Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 greyhobbit13 Aug 31, 2014 0:34:58	I was pretty unhappy to spend nearly 30 dollars on the new Hoard of the Dragon Queen adventure module, only to find that I had to download the stats for the monsters and magic items. I am not against online content in general, but I felt a bit robbed that I had to download stuff to use something I had already paid for.
#2 biotech66 Aug 31, 2014 12:27:29	I agree, but at least you didn't have to pay EXTRA for it!  I've seen a few companies screw over their customers.  I think if they released the DMG at the same time, they wouldn't need manditory online content for the Dragon Queen.
#3 greyhobbit13 Aug 31, 2014 21:08:27	yeah, I guess it is six of one, half a dozen of the other.  I couldn't actually afford to get all three books in one month.
#4 caridhor Sep 02, 2014 0:33:57	The starter set was pretty dissapointing, but again at least  the char gen was free...
#5 Serow_Darkstar Sep 02, 2014 14:56:16	greyhobbit13 wrote:
#6 greyhobbit13 Sep 04, 2014 17:53:19	I hate to complain even more, but has anyone else noticed how poorly edited that game module was?  numbered rooms that weren't on the map.  A boss room listed as one that was on the map three times.  A secret door description that described what you would see from room 20 under the room 21 entry.  I know I am nitpicking, but i did pay for a professional product
#7 Faytte Sep 04, 2014 19:58:59	I tend to avoid the first few adventures, which is sad cause thats when you NEED an adveture the most in a new edition. Keep on the Shadow Fell had some bad editing problems as did a few other early products in 4E.
#8 paulstrait Sep 13, 2014 23:58:38	Well, if you think having to download the extra content is bad, wait until you find out that they are going to make you purchase the entire thing a second time if you want to use it with their 5e software when it comes out.
#9 h347h50 Sep 16, 2014 9:06:33	greyhobbit13 wrote:
#10 paulstrait Sep 16, 2014 9:27:20	h347h50 wrote:
#11 h347h50 Sep 16, 2014 10:38:56	paulstrait wrote:
#12 paulstrait Sep 16, 2014 10:43:41	You said "This is nothing new."  But in fact, putting the statblocks online is new.  The fact that *statblocks,* and not full monster manual entries, are used is not new, obviously.  But you are comparing the past situation of statblocks being printed in modules in order to say that the new situation of statblocks not being printed in modules (but instead are made available online) is not new.  That seems illogical.  The OP was not complaining about the fact that what was available online was a collection of statblocks instead of full MM entries.  Were that the complaint, your response would make more sense.   As for the "do you know how to read," try to be civil.
#13 h347h50 Sep 16, 2014 11:24:53	paulstrait wrote:
#14 paulstrait Sep 16, 2014 14:05:22	I think you are entirely misunderstanding what I am saying.  I agree, continuing this conversation is futile b/c we are obviously talking past one another.  My point was that in the past, they DID include redundant material (you referred to every past edition of D&D -- and in every past edition of D&D, they included statboxes which contained redundant material).  Now they don't.  As I mentioned, I personally don't really mind it, and yes, they are competing with Paizo (and yes, it was written by Kobold Press although I'm not sure why you don't think that is a non sequitur) -- so you've given a reason why they aren't doing it like they used to.  All of that is great, and I agree with it -- its just that your original point was that this was how they used to do it in previous editions (and it wasn't a random sentence, it was your main point).  That's all I was trying to say.  There is no reason to be so combative and nasty about it.
#15 Webster Sep 18, 2014 18:13:55	Please note that the module was also written while the game was being developed. A stat blocks not set on format yet, so it would be better to release an online document with them once the system is more formalized situation.