|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
You realize that under DDI, you had the option to download PDFs of the complete issues of Dragon and Dungeon, right? In fact, I paid for one month of DDI right at the end of both magazines, and downloaded the entire 4e run of both. For the price of 1 month of DDI. And those PDFs are mine to keep forever.
Exactly. I've downloaded most of them while paying for DDI.
Yeah, I heard a lot of that too. Not really sure where the notion came from but LOTS of people were pointing to the Star Wars: Saga rules and Tome of Battle as the building blocks for 4e and I don't refute they drew inspiration from those sourcebooks, a significant portion of the game changed that didn't look like that. I blame the lack of charts and color-coded boxes myself.
From my perspective, yes and lots of it during the playtest process. Basically people were of the assumption that if.they were vocal enough about a particular topic chances it might get changed. For example, lets take the GWF debate (or damage on a miss). This particular mechanic made its way from 4e's at-will power Reaping Strike and into a fighter class themecalled Reaper. It continued in various features and abilities throughout the ENTIRE playtest and Mearls statement regarding it was (it received mostly positive reviews). Towards the end, after the final packet was released in Oct. 2013 the sheer amount of threads started, argued in, and then closed (by which were started by a handful of posters) had reached ridiculous levels. And, the basic rules are released and GWF is changed to something else.
That's just one specific example about the new e-war. Other topics ranged from "apprentice levels", Hit Die healing, no Warlords and non-magical healing, DM-may-I / DM fiat complications, player entitlement, 4e's supposed All-Core approach, magical item stores, player agency and DM empowerment, and the Stormwind Fallacy.
These topics were constantly being argued over among other non-game related stuff like Copyright BS, OGL shennanigans, 3PP support, video game analogies, marketing and sales, who's making more, what dependant on on-line tools, how digital is either good or bad and why, pirating, and the all important "feel" of the game.
Now that the rules are out, there's not much to argue about now besides what they could've done better or worse or how things will work in the future.
Chuck Wright wrote:
(P.S. I liked some thing about 4E, but the way it played wasn't my cup of tea. Pointing out this or that was done in 4E is a complete "whatever" for me and has absolutely no bearing on the conversation other than to drag edition warring into a thread. Just sayin'.)
I point it out because it isn't something that WotC has recently implemented and that people have been enjoying for quite some time. No e-warring intended.
Marc Radle wrote:
Exactly, which sounds like a pretty solid business decision. Get them to write it, slap the D&D logo on it, sell it as an official adventure. And, honestly, I always felt 3PP did adventures better than WotC anyways. They've had a few that were pretty good but for most of 4E's run the published adventures always felt too rail-roaded from the DM's perspective. It took a bit more work to get them a bit more organic and realistic, something I don't think is a problem now.
Which, IMO, isn't all that bad of an idea. I get not wanting to churn out splats and all but they're going to need some substance after the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual, and DMG come out. Even if it's adventures and such from 3PP support like Necromancer Games.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Uncomfortable? No. Elicits uncontrollable eye-rolling and face-palming for the over dramatic usage of words? Yes.
Further, it sadly demonstrates the gulf and disparity that fans of a niché hobby face over the most moronic things.
Simon Legrande wrote:
I haven't seen it yet, though I think it looks good. The only problem I have with it is: What does it replace? I mean, I like 5E and the play test was fun, but my group really digs 4E and we still play v3.5 and I can sorta get the same feeling by just playing E6.
Simon Legrande wrote:
For myself, and I suspect many others, the 5e rule set is a return to the way RPGs are supposed to be. After the abomination that was 4e, I'm glad to see the direction they went with this new edition.
Honestly, was that sort of terminology necessary? I get some don't like 4E, fine, but these sorts of comments just inflame edition warring and all the BS that goes along with it.
Simon Legrande wrote:
And, after initial sales, how do they continue to turn a profit?
Why is Wotc wasting their time follying up a whole new edition of their game when they should just cave in and market their settings and own adventures. They could at least make some money on the success of their most recently successful edition 3.75.
Probably because there are quite a lot of people who don't play Pathfinder or v3.5 because of how......I'm gonna be nice......unwieldy the system can be, especially at higher levels. And because a LOT of people just won't purchase yet another homebrewed 3rd Edition again. Going outside the Paizo bubble and reading comments on 5E, it's shown me just how far people have come in the last 5 or 6 years in terms of what they want in their systems. I've seen people ride the Pathfinder band-wagon and later accept that the system has most of the flaws of v3.5 while only adding enough bells and whistles to keep people's attention OR because they're sticking with a system they already known vs. a brand new edition with a LOT of different rules and style (ie. 4E) and because it was easier.
Now that 5E is out and it's 1) more streamlined. 2) easier and faster to pick up and play. 3) can be used to convert a LOT of v3.5 and 4E material. 4) has better balance across the board than v3.5 and Pathfinder, I think it's a safe bet that 5E will do fairly well early on. The true telling will be later in the year after or a year after release and how they handle the amount of bloat people are used to coming out. Can they create adventures that are useful and fun? It appears that Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle and the Murder in Baldur's Gate / Icewind Dale / Dead in Thay adventures were quite amusing and fun from people's reactions across the forums.
Or they could just make a better game. 5E seems, on many fronts, to be just that. Considering that I frequent places like theRPGsite, who's extremely.......I'm gonna be nice........one sided in their view of 4E and WotC in general, the amount of support the new version is getting is pretty amazing to witness. Let alone at other places as well.
I think the fact is: People are getting burnt out on the ridiculousness of the 3rd Edition system (and for many others 4E as well). The bloat, the trap options, the moronic levels of numbers and broken combos and page after page after page of options and the HUGE dependence on magical items, and monster stat blocks that fill entire pages, and high level play being completely dominated by spellcasters are just getting on people's nerves. People don't want to see Players dishing out 158 DPR in 1 turn at 11th level. People don't want to see ACs ascending into the 40's or Attack modiiers hitting +30/+25 yadda-yadda. ALL of that is pretty apparent in v3.5 and Pathfinder (and to an extent 4E as well).
Agreed. And the more I read about "buff" spells and concentration the more I see the incentive of using those spells on his allies to help win encounters instead of just doing it himself.
I'm happy to see feat chains go and instead get bigger feats that do more for you. Sure, this cuts down a bit on options but what they need to do is have ways that players interact with the environment more. If I want to grab a vase and smash it over someone's head, that should be a thing without 1) having to take ridiculous penalties, 2) having to need a feat or a specific Stat score, or 3) have it be SO under powered that doing it is not worth my time or energy.
On top of that, I'm also glad stats aren't the END-ALL, BE-ALL to the game and someone with a score of 12 can still, to a degree, contribute with that score compared to someone with a 17 or 18.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I dunno if i've come across a system where a combat maneuver has been hands down worse than a basic attack. From D&D we have maneuvers from 3.5, an elegant combat system with Pathfinder, and 4e powers that have been pretty good to just attacking. Further, one can use these as examples of how to adjudicate other actions for those who prefer a more free-style approach.
I really don't see any difference in playstyle or how players approach the game from a system's stand point. I've been running the playtest in the same manner I've run 3e, PF, 4e, and played in AD&D. Rules and tactics change a bit, sure, but to me there's been no significant difference in playstyle.
It's hard to say. I consider myself a very strong advocate for E6 (it's actually what I'd run full-time for v3.5) and E7 for Pathfinder but I'm not sure D&D5 will trump it. The elegance, for lack of a better word, in E6 is that your not dealing with "levels" after a certain, early point. There's no need to worry about spell slots and higher levels spells like Wish and Meteor Swarm. And there's still the mini-game of Character Customization that's not as deep in D&D5. Plus v3.5 and Pathfinder have been around a LOT longer AND their stuff is nearly all free online. That way I can look at a site, pick feats and a class, and *BOOM* I'm done.
I see similarities and that's a good thing. Lower numbers and lower intensity for system-mastery are things that can be good. Monsters of lower levels being continuous threats at most levels is also a good thing. The idea that magical items aren't required and that even weapons that are just "+1" being special are tailored to the E6 enjoyment.
I think the biggest hurdles is the use of super-high magic, HP inflation at the later levels of the game, and fantastic abilities that exceed most mortals. These are things that aren't prevalent in E6 due to the nature of stopping the game at a low level. It makes most characters still "mortal" in the sense of their relation to NPCs and to the overall world. For example in D&D5 a 10th level or higher Fighter is getting 3 attacks and has a good chance his AC is close to or above 20. Most guards will have attacks that will only hit on a 17 or higher, thus making him an extremely dangerous foe. In E6 the AC is similar but his HPs are still hovering around 40 to 50 instead of double that. And his saves are still low (+2 to Reflex and Will) and if the system is played right, he's not fully decked out in magical wares. So a Fireball still poses a significant threat to him as do town guards and things like critical hits.
30 bonus feats...?????
From the free Basic rules I see the Fighter getting 7 Feat opportunities (which override the option of taking an Ability Score bump).
What are Save Feats? You mean like Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, Iron Will that were in v3.5 and Pathfinder? I don't have the PHB yet so I haven't seen how good the Feats are yet.
Spring Attack was a ridiculously moronic thing to throw in as a feat in v3.5 and PF, as was Shot on the Run. And everyone gets like one bonus action.
As for Monks being "benders" I say FINALLY!! Do you know how difficult it was to make a "Bender" style character in v3.5? I had to create it's OWN separate class because a Multi-class Monk/Magic-User was a useless attempt that ended in frustration. The only thing close was a Fire-Bender with the Swordsage using Desert Wind maneuvers. Earth Benders were "sorta" done with the Swordsage and Stone Dragon / Iron Heart / and Setting Sun maneuvers.
Even 4E was rather "meh" on the whole concept. It took someone building their OWN whole Avatar: The Airbender system to do that.
So I'm not really sure I understand the problem here. You get a total of +6 to your attacks and saves over 20 levels compared to +10/+15/+20 attacks and +12/+6 saves of v3.5 and Pathfinder OR +15 in 4E.
Then you look at feats, of which Pathfinder nets 10 per 20 levels and 4E's 18 over 30 levels. Feats in Next are based on class, of which only the Fighter has the highest with 7 over 20 levels.
I have to assume this is a joke.
Couldn't they have also created "packages" for those who don't want to bother with the option minutia? I mean, if someone wants to play a "Knight", there could've been a simple "make these your best scores with this background and class" rather than removing all the other things that someone could take ala-carté. Instead we get two levels of "meh" until most classes first big choice in career path occurs at 3rd level. I know I can always just start at 3rd level but I feel zero-level or pre-level rules would've fit the bill FAR easier.
Yes, some feats were bad (Toughness, for example). Some feats were meh and some where auto-picked. Yet there were a LOT that were chosen for flavor and fun. As for more options, in 5e its largely allowed due to DM fiat. For example your only cleaving if the DM says so. Your only bull rushing and attacking if the DM allows it.
I can sympathize. On one hand, I don't think it's a terrible game. I don't think it's design is flawed or overly un-balanced. I think they strove for the BEST game they could while adhering to people with TOTALLY different approaches to the game. So you have decisions like keeping magical items super-rare and rather....."meh" overall, something older fans like because they hate the "magic shoppe of 3E - 4E games." But then you have things like Hit Die healing and Second Wind which give nods to inspiration / non-magical healing, something that modern-gamers tend to like that older players don't.
So from my perspective, it's the sort of game you see that's compromised of a committee. It's like they sat down with the leaders of various editions and got ALL their ideas, kept the ones the majority of them liked (A class-based, medieval fantasy RPG that uses the d20 for a resolution mechanic) and then fought for EVERYTHING else. In some places, compromises were made and in others one side got the better deal. Since it's release there have been people who didn't like 4E say there's too much of it in D&D:Next and there have been 4E fans who say nothing relevant from 4E made it into D&D:Next. Then there are some who find that it's the BEST system they've played yet.
For me, it basically comes down to this: What does D&D-Next do that other systems don't? I've struggled with that question since 2012 when they announced they were in the process of creating a new edition. And through ALL the playtests I've run and the games we've played, I still cannot answer it well enough.
For one thing, it doesn't do high-action, cinematic fantasy as 4E does. It's not combat-focused enough that gives any significance to my in-combat decisions. I'm not weighing the options I have of using an Encounter power vs. an At-Will or Daily NOR does it have the tactical depth in ally support 4E does.
For another thing, it doesn't scratch the character-creation mini game that is v3.5 and Pathfinder. I think it tries, but it fails to accomplish it. With v3.5 and Pathfinder you simply build the character you want and the mechanics fuel that to a literal degree. The amount of customization that both v3.5 and PF have blows 5E out of the water. And especially when you look at PF's archtypes or v3.5's alternate class features, it's difficult NOT to be able to build ANY character you can imagine (it's getting it to work well that seems to be the biggest problem).
So what's left? I think it comes down to speed and ease of play. While I still love v3.5 and PF and 4E they're all pretty robust and cumbersome when it comes to the rules (4E, less so than v3.5). The easy resolution system of 5E makes adjudication simple and quick. Advantage/Disadvantage is FAR easier to implement than the 20+ different modifiers that PF and 3.5 have AND it's easier to track than the mind-numbing amount of "End of your Next turn" powers of 4E. And of course the numbers have been paired down significantly. No more +33 to hit, 144 damage per round. No more ACs reaching the 50's. No more DC saves of 28. No more 2,550 HP for monsters. No more "It grapples you and.....you lose" situations. Not to mention combat is quicker, meaning you get more in over the course of an adventure.
Is this enough material to scratch an itch that neither v3.5/PF or 4E can? It's hard to say. I've come to really enjoy E6 as a mini-system. For those who aren't aware of what E6 is, it's basically v3.5 that stops leveling at 6th level and everything else afterwards is just additional feats. PF has a version called E7 but you could use any level to stop at and just use feats afterwards. I'm not sure if D&D:Next can fill this role of E6, especially when SO much out there is geared towards this tier of play for v3.5 and PF but who knows?
From what I've read 5e streamlines the character building experience into one of just ticking boxes like a quiz, making all characters look or feel the same which has killed all enthusiasm for 5e to me; now I haven't played the game so a question to those who have to give the system a fair chance; how easy is it to create the more outlandish characters and how unique can you make a character mechanically?
It depends on quite a few factors. For one, are you using Feats? Are you using the PHB races or just Basic races? Are all the sub-paths open? Stuff like that.
So far I've found the mechanical crunch far below that of both v3.5/PF and 4E. Options, especially early at 1st - 3rd level, extremely bare. A 1st level paladin, for example, gets Divine Sense (senses undead, celestial, demonic creatures) and Lay on Hands. That's it. No feats. No prayers or spells, no smite, nothing. So when you roll up your character, your decision points are Abilities, Race, Class [Paladin], Skills, Background, and Gear. That's about it. What differentiates one paladin from another mechanically is the weapons, armor, and backgrounds they choose.
Compare this to 4E's Paladin with 4 at-wills to choose from, 4 encounter powers, 4 Dailies, 1 to 2 feats (which opens other options), weapons, a theme, background, race and possible racial powers that come with it.
And to v3.5 and PF's version where feats and race play a large factor as well. AND you get things like Smite.
But for some, the mechanical choices were paralyzing or otherwise unwanted. They didn't want to wade through lots of options and stuff and they just wanted to sit down and play. Can't really blame them other than their desire to NOT want a robust option system yet desire the "best" options that were there.
I don't mind a healer not being required in basic parties. It frees up people to play what they really want vs. what they "need". Further, the idea of a non-magical healer was something of a Godsend to me because I honestly liked playing the support role but not necessarily all the spell management that came along with it.
I really don't have a problem with it. When I play 3e or PF it's obscene the amount of thi.gs that stack and can stay on for a LONG time, spanning multiple encounters even. It was to the point that you really didnt need a Fighter if there was a cleric in the group and wizards / druids were worse.
Besides, buff spells are still good and contribute to the party but don't necessarily make encounters trivial. And they have things like Cantrips to rely on and Clerics can still wade in with mace in hand.
Some of the reasons why I'm liking it so far:
• Ease of play - The first thing I look for in an RPG is how simple the basics are and what options do they cover. Looking at 3E, for example, I look at the Grappling or any other special attack/action rules and I just cringe. It's so heavily penalized that you need to be SUPER-tricked out to even have decent attempts at it. 4E somewhat simplified this and 5E continues that as well. Looking at things like modifiers, Next doesn't have all that many, and I feel that's an improvement over the plethora of "+" or "-" of 3E or "Until the end of your next turn" stuff of 4E. Simply put, your not doing lots of math to finish your turn.
• Combat - Whilst I love 4E and v3.5/PF, the combat can get a bit excessive. I know 4E is always pointed out as the HOURS long combat sessions (never experienced it though) but 3E is no better, especially at higher levels. 5E somewhat cuts this down dramatically. Now I'll grant that it doesn't have the interesting round-to-round options that 4E's powers emulate (yet, anyways) or 3E's hundreds of combat-based Feats but I think there not really needed since a player can just describe what he wants to attempt and the DM just looks at the DC chart and goes off that or it's often simply a Stat vs Stat opposed roll with little modification.
• Smaller Focus - Looking at the higher levels of both 3E/PF and 4E and you'll notice characters, monsters, and NPCs with just ridiculous numbers. Is that really necessary? What does that say about the rest of the world in comparison? For example, I just created a 14th level Swordsage for our v3.5 campaign and his AC is 31. That means he can literally go into any small village and do whatever he wants because the guards cannot even touch him because of the numbers. I find that to be really immersive-breaking. With D&D:Next, a 14th level Warrior is a scary dude, but even solo against the town guards he'd probably struggle and would eventually be brought down if there's enough of them.
• System Abuse - Lord knows that we'll eventually see things like DPR-Kings and other such Character_Optimization threads that go into the guts of the system to find the ULTIMATE combo-power build (and that's cool, I'm fine with people who love to system-craft, etc) but the extent it was done in 3E and 4E, I felt bordered on the absurd. Obviously there will be loopholes or RAW vs. RAI questions and debates because the game is created by people, who are not perfect. But with the toned down scope of the system and less emphasis on min/max character builds, I think there will be less emphasis on it.
• Specifics - A small list of things that, for me, make the game more interesting and easier to play than 3E or 4E:
- Movement broken up by feet allows people to move, attack, move with no special power or feat required.
- Opportunity Attacks aren't as broken in this edition as they were in 3E but still remain relative.
- No more differentiation between standard action / Full-round action. A fighter gets ALL of his attacks every round.
- Less focus on picking powers or feats to use and more emphasis on just describing what you want to do and the DM sets the DC based off of a chart.
- Less things to keep track of (4E's powers are notorious for this) AND less things that disrupt the flow of the game (again, immediate interrupt/reaction powers of 4E or Feats from 3E).
- Advantage/Disadvantage is something that's fairly simple to implement but is also dramatic when used in harry circumstances.
- Versatile weapons are actually versatile now, cutting out unnecessary "special/exotic" weapons like the Bastard sword.
Let me ask, you find a product you like. Do you instantly trust them to continue to make the exact same product forever? I don't think it's about trust, something I generally associate with actual people, I think it's about expectations and disappointment. For some, the direction the game took was a disappointment to them. I severely doubt "trust" was broken. Perhaps people might be more cautious about purchasing products from them OR take a longer in-depth look to what their products do before purchase but that's a stance every consumer should be taking.
Further, 4E had LOADS of changes to try the product before buying it. And the same is true with NEXT. You can easily see the game's direction their taking and either that A) suits your needs or B) it doesn't. It has absolutely zip to do with gaining trust back.
Diffan: While your point is not entirely wrong, it is also quite true that those decisions I paraphrased were a large part of the reason for the edition war. I mean, there would have been an outcry whatever they did, but it wouldn't have become impossible to discuss on any major RPG board for years and years without their ample help.
And yet the "decisions" you paraphrased are basically your negative opinions of the edition and less to do with actual reasons for those changes.
Second, how does ANY of that constitute a trust violation? From my perspective the only thing WotC is at fault for is the taking away of PDFs people bought (though why they weren't saved and stored on a device is beyond me) and falling through with their promises on a VTT and on-line tools. Everything else, no it wasn't a breach of trust. They didnt go in a direction people like and they got mad and complained.
And the edition war continues......
I'd agree with you if it was something every wizard could do or any spellcaster could pick up with a feat. But since is a limited option from one school of magic, I don't see the harm. Every wizard who isn't an Evoker is still limited to picking carefully where to place their AoE spells.
As far as I know, yes. Adding 1.5 Str to 2-handed weapons isn't in the Basic Rules doc.
Haha, nice. :-)
Still, I like it.
So one interesting thing i noticed about 5ed recently, is that they seem to have acknowledged what a longsword actually is as it seems to have the "bastard sword" included this time, being 1d8 damage when used one-handed and 1d10 when used two-handed. And there is no bastard sword in the weapons list (but that doesn't really mean much on its own, seeing as the weapons list for this document is a lot shorter than the 3ed PHB list)
I really like the concept too, makes it seem and feel far more versatile than just adding 1.5 Str modifier when wielded in 2-hands. Plus I like they suggest that the long sword could serve as a Katana too
If 5e doesn't pan out, I'm really looking for a new RPG to try. I love 3.5 / PF and 4e but Im not sure Next will be accepted by my players (its been free til now so we've been playtesting) but I don't think it has the feel they're looking for. 13th Age has been said to have been a nice replacement for 4e with some touch up. Now I know its not the sae and I knkw there are MANY different elements, but is the feel similar? By feel, I mean does it feel like Im playing a hero from 1st level and is combat engaging and thorough?
Scott Betts wrote:
Last time I looked, Dungeon and Dragon stopped in December of 2013 with new items and paragon paths and adventures. So technically 4E stopped being supported only for the past 7 months.
Auxmaulous's idea of X/day sounds reasonable. Much like various Pathfinder classes have. An easy houserule if anything.
I think it does help the game in the long run, especially with keeping monsters relevant for longer.
Josh M. wrote:
Haha, not at all. Hell I've been saying that since I opened up the 4E PHB in 08'. It also shows just how important 1st impressions are and how something as simple as layout and colors can skew people's opinions.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
No problem, they're just things that I've noticed that appear to work in similar fashion to 4E when we were playtesting. But I guess your right in that if somethings are ingrained with the system and if it's harder to remove / rewrite then it's easier to just play something else. Perhaps 5E's mechanics are simpler to remove than previous editions?
Honestly, this could be done with 4E and 3E with little fuss. I think that perhaps your more willing to mod this version than others?
I mean, for 4E to reflect some of the significant changes you suggest, it would take about the same to get working.
Healing Surges would be greatly reduced and remove full overnight healing to something less significant.
At-Will spellcasting (X/per day or X/per encounter)
Include Racial Penalities
Include Alignment restrictions / Race restrictions
Paladin smites (or even spell/prayers that use radiant damage must target evil)
Rogues need special ways to obtain Combat Advantage
Remove Immediate Reactions / No Action attacks and spells full bar OR make them a standard action to use.
In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just play older systems? And this isn't a post to tell you *NOT* to play 5E or to change to to your liking, I'm just curious as to why it's easier or OK to change 5E but not go to the same lengths with 4E or 3E?
• HD healing = Healing Surges.....sorta
• Overnight full healing = 4E style
• Short Rest abilities = Encounter Powers.....again sorta
• At-will spellcasting (Cantrips / Orisons) = At-Will spells
• No Alignment mechanics / restrictions
• No racial ability score penalties
• Shortened Skill list akin to 4E's instead of the vast 3.5 list
• Rogue's Sneak Attack happens without any "sneak" required.
• Paladin smites work against anything (from the playtest anyways).
• Ritual spells = pretty much what 4E did.
In short, many of the 4E-isms have remained but received a "old school" paint job and don't call out game-ist elements like "squares" or "Push, Pull, Slide". Additionally they went back to the older wording for things like adventuring day instead of Encounters.
Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
That's pretty much where I stand though I give you credit for playing TSR D&D regardless of level.
As for how this stands with 5E, I've found that low level isn't terribly deadly (with HD healing, full overnight healing, and some cleric spells) and that the game sort of stays the same over the course of the game. Now we did run the Tomb of Horrors at 10th level and I had 1 PC die, however that was far more his fault after I had said "Are you sure you wanna do this?". Normally that gives them pause and many times it's for good reason. This time, however, it was a Shrug and plops on this really bad Crown. He touches the crown with the sceptor and it falls off (no problem). He puts it on again and tries the other side.....disintegrated.... oops! Still, it was sorta funny.
Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Now that the Basic rules are available for free, and you have had the chance to look it over once or twice, how do you feel about it? What are your thoughts?
Personally, I'm OK With the rules. They resemble the playtest rules fairly well with slight alterations here and there. My group, while trying the playtests, were "meh" on it. I think we'd have fun (and had fun with the playtest) but I'm not sure if it's something they'll want to invest their time in. Right now we currently have a few v3.5 campaigns to finish up, a Pathfinder campaign to finish up, an a few 4E campaigns to finish up.
Some of the things that intrigue me:
• Bounded Accuracy - This is one of the biggest draws for me. I'm getting really tired of he ridiculous bonuses, ACs, attack mods, etc. that I'm seeing with v3.5 / PF and 4E. I don't need to have PC's who has AC 29 - 32 at 13th level. It's just.....unnecessary and creates a HUGE immersion problem when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the world. I mean, my 13th level v3.5 Fighter has an AC 29. That means he can literally go into any small village and destroy EVERYTHING without fear of reprisal from the locals. Even if 30 villages attack him at once, his AC (even prone) is likely high enough (mechanically speaking) he can lay there for a while and not take damage. That, to me, is just dumb. With bounded accuracy, AC 18 is HIGH but still hit-able with a d20 + ability modifier.
• Rituals - This is something ported from 4E (well, I think it originally came from an Unearthed Arcana source) and it's something that I really like. No mage wants to waste a precious spell slot prepping a spell that will, most likely, not be used but it's nice to have as a backup.
• Module Healing Rate - This is one of those "iffy" topics that everyone has a different opinion on. Some want "gritty" healing and some like "non-gritty" healing. Personally I'm a fan of overnight healing because it means that I don't have to put unnecessary time restraints on my dungeons and can keep the pace going well.
• No forced Alignment Mechanics - This is one of the many reasons I avoid TSR games and feel obligated to change all my v3.5 / PF ones. The idea that deities don't have their own champions seems silly to me. 4E removed alignment mechanics and so does Next. Of course anyone can add them in if they want and I'm cool with having mechanics thrown in from the DMG to enhance other people's games.
• At-Will magic (Cantrips / Orisons) - Taken from PF's at-will cantrips / 4E's at-will powers this allows caters to be casters throughout the day. Some people like it, others don't. It IS a fixed rule but I'm sure people can find ways to limit it. Personally I think it makes me playing a wizard feel more "wizardly" than "Um, I do nothing but "help action" to save on spell power" 3/4 encounters of the day.
Exactly. I need to know which version a person is going to try running. I have a few friends that play all the editions and I pretty much will bow out of any attempt at anything TSR related. Just not my cup of tea. So to me, it's important to clarify that the group is running 2E AD&D or 1st because then I can plan on doing something else with my time.
Like Matt Tomason said: "There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with edition wars, in as much as it's perfectly okay to love one edition of the game and hate another." which is very true. In my instance the entire line of a specific companty (TSR) is something that I avoid and that's OK. The problem starts when I attempt to make my beef with the people who play TSR versions of the game.
Stick vow of poverty on a wild shape Druid using natural spell= lolz. Note I hate Natural spell and have banned it from the table.
That'd actually be pretty funny to watch. Hell, I might even try that on some unsuspecting DM who runs v3.5.
Sadly it's true. As much as I like the feel and archetype the Monk is attempting to emulate, it often falls flat due to the system's limitations. In v3.5 one way I was able to help it out was give it a Fighter's Base Attack Bonus and changed the Flurry of Blows progression.
4E's Monk attempt was much better, giving them movement abilities in addition to a nice strike feature and burst attacks.
5E's Monk, from the playtest, didn't do too bad. My friend played on for a while in one of the playtest adventures and did pretty amazing until one of our PCs (who died and was instead roleplaying a Kobold that we rescued) ended up turning on us and shooting the monk in the back of the head with a crossbow. So lets hope that they continue with that version, I liked that one of the options was an Avatar: The Last Airbender version with elemental attacks.
Scott Henry wrote:
Has anyone tried it yet? Is it any good vs Pathfinder? I really don't see the point in handing over yet MORE money to Hasbro who is treating D&D like a Wargame and churning out a new edition every few years. I'm sort of sickened by the same people who were so angry about 3.5 and 4th ed so close together who went to Pathfinder who are now turning around and giving money back to this new D&D. Unless its insanely good I don't see why you'd quit Pathfinder and go back to D&D.
Im going to answer your question honestly: because it's different, it scratches an itch neither Pathfinder (and by that extention 3.5) nor 4E can do. It's lighter, less complex, less bloated (numbers wise), less arbitrary, and more open to free-form. Further, I think it has the possibility of being easily portable to other supplements without a lot of work as well as being modular.
Additionally, 4e is no longer supported and I won't spend money on Pathfinder so what's left?
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
I think this is a good analysis. It hits on a lot the thoughts I was having about the new system. The lack of reliance on magic items is a huge plus for me with this system. As a GM I hate feeling like I need to give out stuff like cloaks of resistance, rings of protection, belts of strength etc.. just to allow the characters to supposably keep up with the math of the game.
YES! Magic items should be awe-inspiring. I think with the assumption of magical items being required in the game, even ones with just a +1 attached to them will carry significantly more weight within the world. Also, I think it's important for the DM to build up how important magical items are. The DMG should have a nice segment of including them and the consequences of doing so (in both releative power shift as well as making the PCs bigger targets for people who are now going to crave those magical items).
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
At first I hated it because I felt that I'd always choose a feat and I'd be left out with the ability score bumps but with feat design being "super sized" I feel they're not as necessary. Want to be a good Two-Weapon Fighter? Just take 1 feat and there you are. No more plethora of feat-chains that take 1/4 of your character's progression to achieve just to start playing the sort of character you want.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
As someone who routinely creates "builds" and then creates a role-play around that, I agree. Another thing is that I already have systems to do the tinkering with, so 5E doesn't really need at address this aspect for me. If I want to get down into the nitty-gritty of Character Optimization then I have v3.5, Pathfinder, and 4E to scratch that itch.
Also, what I'm going to start doing is have every player write down what their character's short term and long term goals are. A Fighter, for example, might have a short term goal of being accepted into the order of Purple Dragons of Cormyr and his longtime goal is to own an estate or castle and land to become a stronger leader within the country. A Rogue's short term goal might be to get into a local thieves guild and his long term goal might be to create multiple safe houses in the city to which he can store all sorts of his weapons, poisons, etc (the latter example reminds me of Brent Week's Night Angel Trilogy ). Basically thinking less about what sort of feats, powers, spells I'm getting next level and more about "I really need X-amount of gold to buy a small apartment so I can run operations from there to blanket this area"
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
While I don't mind the XP progression chart in the basic rules I do remember seeing the DMG as a sort of "Hackers Guide" with lots of alternate tools provided to adjust your campaign accordingly. As for modules and XP, it's been a while since we ran PF but I was under the impression that you gain XP for doing things in the adventure that progress the story (like saving the townsfolk in area B4 will get everyone in the group 400 XP).