D&D 5E Convince me to Spend the Money

[Wicht]

You are able to try it without buying it. How can this possibly be a bad thing?

I don't enjoy reading PDFs for pleasure. Gaming is meant, I would think, to be a pleasurable thing. Books are pleasurable. And easier to read for me. And easier to learn from. If my introduction to 5e must come through a non-enjoyable time of study then its going to start off with one psychological strike against it. I am self-aware enough to recognize this in myself.

The Starter Set has a great adventure that is good for about 20 hours of play. Or you can even download one of the free adventures out there. I believe necromancer games has converted one to 5e.

I think trying to sell me on the Starter Set is not going to help the case.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's worth noting that for Paizo, they can afford to use the box/rulebook as a loss leader because adventures/splats are their main product. For WOTC, the core books are their focus, so if they aren't making money on those, they aren't making money.

For me, 5th edition is an evolution of 3rd, without all the minutia and bloat. I won't ever have to spend 20 minutes reconfiguring every combatant's stats due to a mass greater dispel magic which strips off a horde of buffs. I don't need to keep track of a spreadsheet's worth of bonuses. Casters are reigned in somewhat. There's no full attack nonsense, so combats are less static slugfests or rocket tag of leap attack/pounce. It totally lacks the granularity of 3rd edition. However I find myself just not caring about that as I get older and just want to play. I was going through a PF beastiary and saw there was a player race plant guy with the Delicious trait, which gave a penalty to escape the grapple of a creature with a bite attack whose bite attack ALSO had the grab trait. If this level of fiddlyness makes you sigh and say "Really? WHO is going to remember that?!" then 5E might be right for you.

FWIW, I run Pathfinder/3rd edition adventures in 5E and they work well. We're currently playing through a Carrion Crown/Age of Worms mashup in our 5E Golarion game, and even converting, I find the prep less and ease of play better than 3E.

 

[weldon]

I'm starting to feel bad that everyone even tried to be helpful.

 

[BryonD]

How does it keep kobolds comparable to dragons though, and why is that a good thing that both would be always just as threatening?

I wouldn't say they are just as threatening.

But the bounded system is such that a kobold is far more likely to do some damage to a high level fighter than in Pathfinder (which I still love). A high level fighter can still wade through many kobolds (multiple attacks, bonus attacks, special abilities, and a lot of HP), and a single fireball will take out a cluster of them.

The how comes down to attacks tend to start at +4 or +5 and ACs rarely get over 20. (They can get well over 20, but not routinely). In PF the kobolds are looking for that 20-always-hits solution. In 5E they are going to hit 25% of the time(ish).

In PF a group of 20 kobolds is just flavor text against a high level party. You can have fun playing it out, no doubt, but it can just be a delay to the next big encounter. In 5E the ability to crush the kobolds is not in doubt, but stopping to just scare them away or avoid them altogether can also be real considerations simply do to the resource use the fight will take.

If you are in a fight in PF with a big dragon and he has a bunch of support (standard) kobolds, they are again mostly background. In 5E if they all bum-rush the wizard, they can be really annoying as they plink away at him.

These things work in PF, but 5E really outshines it here.

My group has been playing PF since it came out. We have now played 5E up to L7. I asked the players for their view and they said that for the most part, it was still "D20" to them, but they recognized the different balance of threats and that was cool.

I think "at the table" I see more differences then the players do.

 

[Wicht]

As others have said, you can check out the 5e Basic rules for free.

What does 5e offer that...

...Shadowrun doesn't?

• A game that is fundamentally simple! I run a 5th Edition Shadowrun game, and I like it. But it is a pretty rules heavy, fiddly-bit system, even with the 5th edition improvements.
• A game that you can do well enough at adventure design yourself to not worry about content. Shadowrun's current adventure support isn't really any better than D&D's, and Shadowrun needs that support much more, IMHO.
• A game most folk know about and are probably willing to try. Shadowrun is kinda niche, and its previous incarnations caused enough problems to narrow that niche. 5e is a well-accepted game for which finding players will be a much smaller problem.
• A game where you can throw a bunch of stuff at the PCs, without so much worry about killing them off. Shadowrun combat is *deadly*, and the system makes no attempt to help the GM create challenges in a controlled manner. Shadowrun has the tendency of having characters avoiding the thing they are designed to do, which is a bit silly.

All of which may be part of the reason I haven't bought that book yet. That and my son has a copy and its still at my house. When he moves it out, the temptation will increase
And I confess I do like fiddly bits well enough...
Shadowrun is, at the moment, the perfect game for me to want to play at Cons, but not really want to run as a campaign.

...new edition of Paranoia doesn't?

• A game mechanically suited for a campaign! Paranoia is fun, but it isn't great for prolonged use, mechanically speaking.
• A game that's not a one-trick pony. Paranoia is focused comedy and shtick, which is fun, but gets kinda tired for prolonged use.

I will likely still buy it as soon as it hits market though.
I do like me some Paranoia and would dearly love to write up some adventures for it for Cons...

...a new copy of Pathfinder doesn't?

• A new game! A new copy of Pathfinder's rules gives you content you already have, and are very familiar with. For you, a new copy is merely reinvestment in infrastructure.

True that.

 

[Wicht]

I'm starting to feel bad that everyone even tried to be helpful.

Why?

I appreciate the help.

I am just trying to be upfront about what will sell me (actual benefits to the game) and what won't (free PDFs).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why?

I appreciate the help.

I am just trying to be upfront about what will sell me (actual benefits to the game) and what won't (free PDFs).

Well, then what is it you want? You either spend money you don't want to spend to read the rules in a form you like... or you don't spend any money to read the rules, but in the format you don't like. You know... we all have to make sacrifices here. I know you must be disappointed you can't get the game in exactly the format you want at exactly the price point you want... but that's just how it is. You either want to learn about 5E or you don't. And if paying $50 or reading a PDF is really that much of a hardship, then don't do either. We'll all be fine with your decision.

 

[Wicht]

Indeed. Actually, I almost said that very thing in my post.

Here's the thing: with both this and the "price point" argument there is no one objective truth. Maybe you'll like the way 5e kobolds and dragons play; maybe you won't. Maybe you'll find the 3x$50 investment in the game worthwhile; maybe you won't. There's really not much we can say here, beyond "I like it" or "I felt it was worth it."

I think what I am looking for are specifics as to why you like it, or what is different about it.

Mostly, I'm back to recommending trying Basic for yourself. Or, if you really want to avoid PDFs, get the Starter Set and play that - it's the same rules, minus character creation, so will give you a feel for the system.

But what I actually want is justification to buy the books. I like books. I just want a reason to overcome the psychological roadblock thrown up by the price point. At $50 it goes from being an impulse buy to a budgeted item. Chances of it becoming my immediate game of play choice are small (we are in the middle of a campaign I want to finish), but I like reading game books, especially when they have new things in them or items which inspire me to want to game more. I have many books I never use for actual gaming, but which were well read and well enjoyed.

Telling me what is fantastic about the rulebooks will give me reason to buy it eventually.

 

[Umbran]

Shadowrun is, at the moment, the perfect game for me to want to play at Cons, but not really want to run as a campaign.

Ah. To me, SR is a lousy choice to run at cons, unless you are aiming only for people who are already in campaigns of their own at home. The learning curve on the mechanics is *way* too steep for a new player to pick it up in a convention game to really have fun with it. They will spend all their time figuring out what they can do and how to do it and not die, and not focusing on the adventure and events, which are Shadowrun's real strength.

I do like me some Paranoia and would dearly love to write up some adventures for it for Cons...

Paranoia is an excellent game for conventions. But, given its nature, I hardly think there's anything to be gained by picking up the new rules if you already have a previous edition. In my opinion, the play experience isn't going to improve much for that new ruleset - an old one would serve just as well.

 

[Wicht]

It's worth noting that for Paizo, they can afford to use the box/rulebook as a loss leader because adventures/splats are their main product. For WOTC, the core books are their focus, so if they aren't making money on those, they aren't making money.

Like I said at the outset, I recognize the different marketing strategies at work and don't really want to devolve into a discussion of it as, from the perspective of my wallet, I know which one is currently winning.

For me, 5th edition is an evolution of 3rd, without all the minutia and bloat. I won't ever have to spend 20 minutes reconfiguring every combatant's stats due to a mass greater dispel magic which strips off a horde of buffs. I don't need to keep track of a spreadsheet's worth of bonuses. Casters are reigned in somewhat. There's no full attack nonsense, so combats are less static slugfests or rocket tag of leap attack/pounce. It totally lacks the granularity of 3rd edition. However I find myself just not caring about that as I get older and just want to play. I was going through a PF beastiary and saw there was a player race plant guy with the Delicious trait, which gave a penalty to escape the grapple of a creature with a bite attack whose bite attack ALSO had the grab trait. If this level of fiddlyness makes you sigh and say "Really? WHO is going to remember that?!" then 5E might be right for you.

FWIW, I run Pathfinder/3rd edition adventures in 5E and they work well. We're currently playing through a Carrion Crown/Age of Worms mashup in our 5E Golarion game, and even converting, I find the prep less and ease of play better than 3E.

Thanks for the feedback. Though I confess, as I think I mentioned once, I actually like fiddliness. (And I am comfortable winging the bonuses for the sake of speed.) But simplicity has its own sort of beauty.

What do you mean though, if you don't mind me asking, about the full attack nonsense? Can you explain?