D&D 5E Convince me to Spend the Money

[Flexor the Mighty!]

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



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.

Depends on your idea of fantastic. 3.5/PF to me are about as much fun as getting dental work done, 5e seems more what 3e should have been since it harkens back in feel more to 1e IMO. Its faster in play as its less about tons and tons of specific rules and more about open ended rules your DM kind of adapts to the situation at hand. Combat is not built around miniautres use, so tis far less tactical and less about positioning a model on a map, its written without miniatures in mind really. Opportunity attacks are pretty much limited to one situation, less attacks, smaller attack bonuses and AC, buff stacking is dead so you never have to dread someone using dispel magic again or have to figure out the effects of fly + 5 buffs on a PC. Lower magic as you can only "attune" 3 items to yourself, but some weapons and armor do not need to attuned, so the magic christmas tree is gone. Skills and saves are just ability checks and you may or may not be proficient in that ability. Really if you like the fiddly tons of options in PF then 5e may not be for you, if you found that stuff gets in the way of fun more than enables it then you may love 5e. Read the free PDFs. One thing is that WotC is apparently off the splat books model so don't expect tons of add on rule books and splats.

 

[Wicht]

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.

You are no doubt right about its strengths.

But I would counter that my current interest in relearning Shadowrun is partially fueled by the fact that all four of my children played the introduction adventure to it at Origins last year and all four liked it, the oldest enough so that he bought the rulebook. I played some other RPG at the time, but their interest piqued mine in the new rule set.

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.

Alas, my old edition is in a bit of a shambles at the moment. I really should get it rebound, but with the upcoming new release, I have been putting it off...
But running paranoia at a convention is on my Bucket List...

 

[plancktum]

Normally, such discussions are not my favorite time-spending hobby, but actually I think 5e is the best system I've ever played, so I decided to give it a try and help you.

First of all: 5e books are more expensive than PF Books, BUT way more complete. Of course, you could play Pathfinder with the core books, but isn't some part of the Pathfinder-fun to have books for everything?
So if you compare the average pathfinder-book-buying to the average 5e-book-buying, I think you will spend at least equal (probably more) money on pathfinder products.
So, even if the single products are more expensive, the overall costs can be lower. Of course this hardly depends on how much you invest into Pathfinder books. If you just buy the core books and are happy, then you will spend less money on PF.

And that is the point why I like 5e! It's complete! I do not miss anything. In comparison to Shadowrun, where I miss the Magic, Hacking, ... and so on books before I would consider the game complete.
Of course I would like more 5e books, but for me (in contrast to PF) they are completely optional.

Second: Why do I love the books? There full of ideas not rules! And that is fantastic You do not spend hours reading detailed rules for everything. You spend hours thinking about good plots (as a GM) or cool character concepts (as a Player).

Third: It's a very elegant system. If I want to I could use all Fantasy-Setting Adventures, regardless if they are written for 1e,2e,3e,PF,that other fantasy system over there and EASILY use them in my 5e Campaign.
Still, I feel to have enough mechanics which guide me as a GM or Player. 13th Age for example is a little bit too loose in the out-of-combat rules in my opinion (but still is a great system).

Fourth: Ask yourself for what stuff you've spended money which wasn't worth it. If you like books and you like D&D, then you will like 5e and you won't regret buying the books in my opinion.
I've buyed the books without looking into too much detail of the basic rules. I've buyed directly HotDQ and the PHB and now I'm GMing two D&D5 groups. All of my players love this system.

 

[Wicht]

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.

You're not a very good salesman.

I don't want to read a PDF.

I want convinced to spend the money on books that I will enjoy.

Meaning, I want people to tell me why I will enjoy these books.

 

[halfling rogue]

Also, one of the best things I've noticed is that 5e is so so easy to DM. Running a game is more like creating a story and less like a math test. I'll throw it out there that perhaps one of the main benefits of owning the books is that they will likely have a major inspirational impact on you. The 3.5 books had a major inspirational impact on me, but the rules (at least on the DM side) inherently dampened that inspiration with math. 5e swings it fully the other way. Not only does the book inspire, but the rules only enhance the inspiration. They give the inspiration wings to fly. That's a huge intangible, and a largely personal experience, but that's one of the reasons I would save up for them.

 

[fjw70]

Here is what I like about 5e.

Prior to 5e is was a 4e and BX/AD&D player (still like all those games) and for me 5e tkakes the simplicity of BX and layers in some of the best ideas from 3e and 4e (though it probably would scratch the same itched that either of those edition do for most people). Much of the layered stuff is easy to remove.

At its core 5e offers a very basic d20 system that is very simple (basic game) and then adds on stuff like choices for backgrounds, feats, and subclasses (standard game = PH). The DMg then offers more options for tweaking things.

I actually take the basic game and simplify it even further by removing mechanical backgrounds and skills (using the stat score trained skill bonus from the DMG), and taking away many class features (leaving just 1 or 2 class features for each class, such as spellcasting for wizards and multiple attacks for fighters.

So right now I am using 5e as an updated and streamlined BX-type system. It doesn't do the 4e style very well IMO, and if you are into the heavy character building of 3.x or Pathfinder is probably does do that style very well either.

 

[Wicht]

Normally, such discussions are not my favorite time-spending hobby, but actually I think 5e is the best system I've ever played, so I decided to give it a try and help you.

And thank you for taking the time to do so.

First of all: 5e books are more expensive than PF Books, BUT way more complete. Of course, you could play Pathfinder with the core books, but isn't some part of the Pathfinder-fun to have books for everything?
So if you compare the average pathfinder-book-buying to the average 5e-book-buying, I think you will spend at least equal (probably more) money on pathfinder products.
So, even if the single products are more expensive, the overall costs can be lower. Of course this hardly depends on how much you invest into Pathfinder books. If you just buy the core books and are happy, then you will spend less money on PF.

I actually can and do run Pathfinder games using primarily the Core, though as I like game books and am a bit of a completionist, I confess to having quite a lot of Pathfinder books.

But when you say way more complete, what is there in the two 5e books that is not in the Pathfinder Core, or are you simply saying you do not expect as many add on systems over the long-haul?

Second: Why do I love the books? There full of ideas not rules! And that is fantastic You do not spend hours reading detailed rules for everything. You spend hours thinking about good plots (as a GM) or cool character concepts (as a Player).

Do you find this as true of both the Player's Handbook as the DMG? Which would you recommend above the other for game ideas?

Fourth: Ask yourself for what stuff you've spended money which wasn't worth it. If you like books and you like D&D, then you will like 5e and you won't regret buying the books in my opinion.
I've buyed the books without looking into too much detail of the basic rules. I've buyed directly HotDQ and the PHB and now I'm GMing two D&D5 groups. All of my players love this system.

Thank you for the enthusiasm and I hope your groups both have as good a time as you do gaming.

 

[Matthan]

I was in a different circumstance than you. I had played 3.0-3.5 during college and had a fair handle on the system, but never liked all of the fiddly bits. I wanted something simpler. After college, I couldn't get a group and didn't really play. It wasn't until 5E was released and got some good reviews from non-tabletop sites that it was on my radar. After an NPR podcast recommended The Adventure Zone podcast, I gave that a listen. It had a funny group of guys playing through the starter set adventure (though they changed it fairly quickly, the first area is basically the same as presented in the module). Actually hearing folks having fun playing the game and listening to how the simply and quickly the rules played with newcomers (most of the players had little to no prior D&D experience) convinced me to try and start a group.

We're a couple sessions into the starter set adventure. I'm DMing and I am not overwhelmed. The combats have been easy to run and fun for the players. The rules feel very streamlined. We play theater of the mind and combat has been tactical but not overwhelming. I told the group that I wouldn't invest in the core books unless they were really enjoying the game and wanted to continue. They unanimously wanted to keep going.

Since I bought the core books (and yes, it is a hit, but Amazon helps), I've been reading over them almost every day. The PHB is filled with options. Every section that I read makes me want to play. The DMG is immensely practical and useful. It's not just extra rules for the game (though they do give you some options), it's practical advice on how to make your game the best possible for your group. The MM has a wide assortment of monsters that due to the streamlined rules are quick and easy to pull out and run without significant prep.

For me, I have a special place in my heart for heroic fantasy and 5E is the best system that I've read/played to run heroic fantasy the way that I want/enjoy.

My recommendation is to listen to the Adventure Zone podcast for the first episode or two (there is language) and listen to how it plays. That may give you a better sense of the game than going through a PDF that you don't enjoy.

 

[Wicht]

So right now I am using 5e as an updated and streamlined BX-type system. It doesn't do the 4e style very well IMO, and if you are into the heavy character building of 3.x or Pathfinder is probably does [sic] do that style very well either.

I actually like character building and monster building of the 3e engine (fiddly bits if you will) but the lack thereof does not mean a bad game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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

Sure. Full attack is (IMO of course) a terrible system implementation. It forces martial combatants to stand still and use a full round action in order to get their extra attacks, while casters get to break the game with a standard action and are free to move as well. It creates a game of chicken, where if you charge an opponent and don't drop them, you get to eat a deadly full attack on it's turn. It makes the monk class even more dysfunctional, in that it's specialties of lots of attacks and increased mobility don't synch up. There are ways around this (all of our high level characters ended up with some form of pounce in 3.5), but it's really baked too much into the system to simply remove, as it will lead to even more rocket tag of initiative determining who wins a fight.

5E lets you make all of your attacks as an action that can be interspliced with your movement. So if you have 2 attacks and a 30 foot movement, you can move 20 feet, stab a guy, move another 5, stab another, then move 5 more. Or pop out from behind a wall, fire off a spell/arrow, then duck back. This makes cover more dynamic, and the battlefield more fluid. Plus I don't have to remind 2 of my players "No, its move OR make all your attacks!" every combat.

That was another driving factor of my 5E preference. In college, when my group played every week and was essentially professional gamers who scoured the rules for system mastery, the system's complexity was less of an impediment. But that group split up and moved on. Now we're struggling to get in 2 games a month with work, family, etc. My wife mainly played 2nd edition, another friend has less gaming experience, so a simpler system with less bells and whistles is ideal.

You can probably easily add fiddly bits to 5E - I have in some cases. For example, if you have fire resistance, you halve damage vs fire. But what if you want a lesser amount, like 3E/PF's resistance? You can do that too (just don't have them stack). So I've given out lesser potions of resistance, which grant resist 3/5/whatever. For me its easier to add power or complexity than take it away once its baked in.