Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 5307819" data-attributes="member: 32164">Okay, since I feel there were some good comments that got deleted after the errata thread became errata only, I suggest people voice them in this thread...I just want to clarify some of the points I made above. I understand what the new Red Box is. I'm just disappointed based on what it could have been. What we got this time was yet another Starter Set that is, basically, a teaser intro to the game.I'm sure the WotC guys are patting themselves on the back for finally doing a set with character creation rules. But it seems to me that the "Red Box" character creation is...suspect. Forget, for a moment, that there are some discrepancies between the "Red Box" classes and what we've seen of the full versions in Heroes of the Fallen Lands. That's the province of the errata thread.What I want to discuss is the extent the Red Box really has "character creation" rules. I grant that you can make a fighter, cleric, rogue or wizard of any of 4 races. But in many ways, one Red Box fighter will be the same as another. 16 pre-gens would probably have been a better use of space. Not counting the power descriptors, the Ampersand previews of the warpriest cleric, slayer fighter, thief rogue, and mage wizard took 2 pages each. Condensed race descriptions should take about another page each. That's 12 pages for full class and race descriptions. Equipment tables for mundane stuff could be handled in 4 more pages. That's 16 pages. Given that all the attributes use the same table, I'm thinking you could give the default array and describe all the stats in under 2 pages (about what it takes in the PHB).That's less than 20 pages added to the PHB. Given that, there's probably enough room to include powers up to 2nd, or even 3rd level for every class. Another 32 pages in the Player's Book would be (I think) a pretty minimal increase in cost, but the value added to the set would be immeasurable. In fact, it's so immeasurable that I feel it would be worth limiting the solo adventure to only include the full path for 2 classes (fighter and wizard, say) if you absolutely had to keep the book shorter. Or raise the price by five dollars if you must.The other thing the set needs to be fully usable is more magic items. The "Red Box" only includes 7 distinct items. The Moldvay and Mentzer sets had 48 and 53 respectively (I still have mine, so I counted). By comparison, that's pretty pathetic.Replayability is a huge issue pertaining to the potential impact this set could have. Every starter set since WotC took over has been the same - nothing but a limited intro set intended to tease people into buying "the real game." That makes it hard for someone "in the know" to give the "Red Box" as a present - because we know it's not enough to really play. So guess what? It doesn't sell well.The Basic D&D boxes were different. Yes, they were for Levels 1-3 only, but they were everything you needed to play several 3-level long campaigns. I think WotC is nervous that they'll sell someone a "Red Box" and nothing else, but is that really a serious concern? People that cheap aren't going to jump on more products ANYWAY. But if you've never played, it takes a while to get the hang of D&D. The original "Red Box" did a really good job at exposing people to the experience and making D&D accessible. Lots of people who played it got "hooked." By contrast, every starter set in the WotC days has failed miserably at attracting new players, even though the game is more sophisticated and the system is, in many ways, "easier." Doesn't that tell you something?I thought when I saw the "Red Box" trade dress on the new Dungeons & Dragons Starter Set that WotC had made a real 4e version of that venerable product. Sadly, while it's good by the standards of the recent "Starter Sets," this set falls woefully short when it's compared to the old "Red Box."I'm confused. Does WotC not want to sell tens of millions of "Red Box" sets? Because it sure seems that way.</blockquote>

Verification