I know pretty much nothing about 5e. This thread is the first thing I've read about it. Can you give me more details about what's different between it and 3.5 (or True20)? Is there an SRD somewhere?
SpiritCaller wrote:I know pretty much nothing about 5e. This thread is the first thing I've read about it. Can you give me more details about what's different between it and 3.5 (or True20)? Is there an SRD somewhere?
The Basic Rules contain four classes and races, with a single iconic subclass for each of the classes. The Player's Handbook contains more subclasses, classes, and races. Plus options like feats and multiclassing.
So you can go online and get the Basic player and DM rules and play for free.
You can also buy the prepublished adventures and download a companion PDF from the WotC site with all the monsters and magic items, allowing you to run the entire adventure with no other books.
While basic D&D books are free, the omission of the optional rule for feats is jarring. This is IMO the most important part missing in the free PDFs.
What it is: at certain levels you can get a +2 to an ability, +1 to 2 abilities or a feat (an ability can go up to 20). Feats are now mega-feats combining like 2-3 3.5 feats. In the free PDFs, you're given only the chance to increase ability scores.
Also many iconic spells that are in the PHB are missing from the free PDF although many are included in the various adventure companion free PDFs WotC is giving.
So, I would consider the free PDFs a good "Trial" version of D&D. I use them mostly (Cause they're PDF) and go to PHB for spells and feats usually.
WHAT I SUGGEST:
Use the PDFs and get feats from fans: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.ph ... t-Database Jester's rules! Not all fan-made are balanced. A feat should be more or less equivalent to a +2 to an ability score.
Last edited by alhoon on Sun May 24, 2015 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia My DMGuild work!
alhoon wrote:While basic D&D books are free, the omission of the optional rule for feats is jarring. This is IMO the most important part missing in the free PDFs.
What it is: at certain levels you can get a +2 to an ability, +1 to 2 abilities or a feat (an ability can go up to 20). Feats are now mega-feats combining like 2-3 3.5 feats. In the free PDFs, you're given only the chance to increase ability scores.
Also many iconic spells that are in the PHB are missing from the free PDF although many are included in the various adventure companion free PDFs WotC is giving.
So, I would consider the free PDFs a good "Trial" version of D&D. I use them mostly (Cause they're PDF) and go to PHB for spells and feats usually.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia My DMGuild work!
Probably having nothing to do with the differences in rules, for me the biggest problem I have with 5e is the same problem in 4e, WotC still haven't worked out a good license for creating 3PP products. I know there are a number of 5e 3PP products out there, but there seems to be a dance on how best to attribute licensing with a product release. Many of the existing 3PP 5e products use a combination of 3x OGL and what 5e licensing allows - its very cumbersome. 3PP 5e products cannot place a 5e compatible product anywhere on the cover?! Its been a while since the release of 5e and WotC still hasn't nailed down the 3PP license properly. Why is that?
Pathfinder, of course relying on the 3x license, added lines to the license to insure compatiblity with third party publishers, have provided both the applicable logo and allowance for using that logo on the cover design of products with Pathfinder Compatible Product. The key thing is that Paizo released the appropriate license at the same time as initial Pathfinder release. There was no extended wait or confusion. Third parties were able to release product almost simultaneously with the release of Pathfinder.
Being both a freelancer and a small RPG publisher (who isn't an expert on license laws), I am very wary of playing the dance around the license to release compatible products. The Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) would not now exist, if it weren't for Pathfinder OGL.
As an aside, speaking of Kaidan, the GM's setting guide manuscript to Kaidan is finally fully completed and is now in editing. Once editing is done, I'll do a mock layout of the entire manuscript to finalize art orders. Once art is complete, we'll be very close to publicly releasing it - I am hopeful for early Autumn release.
MichaelTumey wrote: for me the biggest problem I have with 5e is the same problem in 4e, WotC still haven't worked out a good license for creating 3PP products.
...
Its been a while since the release of 5e and WotC still hasn't nailed down the 3PP license properly. Why is that?
In my opinion? Because of pathfinder and its success. I won't delve into a rant of how much I dislike Pathfinder for using OGL to stab WotC in the back and stealing their customers, but I believe WotC won't likely open itself ever again to a possibility of that kind of treachery.
The OGL was nice, it was abused, it made D&D suffer for its generocity and now of course, we won't see it again. Because of Pathfinder's opportunism.
(and yes, that's not the rant. You don't want to hear the rant)
MichaelTumey wrote:
Pathfinder, of course relying on the 3x license, added lines to the license to insure compatiblity with third party publishers, have provided both the applicable logo and allowance for using that logo on the cover design of products with Pathfinder Compatible Product. The key thing is that Paizo released the appropriate license at the same time as initial Pathfinder release. There was no extended wait or confusion. Third parties were able to release product almost simultaneously with the release of Pathfinder.
Well, I would dare say there's little risk involved on that when Paiso basically uses a system developed and paid by another company, adjusting it with the experience of a decade of players and DMs.
MichaelTumey wrote:
As an aside, speaking of Kaidan, the GM's setting guide manuscript to Kaidan is finally fully completed and is now in editing. Once editing is done, I'll do a mock layout of the entire manuscript to finalize art orders. Once art is complete, we'll be very close to publicly releasing it - I am hopeful for early Autumn release.
That's good news. Congratulations!
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia My DMGuild work!
While I empathize with your point of view, I did not state that WotC was not creating some kind of license allowing 3PP participation - so you stating that they likely won't open themselves up to an OGL (they in fact continue to do so in alternate form). To be fair both 4e and 5e has some kind of 3PP license in place. 4e had the very restrictive and unsuccessful GSL which allowed 3PP product creation supporting their system, however language in the license suggested WotC could at any time control whether a product could be placed or removed from the shelves of retailers, which is overly Draconian control over 3PP products. 5e license doesn't have that language at all, still its a bit fuzzy and WotC promised an update to the license, but nothing has been done over a year since that announcement. So WotC has and continues to "open themselves up to such treachery", just the language has been too muddy for many publishers interests. Don't you think if WotC was so concerned with potential 3PP treachery, they wouldn't include a 3PP license at all? TSR didn't have such a thing.
Regarding your point that Paizo simply used a system paid for by another company. The entire staff of employer and employees in Paizo at startup originally worked for WotC, and they were among the "creators" of the 3x system. Most were let go under the new structure put in place following the Hasbro buy-out and where the original money used to start Paizo Publishing came from. While holding the licenses to produce Dungeon and Dragon magazines, Paizo publishing paid for $1 million dollars+ for art assets. When WotC ended their relationship with Paizo ending the magazine licenses, as WotC were bringing the magazines inhouse to do electronically, all that paid-for art was considered part of the magazine business, so Paizo had to lose control and give it all to WotC.
Additionally, prior to 4e release all 3x material was removed from distribution, and Paizo Publishing which supported D&D through long publication of Dungeon and Dragon magazines was forced to cease all 3x compatible products in production. When 4e was released, a GSL (game system license) was promised, but it was delayed for an entire year. If a game system isn't in the distribution channels, 3PP products supporting that retired system is also not allowed into distribution. This meant that unless Paizo chose a different path, they would not be able to release any products for an entire year, which Paizo could not afford to do. It was then and for that reason, they opted to develop their own system based off the OGL. The Pathfinder public Beta release meant total transparency. It was pragmatic and open, nothing treacherous. (There's a thread on the Paizo boards with Lisa Stevens, the CEO, gives a full public account of these matters.)
I don't think WotC has any kind of animosity nor belief they've been subject to treachery by Paizo Publishing - both companies get along with each other and hold joint company Christmas parties each year. The "treachery" you speak of may be your opinion, but no one in the RPG publishing industry including WotC and Paizo Publishing share such an opinion. When the OGL was created the goal was to encourage 3PP participation, not just to support their system, but to insure that D&D didn't cease to exist due to mismanagement by a singular owner, such as what almost happened when TSR closed its doors. The license creators weren't blind to the ramifications, including that a separate system could be created based on that license. Paizo wasn't the first nor only company to come up with a different rules systems from the OGL. Green Ronin Mutants and Masterminds was created while 3x was still being published, while also creating 3x content like the city of Freeport.
Many of the existing employees of both companies have worked and continued to work with one company then the other - that still happens today. There is more collusion and good will between the companies than antagonism. Its just business.
The fanbase may have such animosities, but the publishers do not. The RPG industry is too small, most RPG companies get along fine together.
Your entire "back stab" premise is based on false conjecture. Everything I state is provable with publicly available information from both Paizo Publishing and Wizards of the Coast.
Last edited by MichaelTumey on Sun May 31, 2015 4:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
alhoon wrote:In my opinion? Because of pathfinder and its success. I won't delve into a rant of how much I dislike Pathfinder for using OGL to stab WotC in the back and stealing their customers, but I believe WotC won't likely open itself ever again to a possibility of that kind of treachery.
The OGL was nice, it was abused, it made D&D suffer for its generocity and now of course, we won't see it again. Because of Pathfinder's opportunism.
(and yes, that's not the rant. You don't want to hear the rant)
It's a tricky issue. One of the intents of the OGL when it was created was to ensure D&D would survive regardless of WotC did, and to ensure that future versions of the game had to be markedly better or they would be competing with 3e. It was set-up partially to prevent the kind of situation 4e created where the creators made an edition not everyone wanted because they just assumed everyone would buy it because it was D&D and they had no choice.
Paizo didn't really have much choice in the matter. They were less interested in taking WotC's customers and much more concerned with keeping the customers they already had.
What was their alternative? Go out of business and lay everyone off? Take the subscriber money prepaid for Adventure Path volumes and just run?
WotC didn't share the 4e rules with Paizo, so they couldn't switch to 4e for their APs even if they had wanted to. And the promised GSL was delayed again and again.
Well, it's not that I agree with WotC practices either... I hated that they pulled all pre-4th edition from the markets. And I don't understand why they still don't have the full 5e books in PDF! I end up using the free PDFs more than the books simply because I have them in my computer, I have the "find" function etc.
Not to mention, that my oD&D books (basic\expert\companion\master\immortal) that I have in DrivethruRPG... are unavailable still. That's 5 products there I bought and I can't still access.
And yes, if WotC haven't put out an edition that wasn't that liked and trying to force it on their customers by eradicating everything prior, they wouldn't have problems.
As for the 4e license: It was insanely restrictive compared to OGL. That's why 3PP stayed away from it. Some bizzare stuff like "you can use references to powers, not reprint the powers. And we can tell you to kill your product. At any time."
I don't expect we will ever see something as open as the OGL again, from any such company, for decades. As for the license for 5e being muddy, I believe it is the various sides in WotC STILL trying to find the golden line between preventing a new pathfinder and still giving out enough for the 3PP to use without having to jump through loops. I think there are those that say "the djinni is out of the bottle now, if we're too restrictive people will use the d20 SRD or PF" and those that say "There should be just enough so that 3PP products are possible but not able to make a new game out of us"
I believe the sales of D&D next will be the deciding factor. With the free PDFs, I believe the "share not scare!" faction is making advances.
HOWEVER: As far as comparing 5e to Pathfinder, my bad opinion on WotC and worse on Paizo doesn't play a role in the comparison. I find 5e a better system for the reasons I explained in my early posts.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia My DMGuild work!
Yeah, I'm not here to discuss rules issues or differences in systems. To me which rules are best for your game is completely subjective - and rules system even those not d20 based are viable options for a Ravenloft game. For my point of view, as a game designer, I'm not interested in inventing a new game system, nor attempting the heart-breaker move to try to introduce a new game system - that's way too much money to try to brand. The fact that Pathinder is very open to 3PP participation is really the only reason I choose that system. Consider that I am essentially a D&D gamer, and PF is close enough to my preferred game that it works fine. I've always wanted to correct authenticity mistakes (IMO) in the Japan analogs with Kara-Tur, Oriental Adventures and Rokugan. Since TSR never had any kind of 3PP license, I had no path to make such corrections. Although during 3x the OGL was introduced, so I could have worked with 3x in the development and publication, but I personally wasn't ready to enter the industry yet. About the time Pathfinder was in development, I was personally ready. So my choice of going with Pathfinder was completely based on timing for what I wanted to do and what was legally available to participate at the time.
At this time, I am still wrapping the future release of the setting guides, with hope of developing a full AP set in Kaidan - to create a full product line, in addition to existing introductory AP, one-shot modules, and various class/faction, monster and magic item supplements. Once a full product line is established, I may look at other game systems to port Kaidan to in addition to Pathfinder. And that might even include 5e, depending on what the finalized WotC license looks like. Although I am personally not a fan of HARP, nor other game systems by Iron Crown Enterprises, 2 years ago, they approached me with a desire to either license Kaidan to ICE or publish a version for their game systems. While I appreciate their interest, it was too early, IMO, to diversify to other game systems yet. Once I have the full monty of products, only then will I look at other game systems to possibly partner with.
Currently a lot of my time is going to map commissions for Legendary Games, Stormbunny Studios and EN Publishing, so I have to squeeze Kaidan development between all that.
I want to be totally, TOTALLY clear here that I don't harbor any ill will towards people that prefer PF to D&D or that work with PF because it suits them better. You don't have to explain your business decisions to me MT. Your maps work in every setting
As I said, D&D next works better for me because you can basically play a 2e adventure from the book with a faster and more balanced system by just updating the monsters and changing "roll bend bars" to "Strength check with DC 18".
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia My DMGuild work!
I'm very much not mono-gamist. I'm running Pathfinder right now and play Pathfinder Society, and I have run and played 4e, and I'm very much looking forward to running some 5e.
Right now I'm designing more for 5e because I find it very effortless to build for, and there's lots of room for creation. Pathfinder is much more fiddily and a lot of the cool stuff has already been done.
However... I guess:
