Actually, early on TSR always assumed people only have the Core 3 books. [rest of stuff cut]

This was already contradicted above. UA was cited by modules, and much earlier.

Personally, I like Pathfinder's approach. The big hardcover books are assumed, but everything else is not.

This is not correct. I was not exaggerating when I said a dozen. The latest AP references directly:

Advanced Player’s Guide
Bestiary
Bestiary 2
Bestiary 3
GameMastery Guide
Lords of Chaos, Book of the Damned, Vol. 2
NPC Codex
Paths of Prestige
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Equipment
Ultimate Magic
Mythic Adventures

Now I don't know about all of those, but I am pretty darn sure any book called, "Lords of Chaos, Book of the Damned, Vol. 2" isn't hardback. And if it is, then this claim that the hardbacks are "more important" is bunk

Sean K Reynolds came on here and gave their justification for this, and there did not appear to be any hardback/softcover line they were drawing. The line was just "we want you to be able to use all this cool new stuff you're buying".

 

[jodyjohnson]

It's pretty obvious that longterm support is important.

1. Without new product on the shelves your ICV2 rankings drop.
2. People declare your edition dead -- thus 4e is declared dead in 2012 (even though it was still supported by Dragon and Dungeon through 12/2013).
3. WotC will replicate the entire 1e run of rulebooks in less than 3 years by popular demand and popular disdain.

 

[Jester David]

This was already contradicted above. UA was cited by modules, and much earlier.

TSR wasn't the most consistently run of companies. They tried to avoid assuming people owned the non-core books but I'm sure they slipped through at times.
But you can check out the D&D podcast, where they interviewed Steve Winter regarding the change from 1e to 2e (in honour of the reprints). He says pretty plainly they didn't assume other books

Pretty sure they are citing non-hardcover books now too in the APs. I was not exaggerating when I said a dozen.

Other books slip in, but when they do all the relevant information is reprinted. They do this often when applying templates or using 3PP monsters. And they seldom do it for feats and spells.
For example, if an AP uses a monster from Bestiary 4 it will just give the hp and reference the page number. If referencing a monster from any non-assumed source, it will have the full statblock.
If they've changed that policy it's a very recent change.

For the Bestiary 4 they reprinted a lot of monsters from the backs of the APs. This was explicitly done so they could be used in PFS games and other APs.

 

[Mistwell]

LOL

Jester Canuck on 1e not citing non-core books:

I'm sure they slipped through at times....

And on Pazio doing it...

Other books slip in

LOL come on man. In neither case did they "slip in". No books accidentally fell into adventures. This is a terrible excuse. No, sorry, two claims were made, both were wrong, it was not isolated incidences.

but when they do all the relevant information is reprinted.

No, they do not, and they state outright they do not want to do that. Perhaps you should review Sean K. Reynolds' response here on the board to this very point.

(Full disclosure: I am a Paizo employee.)

1) If Paizo only uses "core books and the adventure" for its APs, then (a) that's a lot of really cool classes, spells, magic items, and monsters from other sources that are off-limits for use in an adventure, and (b) people who own those other sources will feel ripped off that all the cool stuff in the other books they bought aren't being used/supported.

2) If Paizo reprints information from other books (such as a spell, monster, or magic item), that's less new adventure content you're getting with your adventure. For example, the hippopotamus appears in Bestiary 2. If an AP has an encounter with a hippo, and Paizo includes the hippo's stat block in the adventure, that's half a page spent on a hippo stat block—half a page that could have been spent giving more background on the adventure, describing the motivations of a villain, or statting out a new magic item found in the AP.

Paizo is not following any stated hardcover/softcover divide for this sort of stuff, there are not reprinting stuff (intentionally), it's not just "slipping in" it's done with stated intent, and this is the same sort of stuff done all the way back to 1e with UA.

I don't really want to argue the point further, this stuff is not matters of opinion but of fact and justifying it with "slip in...all the friggen time" is not a good response.

I'm going to move past this point now, as I think everyone else can see both TSR and Pazio are doing this, and on a fairly routine basis. The only system that held to a strict "core" concept was 3e. And that was for licensing purposes more than anything else.

 

[delericho]

This is not correct. I was not exaggerating when I said a dozen. The latest AP references directly:

Advanced Player’s Guide
Bestiary
Bestiary 2
Bestiary 3
GameMastery Guide
Lords of Chaos, Book of the Damned, Vol. 2
NPC Codex
Paths of Prestige
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Equipment
Ultimate Magic
Mythic Adventures

Yep, this is exactly right. And I can't say I'm a fan of this approach, mostly since I just don't have most of these books, so the 'requirement' to have them makes the AP volumes less useful to me. (That said, I get them mostly just to read, so "less useful" is a pretty theoretical distinction.)

One key thing that can be said for Paizo, though, is that they do at least make all the relevant rules material freely available online. Which is obviously a fairly significant advantage.

 

[Iosue]

The thing it, the individual elements may have "worked pretty much the same". The combination didn't. To use Fireball as an example, it still did the same damage, it was still third level, it still said the same things in the spell. And it was being targeted at creatures with more hit points and poorer saving throws, and instead of being a spell that would take off a high proportion of creatures hit points it became one that would take off a moderate proportion. Plus it was in competition with spells that when successful made difficult encounters into easy ones - the SoS/SoD variety - that when you note the deliberate way saving throws were made much harder in 3e than 2e were significantly more reliable. So yes, 3e uses the same names as AD&D much more than 4e does. But in play, it was D&D In Name Only.

Not to mention that there's a fundamental change in putting all classes on the same advancement table. So, how do you do conversion? If I have a 2e party where everyone is roughly around 500,000 XP, the Fighter and Cleric are 10th Level, the Mage is 11th Level, and the Rogue is 12th Level. On the 3e chart, they are all well beyond 20th level. Do we just convert everyone to the level they were in 2e? Probably the best way is split the difference and put everyone at 11th level. But that means a total rebuild of each character.

Beyond that, going from 2e to 3e means relearning the whole system. Initiative is totally different. Combat rounds are totally different. Movement is totally different. Skills are totally different, and I can't ignore them like in 1e and 2e because the rogue needs them, no longer having the old Thieves' Skills that were the same from OD&D to AD&D 2e. I need be up on Touch AC, Flat-footed, Flanking and Attacks of Opportunity.

Well, let's say I say "Screw that," and just buy 3e adventures to use with 2e rules. Now I have to go through the adventure and I either convert each NPC/Monster's stats to 2e equivalents, or else forget the statblocks and just use the 2e monsters. It's a pain either way.

None of which is to say it can't be done. Many people did it. But it was a hell of a lot more work than going from OD&D to AD&D, or from AD&D to AD&D 2nd Ed. They rebuilt the game from the ground up. And, as I've mentioned before, they didn't care about people moving from the old edition to the new. That's been WotC's MO the whole time they've had the game. AD&D and 2nd Ed. were specifically made for existing players -- they were compilations and revisions of rules scattered over many rule books brought together for ease of reference. WotC's D&Ds have not been about that. They've been about grabbing the players who didn't like or want to play the old editions. They've been pretty upfront about that, and pretty successful in various ways. I begrudge them not. But if I am to be a long term customer, I need more continuity. I hope that 5e will be a design that can accommodate that.

 

[pemerton]

The complexity with converting older edition adventures to 4e isn't the stat-blocks (which are pretty easy). The complexity is that encounters in 4e tend to be different - in order to get the best results from the tactical combat engine characters need room to maneuver, and you're much better using a mixed set of opponents (that is, multiple different monster roles).

Obviously, you can decide not to worry about one or both of these, but then you're not going to get the best from the system.

The only B/X module I have converted is Night's Dark Terror. I think many of the same features of that module that make it stand out as a B/X module really support it's conversion to 4e.

 

[billd91]

Beyond that, going from 2e to 3e means relearning the whole system. Initiative is totally different. Combat rounds are totally different. Movement is totally different. Skills are totally different, and I can't ignore them like in 1e and 2e because the rogue needs them, no longer having the old Thieves' Skills that were the same from OD&D to AD&D 2e. I need be up on Touch AC, Flat-footed, Flanking and Attacks of Opportunity.

Well, let's say I say "Screw that," and just buy 3e adventures to use with 2e rules. Now I have to go through the adventure and I either convert each NPC/Monster's stats to 2e equivalents, or else forget the statblocks and just use the 2e monsters. It's a pain either way.

None of which is to say it can't be done. Many people did it. But it was a hell of a lot more work than going from OD&D to AD&D, or from AD&D to AD&D 2nd Ed. They rebuilt the game from the ground up. And, as I've mentioned before, they didn't care about people moving from the old edition to the new. That's been WotC's MO the whole time they've had the game. AD&D and 2nd Ed. were specifically made for existing players -- they were compilations and revisions of rules scattered over many rule books brought together for ease of reference. WotC's D&Ds have not been about that. They've been about grabbing the players who didn't like or want to play the old editions. They've been pretty upfront about that, and pretty successful in various ways. I begrudge them not. But if I am to be a long term customer, I need more continuity. I hope that 5e will be a design that can accommodate that.

I disagree with a substantial amount of this. Sure, initiative was different, but the action economy and movement weren't as different or at least didn't feel as different as you say. Both were very easy to learn and the rules were presented in a much more explicit and clear manner. I'd also say that conversion of adventures was actually fairly easy. It was more challenging than 1e to 2e but then that was almost not a conversion at all. Converting 1e to 3e wasn't really a hell of a lot more difficult. Certainly not in my experience.