L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Meh. 5e has done some things just exactly like all the classic eds, others it's continued the trend line over time, and others (like BA) it's gone the exact opposite of anything D&D has every done before.And successfully!
Looks like they learned something.
In a sense 4e lives on. For 4e fans how reusable are elements from the board game for playing regular 4e D&D?
Not having a quantum alternate universe they did do that in to check against, we can't say for sure.Well, they certainly haven't been hurt by not naming a book "PHB 2" and using evocative and interesting names, have they?
Could be nothing but an accident of market timing. Just a come-back that'd've played out the same whether they were selling anything from 5e DM-Empowered BA to Spawn of Fshawn nonsense between the covers. Could be if they did even one tiny little thing different it'd've crashed and burned. Maybe if they'd stayed with a +2 bonus instead of a second d20 for advantage, or given the fighter weapon specialization, or put a red idol on the cover of PH, that PF1 would still be beating them out in ICv2 rankings.In fact, given the growth of new players to the hobby, perhaps we can at least assume they are doing something right? Just maybe?
Good point. If 5e had bundled the player-side material in the various supplements we've seen so far and instead released it in a PH2 that would not have been continuing an old convention. Instead, it's returned to an old convention, in publishing not-too-focused supplements with unintuitive and/or setting-referent names.
Nah, that got dragged into it, somehow.Here's the thing; what you're arguing is that in 5e, WotC should bite the bullet and make an updated PHB (or PHB 2) that includes many of the new changes and updates.
It's not any kind of simple, and need have nothing to do with the relative success the game is currently enjoying.This strategy is not only breathtakingly simple, it's also pretty successful.
Right, and it doesn't mean that it does.Success tends to be the product of many factors. And it's difficult to tease out the importance of any one.
But just because success might have many factors, doesn't mean that one of those factors (relative simplicity to enter back in) doesn't contribute to it.
Right, and it doesn't mean that it does.
So the reflexive apologist tack of "well it's successful, so this specific detail must have been the only right choice," doesn't fly, even though it gets launched constantly when the game is doing well (or even when it was doing very badly, but still better than all other RPGs).
I probably shouldn't always be rowing against such an overwhelming current. I should just head for shore and leave this hobby to those who deserve it, since I, clearly, as one not keeping the faith, do not.
No, I'm not. Like I said, I don't have a conspiracy theory on offer, and, no, nor do I have an agenda about titles.Well, you are pushing "We should have a PHB 2 because that's what we did for the previous 2 editions."
It's fairly arbitrary.But pretty sure that not liking the name "PHB2" isn't a real article of faith; more just ... um, taste. Good taste.
No, I'm not. Like I said, I don't have a conspiracy theory on offer, and, no, nor do I have an agenda about titles.
I do have some skepticism. So I say "that's odd..." and, the apologists rush to point out that the overall result is commercially successful, so it must be perfect in each and every isolated detail.
And I can't just quietly let that go, because I'm just too pedantic and cynical.
Success tends to be the product of many factors. And it's difficult to tease out the importance of any one. 5e's unparalleled success is likely the result of an unusual confluence of factors, including (but not limited to) the following:
1. Decent economy.
2. Cultural zeitgeist (desire to play more boardgames, social games, etc.).
3. "Return to the roost," nostalgia, players who grew up playing 1e and 2e wanting to play again and/or teach their kids.
4. Successful, simple, limited rollout schedule.
5. Success at new media (such as twitch and youtube) in promoting the product.
...and so on. But just because success might have many factors, doesn't mean that one of those factors (relative simplicity to enter back in) doesn't contribute to it.
I hadn't even heard that the line of D&D board games that had started back in 2010 had been revived 4 years ago, and, it turned out they were still using the same on-ramp-to-4e system they had then. Which struck me as "odd."Huh? Then I'll go back to ... what the heck are you talking about?
Apparently I can't find anything remotely related to it, odd, though. Not perfect, then, just never odd?Nobody has said that 5E is perfect.
I guess we'll have to wait until the line's not meeting sales goals again, before we find out what's been confusing people.Very few people seem to be confused about XGTE.
Absolutely no one made an issue of it. WotC didn't throw it under the bus.Um, how do you know it wasn't an issue in 2006?
I hadn't even heard that the line of D&D board games that had started back in 2010 had been revived 4 years ago, and, it turned out they were still using the same on-ramp-to-4e system they had then. Which struck me as "odd."
The explanation quoted from MM didn't seem consistent with some of the other things that'd been said over the years. One of them was the PH2/Essentials circumlocution (though, of course, it didn't exactly make sense at the time, either).
Apparently I can't find anything remotely related to it, odd, though. Not perfect, then, just never odd?
I guess we'll have to wait until the line's not meeting sales goals again, before we find out what's been confusing people.![]()