Not sure how much PF you have played or DMed? I stand by my combo statement, at least in all the PF games I am involved in.So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!"Heavy spell casting combo", like casting fly on the fighter. "Heavy spell casting combo", which doesn't really exist because you only get one concentration spell.
And since neither wizards nor clerics have proficiency with Constitution saving throws, even the base 10 will fail pretty often.
Oh, "heavy spell casting combo" is definitely a thing in PF. But it's already nerfed in 5E by the "only one at a time" part of concentration. Having them all stripped away as well is just a double nerf.
5E doesn't add a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. It first bans heavy spell casting combos, then adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on buff spells at all. Even one as simple as "I cast fly on the fighter so he can reach our flying enemy".
Can't disagree too much there it is a fairly large removal of spellcasting power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still digesting the PHB (Only spells through D so far, but I don't see this as being a gigantic problem. Might require an adjustment of tactics, but not a game killer for instance.
- You know you want to be a "Buff" caster, so you put a high score into Constitution.
- Take the "Blade Ward" Cantrip. It's not a concentration spell so you can cast it while you're concentrating on the spell. This gives you resistance to bludgeoning, slashing, and Piercing damage.
- Take the "Warcaster" feat. You'll probably have a feat available by the time you're really effective as a buff caster anyway. This gives you advantage on Concentration checks, among some other advantages.
I'm still digesting the PHB (Only spells through D so far, but I don't see this as being a gigantic problem. Might require an adjustment of tactics, but not a game killer for instance.
- You know you want to be a "Buff" caster, so you put a high score into Constitution.
- Take the "Blade Ward" Cantrip. It's not a concentration spell so you can cast it while you're concentrating on the spell. This gives you resistance to bludgeoning, slashing, and Piercing damage.
- Take the "Warcaster" feat. You'll probably have a feat available by the time you're really effective as a buff caster anyway. This gives you advantage on Concentration checks, among some other advantages.
Wait...there is a cantrip (a 0-level spell that you can spam all day long) that grants you resistance to the three standard weapon damage types? What is the duration of this seemingly overpowered spell that can be cast ad infinitum?
Wait...there is a cantrip (a 0-level spell that you can spam all day long) that grants you resistance to the three standard weapon damage types? What is the duration of this seemingly overpowered spell that can be cast ad infinitum?I'm still digesting the PHB (Only spells through D so far, but I don't see this as being a gigantic problem. Might require an adjustment of tactics, but not a game killer for instance.
- You know you want to be a "Buff" caster, so you put a high score into Constitution.
- Take the "Blade Ward" Cantrip. It's not a concentration spell so you can cast it while you're concentrating on the spell. This gives you resistance to bludgeoning, slashing, and Piercing damage.
- Take the "Warcaster" feat. You'll probably have a feat available by the time you're really effective as a buff caster anyway. This gives you advantage on Concentration checks, among some other advantages.
True. It takes an action to cast it, and it only lasts one action, but you can keep this up while your concentration spell is going... all day long.
With the concentration rules and the fact that Dispel Magic now always works on spells of its lever or lower, I don't think Buffing Caster is going to be a very good specialization. The tactics of this game are going to be very different than the ones that work in PF.
From the sounds of it, they are going to be very different most if the tactics used in every previous version of D&D. Since it sounds like battlefield control is equally effected, and the summoning spells are equally cut back, be prepared to see almost every caster focus on blasting, blasting, and only blasting, assuming that the older players bother with casting at all, given that so many types of spells that casters have traditionally used to aid the party as a whole are now not reliable or useful enough to to waste time on. That, or a lot of house ruling to the concentration rule to make the caster functional in the same role they had before while in combat.
I get what they were trying to do, but really the one buff limit by itself would have been ample without adding in the concentration only penalty; applying that penalty broadly to battlefield control spells in addition to buff spells just makes the changes come across as someone at WotC doesn't like casters. The concept is fine, but the execution definitely needs some work.
Well, a single battlefield control or buff spell, followed by blasting or other non-concentration spells will work. You might be attacked and lose Concentration, but that's not too much of a problem for most fights. No more than the problem that someone's attacking the squishy in the first place.
And they have buffed your blasting or at least given you plenty of it with At will attack powers.The ones who really get hurt here I think, are the gish builds and other buffed combat casters. From melee clerics to even paladins and rangers.
Depends on how well martials can take up the slack for controlling the battlefield and enemy movement that was taken away from the casters. Even with only one buff or control spell, casters are still going to be squishiest on the field, and the juiciest and easiest targets. A decent DM that makes effective use of enemy tactics and terrain is going to be able to routinely threaten the caster through both melee and ranged attacks unless they really, really buffed the ability for martials to control large numbers of enemies at once routinely. One concern I see is that complaints about 3.x being rocket tag are only going to be amplified if the only effective control mechanism anyone has for multiple foes is doing damage and killing as many as possible as quickly as possible.
I wont disagree with you about 3.X being rocket tag first guy hit is dead style. All I'd say is that it was also about excessive brinksmanship. Which sort of REALLY made the game rocket tag.
The design philosophy of 3rd espoused rule knowledge. Fact. The more feats and abilities and spells you knew of, the more your character's potential power grew. Players raced to do the most damage and be invulnerable led to DMs forcing tougher encounters in this sort of feedback loop. At least my tables did. Slowly but surely.
Optimized builds were responded with above CR threats in order to hit these builds' ACs or survive their tremendous damage potential. This led to two difficulty settings: breeze or deathtrap.
Make no mistake: 5e is rocket tag and will be suffer brinksmanship issues too, but with much harder limits imposed on it thanks to bounded accuracy and the buff limitations. Encounters, hopefully, have that nice middle ground level of difficulty again. Maybe at least for a little while ;)
This post made think- What I'm really most excited about in 5e is that I'm no longer making a "build" or crunch first and then a wonderful backstory. I make a real character with style and personality at one time. A true character. And it's beautifully weird. Real weird, man. I like it.
|
My main concern with 5e largely comes down to character building. They let you pick race, class, class specific focus, and background. It seems like the whole thing is set up to have you put together 3 packages (race, class, and background), and accept it as 95% of your character's build. IF you're using the "feats" optional rule, you might get more choices. Even so, it looks like ability point increases are the clear way to go for many levels.
I worry that after 4 to 6 sets of characters, with a 4 player group, you'll have seen pretty much every character build. Any other characters after that will be 95% the same as another that has been made. Pathfinder characters (and 3.5 etc.) have a tendency to be similar (2H barbarian, control wizard, etc.), but if you wanted to make something truly different you could. It seems like 5e removed "bad builds", which helps a new player, but I worry will make the game rather stale pretty quickly. Also, I worry that my mountain dwarf champion fighter soldier (a suspected common build) will constantly be equated to the last one played, regardless of roleplay, simply due to being identical on paper.
"Oh, another dwarven fighter. Let me guess, you're also a soldier? Sounds just like Bob."
"But my character's name is Lucianna, and she's a caring collector of goats. So what if everything else on my character sheet is the same?"
"Doesn't matter, you're still the dwarven fighter. It's OK though, we need one. Tim's already playing the elven wizard, and Maria is playing the human rogue."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main concern with 5e largely comes down to character building. They let you pick race, class, class specific focus, and background. It seems like the whole thing is set up to have you put together 3 packages (race, class, and background), and accept it as 95% of your character's build. IF you're using the "feats" optional rule, you might get more choices. Even so, it looks like ability point increases are the clear way to go for many levels.
I worry that after 4 to 6 sets of characters, with a 4 player group, you'll have seen pretty much every character build. Any other characters after that will be 95% the same as another that has been made. Pathfinder characters (and 3.5 etc.) have a tendency to be similar (2H barbarian, control wizard, etc.), but if you wanted to make something truly different you could. It seems like 5e removed "bad builds", which helps a new player, but I worry will make the game rather stale pretty quickly. Also, I worry that my mountain dwarf champion fighter soldier (a suspected common build) will constantly be equated to the last one played, regardless of roleplay, simply due to being identical on paper.
"Oh, another dwarven fighter. Let me guess, you're also a soldier? Sounds just like Bob."
"But my character's name is Lucianna, and she's a caring collector of goats. So what if everything else on my character sheet is the same?"
"Doesn't matter, you're still the dwarven fighter. It's OK though, we need one. Tim's already playing the elven wizard, and Maria is playing the human rogue."
I can see how you might think this is a problem, but as a person who grew up playing pre 3.0/3.5 I can tell you that you just role play the different characteristics that you want to play. In early versions of play...all fighters...etc were alike, you made them different with role playing. You didn't need mechanics to support it.
I played a 1/2 elf Fighter/Magic user that was cursed with no metal able to touch his body, and 12 wives, and didn't have any rules to support that...just imagination. I'm hoping the 5.0 brings that back.
Big shift in thinking from Pathfinder / 3.0 / 3.5, but not so far from earlier editions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see how you might think this is a problem, but as a person who grew up playing pre 3.0/3.5 I can tell you that you just role play the different characteristics that you want to play. In early versions of play...all fighters...etc were alike, you made them different with role playing. You didn't need mechanics to support it.
I played a 1/2 elf Fighter/Magic user that was cursed with no metal able to touch his body, and 12 wives, and didn't have any rules to support that...just imagination. I'm hoping the 5.0 brings that back.
Big shift in thinking from Pathfinder / 3.0 / 3.5, but not so far from earlier editions.
I guess I'll just never buy into that style. The method I prefer is to put mechanics together in a different or interesting way, then create a character that explains that build. This character might use a scimitar, but why? Clearly I had a mechanical reason, but now comes the in-game reason. Is he from a culture where that's a common weapon? Is it a family heirloom? Maybe it's the first treasure he recovered due to adventuring. Maybe he joined an exotic fighting school that uses it exclusively.
I get most of my creative roleplay spark from the bits and pieces that end up on my character sheet. I'm not usually inspired to play something similar to a book or movie character, and I don't seem to have enough creativity to "make something up" to then put mechanics to. Aside from that, even if I did come up with a great character concept separate from mechanics, it would likely have mechanical holes. If I say my bloodline has been touched by demons, in pathfinder I have several mechanical choices to represent that. In 5e, I might be able to splash some sorcerer, but overall there aren't many choices to represent it mechanically. I realize some people are OK with it being a handwaved "yeah, your blood has demonic influences.", or the occasional DM fiat of "your demonic blood lets you do X.", but I'd prefer to be able to quantify it myself in whatever way I choose.
I'm not trying to say 5e is bad. Quite to the contrary, I believe it is an excellent system, well written, and balanced against many options. All I'm saying is that it is a very different style of game, which happens to be a style I don't prefer. I like to chew into some mechanic crunch. It makes me sad that rules-lite seems to be the in-vogue system style these days, especially when D&D goes in that direction. There are plenty of other rules-lite fantasy RPGs, plenty of them excellent, but I want D&D to be different.
From the sounds of it, they are going to be very different most if the tactics used in every previous version of D&D.Not so sure of that. Most of my experience in 1e and 2e does not support the asserted "buff"-heavy or crowd-control magic user style. It wasn't until 3e that buffing or crowd control got their own classes; before that Bless, Haste, or Protection from Evil were pretty much the only party buffs I remember showing up regularly. If you look at 1e especially, casters were blasters, by and large.
So if you want to say tha 5e is going to be a dramatic change in tactics from 3e/Pathfinder, I'd say you were exactly right. But from earlier editions? So far, it's playing a lot more like the first couple of editions than anything since (at least at my table).
Maybe the earliest editions were blaster casters primarily, but even from what little I've seen of AD&D, there was already a bit of trend toward the buffing and battlefield control within the spell preference. If they are truly harkening back all the way to the first one or two versions of the game, then WotC and their supporters had better be prepare to fully explain this aspect every time this discussion comes up for the next several months, if not the next year or so. Considering that most people's first memories come from Baldur's Gate or 3rd edition, it is a major, major change to the baseline that many expect. And I still see a lot of people making variations on the concentration rule because even if people understand why it was done that way, very few are really going to be that eager to go quite that far back in terms of caster power and tactics over the course of an entire campaign.
This might be a stupid question as I haven't read through the entire basic guide, but how are NPCs created? Do they obey standard character creation rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see how you might think this is a problem, but as a person who grew up playing pre 3.0/3.5 I can tell you that you just role play the different characteristics that you want to play. In early versions of play...all fighters...etc were alike, you made them different with role playing. You didn't need mechanics to support it.
I played a 1/2 elf Fighter/Magic user that was cursed with no metal able to touch his body, and 12 wives, and didn't have any rules to support that...just imagination. I'm hoping the 5.0 brings that back.
Big shift in thinking from Pathfinder / 3.0 / 3.5, but not so far from earlier editions.
I guess I'll just never buy into that style. The method I prefer is to put mechanics together in a different or interesting way, then create a character that explains that build. This character might use a scimitar, but why? Clearly I had a mechanical reason, but now comes the in-game reason. Is he from a culture where that's a common weapon? Is it a family heirloom? Maybe it's the first treasure he recovered due to adventuring. Maybe he joined an exotic fighting school that uses it exclusively.
I get most of my creative roleplay spark from the bits and pieces that end up on my character sheet. I'm not usually inspired to play something similar to a book or movie character, and I don't seem to have enough creativity to "make something up" to then put mechanics to. Aside from that, even if I did come up with a great character concept separate from mechanics, it would likely have mechanical holes. If I say my bloodline has been touched by demons, in pathfinder I have several mechanical choices to represent that. In 5e, I might be able to splash some sorcerer, but overall there aren't many choices to represent it mechanically. I realize some people are OK with it being a handwaved "yeah, your blood has demonic influences.", or the occasional DM fiat of "your demonic blood lets you do X.", but I'd prefer to be able to quantify it myself in whatever way I choose....
I agree with you. It's good that we have choices for the type of game we want to play. I enjoy Pathfinder very much, when I want to play that type of game, and find it a game in itself to maximize my characters...however I long to return to what brought me to D&D in the first place (Ouch 1977).
Nothing wrong with either type...just different. It's near impossible to make a game that will be a logic derived simulation, and a Imaginative exercise. It's like the old debate between a completely balanced system, and a more realistic system. There is no winner or loser, only trouble when you make a system try to do what it's not designed to do. That will only result in disappointment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the earliest editions were blaster casters primarily, but even from what little I've seen of AD&D, there was already a bit of trend toward the buffing and battlefield control within the spell preference. If they are truly harkening back all the way to the first one or two versions of the game, then WotC and their supporters had better be prepare to fully explain this aspect every time this discussion comes up for the next several months, if not the next year or so. Considering that most people's first memories come from Baldur's Gate or 3rd edition, it is a major, major change to the baseline that many expect. And I still see a lot of people making variations on the concentration rule because even if people understand why it was done that way, very few are really going to be that eager to go quite that far back in terms of caster power and tactics over the course of an entire campaign.
From the sounds of it, they are going to be very different most if the tactics used in every previous version of D&D.Not so sure of that. Most of my experience in 1e and 2e does not support the asserted "buff"-heavy or crowd-control magic user style. It wasn't until 3e that buffing or crowd control got their own classes; before that Bless, Haste, or Protection from Evil were pretty much the only party buffs I remember showing up regularly. If you look at 1e especially, casters were blasters, by and large.
So if you want to say tha 5e is going to be a dramatic change in tactics from 3e/Pathfinder, I'd say you were exactly right. But from earlier editions? So far, it's playing a lot more like the first couple of editions than anything since (at least at my table).
No one has to explain anything. No one is forcing anyone to play the new edition of D&D if they don't like it. If you feel casters aren't at the point you like, you don't need to play 5th edition. Or, you can change them to fit them more how you like in your own games.
Not trying to sound hostile with the above. They reduced the absurd power of the casters, which is something so many people have been clamoring for these past nearly 15 years. If 5th edition isn't up to what you like, you can always stick to Pathfinder, which is always updated and getting new things.
It's very dangerous to assume that your experiences are "most people's" experiences. Especially when (as far as I know) no one has ever done a comprehensive survey of all role-players. I will say that, considering the lengthy playtesting of 5e, there has been a lot of positive feedback based on the style of the game (and how it "feels" like earlier editions). You may not enjoy that feel. I might. Neither of us can use our preferences to establish what the "majority" of gamers actually think or want. WotC has some information that leads them to believe that their target audience is large enough to sustain this edition and that the flavor is what those people want. We'll see if they are correct. So far, so good...
If they are truly harkening back all the way to the first one or two versions of the game, then WotC and their supporters had better be prepare to fully explain this aspect every time this discussion comes up for the next several months, if not the next year or so. Considering that most people's first memories come from Baldur's Gate or 3rd edition, it is a major, major change to the baseline that many expect.
Baldur's Gate and early 3E is definitely one of the bigger entry periods; therefore, it's reasonable to expect a great many people will use that as a baseline of sorts. And it's a perspective that WotC has consistently ignored in important ways when developing both 4E and 5E. While appealing to pre 3rd edition players is fine, they can't really afford to act as if 3rd edition never happened, or pick and choose what parts of 3rd edition happened and which ones can easily be ignored. Buffing and battlefield control spells are a core part of what people expect when they come from that perspective, and simply acting as if they never became as big as they did is not a solution that is going to appeal to a great many in the OGL crowd. The idea of basing them on concentration is not a bad one; making it concentration only is. Most people can probably agree that scaling back the power of buffs and control spells is good, but I've seen very few that believe they needed to be gutted back to the 1st edition level of non-usefulness.
In the end, it's that kind of decision that will keep the system from reaching the level of success that many seem to think should be automatic because of the brand name recognition. You cannot keep most of the core math systems from 3rd edition and not expect people to use that same edition as something as a baseline for other things. As it is, it seems like they tried to take different expectations from different editions and expect everybody to gather into one big circle again as if none of the differences ever happened. The result will certainly please a lot of people, but far from everyone. A great many people who really like the early editions will dislike the inclusion of anything 3rd edition or onward, and those who like 3E or 4E are going to have a hard time seeing the point in returning to building classes with expectations that have long since ceased to be the norm.
Personally, I would not have tried to go back to 1st edition power levels for casters; too much time has gone by, and those original builds were changed for a reason. I would rather have seen them go with what I saw in AD&D as a baseline for pretty much everything save the consolidated resolution mechanics from the d20 system. Magic was potent, but not overpowered, and mages were playable without heavy houseruling. Buffing and control spells were present, as were blasting spells and summoning spells, all in what seemed to be a reasonable balance between most of them; that would have served them as a better base than going all the way back to mage = blaster and cleric = healing and support spells imo. There was rules for proficiencies, but they had very little implications on the underlying math, which from what little I've seen in 5E, is not the case, where proficiencies still seem to impart significant bonuses. HP totals, and thus all combat math, was still in the realm of the reasonable. Magic items were largely accepted as being present but uncommon, a nice compromise between "all magic items must be epic and rare" and "oh look, another magic shop" attitudes that came before and after. All in all, it seems like the most effective chassis to start from rather than the hodgepodge that WotC threw together for 5E. By starting with a single chassis, people's expectations are going to be a little more focused, and making changes either forward or backward can be done without skipping over key developments and expectations from later editions or being at power levels that most earlier players would find overly high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't Ad&D and first edition the same game?
I thought it went OD&D (0E) - AD&D (BECMI stream in parallel) - 2nd Edition AD&D - 3rd edition - 4th edition.
If 5th edition isn't up to what you like, you can always stick to Pathfinder, which is always updated and getting new things.
This is the part that a lot of D&D fans are not going to want to have to acknowledge, because as a mashup, 5E will gain a lot of fans, but it also gain a lot of people who take one look at it, look at a particular section that they are most concerned about, see something they find just as problematic as the original problem, and choose not to play it. The magic section in particular is going to have this effect on people. I know a lot of people wanting magic scaled back; I myself don't mind the basic concept. However, I don't know very many people wanting it scaled all the way back to 1st edition levels. Likewise, a lot of fans of earlier editions are going to look at healing surges, feats, and similar things as being unnecessarily complicated. I can see this going over well with a group of people that can't agree on any other edition, but I don't see it replacing any other edition (or the related spinoffs) in the grand scheme of things. It will be just as easy for a great many people to stick with what is already being played and coming up with house rules to fix the parts they don't like and a considerable bit cheaper as well.
Aren't Ad&D and first edition the same game?
I thought it went OD&D (0E) - AD&D (BECMI stream in parallel) - 2nd Edition AD&D - 3rd edition - 4th edition.
I can never keep track of the different acronyms mostly because no one can actually seem to agree on half of them. The system as it stood around Baldur's Gate seems like the best middle ground to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was a good strategy to not try and target the 3.5 fans. They have pathfinder, after all and paizo have a strongly loyal cadre of customers. Far better to address the market without a dominant leader (especially if that's where the Playtest indicated the fans wanted WotC to focus).
I can never keep track of the different acronyms mostly because no one can actually seem to agree on half of them. The system as it stood around Baldur's Gate seems like the best middle ground to me.Aren't Ad&D and first edition the same game?
I thought it went OD&D (0E) - AD&D (BECMI stream in parallel) - 2nd Edition AD&D - 3rd edition - 4th edition.
Probably second edition, I guess? I just go by what's written on the books (so "1st edition" is the nebulous phrase).
I think it was a good strategy to not try and target the 3.5 fans. They have pathfinder, after all and paizo have a strongly loyal cadre of customers. Far better to address the market without a dominant leader (especially if that's where the Playtest indicated the fans wanted WotC to focus).
They don't need to target those players, but they can't ignore the impact that edition had on expectations when it came to things like how caster work. If they really wanted to target pre 3rd edition folks, they should have started clean from the last system before they took over, basically ignored everything from than on, including feats, the d20 system, skills, and everything else, and come up with their own brand new solutions from that base, and let the 3rd edition branch be completely it's own thing. This trying to mix the best of all editions into one doesn't work when they were so different in base assumptions and design choices.
I think they should have hired some game designers and then run an extended, public Playtest.
Ignoring the good bits of 3rd and 4th edition seems like a silly idea to me.
I think they should have hired some game designers and then run an extended, public Playtest.
Ignoring the good bits of 3rd and 4th edition seems like a silly idea to me.
So does cherry picking ideas without paying attention to the structure they came from, and that's what they did here. They cherry picked all the ideas that people seem to remember as fun and tried to cram them all into one single framework despite the fact that a large part of what made certain things fun had to do with the whole of the original framework. I just don't understand what niche they hope to fill with this edition. 4E was already looking at a very crowded field, and this one seems to try to be a gymnast that sits between and around everything, doing nothing particularly well or particularly bad, in hopes that they can convince enough people that individual mechanics don't matter at all, and the overall story can and should override everything. They'll get some people, to be certain, and will probably even be able to support the concept without a massive amount of effort, but really, other systems do the whole rules lite focus on storytelling far better than D&D ever will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you should probably play something else.
All this talk about buffs being scaled back makes me all misty eyed.
Yes...3.5 really has made some people unhappy with how they nerfed many of the buffs...
Wait....we're talking about them nerfing them again and even more?!
You may find yourself saying that phrase an awful lot if the DMG doesn't hold up to people's hopes, and that's where the problem comes in. I don't mind having something different on the market, but this just feels like WotC put something out there for the sake of having something out there while they get the rest of the brand going, and that is very disappointing to me. At least with 4E, even if I didn't like what they did, I could respect the courage it took to make those decisions. Maybe time will show it different, but right now there's just something about this system that just feels like it's not worth the effort, and that's not something I want to see in a major brand, especially this major brand. I expect an overall lukewarm response here, but not on more generic gaming forums, but that is very often what I'm seeing elsewhere as well. That doesn't help anyone in the gaming community. WotC needed something to heal their reputation, and so far all they've done is stop the bleeding; that's not going to be enough and I don't like that WotC seems to be content with that being enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're clearly reading different sites than me. The reaction so far seems very positive, not "lukewarm".
Fwiw, I don't have any interest in playing 5E. I just find forming a view based on abstract analysis of a game that hasn't been released yet (let alone played) to be a peculiar stance to adopt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually fairly easy to get a general idea of what things will look like until the DMG comes out, and I have yet to see any of the changes made be received with completely positive reviews. Dis/advantage seems to be getting more positive reactions as time goes on, but most everything else remain heavily mired in the mixed camp, with a few not liking a particular feature at all, most not really sure how it will actually work in play, and a few wildly positive about it. Hardly "very positive" overall. It's not negative, which is something that I will freely give WotC credit for, but it's still a far cry from very positive outside of a few voices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I say, you're reading different sites than me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baldur's Gate and early 3E is definitely one of the bigger entry periods; therefore, it's reasonable to expect a great many people will use that as a baseline of sorts. And it's a perspective that WotC has consistently ignored in important ways when developing both 4E and 5E. While appealing to pre 3rd edition players is fine, they can't really afford to act as if 3rd edition never happened, or pick and choose what parts of 3rd edition happened and which ones can easily be ignored.
Yes, they can.
Also, you seem to be unaware of it, but Baldur's Gate uses AD&D 2 rules; pre-3e by definition.
Therefore, you could actually make the argument that 5e appeals more to players of BG2 than 3e or Pf does...
Just as an experiment, why not try creating a character just using dice? Don't just roll for attributes, also roll for race, class, background, and personality traits. Then see if you can put the die results together and come up with a backstory for a character that you'd find fun to play.
Didn't we have this already? With an expected 16 points of attribute difference between 5 players rolling for attributes, which might be +8 in total modifiers, rolling for stats is a strictly inferior method for character generation than point buy.
Yes, you as a DM might enjoy it when a player needs DM pity to survive or to be able to contribute to the game properly, but it is very unlikely that the unlucky player feels the same.
This might be a stupid question as I haven't read through the entire basic guide, but how are NPCs created? Do they obey standard character creation rules?
At this point there's a list of generic NPCs in DM Basic, with a section on customizing them with racial abilities and whatnot. The NPC statblocks don't list class or level, but they all (Mage, Priest or Knight) have a d8 hit die, and the proficiency to hit dice advancement doesn't appear to line up with PC advancement. I assume (well, maybe "really hope" is a better description) from scratch rules will be in the DMG.
Hit dice is tied to size. So that huge dragon has d12 for hit dice, and if it lives long enough to reach gargantuan, all those hit dice change to d20s. This is, however, only for enemies, as PCs hit dice are determined by class.
And Baldur's Gate used the 2nd edition AD&D rules, as did Icewind Dale and all the other isometric view D&D games except for Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.
Personally I feel like pre-3.0 players, and retro-clone players will flock to 5.0. I think it recaptures that feel with better mechanics and a far superior organization. I returned to retro-clones, (C&C, Blood & Relics, OSRIC Swords and Wizardry looking for that "feeling". And, though they returned me to the game style I enjoy, they still had archaic rule sets, and though improved, still bad organization.
In my opinion after reading the entire PHB, I feel they might just have gotten it right this time. I guess only time will tell...however my group of 40+ friends are all very enthusiastic.
I still "like" Pathfinder, and will continue to play it as a player, but every time I tried to GM it by the time players got to about level 7 I just gave up. Too much to keep up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the sounds of it, they are going to be very different most if the tactics used in every previous version of D&D.Not so sure of that. Most of my experience in 1e and 2e does not support the asserted "buff"-heavy or crowd-control magic user style. It wasn't until 3e that buffing or crowd control got their own classes; before that Bless, Haste, or Protection from Evil were pretty much the only party buffs I remember showing up regularly. If you look at 1e especially, casters were blasters, by and large.
So if you want to say tha 5e is going to be a dramatic change in tactics from 3e/Pathfinder, I'd say you were exactly right. But from earlier editions? So far, it's playing a lot more like the first couple of editions than anything since (at least at my table).
My experience playing 1E (didn't play 2E) was the same as yours: "buffing" and "crowd control" were not all that common for Magic-users (aka Wizards) or even Clerics for that matter. The notion of a MU casting the Fly spell on anyone for combat, which I have seen repeatedly mentioned in this thread, is completely foreign to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I feel like pre-3.0 players, and retro-clone players will flock to 5.0. I think it recaptures that feel with better mechanics and a far superior organization. I returned to retro-clones, (C&C, Blood & Relics, OSRIC Swords and Wizardry looking for that "feeling". And, though they returned me to the game style I enjoy, they still had archaic rule sets, and though improved, still bad organization.
In my opinion after reading the entire PHB, I feel they might just have gotten it right this time. I guess only time will tell...however my group of 40+ friends are all very enthusiastic.
I still "like" Pathfinder, and will continue to play it as a player, but every time I tried to GM it by the time players got to about level 7 I just gave up. Too much to keep up with.
I initially hoped that 5E would be a game I could play (tried 3.5 and Pathfinder...didn't like em; completely ignored 4E) but while I think it is a little closer to "old-school" in its sensibilities than anything since 2E it still has far too many modern options in it to really please me: spammable, powerful 0-level cantrips, healing hit dice, no negative HP, fully healed back to max HP after "long rest", 3rd level spells that revive the dead, "action surges", the whole notion of "recharging" abilities after a "short rest". Most of those things seem to be from 4E (or at least modifications of 4E) and I definitely did not want to play that system.
If the DMG is able to truly provide the guidance on how to modify/eliminate the stuff I don't like and still "work" as a game, then I might get more excited but right now...not so much.
Those abilities that recharge after a "short rest" that you dislike can easily be changed to x/day like they had been in the older editions. And the full hp after a "long rest" (aka full 8 hour sleep/4 hour trance for elves) can be removed completely without screwing with anything else. The fighter's Second Wind ability, which some people in these 5th edition threads have mentioned their dislike, would need to be replaced with something else, which shouldn't be too difficult.
You can do all of that without the need of the DMG. As can the return of negative hp. You are also well within your right to remove certain spells that you don't care for (and no, that isn't being an a&*~!$! DM or whatever that BS was that got 20 replies removed from that other 5th edition thread was about), such as teleport or revivify or breath of life or even magic missile and fireball. I don't think the removal of spammable strong cantrips would break the game (or making them x/day like in 3rd, removing their auto scaling, or both).
Of course, if you are playing in someone else's campaign (or the Adventurer's League), you would have to "suffer" through any mechanics you don't like but they decided to include. Either that, or just not play in that game.
I would like to think that in the DMG, they will have a few systems that will recreate the old 1st/2nd edition mechanics, especially if the rumor about them including a THAC0 variant is true.
Those abilities that recharge after a "short rest" that you dislike can easily be changed to x/day like they had been in the older editions. And the full hp after a "long rest" (aka full 8 hour sleep/4 hour trance for elves) can be removed completely without screwing with anything else. The fighter's Second Wind ability, which some people in these 5th edition threads have mentioned their dislike, would need to be replaced with something else, which shouldn't be too difficult.
You can do all of that without the need of the DMG. As can the return of negative hp. You are also well within your right to remove certain spells that you don't care for (and no, that isn't being an a@@#%$+ DM or whatever that BS was that got 20 replies removed from that other 5th edition thread was about), such as teleport or revivify or breath of life or even magic missile and fireball. I don't think the removal of spammable strong cantrips would break the game (or making them x/day like in 3rd, removing their auto scaling, or both).
Of course, if you are playing in someone else's campaign (or the Adventurer's League), you would have to "suffer" through any mechanics you don't like but they decided to include. Either that, or just not play in that game.
I would like to think that in the DMG, they will have a few systems that will recreate the old 1st/2nd edition mechanics, especially if the rumor about them including a THAC0 variant is true.
Yeah, I agree that many of the things I don't like could probably be lifted out although the changes to HP recovery might necessitate some finagling of monster HP as they are pretty high from what I have seen and might put the PC's at too much of a disadvantage if not dealt with.
Unfortunately, I have not gamed with a regular group for over 20 years so I would have to accept the role of DM which I neither like all that much (definitely prefer being a player) nor feel up to the challenge with my long hiatus from regular gaming.
I intend to try 5E via the Encounters program when the new season starts up (this coming Wednesday...I think) but I anticipate that I might not enjoy it all that much given my "old-school" leanings.