Will 13th Age hamper 5e sales to some degree?

Poll.

I personally think as 13th Age grows in popularity it will become another big name on the market so, yes. That 13th Age is already becoming a name that is being echoed through other RPG forums as sort of a "4e reborn" type game.

Personally I think there's a possibility of 13th Age harming D&D 5E sales, but the way I see it, the biggest enemy of 5E is... 5E itself:

• It alienates majority of the 4E players who have accepted the 4E format as opposed to the pre-4E format that it embraces (regardless if there are 4E elements in 5E).
  
• For some reason there's this absolute loathing for the Warlord, as there's an active effort to break up the class and distribute it between the Fighter and the Bard.
  
• It chucks out one of the major features of 3E, and to a slightly lesser degree 4E (customization) for the sake of "balance"... although I can't exactly see how feats are even remotely comparable to attributes, unless you're looking at feats that give constant bonuses like 4E Expertise feats.
  
• Some of its major features -- Bounded Accuracy and Advantage in particular -- have created complications that even in the most recent playtest have not been fully addressed; instead, monster frailty and the downsizing of most combat is heralded as a feature, as it gives non-combat/roleplaying mechanics (e.g. Downtime) greater opportunities to be used... in spite of the facepalm moment where they had to houserule a fight to save a podcast session featuring the Lair mechanics, due to the problems caused by Bounded Accuracy combined with slow HP progression.
  
• Rather than simplifying the system for the group (players and DMs alike), it seems the system has been simplified for the designer; with 6 ability scores for saves as opposed to 3E's Fort/Ref/Will saves or 4E's Fort/Ref/Will non-AC defenses, it was theoretically simple because you didn't have to write additional defenses/saves and instead relied on ability scores alone... except you have modifiers to ability checks and saves (including the recent replacement of the skill die with a static +10 to a check via knowledge lore), which seems more like a return to the pre-3E dogpile of saves and myriad of kits, meaning more to track, not less.
  
• If 5E uses the GSL of 4E, then expect sadness galore for the third party community. Again.
  

How does 13th Age factor in?  All I can concretely say is that with the mechanics and setting of 13th Age, even those who state that they absolutely dislike 13th Age mechanics have mentioned that they are interested in the setting and would still buy the book because of it, and with the efforts of the budding 13th Age community in not only spreading the word about the system, but also in creating homebrew content (some of which have been adopted from other systems and settings), all I've seen so far is excitement and interest for 13th Age, as opposed to the criticism -- if it has generated any interest at all outside of the D&D forums and D&D playtest -- that D&D 5E has been generating.  And while some D&D 4E groups might actually be disappointed by several aspects of 13th Age, I might even be so bold as to claim that 13th Age is easily the bridge that lets all players from all editions come together and play a game that's recognizably D&D, in spite of its claim of separation from said system.

[[ Ironically achieving what originally was D&D 5E's goals -- uniting the D&D players of every edition -- so apparently now its main goal is to make D&D 5E the gateway system for newbie players to the TRPG scene. ]]

Perhaps just like the 3.5E players who disliked 4E and went to Pathfinder, 4E players who thought that the only options were to either stick to 4E or switch to 5E would now have an alternative system to switch to (13th Age), while at the same time 1E/2E/3E players who loved their D&D and didn't like how the system evolved could always try 13th Age as well, instead of just switching to 5E or sticking to OSRIC/PF/their own system.

The fact that 13th Age is OGL (and the SRD would be ready in the coming months, now that the core book's out) means that it'll have the same third party friendliness that 3.5E and PF currently enjoy, which means goodness all around. Not sure I can say the same for 5E.

I think the only thing that will really hamper 5e sales is the toxic community environment created by the people who want action-movie inspirational healing kept out of their ultra-serious and absolutely realistic game of magical elves because it ruins their immersion.

I've often tried bringing up things like that Duskweaver. Remember there is a wrong way to kill an imaginary dragon.

Plus Martial Healing was just recently confirmed with a fighter, Warlord sub-class, and a bard sub-class. But of course people have whined about it being an option sub-class too. People apparently have forgotten if you don't like something in the game that you can change it.

I made the mistake of going back to the WotC Next forums and actually trying to find some common ground between the two camps on the issue of 'martial healing'.

I suggested, as a compromise solution, that there be a sort of 'global on/off switch' that allows the warlord's 'Inspiration' and the fighter's 'Second Wind' abilities to actually do one of two different things: either healing if you want martial healing in the game, or some other equal-balanced effect if you don't. That way, nobody has to ban any subclasses or class features. It's a single decision point that establishes the 'playstyle' for the whole group, but doesn't 'break' anyone's character or require any houseruling. It lets people play a "tactical leader" that doesn't "shout people's wounds closed".

Needless to say, my suggestion was completely ignored, because people on both sides of the argument prefer throwing invective at each other to anything approaching actual discussion.

I think a good trade-off would be temporary HP. But yes, I know. Those forums have become nothing but toxic and bitter fans screaming about whose's edition was closest to best. Personally I just wanna play the game. And If 5e is really going to be as unorganized, and as unfocused as it looks like it's going to be, then I want nothing to do with it. It all goes back to what many have been trying to tell WotC for some time: It's trying too hard to appeal to everyone's play style, that it's not actually doing any of the things it set out to do.

chaosfang wrote:

[*]Some of its major features -- Bounded Accuracy and Advantage in particular -- have created complications that even in the most recent playtest have not been fully addressed; instead, monster frailty and the downsizing of most combat is heralded as a feature, as it gives non-combat/roleplaying mechanics (e.g. Downtime) greater opportunities to be used... in spite of the facepalm moment where they had to houserule a fight to save a podcast session featuring the Lair mechanics, due to the problems caused by Bounded Accuracy combined with slow HP progression.

I agree with most of what you said. But I gotta hear this. Got a link to that podcast?  

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

chaosfang wrote:

Some of its major features -- Bounded Accuracy and Advantage in particular -- have created complications that even in the most recent playtest have not been fully addressed; instead, monster frailty and the downsizing of most combat is heralded as a feature, as it gives non-combat/roleplaying mechanics (e.g. Downtime) greater opportunities to be used... in spite of the facepalm moment where they had to houserule a fight to save a podcast session featuring the Lair mechanics, due to the problems caused by Bounded Accuracy combined with slow HP progression.

I agree with most of what you said. But I gotta hear this. Got a link to that podcast?  

Admittedly I only read about it in the WotC forums, sorry if I can't produce the relevant podcast on the subject

Speaking of the WotC forums have you seen their new garbage layout? It's just bad...

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Speaking of the WotC forums have you seen their new garbage layout? It's just bad...

It does hurt the eyes, and it looks far less like a gaming forum and much more like it was ripped off from a different forum, not to mention that the top bar is off and...

... yeah, I have to agree it's crap.

Yeah there are loads of things wrong with it. I apparently joined in December of 1969. Plus look at this:



Anyone see the problem?  

I answered "yes" in the poll but my real answer is "It should".

13th Age builds on what has gone before it and makes some solid innovations.

Next goes back to 1999, assumes that Gygaxian-style random/incoherent design makes sense, and then tries to create Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition... and sets the game line up for an unending series of Skills & Powers-like supplements.

I agree Scrivener. 13th Age is really in many ways an evolution of 4e.

I also agree with what you say about Next. Though some people swear that's the only way to play the game.  

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

(snip) I also agree with what you say about Next. Though some people swear that's the only way to play the game.  

Yeah... until they start pulling apart the flaws after a few half-arsed modules are released or, as is also likely to happen, the execution of the first core books is botched.