Necrozius
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2017
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 10,602
That’s a great question. I assumed that it was doing well? Isn’t Paizo still #2?How are Starfinder's sales? How much mindshare does it have?
shrug
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That’s a great question. I assumed that it was doing well? Isn’t Paizo still #2?How are Starfinder's sales? How much mindshare does it have?
I would spend money on that - kickstart!My dream is to take the classes from Adventures in Middle Earth, file off the Tolkienesque bits, and convert one or more of Mythras' magic systems to be 5e-compatible.
Not so much for me, but for friends who only want to play 5e and nothing else (hacks are fine, they are the types who feel that 5e can be adapted to ANY franchise).
See Disney and how they've treated Alan Dean Foster as another example of Corporate asshattery.Maybe, but it's not like WotC didn't try to screw them over a novel that was apparently already near completion and were under contract. So it's not like they sued for no apparent reason. Plus I don't really care about the sacred rights of corporations. If I don't like what they do I'm gonna call them out regardless.
See Disney and how they've treated Alan Dean Foster as another example of Corporate asshattery.
I know, how un-American....it goes against the Constitution...which starts right off with "We the Corporations in order to form a more perfect profit margin..." What next, asking corporations to pay actual taxes....that way leads to madness.That seems to be quite the thing these days. Not defending individuals, but companies. It's not Weis and Hickman vs. some Executive or Board of Directors, it's Weis and Hickman vs. Hasbro. Mean old entitled writers attacking every single employee of a Family™.
That's irrelevant. Corporations don't care about justice or fairness, you go after their money, you're going down. And if you win, oh, you're on the Black List FOREVER.Maybe, but it's not like WotC didn't try to screw them over a novel that was apparently already near completion and were under contract. So it's not like they sued for no apparent reason. Plus I don't really care about the sacred rights of corporations. If I don't like what they do I'm gonna call them out regardless.
Said the author of every Cyberpunk game ever...That's irrelevant. Corporations don't care about justice or fairness, you go after their money, you're going down. And if you win, oh, you're on the Black List FOREVER.
That fact that the corporation STARTED it does not matter in the least. You had the temerity to go against your betters.
This is the corporate board and executive mentality.
I've worked in that field for a decade, I have a hard time thinking that these old money people would change in that short of time.Said the author of every Cyberpunk game ever...
I was agreeing with you.I've worked in that field for a decade, I have a hard time thinking that these old money people would change in that short of time.
Would it though? I dunno. Like I said, I liked the novels, but as a world it was... Very strange.Well regardless of the reasons, I hope that we can all agree that it IS a pity that this new source book doesn’t have the involvement or blessings of the original creators.
In general, regardless of franchise, it always feels like a wasted opportunity. Like making a new Dark Crystal show without the creative input of Frank Oz and Brian Froud (and whoever else made the original movie).
I'm not arguing about the merits of the Dragonlance setting.Would it though? I dunno. Like I said, I liked the novels, but as a world it was... Very strange.
Lawful Good as an evil alignment that brought down an entire age, Chaotic Evil that played nice with other alignments as part of a nine person council of mages... These things makes ZERO sense in the context of 5e's changes.
But WoTC are the OWNERS. Who created it is irrelevant. Is it bad taste? Sure, I guess. But that's what one gets when they do business with the Corporate world.I'm not arguing about the merits of the Dragonlance setting.
I'm arguing that I think it is bad news, generally speaking, when a mega corporation dusts off an old franchise without the involvement, acknowledgment or blessing of the original, still alive, creators.
I think that it is irrelevant whether people believe that Dragonlance is better off without Weis and Hickman. I feel that it is plainly disrespectful how WotC is going about this.
edit; even if the relationship between weis and hickman is problematic with WotC, I think it's still in bad taste.
In this case, it's probably bad business as well. For much of the fanbase--probably a majority--Weis & Hickman are Dragonlance, and any attempt to do it without them is likely to be considered illegitimate. Unless they can sell the big new D&D fanbase on it--and overcome the negative word of mouth from the existing fans--it's going to face a major hurdle to financial success, and DL's track record as a financially successful RPG setting isn't that great to begin with.I'm not arguing about the merits of the Dragonlance setting.
I'm arguing that I think it is bad news, generally speaking, when a mega corporation dusts off an old franchise without the involvement, acknowledgment or blessing of the original, still alive, creators.
I think that it is irrelevant whether people believe that Dragonlance is better off without Weis and Hickman. I feel that it is plainly disrespectful how WotC is going about this.
edit; even if the relationship between weis and hickman is problematic with WotC, I think it's still in bad taste.
I'm not arguing about the merits of the Dragonlance setting.
I'm arguing that I think it is bad news, generally speaking, when a mega corporation dusts off an old franchise without the involvement, acknowledgment or blessing of the original, still alive, creators.
I think that it is irrelevant whether people believe that Dragonlance is better off without Weis and Hickman. I feel that it is plainly disrespectful how WotC is going about this.
edit; even if the relationship between weis and hickman is problematic with WotC, I think it's still in bad taste.
I've had no problems adapting my 2e Undermountain stuff to 5e, even porting the little special unique magic items.5e isn't a particularly good system for AD&D settings.
I'd use Castles and Crusades if I wanted to run Dragonlance. No Warlocks or Sorcerer's that don't fit; it has bards, rangers and paladins that don't have spellcasting and it even has a knight class.
Depends on which setting really.I've had no problems adapting my 2e Undermountain stuff to 5e, even porting the little special unique magic items.
YMMV of course.
All of those settings absolutely worked with AD&D2 and just how much each of them deviated from the core ruleset was the whole point of it. Where nowadays setting fluff bends over backward to comply with ubiquitous crunch, it used to be the other way around.Depends on which setting really.
Forgotten Realms can really be done with anything. So could Planescape. Birthright didn't even work with AD&D. Dragonlance really doesn't have a place for all that extra magic. Dark Sun will be done I'm sure with 5e but it will be awful (although you could probably say the same for 2e Dark Sun in a lot of things, but at least in broad terms it recognised the rules had to reflect the setting - whereas 5e is fundamentally indifferent to setting). Greyhawk could I guess, except the elements that most appeal to Greyhawk's hardcore fans and distinguish it from Forgotten Realms would probably be missing, and no one else would see the point.
I've heard Mythras can end world hunger.I suppose Mythras can do that.
It's important to make a distinction between what could be done, given the willingness to do so, and what is practically likely to be done.The thing is that some aspects of 5e are very easy to tweak. You can ban specific spells, equipment, races, subclasses, even classes without breaking anything. Every basic role can already be filled by multiple classes. You can adjust the deeper rules like how rests work if you're careful. The designers should be able to adapt the system to match the setting; it still won't feel the same as the 2e rules but you could capture more of the setting feel. The problem is either a rule from on high that everything is 100% compatible with everything else or just design laziness. I'm pretty much wait and see before buying any 5e book. Even then, it's mainly whether my kid wants it that determines the buy.
I was expecting them to classify the spells by color for the mtg settings. But one of the most defining characteristics was totally ignored. Sure it would have taken hours of grunt work to go through all the spells but it's definitely doable, especially by a large publisher.
But it chooses not to.I've heard Mythras can end world hunger.
I fail to see how ruining Dragonlance won't end up a good thing. It's like Nuclear Gandhi.
I think a lot of people expected more M:tG in those books, but they were never trying to convert the two games to each other, they're just different ways of interacting with the same setting. The high-level details of how M:tG's planes work, the nature of mana and the like, are things that aren't relevant to the vast majority of people in that multiverse, they only really matter in detail to planeswalkers (Including Magic players) and other high-power individuals.I was expecting them to classify the spells by color for the mtg settings. But one of the most defining characteristics was totally ignored. Sure it would have taken hours of grunt work to go through all the spells but it's definitely doable, especially by a large publisher.
I loved all the little tweaks that Dark Sun did to several of the core classes and races, plus additions and stuff to fit the setting, without drastically changing everything to the point it no longer felt like D&D. 2e lent itself a lot for stuff like that, and the core classes were simple enough that you could add to them and modify them for the setting without changing a lot. With 5e it feels like system comes first, and classes are so full of fiddly features prepacked into them you'd have to rework everything to make them fit. With Spelljammer, though, I'm not sure this will affect things too much (though, 2e would probably still handle it better), but I doubt 5e could handle Dragonlance that well.
It's important to make a distinction between what could be done, given the willingness to do so, and what is practically likely to be done.
I'm wondering what if another way can be done of what we talked about on this topic here: Paring down the Class Level Features to something more manageable. Classes to Lvl 20 are comprised of Class Feature Levels, Archetype Feature Levels, and ASI (Ability Score Improvement) Feat Levels. So basically a Lvl 20 PC is comprised of three differing pools of level-based features.
- Previously we talked about reducing PC Progression from 20 levels to 10 levels by pulling out both the Archetype and ASI levels
- I could see one emulating setting-based progression -- such as Glorantha religious progression, or L5R fighting school progression -- through primarily using ASI/Feat levels with the base Lvl 1 Class Features. So by keeping those (starting class and ASIs) you simplify progression. Later you can decide whether and how much you want to add Class Feature Levels and Archetype Feature Levels complexity.
- Or to keep it really simple you can keep Lvl 1 Class Feature and then only use ASI, no Feats, as progressing levels. Which means level up raises Ability stats only (and yes, fighters would get 2 extra levels than others because they get extra ASI Levels).
- And then there's the now-decently-known Dungeon Craw Classics PC Funnel where you just use Backgrounds and a d4.
Basically how to break 5e PCs into their component parts. These are solid bones with which to rebuild something noteworthy and adjusted to a very different setting. It's already been done in an aesthetically similar and pleasing manner with various levels of success in 2e, twisting the core into something accommodating the world first.
So I feel it COULD BE done. I just have so little faith in corporate safe-think that it WOULD BE done.
A tempting DYI project, but I am rather tired now (after the past few years of global tribulations) that I'd rather not and instead play with what I already have.
The issue you'd run into is that different classes put different amounts of their "power budget" in the main class and their subclasses - wizards get most of their "power" from their class with the subclasses basically just being tweaks, whereas fighters and druids don't get that much from their class and build most of it into their subclass. If you were going to build combined classes, you'd need to re-work the classes to eliminate that disparity, rather than just going with the core classes and dropping subclasses; that's not work WotC wants to do, because it would effectively be adding new full classes, something they're somewhat loathe to do.I'm wondering what if another way can be done of what we talked about on this topic here: Paring down the Class Level Features to something more manageable. Classes to Lvl 20 are comprised of Class Feature Levels, Archetype Feature Levels, and ASI (Ability Score Improvement) Feat Levels. So basically a Lvl 20 PC is comprised of three differing pools of level-based features.
- Previously we talked about reducing PC Progression from 20 levels to 10 levels by pulling out both the Archetype and ASI levels
- I could see one emulating setting-based progression -- such as Glorantha religious progression, or L5R fighting school progression -- through primarily using ASI/Feat levels with the base Lvl 1 Class Features. So by keeping those (starting class and ASIs) you simplify progression. Later you can decide whether and how much you want to add Class Feature Levels and Archetype Feature Levels complexity.
- Or to keep it really simple you can keep Lvl 1 Class Feature and then only use ASI, no Feats, as progressing levels. Which means level up raises Ability stats only (and yes, fighters would get 2 extra levels than others because they get extra ASI Levels).
- And then there's the now-decently-known Dungeon Craw Classics PC Funnel where you just use Backgrounds and a d4
It would have been nice if the magic in MTG D&D were more reflective of the magic in MTG proper. Spells and spell slots, fine, but spell lists (and spellcasting classes) should have been changed to reflect the color wheel. This... is a massive setting-level design decision that, like every such decision, that the D&D team blatantly disregarded in favor of stretching-- tearing-- the setting's skin to wrap around the system's sharp edges.The high-level details of how M:tG's planes work, the nature of mana and the like, are things that aren't relevant to the vast majority of people in that multiverse, they only really matter in detail to planeswalkers (Including Magic players) and other high-power individuals.
But that isn't even how it works at the in-character level in M:tG's multiverse; while the equivalent to a D&D adventuring spellcaster would likely be operating on a spell point system, they'd have a distinct spell list based on their culture and magical tradition. Like, you get kor stoneforgers, but you don't get "white spellcasters" until you get to the cosmic level (eg. planeswalkers, including Magic players). Colors and cultures are linked, but it's more tendencies than anything hard and fast.It would have been nice if the magic in MTG D&D were more reflective of the magic in MTG proper. Spells and spell slots, fine, but spell lists (and spellcasting classes) should have been changed to reflect the color wheel. This... is a massive setting-level design decision that, like every such decision, that the D&D team blatantly disregarded in favor of stretching-- tearing-- the setting's skin to wrap around the system's sharp edges.
I find it baffling that some people keep talking about WotC handling TSR's legacy properties "respectfully" when they handle their own creations with so little respect.
Jason Thompson, of those terrific dungeon walkthrough maps, has just posted a new supplement for...wait for it...playing babies:
Dungeon Babies: Playing Newborn Babies in Dungeons & Dragons
Hi everyone! Pardon the shamelessly self-promotional post but I just finished a solo DMsGuild project and I hope this is an ok place to gush about it. It's... Dungeon Babies!! https://www.dmsguild.com/product/398133/Dungeon-Babies Yes, a supplement where you play literal babies exploring...www.rpgpub.com