| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What advice would you give to someone coming over from PF? What common mistakes and errors do you see?
Here's what I've come up with so far. Add to it or correct me if needed.
In no particular order:
1) There is no BAB. The proficiency bonus is not BAB. In PF, BAB is what separates a good combatant from a poor one. Martials from casters. In 5e, everyone has the same proficiency bonus, so this cannot be the differentiator. What makes the difference between classes is their abilities.
2) Bonus actions are like swift actions: they don't stack. You get one per round.
3) There are no large numbers. In PF, we like our large numbers - so much so that magic items are required to give us large numbers so we can keep up with the monsters. In 5e, we have small numbers, so the d20 has that much more of an effect. Coinciding with this is that we no longer need magic items to keep up, so there is no Big 6 anymore. Magic items are now delicacies rather than standard fare.
4) Your background matters. It determines which skills, languages, or tools you're proficient in. (So do some ther things like class and race).
5) Skills are - for the most part - chosen at level 1. This would be akin to simply maxing out all your skills in PF, which most people do anyways. There are fewer skills, so any given character ends up having a greater contribution as far as skills go. Int does not influence how many skills you have.
6) You can easily modify a new background to suit your needs - straight from the rule book. They give rules on how to do this. This lets you better customize which skills and tools you become proficient in.
7) Each class is required to take an archetype, and each class has at least 3 options. Every martial class has a magic using option. The fighter's is Eldritch Knight. You gain this at level 3.
8) XP charts are different, and based off of real world data. Ou quickly advance to level 3, slow down advancement from 3-10, then speed up a little from 11-20. The data showed that most people prefer play in the low to mid range, don't like the teens, but like 20. Some people vary from this, but that's what the data showed, so the XP charts were designed to make that happen.
9) 5e is not a game for rules lawyers. The rules are extremely flexible and it is encouraged throught the books and campaigns that the GM can and should change it often to create a better game and better experience for the players. Want to climb a cliff? Typically a Strength (Athletics) check, but a player can say they're free running up the cliff and the GM can call for a Dex (Athletics) check instead. All the skills are like this.
10) Spell casting is much more limited. Many spells are concentration based, which does not mean you have to use an action to concentrate. It's just assumed that you do. But you can only concentrate on one spell at a time, so you no longer can stack buffs and debuffs. You have to pick. But there are also ritual spells you can cast (10 minute casting time) that do not use up one of your prepared spells. Likewise, how you prepare spells is drastically different and much more flexible (the days of one spell prepared per spell slot are gone).
11) Numbers don't stack as often. For example, your AC no longer is a base of 10 from which a bunch of numbers stack. Now, your armor changes your base AC to a set number, which may or may allow other things to add to it (Heavy armor doesn't allow you to add your Dex modifier).
DM fiat is expected. Even the sage advice column has some answers along the lines of "some of us do it one way, some of us do it another" or "it depends on the DM".
Spells no longer auto-increase in power as you level up. You actually have to use a higher level spell slot to gain the additional powers of a spell.
For the love of all things holy, un-learn the Pathfinder paradigm of what an appropriate DC is for a skill check.
Indeed.
My own guide:
Easy: 2-7 (Many times these auto-succeed)
Moderate: 8-12
Challenging: 13-20
Difficult: 21-28
Neary impossible: 29+ (Many times these auto fail)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For the love of all things holy, un-learn the Pathfinder paradigm of what an appropriate DC is for a skill check.Indeed.
My own guide:
Easy: 2-7 (Many times these auto-succeed)
Moderate: 8-12
Challenging: 13-20
Difficult: 21-28
Neary impossible: 29+ (Many times these auto fail)
See, I think even that goes too high. My version of your "Challenging" would be something like 13-15, followed by 15-18, then capped at something like 19-22.
You haven't played the very high levels yet, right?
Once the rogue/bard expertise starts kicking in (with double proficiency bonus plus stats) I think they can start trying the 'nearly impossible' things in the 30-35 range.
FWIW my range is the following for something I'd consider "appropriately challenging" as a kind of upper end for what I think the PCs should expect to face (not for the usual, run of the mill, skill check):
tier 1 10-15
tier 2 16-20
tier 3 21-25
tier 4 26-30
See, I think even that goes too high. My version of your "Challenging" would be something like 13-15, followed by 15-18, then capped at something like 19-22.For the love of all things holy, un-learn the Pathfinder paradigm of what an appropriate DC is for a skill check.Indeed.
My own guide:
Easy: 2-7 (Many times these auto-succeed)
Moderate: 8-12
Challenging: 13-20
Difficult: 21-28
Neary impossible: 29+ (Many times these auto fail)
I think that's fair. I'm defining "difficult" as something that even a high level character with a maxed out stay would have a tough time doing. +11 means they'll have a 50/50 chance of making a DC 22. A low level character would have to get lucky to accomplish it, where a high level character would get it about half the time. That's pretty difficult in my opinion. :)
My "nearly impossible" of 29 would require our high level character to roll an 18.
Of course, this excludes any magic items or other abilities that may boost their bonus higher.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You haven't played the very high levels yet, right?
True.
When I spitballed those numbers, I was considering both the chances of success for someone with no investment (12 or less in the stat, not proficient) and the chances of success for someone with heavy investment (20 stat and expertise).
DC 22 is where you hit "impossible" for the former. For the latter, their bonus will be +17. Now, this probably comes down to personal aesthetics, but I think if something is going to allow a check at all, then someone who has reached the absolute pinnacle of mastery that the system allows should have better than a coin-flip's chance of success. At DC 22, this world-class paragon whose skill is literally unsurpassable will still fail 20% of the time.
I personally dislike the idea of the best in the world of all time having any higher of a failure rate than that. But again, personal preference. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget the expertise feature - I think it's worth bearing in mind that a bard/rogue can expect to get a bonus of at least +17 (possibly one or two higher, depending on magic items) in their chosen specialties.
Personally, I think that should allow them (at those super-high levels) to do things that are "almost impossible". Not just achieve the tough things automatically.
You haven't played the very high levels yet, right?True.
When I spitballed those numbers, I was considering both the chances of success for someone with no investment (12 or less in the stat, not proficient) and the chances of success for someone with heavy investment (20 stat and expertise).
DC 22 is where you hit "impossible" for the former. For the latter, their bonus will be +17. Now, this probably comes down to personal aesthetics, but I think if something is going to allow a check at all, then someone who has reached the absolute pinnacle of mastery that the system allows should have better than a coin-flip's chance of success. At DC 22, this world-class paragon whose skill is literally unsurpassable will still fail 20% of the time.
I personally dislike the idea of the best in the world of all time having any higher of a failure rate than that. But again, personal preference. :)
Yeah, that's a good point - I guess I'm looking at it more from a challenging adventure. I'd like it if, when breaking into the demigod's fortress, there was some tension as to whether the 'moves like a ghost' guy would succeed on sneaking up on the guard (or whatever). As such, I think I was (am?) trying to preserve some occurrences of fifty-fifty.
I was certainly imagining the DC30 things coming up once or twice in a level 20 adventure - not being par for the course.
I'll have to think it through a bit more.
The biggest trouble I ran into when I started running 5e was that my players didn't fully understand the action economy.
I had one player quit because they didn't understand the way that TWF works in 5e (subtle hint: you can always do it, no penalties to rolls, by using a bonus action [much better than previous editions IMHO]).
Paraphrase - "Why did I bother choosing to play a warlock when a fighter can just do that?"
/end scene
When I spitballed those numbers, I was considering both the chances of success for someone with no investment (12 or less in the stat, not proficient) and the chances of success for someone with heavy investment (20 stat and expertise).
...
I personally dislike the idea of the best in the world of all time having any higher of a failure rate than that. But again, personal preference. :)
By the way, in trying to understand where GreyWolfLord was getting his numbers from I had a look at the ways to surpass a 20 stat. There are a surprising number of them, once you allow legendary items (artifacts can do it too, but I'm ruling those out).
The various 'stat boosting manuals' add two to both your stat and your maximum. There's no limit given to using them more than once, but that limitation is presumably a no-brainer (?)
Girdles of Giant Strength can yield up to a strength of 27 from memory.
I still couldn't get to the numbers he was citing (definitely not for a wizard!) but it was interesting that, with enough resources, it is possible to strain at the edges of bounded accuracy in one specialised direction - there is a limit on the number of magic items you can be attuned to, which means if you really want to push for a thirty strength, you're going to suffer in other areas. Nonetheless, I think I'd have to concede it's possible to get that high by the upper levels (using a not-unreasonable interpretation of how magic items 'should' be handled).
The biggest trouble I ran into when I started running 5e was that my players didn't fully understand the action economy.
I had one player quit because they didn't understand the way that TWF works in 5e (subtle hint: you can always do it, no penalties to rolls, by using a bonus action [much better than previous editions IMHO]).
Paraphrase - "Why did I bother choosing to play a warlock when a fighter can just do that?"
/end scene
I have a player who continually refers to "move actions" and "my free action" in addition to bonus actions and the regular kind. It didnt matter initially, but I noticed that he had begun trying to 'trade' his actions ("I didnt use my move action or a bonus action, so surely I can take three free actions instead?" and so forth)
1. Attacking doesn't "end your turn". Everyone can move - attack - move without requiring an inane feat chain.
1a. You can still move and attack multiple times ("full attack")
2. You don't need a feat chain to do most things in combat. Want to grapple someone? Just do it.
3. Your stats cap out at 20 naturally.
4. Forget everything you know about Pathfinder when playing 5th Edition.
Not everything needs to be rolled for. The DM can declare an action is too trivial to fail or impossible to succeed.
For example, a rogue picking a standard lock with no time-crunch can generally be simply ruled to succeed. If it's a particularly tricky lock, or trapped, or needs to be done before the guard makes his next pass, then a roll would be required.
ETA: This meant to be general PF vs 5E advice, not a commentary on the DC discussion.
So you can "Take 10", cool.
1) 5e is NOT immune to rules lawyers. Expect that you might have some if they come from the shops.
2) Special over-rides general. Your mention of bonus actions is a prime example. Multiple items in the rulebooks will seem to allow players to get more actions than one bonus action. It's the special exceptions to be aware of in these instances. Also, understand...you as the DM HAVE the power. If you want to make special exceptions to the rules...YOU DO IT. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY. YOU ARE THE DM. Just make sure to inform the players of it.
3) The rules seems to allow you a stronger reign to make instant DM decisions on rules than in PF, in some instances you need to be able to be flexible and think on your feet. This is not PF where you need everything spelled out for you and the players. You can make lasting rules decisions and as DM...have them officially stand for your game.
4) 5e was advertised as basically a DM playground. The books provide options. Understand...these ARE options. Also understand...these are also EXAMPLES. You are allowed to modify the rules to fit your tastes. Unlike PF...which many try to stick as close to the rules as possible...5e in some ways wants you to do the exact opposite. Understand this and embrace it. Make 5e your own and houserule away.
5) Obviously #4 can conflict with #1. Remember #3 I mentioned. It's your game...if the player wants to go total rules lawyer...they are free to make their own game or do something else. Don't let someone destroy the spirit of 5e because you have houseruled something differently.
6) AS one who WOULD and HAS abused 5e when playing...I'll tell you the biggest thing to avoid is letting players run the DM. It encapsulates all that I wrote above. I've said how 5e can be broken in other topics...but that ALL boils down to letting the players run the DM (giving the players whatever they want...etc) instead of the DM running the game.
In PF, there is a paradigm that players expect to get and have certain things...in many instances...builds are predicated upon the DM letting the players have what they want/request.
5e is NOT based on this same predication in most of the games I've actually seen officially sponsored by WotC. The DM needs to run the game and needs a firm hand if players decide they are going to try to run it instead. You won't see the abuses (that yes, I'm do at times, I'm not a fan of 5e, and can abuse it, but I also know...this abuse can be impossible to be done if a DM runs the game as many do) if you as the DM run that game instead of letting the players run it.
It may seem like common sense...but I can assure you...it is not.
|
1) Minor magic items are a DM's friend. You don't get to hand out +2 Flaming Burst Swords more than once an arc per character (or so), or you start to destroy the foundations of the game. Rather, start giving out very subtle magic items, like gloves that are insulate against heat, or a set of dice that can create minor randomized effects. Not only are you rewarding players with magic that won't upset the balance, you are also giving them a toolbox of toys that could inspire them to do something creative at just the right time.
2) Boss fights are way easier to simulate. Legendary Action economy is an excellent way to make single monster encounters viable and exciting. I understand that this is something borrowed from 4th edition, but not having played it, I can say little else about it.
3) Downtime can be more important if you choose to reward characters with gold. Without the gold pit of magic items, your characters are more likely to interact with the world; buying tracts of land, influencing politics, currying favor and running business ventures are all highly encouraged.
4) Dying is easier to avoid. You won't die unless you have very very bad die rolls, your negative hp equals your normal hp maximum, or your GM is being unforgiving (not a bad thing in certain game styles).
5) That having been said, there are other conditions that make you die. For instance, there are 6 levels of exhaustion. At level 6, you die. You also can be afflicted by various conditions that lower your HP maximum. If your HP maximum reaches 0, you die outright. This is relatively easy to avoid.
6) MAD is less emphasized. Everyone has the chance to maximize their damage output through one stat; Strength for most fighters, Intelligence for Wizards, and so on. These govern how well you hit, in the case of Strength and Dextrity they govern how much bonus damage you do on weapon attacks, and for spellcaster they govern the DC of your spells. Anyone even mildly "gish" is still a little MAD dependent, and this includes Eldrich Knights, "Battle" Clerics (not a real archetype... yet), and Bards of the Valor college.
7) To seque from #6, there are no more touch attacks. Because there is no differentiated BAB, non-martials don't need to have some handicap to hit (i.e. touch attacks). Everyone can and regularly does have the same rough chance to hit and deal damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the love of all things holy, un-learn the Pathfinder paradigm of what an appropriate DC is for a skill check.
I did apply this to a recent conversion from PF to 5e that I did. It's a doozy to eyeball the numbers, but it is absolutely necessary to reverse the Pathfinder methodology of "assume someone overmaxed this skill" adventure design. It is essential to keep the DCs lower, especially if a skill check could serve to be a road block or even lead to death.
Rogues can sneak attack practically every round. Even archery-focused rogues. Especially after 2nd level when they can use Cunning Action to Hide as a bonus action. I used to GM for a guy who was constantly frustrated with how rogues could sneak attack in PF, and was super satisfied with how well and often rogues could sneak attack in 5E.
Also, sneak attack damage gets multiplied on critical hits. But you can only sneak attack once per round, so no more two-weapon fighting Cuisinarts-O-Death.
Unless you are a two-weapon fighting fighter using Action Surge with a flame tongue sword...
Also, the way critical hits work (dice are multiplied, not the static bonuses from Strength/Dexterity and magical weapons), the sizes of weapon dice are significant. And with bounded accuracy and lower ability score maximums, you are no longer going to see daggers doing 1d4+20 and greataxes doing 1d12+12 (or about the same). Daggers are going to top out around 1d4+6, greataxes around 1d12+6, so weapon selection can be a pretty important decision.
2) Special over-rides general. Your mention of bonus actions is a prime example. Multiple items in the rulebooks will seem to allow players to get more actions than one bonus action. It's the special exceptions to be aware of in these instances.
Just so we are clear on this: at this point in time, there is nothing in any D&D 5e book that grants more than one Bonus Action in a single Turn.
There is a single ability that allows a full second turn in one round, on the first round only. This is a 17th level ability by the Rogue (Thief) on page 97 of the PHB.
The DMG says to beware of adding anything to the game that will grant more than one Reaction or Bonus Action per Round, so I highly doubt we'll see something that grants additional bonus actions in a single Turn. Page 263 of the DMG.
Yeah, that's a problem a few of our PCs ran into with rour first attempts at 5E characters. They picked a whole bunch of classes/abilities/items which granted "such-and-such as a bonus action" without appreciating they were giving themselves lots of choices but still only one of them each round.
We've found a couple of multiclass combinations that really suffer from this - if your class or fighting style really relies on using a bonus action each round to do its thing, you should be very careful about adding another class which also has bonus actions - you can end up feeling like you're doing two things badly, rather than doing a hybrid thing well.
Our wannabe old school fighter/magic-user/thief went Fighter/Wizard/Rogue 2-weapon fighter for a while before being rebuilt as a straight-up 2-weapon fighting eldritch knight, and he still has too many bonus action options for comfort.
Can you imagine being a War cleric/rogue two-weapon fighter? Bonus action spells include healing word, shield of faith, and divine favor, plus Cunning Action, and two-weapon fighting. Pretty much 80% of the War domain spells.
2) Special over-rides general. Your mention of bonus actions is a prime example. Multiple items in the rulebooks will seem to allow players to get more actions than one bonus action. It's the special exceptions to be aware of in these instances.Just so we are clear on this: at this point in time, there is nothing in any D&D 5e book that grants more than one Bonus Action in a single Turn.
There is a single ability that allows a full second turn in one round, on the first round only. This is a 17th level ability by the Rogue (Thief) on page 97 of the PHB.
The DMG says to beware of adding anything to the game that will grant more than one Reaction or Bonus Action per Round, so I highly doubt we'll see something that grants additional bonus actions in a single Turn. Page 263 of the DMG.
Depends on what you consider a bonus action. In regards to the specific item...
A Fighter probably will be VERY unhappy if you decide at upper levels that they will ONLY get 1 bonus attack....
Or NERF the Monk's flurry
Or interpret additional as bonus instead of granting an additional action (as per Haste)
Or any number of special rules out there that grant additional actions.
It notes that the DM themselves should beware of adding things to the game, but doesn't really address things that are already in the game themselves. It doesn't say, invalidate the rules already written at your whim, but does advise DM's to be very cautious when doing so...At least on Pg 263 in the DMG I have (4th or 5th paragraph). Instead it eemphasizes what I already stated in my item about the DM having the power...
Therefore...you CAN do that in your game...that's the section whilch allows you to do this and then shows several options which you as a DM can implement...many of them over riding general rules of the game, but in these instances the specific over rides the general IF YOU CHOOSE to use them as a DM.
As I stated in mine, it may not be obvious, but if you allow the players to drive the game like normally happens in many groups with PF...it only take ONE min/max player to break the game.
Hence, that's an important chapter that you pointed out, but the exact reference you have has nothing in regards to general rules over riding spells, magic, or abilities granted to classes by the game itself. It's merely a precaution about the DM adding MORE rules ontop, or changing it, because the writers felt that DM's adding their own rules to the game in that light could cause an imbalance.
A prime example of specific vs. general is the Fighter.
In General you are allowed one move action and one attack action. The attack action is DEFINED as ONE melee or ranged attack. (pg 192).
The fighter is allowed MORE than one attack on their round in their class features.
This is an example of specific vs. general where a character is allowed to do more one action than is defined in the general rules due to the specific rules of their class, magic items, or magic.
A similar thing happens with Bards in the College of Valor where they get extra attacks on their attack action, or get an extra weapon attack after they cast a bard spell (as per Battle Magic).
These are specific rules as pertaining to classes and magic that you as a DM are FREE to change, but if as the book warns, be very careful about changing the rules in these regards as they can disrupt the intended balance by the designers.
However, in 5e you must be cognizant that if you allow players to run the game over the DM...rather than the DM running the game, it will get all sorts of broken anyways.
This is the #1 difficulty I see DM's from PF falling into...and as a blatant min/max player...I will run all over them if they let me. However, it is something that I am aware of and can warn DM's they MUST pay heed to lest their game becomes a matter of the players one shotting their powerful villains.
IF you feel that you need to restrict these extra actions as per their class abilities...then you can do so, but be aware, there is NOTHING in the DMG that says that you only get ONE bonus action, that is defined on page 189 on the PHB. In that same section is where it is also defined you can only ATTACK ONCE (page 190) (and specifies the Fighter's attack action as an example of things that are specific rules that break this item which for # of attacks can allow quite a number of broken combos).
However, these definitions ARE vague to a degree, for example...would one REALLY allow someone to multiclass various fighter/Ranger/Barbarian...etc. and have all their attacks stack?
I probably would NOT...as my interpretation of that doesn't extend to saying they stack.
However, a DM MIGHT interpret it as that if they had players who min/max'd and were trying to over ride the DM or were Rules Lawyers.
The thing is...in 5e, if you are arguing about rules...you're probably letting the players run the game and are on the edge of getting something broken.
YOU...as the DM run the game. YOU make the rules decisions in regards to your game, and YOU decide how things works.
For example, if a character that normally only would get one attack per round decides that they will use magic and two weapon fighting and other items, so they get up to 4 attacks per round...by a bonus action for an attack, using a potion of speed or spell of haste (not bonus actions, additional actions), magic that forces enemies to move and hence another attack from a reaction action...hence granting the character (1 normal attack, 1 bonus attack, 1 additional attack from spell, 1 reaction attack)...4 attacks per round instead of 1...does that seem to be stretching the rules?
Does that seem to break the intent of the rules? YOU AS THE DM make the rules choice. You define whether that is a correct interpretation of the rules in the game you are running, OR WHETHER it is NOT.
For example, if that character drinks multiple potions of speed...what is YOU as the DM's decision on that? Do you let it stack (as the spell haste is normally restricted because it requires concentration...but the potion specifically notes this restriction is LIFTED)...or do you say it doesn't?
Do you instead say they die from over drinking? OR DO YOU note that you have NOT let yourself be dictated to by PF style playing...and that the likelihood of them having two potions of speed is remote (as it is a VERY RARE item)?
This is why the DM running the game is very important. If you let players plan out their "builds" as per PF where they say this is the magic items they want or need, and this is what they need, instead of running the game as a DM...it can lead to situations which probably would never occur if the DM runs the game instead of the players.
2) Special over-rides general. Your mention of bonus actions is a prime example. Multiple items in the rulebooks will seem to allow players to get more actions than one bonus action. It's the special exceptions to be aware of in these instances.Just so we are clear on this: at this point in time, there is nothing in any D&D 5e book that grants more than one Bonus Action in a single Turn.
There is a single ability that allows a full second turn in one round, on the first round only. This is a 17th level ability by the Rogue (Thief) on page 97 of the PHB.
The DMG says to beware of adding anything to the game that will grant more than one Reaction or Bonus Action per Round, so I highly doubt we'll see something that grants additional bonus actions in a single Turn. Page 263 of the DMG.
Depends on what you consider a bonus action. In regards to the specific item...
A Fighter probably will be VERY unhappy if you decide at upper levels that they will ONLY get 1 bonus attack....
Or NERF the Monk's flurry
Or interpret additional as bonus instead of granting an additional action (as per Haste)
Or any number of special rules out there that grant additional actions.
*snip*
I don't mean to pile on here Greywolf, but you seem to be unclear on the difference between bonus actions as defined by the 5e rules, and bonus actions as other stuff you get to do on your turn because BONUS!!.
The action economy of 5e is one action, bonus action, move and reaction per round. The extra attack a fighter gets at 5th level isn't a second action or a bonus action, it's two attacks made when they take the attack action. As a 5th level fighter you can't, for instance, make a single attack and then use another action to dash, disengage or dodge without using Action Surge. A Fighter of any level is only ever going to get one bonus action per round, no matter how high their level, and no matter how many individual attacks they make when they take the attack action. If they fight with two weapons for an extra attack every round, they will never get to use their bonus action for anything else, like second wind or many of the battle master maneuvers.
Depends on what you consider a bonus action.
No. It doesn't. Terminology matters. A Bonus Actions is specifically defined in the PHB on page 189, as thus:
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
Your confusion is directly coming from a conflation of terms. It's important that you use the proper terminology in order to avoid confusion.
By claiming the Extra Attack or Monks Furry features provide Bonus Actions, you are conflating terms and sowing confusion. Please stop.
In Pathfinder terms, this would be equivalent to claiming that iterative attacks are swift actions, and then claiming you can take more than one swift action per turn because iterative attacks let you make more than one attack per turn. It's flat out wrong, and it causes confusion amongst any one reading the discussion.
Terminology matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We had a similar discussion about Bonus Actions on GitP forums and here's a clarification of the different type of things you can do in a round:
In a round each character take a turn on their initiative count. (Thief's Reflex allow the character to take a second turn at initiative count -10 on the first round of combat)
PHB p. 189 indicate what your turn is:
- Move (further detailed under Movement and Position)
- Take one action (most common actions are described under Actions in Combat)On p.192 of PHB, the following are listed as Actions in Combat:
- Attack (extra attacks are resolved within this action)
- Cast a spell
- Dash
- Disengage
- Dodge
- Help
- Hide
- Ready
- Search
- Use an objectThen they explain that certain class feature or spell let you take a bonus action and that you can take only one bonus action on your turn.
Under other activity on your turn, it is said that you can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free. Interacting with a second object you need to use your action (by taking the Use an object action)
Furthermore, it is said that special abilities, spells and situation let you take a special action called a reaction. You cannot take an other reaction until the start of your next turn.
So that's pretty straight forward, you can move and take one action during your turn, some abilities or spell let you take a bonus action in addition, and specific trigger may let you have a reaction.
Just to be clear, you don't get a bonus action and/or a reaction every turn, you get them under specific circumstances, and when you get one and/or the other, you only get it once on your turn.
It's one of the few area of 5e that the rules are well detailed and doesn't allow much interpretation.
Another thing:
There is no 5 foot step.
In fact, one of the only things that provokes opportunity attacks is leaving the area threatened by an opponent.
You can move (or reposition) all around your opponent without provoking an opportunity attack, but if you move 5 or more feet away from your opponent, that provokes an opportunity attack.
So basically, you only get punished for being a coward. :-P
So basically, you only get punished for being a coward. :-POr for trying to walk right by the frontliner to the guy he's protecting.
I've heard it both ways! :-D
I've played PF w/o AoOs and while it streamlined things a bit, I really missed them....if only because I wanted to play a reach cleric!
I really like how 5E deals with OAs. I like how they help with tactical movement, but don't punish you for doing fun and interesting things, like pushing lamia off towers, grappling, etc.
I understand the drive to rename the Minor Action a Bonus Action (so people aren't feeling like they wasted part of their turn if they don't use their Bonus Action) but it does lead to some confusion because you're only limited to one Bonus Action a turn, when "bonus" implies above and beyond what you're normally allowed.
But I agree that terminology absolutely matters, and referring to anything that's not a game-defined Bonus Action as such leads to unnecessary confusion.
As a matter of fact, by RAW a Bonus Action is "above and beyond" what you're normally allowed, since you're not allowed any under normal circumstances ;)
GreyWolfLord, are you interested in hearing about where you've misunderstood the rules? There are several places in that post where you flat-out contradict the rules (I'm talking about the parts where the rules are explicit and spelled out, not the 'it's all up to the DM' parts) and I'd be happy to go through and point them out. However, I've done that before and you don't tend to respond and then repost the same, incorrect interpretations later. I don't really mind if you don't want to know, but you might find it illuminating.
Depends on what you consider a bonus action.No. It doesn't. Terminology matters. A Bonus Actions is specifically defined in the PHB on page 189, as thus:
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action’s timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
Your confusion is directly coming from a conflation of terms. It's important that you use the proper terminology in order to avoid confusion.
By claiming the Extra Attack or Monks Furry features provide Bonus Actions, you are conflating terms and sowing confusion. Please stop.
In Pathfinder terms, this would be equivalent to claiming that iterative attacks are swift actions, and then claiming you can take more than one swift action per turn because iterative attacks let you make more than one attack per turn. It's flat out wrong, and it causes confusion amongst any one reading the discussion.
Terminology matters.
Actually, I think you guys are either misunderstanding on purpose, or because you don't like what you are hearing.
This boils down to what I stated...if you have a rules lawyer and you are the DM...if you play like you have, you've lost already...
Which is the second point...most PF players and those who play like this aren't playing 5e...or you'd see a whole bunch more of broken in 5e.
If you noticed my example of specific vs. general, you'll notice it ONLY USED one bonus action...but one could get 4 or 5 attacks even though the general rules allow only 1.
This is the type of abuse that you can expect when switching from PF to 5e. At least, this is what I know min/max players will swing...and it's ALL legal.
As I said, 4 attacks...1 normal, 1 additional, 1 bonus, and 1 reactive.
IF you allow potions of speed to stack (as I said...it specifically ignores the concentration rules of haste), it means that you can get an additional attack on top of that other additional...which means 5 attacks for your spell caster or bard...or whoever.
Or even more if you allow additional attacks and actions to stack (as per the Fighter special abilities).
This is actually pretty easy going for a rules lawyer (I mean...for one that's REALLY bad...they'll argue that an attack action is ONE action...and that an additional action means they should get another attack action if they wish. In that light, they could argue that they should get 9 attacks per round at high level... for their normal attack action, and 4 for the additional action used as an attack action...)
Which ever way you want to slice it though, because you are so focused on whether the rules are right or wrong (at which point, if you discuss stuff like this with a rules lawyer, they are halfway to winning at the table) that you have MISSED the point...because you WANT to be rules lawyers yourselves...it will get one in trouble.
The point is, if you try to discuss rules in 5e, because it IS vague in some ways...you're already letting the PLAYERS run the game. It will lead to all sorts of broken combos eventually.
Instead, and this is the point you all are missing if you want to play with those who love PF...
You will HAVE to RUN the game as a DM. I've seen it time and time again with people who played PF...they are so used to min/max gamers like me...that they let me run their game.
It's because if you cannot give correct page numbers and everything else for a rules lawyer when they can (for example, someone tried listing the bonus action rule as being from the DMG [263], but their page and reference was incorrect and was not about limitations in that regards...but DM houserules. I referenced in my post as being in the PHB with the page references the Bonus action limitations...as well as the definitions of attack and other actions as per the PHB) you won't stand in rules...if you try that route.
HOWEVER...5e makes it explicit that you do NOT NEED to. And this is what my primary 5e advice for those coming from Pathfinder is. If you let Pathfinder players run the table who are min/max players...they will.
Instead...you NEED to be able to make solid rulings on the spot...regardless of what the rules may say in certain things...you need to control your game in 5e. You need be able to take a solid stance that something doesn't work in your game, and make that ruling. If you don't like the idea of additional actions (as opposed to the official "bonus" actions), you need to make that ruling.
Of course, as PER page 263, you ALSO need to understand the ramifications. Specific special rules DO over-ride general rules (and it even specifies this in some instances, for example, the final paragraph under the attack action)...and when you CHOOSE to change this up...it can cause ramifications for some classes (for example...if you rule that additional attacks do not happen under the attack action...that hurts the Fighters and other classes that get additional attacks under the attack action).
However...YOU as a DM need to run the game. Which was the BIG point (and obviously missed by many) made by me...because I've seen a LOT of 5e DM's get over run by PF players who min/max the crazy cart out of 5e, and then walk away with bad ideas of what 5e is overall (as I did, if it hadn't happened to me originally, perhaps I'd have a good feeling towards 5e today).
Happens ALL too often in what I see at the official games...your home games may differ though.
Just to be clear...bonus action is defined as one thing under the books, and I have played by those rules. I only said...specific rules over general...in all my examples...I've only USED one bonus action as per the definitions.
It seems if people are having problems with my examples...it's not the bonus actions as the official definition, but things with Additional Attacks and additional Actions AS PER the books.
In those situations...the books tend to get far more vague in regards to how many or what limits there are (and of course, if they DO...then it means you must take a good, hard, look at all the classes which have granted to them additional actions or additional attacks which do NOT fall under the prevue of the official "bonus" action rules).
Which of course, is an entirely different subject was originally about...and was ONLY used for an illustration...but one needs to realize that these special class options (such as the fighter additional attacks) are specific items which over ride the general rule (for example, the general rule of the attack action is ONLY ONE attack, but this is specifically over ridden by the additional attack rules).
The point being...you need to be more firm and decisive as a 5e DM. You cannot run it like a PF game (and trust me, I've tried at times), or it will turn out all sorts of broken with certain players.
Which for those coming from PF to 5e, I think is absolutely essential to know...in fact, the change in HOW you DM, I think is perhaps the MOST important thing for the new 5e DM to know if they are playing with ex-PF players that are expecting something like the PF game they've been involved with previously.
GreyWolfLord, are you interested in hearing about where you've misunderstood the rules? There are several places in that post where you flat-out contradict the rules (I'm talking about the parts where the rules are explicit and spelled out, not the 'it's all up to the DM' parts) and I'd be happy to go through and point them out. However, I've done that before and you don't tend to respond and then repost the same, incorrect interpretations later. I don't really mind if you don't want to know, but you might find it illuminating.
Please do...but remember...the official definitions of the books.
Also, don't use false references (I DO have the books) like were posted before (the DMG reference to bonus actions, which I corrected and posted the ruling of it in one of my above posts)...or interpretations outside of what is explicitly stated.
Though, as this is more of advice for what PF players going to 5e should expect, perhaps you should PM me or have it in another topic, as mine was more an example of the types of things one could expect if they did NOT DM differently than the GM's PF.
Min/Maxing is not an issue in 5e.
GreyWolfLord, what you've demonstrated - repeatedly - is not min/maxing. It is a misunderstanding of the rules and a misapplication of the rules.
If you insist that you are not misunderstanding, then what you are doing is cheating. A personality trait seldom welcome in games or gaming communities.
Min/Maxing is not an issue in 5e.
GreyWolfLord, what you've demonstrated - repeatedly - is not min/maxing. It is a misunderstanding of the rules and a misapplication of the rules.
If you insist that you are not misunderstanding, then what you are doing is cheating. A personality trait seldom welcome in games or gaming communities.
Then quote where I've cheated. No one has done so thus far. The best one has done is misquote and misreference a section of the DMG.
Be SURE to read the examples though, because it doesn't make any sense when you start trying to say things I never utilized as incorrect (for example...none of my examples use the book defined "bonus" actions more than one is able to...and in fact only utilize it ONCE in their multiple attacks as per 2 weapon fighting).
PS: Also remember, as per the books, we are using BOOK definitions, if we REALLY want to discuss things off topic. So...the books are VERY specific when something is using a bonus action as opposed to something such as an ADDITIONAL item (such as an additional attack or additional action). It is these additional items which are specific in regards to many classes, spells and items. Of course, this is ONLY ONE example of specifics vs. general rules...there are many more and in fact, most of the special abilities that classes get are because of special exceptions granted to them that are beyond what are found in the general rules for everyone.
In addition, this is ironic that one focuses on this and completely misses the point that I was trying to make originally...or even a few posts up.
GreyWolfLord, are you interested in hearing about where you've misunderstood the rules? There are several places in that post where you flat-out contradict the rules (I'm talking about the parts where the rules are explicit and spelled out, not the 'it's all up to the DM' parts) and I'd be happy to go through and point them out. However, I've done that before and you don't tend to respond and then repost the same, incorrect interpretations later. I don't really mind if you don't want to know, but you might find it illuminating.Please do...but remember...the official definitions of the books.
Also, don't use false references (I DO have the books) like were posted before (the DMG reference to bonus actions, which I corrected and posted the ruling of it in one of my above posts)...or interpretations outside of what is explicitly stated.
Though, as this is more of advice for what PF players going to 5e should expect, perhaps you should PM me or have it in another topic, as mine was more an example of the types of things one could expect if they did NOT DM differently than the GM's PF.
Depends on what you consider a bonus action. In regards to the specific item...Just so we are clear on this: at this point in time, there is nothing in any D&D 5e book that grants more than one Bonus Action in a single Turn.
There is a single ability that allows a full second turn in one round, on the first round only. This is a 17th level ability by the Rogue (Thief) on page 97 of the PHB.
The DMG says to beware of adding anything to the game that will grant more than one Reaction or Bonus Action per Round, so I highly doubt we'll see something that grants additional bonus actions in a single Turn. Page 263 of the DMG.
It really doesn't 'depend on what you consider a bonus action' - a bonus action is defined in the rules quite clearly (and it isn't part of the "DM makes a call" section of the rules). There's no 'considering' involved.
A Fighter probably will be VERY unhappy if you decide at upper levels that they will ONLY get 1 bonus attack....
This is the first (and I think the principle) misunderstanding. A fighter at the upper levels gains the extra attack feature. This has no bearing on the number of Bonus Actions he can take.
When bookrat says "you can only have one bonus attack per round" he is not saying "a twentieth level fighter can't make four attacks when he uses the Attack action".
Or NERF the Monk's flurry
This is also unaffected by bookrat's comment - the monk only gets one bonus action per round. A monk can spend a ki point to gain two attacks when he uses that bonus action, but he isn't gaining any additional bonus actions.
As I stated in mine, it may not be obvious, but if you allow the players to drive the game like normally happens in many groups with PF...it only take ONE min/max player to break the game.
You've mentioned "breaking the game" several times (and have even suggested it's easy with any kind of min/max knowledge). For example, you have talked about achieving a 40 Armor Class and to be able to build a twentieth level wizard who can attack as often and with the same bonus as a twentieth level fighter.
Neither of these things are possible within the rules. If you'd outline exactly how you thought one could achieve those two things, it would help pinpoint where you are going wrong. You've posted often quite long posts but haven't provided any actual builds or combinations, so that would be a useful start - it's clear there's an error, but it's hard to identify where without something specific.
A fighter of any level will flat out get more attacks per round than an identically equipped wizard. He'll also do more damage and/or have a better chance to hit.
The 40 AC is something I'm very curious about - I can get to 30 if I'm able to access Legendary items but I don't think 40 is possible so how did you do that?
In General you are allowed one move action and one attack action.
This hasn't (yet) led to any egregious error, but is similar to your conflation of "Bonus action" with "doing something else". There is no such thing as a move action. I think a lot of your errors are arising from thinking of 5E as a patch to Pathfinder, rather from looking at it as a new, self-contained thing.
A similar thing happens with Bards in the College of Valor where they get extra attacks on their attack action, or get an extra weapon attack after they cast a bard spell (as per Battle Magic).
These are specific rules as pertaining to classes and magic that you as a DM are FREE to change, but if as the book warns, be very careful about changing the rules in these regards as they can disrupt the intended balance by the designers.
However, in 5e you must be cognizant that if you allow players to run the game over the DM...rather than the DM running the game, it will get all sorts of broken anyways.
This line of thought is very confusing to me. It seems to me that you're basically saying that the DM can houserule and remove some of the clearly spelled out rules (which is, of course, true but not terribly relevant to a discussion about how the game works since it's also true in any game - we're all free to do whatever we want). Then you say you should be careful about letting the players run the game.
I don't know how to respond to this as it seems like a non sequitur. There isn't much point talking about "what 5E is like if you change the rules" - that's true for anything. It would be silly to say "Dragon Age is broken if you ignore the rules" - it may well be broken, but it's no longer Dragon Age.
This is the #1 difficulty I see DM's from PF falling into...and as a blatant min/max player...I will run all over them if they let me. However, it is something that I am aware of and can warn DM's they MUST pay heed to lest their game becomes a matter of the players one shotting their powerful villains.
I kind of agree here (and to be frank, it sounds like you're conceding the point). The reason you can 'break the game' is because you're not using the rules properly.
IF you feel that you need to restrict these extra actions as per their class abilities...then you can do so, but be aware, there is NOTHING in the DMG that says that you only get ONE bonus action, that is defined on page 189 on the PHB. In that same section is where it is also defined you can only ATTACK ONCE (page 190) (and specifies the Fighter's attack action as an example of things that are specific rules that break this item which for # of attacks can allow quite a number of broken combos).
Here you say there is nothing which says you only get one bonus action and then refer to the section where it says exactly that.
The rules DO say you only get one bonus action. If you can find an example of somewhere granting a second, that specific rule WOULD trump the general - but you've never cited that. You keep citing examples like the monk's flurry, the valor bard's extra attacks, the fighter's extra attacks etcetera - none of which allow you to take an extra Bonus Action. (They just grant additional attacks or actions - which is a different thing).
However, these definitions ARE vague to a degree, for example...would one REALLY allow someone to multiclass various fighter/Ranger/Barbarian...etc. and have all their attacks stack?
This is another example where you declare the rules vague where they are actually explicit. The multiclassing rules have a section on extra attack explicitly stating that you only get it once - you definitely CAN'T stack all of these extra attacks you list and there's no judgement call involved.
However, a DM MIGHT interpret it as that if they had players who min/max'd and were trying to over ride the DM or were Rules Lawyers.
This 'stacking extra attacks' interpretation isn't an example of rules lawyering - it's blatantly ignoring a rule of the game.
YOU...as the DM run the game. YOU make the rules decisions in regards to your game, and YOU decide how things works.
For example, if a character that normally only would get one attack per round decides that they will use magic and two weapon fighting and other items, so they get up to 4 attacks per round...by a bonus action for an attack, using a potion of speed or spell of haste (not bonus actions, additional actions), magic that forces enemies to move and hence another attack from a reaction action...hence granting the character (1 normal attack, 1 bonus attack, 1 additional attack from spell, 1 reaction attack)...4 attacks per round instead of 1...does that seem to be stretching the rules?
Does that seem to break the intent of the rules? YOU AS THE DM make the rules choice. You define whether that is a correct interpretation of the rules in the game you are running, OR WHETHER it is NOT.
Yes, in a couple of ways. Of course the group can just change the rules, but what I'm talking about is explicitly the rules in the book. Not how you might change them (it is trivially easy to break ANY RPG's rules if you are allowed to change them to do it).
First - remember that reactions are used on other people's turn not yours (so you can't make an opportunity attack in your own turn).
Second - forced movement doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity.
These are explicit. They're not "talk to your DM about it" issues. I think you need to understand that the continued stress on DM judgement and interpretation is not saying "anything goes". Some parts of the rules are spelled out just as clearly as any other game - a qualitative difference between 5E and other games is that there are many deliberate gaps where things are left to DM discretion. That doesn't mean everything is loose and undefined.
Another point of confusion highlighted here - when others are talking about the limits of some classes to only two attacks everyone has specifically referred to the Attack action. (I made that point to you back in the original thread, as did several others).
It's true that you can gain an attack via a bonus action, an attack via an extra action granted by magical means, an attack as your reaction. That doesn't make "non-fighters are limited to two attacks as an Attack action" false. A fighter gets all those extra attacks as well. A fighter always has access to at least as many attacks as any other class of the same level and usually has more.
For example, if that character drinks multiple potions of speed...what is YOU as the DM's decision on that? Do you let it stack (as the spell haste is normally restricted because it requires concentration...but the potion specifically notes this restriction is LIFTED)...or do you say it doesn't?
It doesn't stack (although I think you're right to call this out as something that isn't in the core rules - I believe it was clarified via the website or twitter account. Perhaps someone else has a link?)
The reason it doesnt has nothing to do with concentration. There is a rule (which I can't find) that you can only be affected by a spell once at any given time. You can't be affected by four haste spells cast by four different casters, for example.
To summarise - it would be REALLY helpful when you criticise 5E if you would stick to the terminology of the game. For example:
- Bonus action DOESN'T mean 'something you do besides a single attack and a move'.
- The extra attack class feature doesn't grant you any extra actions.
The fact that some areas of the rules are left to DM's discretion (stealth being my favorite example) doesn't mean all of them are. The game still has rules and when talking about it, it is not terribly helpful to discuss games where they aren't being followed.
I'd appreciate it if you would post an actual build (when saying "a wizard can attack just as often as a fighter, with the same attack bonus" or "it's easy to break bounded accuracy and get an Armor class of 40"). At the moment, it's hard not to just say "you're wrong" because I can't point to WHY you're wrong.
Finally, I want to make clear that I have no interest in persuading you to like 5E. I don't actually like it for face-to-face gaming (like you, I only run it because that's the system my players like). However, I think it's important when discussing an RPG that the rules be depicted as accurately as possible.
There could well be people who don't know about 5E who look in on these kinds of discussions and think (for example) "what's the point in trying this bounded accuracy thing if you still run around with 40 AC - sounds like not much change to me". I think we owe it to them to be accurate in our portrayal of how the rules are, not how they fall apart if you ignore many of them.
The 40 AC is something I'm very curious about - I can get to 30 if I'm able to access Legendary items but I don't think 40 is possible so how did you do that?
My guess is he got it from here: Highest possible AC in 5e
Cheers. Including +5 from a shield spell (which last ones round) cast by a barbarian seems a little hard to justify.
The stacking of various manuals is another - presumably you can only benefit from one of them but has that been made explicit anywhere?
For example, if that character drinks multiple potions of speed...what is YOU as the DM's decision on that? Do you let it stack (as the spell haste is normally restricted because it requires concentration...but the potion specifically notes this restriction is LIFTED)...or do you say it doesn't?It doesn't stack (although I think you're right to call this out as something that isn't in the core rules - I believe it was clarified via the website or twitter account. Perhaps someone else has a link?)
The reason it doesnt has nothing to do with concentration. There is a rule (which I can't find) that you can only be affected by a spell once at any given time. You can't be affected by four haste spells cast by four different casters, for example.
Found it. It is in the core rules - p205 PH.
Multiple potions of speed don't stack by the rules (no judgement call required).
Action Economy seems to stymie some attempts at boosting AC. For example, Duelist Defense and shield both use your reaction.