Generally speaking, your own dungeons and campaigns are always going to be the best material, so I'm sure there is lots of cool home brewed 5E stuff out there. And I get that it is an objectively better designed set of rules than all the pre 3E stuff (and maybe 3E and 4E as well). I just personally don't see much reason to play it in place of other editions. The experience at the table is pretty similar. I think it is mostly true that people make too much of differences between rules sets and systems. They don't really have that much to do with the experience of table top roleplaying. I'ld rather all the creative energy people have put into rules revisions went into adventures and settings and such.

Quote from: Larsdangly;825958I like 5E and think they did a good job putting it together. But a few months in, I'm more likely to grab my 1E or B/E books and one of the great new OSR megadungeons if I am going to play D&D. There isn't any particular rules-y reason why; I just am not feeling the coolness factor you get with great games. That would change if they put out some creative, fun, really nicely produced dungeons or settings. But so far I've found the official adventures for 5E to be total crap (other than Phandelver, which is pretty solid).

I'm running 5e with conversion of 3.5 version of Caverns of Thracia plus conversion of the OSR dungeon Dyson's Delve. 5e works great for the swords & sorcery themed campaign, the combat feels much more meaty and visceral than other editions - probably a result of 'bounded accuracy' where even AC 15 guys are being hit at least half the time by enemies, few foes have attack bonus below +4. The 5e Barbarian is absolutely brilliant for this, the Rogue too - the Fighter's not half bad either. The caster classes seem rather weaker though, I'm playing a Paladin in another 5e campaign and not too impressed.

Back when the designers were talking about their vision for 5E, they kept saying they were going to get off the splatbook treadmill. OSR fans who disliked WotC scoffed at the idea the system wouldn't bloat. Bitter 4E fans said splatbooks are the only way to bring in a steady revenue.

Turns out they were true to their word. 5E is the first edition since 1E that isn't relying on a splatbook revenue model. Funny thing is, now fans are saying they want more content.

I admit, I'm a little surprised at how light the release schedule has been. I hate rules bloat, but I though we would get more setting books (Forgotten Realms, Underdark, a small-scale setting like the Nentir Vale from 4E, etc.) and miscellaneous support by now (optional naval and aquatic rules, ideas for undead campaigns, more robust outdoor exploration support, etc.).

It does sound like they're hitting their stride with the latest adventure, and it seems like they've learned from Pathfinder that the mega-adventures are the way to go. But those adventures have been designed by contractors. What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

I don't think of adventures or settings as splatbooks. Basically, what i like is the 1E model (at least for the classic period of its first 5 years). That IS what 5E is doing, and that's great. I just don't think they've produced adventures that stack up with what TSR was producing during the early years of 1E.

Little popcorn adventures outside of Adventure League, or at least opening up Adventure League's Expeditions to the public once a season is retired, may help here. Some of the AL Expeditions for Tyranny of Dragons were great world building fodder for the region around Phlan. Too bad the 5-10 lvl stuff went out with a bang and shuffled everyone to Mulmaster for the Elemental Evil season like a bad guided tour.

But then Organized Play is Organized Play. And there is still time to resource dump Dragon's Season once they are done with it. It looks like they are more involved in trying to get new blood back into the swing of RPGs more than anything.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019Turns out they were true to their word. 5E is the first edition since 1E that isn't relying on a splatbook revenue model. Funny thing is, now fans are saying they want more content.

Yeah. And while I know you're speaking in general - I've never been one of these people. I like splats. I'm a GM - so I use what works for me. I don't have a problem with rules bloat because if I don't like a given rule, I don't use it.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019I admit, I'm a little surprised at how light the release schedule has been. I hate rules bloat, but I though we would get more setting books (Forgotten Realms, Underdark, a small-scale setting like the Nentir Vale from 4E, etc.) and miscellaneous support by now (optional naval and aquatic rules, ideas for undead campaigns, more robust outdoor exploration support, etc.).

Very much with you on this. I want setting books so I don't have to waste time updating stuff, because I still use their settings. Though now I'm doing Spelljammer (and I have zero hope they'll get around to this anytime soon) - so I'm offroading on my own content.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019It does sound like they're hitting their stride with the latest adventure, and it seems like they've learned from Pathfinder that the mega-adventures are the way to go. But those adventures have been designed by contractors. What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

Hopefully making our Dark Sun book with full psionics rules.

im hopeing that the constant mentions of other settings even more obscure ones is a good sign of new setting books

but god damit they better not release them as slowly as they are releasing there adventures

Quote from: tenbones;826087Very much with you on this. I want setting books so I don't have to waste time updating stuff, because I still use their settings. Though now I'm doing Spelljammer (and I have zero hope they'll get around to this anytime soon) - so I'm offroading on my own content.

See, this is one of the things that might actually push me to using 5e. My players actually bought the 5e rules (I have not because of my aforementioned "meh" feeling towards the rules) and we've been talking about trying to add new players (we haven't played in 2 1/2 months now because half the group has been busy with other things on game night).

So, even though I prefer my own personal modification of the AD&D 2e rules for my Al-Qadim campaign, it might be easier to just use 5e. But, there's no way I'm doing all the work to convert all of the Al-Qadim stuff I want to use to 5e on my own.

Elemental Evil Player Companion is now print on demand at DTRPG, with premium colour even:  http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145542/Elemental-Evil-Players-Companion-5e

Quote from: Skywalker;826175Elemental Evil Player Companion is now print on demand at DTRPG, with premium colour even:  http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/145542/Elemental-Evil-Players-Companion-5e

Good for them, hopefully it proves worthwhile.

Quote from: estar;826188Good for them, hopefully it proves worthwhile.

I would say 2/3rds is repeated in Princes of the Apocalypse, so it will be interesting to see how successful it is. I guess its a good option for people who want the rules only.

Quote from: Haffrung;826019What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

5.5e?

Quote from: Haffrung;826019It does sound like they're hitting their stride with the latest adventure, and it seems like they've learned from Pathfinder that the mega-adventures are the way to go. But those adventures have been designed by contractors. What, exactly, are the WotC D&D staff doing?

mega adventures are all fine and dandy but you need other smaller adventures to go along with them

I agree about the need for smaller adventures I can use to fill gaps in my campaign. Stuff like in Dungeon.

It would be nice if WoTC did release small adventures- maybe 7-10 page ones, as free pdfs on their site.  Small adventures don't have to be amazing, just entertaining.