| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard theories about this - that basically Hasbro thinks that they can make more $ as D&D as a brand than from D&D itself. Therefore they have limited reason to increase their pace of release, instead doing just enough to keep the brand pretty solid.
Basically - it's primarily to keep D&D relevant for video games etc. Any $ they make on D&D itself is nice, but it's largely secondary to keeping the brand around and healthy.
On the other hand - for Paizo - books are at the core of their business, so the way to up their profits is to print more books.
That doesn't explain why they're focusing on adventure campaigns (not all of which have a video game analogue) and not crunch. It seems to me, rather, that they're trying to forgo the very problems that past editions had, and the one Paizo's Pathfinder is currently experiencing. Bloat.
But I can't actually get into Hasbro's or Paizo's headspace any more than anyone else.
The problem I have with 5E starts with that every class is locked in with one of three variations. Not options but variations which you must chose. None of them really all that interesting really. That is like a GM telling me I have to play a class the way he wants. Hate that! Would rather stay home and read a book then do this.
As opposed to...? A system that has only one variation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I have with 5E starts with that every class is locked in with one of three variations. Not options but variations which you must chose. None of them really all that interesting really. That is like a GM telling me I have to play a class the way he wants. Hate that! Would rather stay home and read a book then do this.As opposed to...? A system that has only one variation?
I think he's saying he prefers a system with loads of options. The player then mixes and matches options to create a character. Then he'd consider that character "his."
Since 5e is designed around simplified concepts, he feels like he's being given very limited choices without an opportunity to customize and come up with his own character based on selecting a ton of options.
While I like a lot of the options for theorycrafting (or building characters for the sake of building characters) - I prefer 5e's simplified approach for actually playing the game.
There IS a lot of customization in 5th Edition, but it's kind of covert.
Most races have a few sub-races. All classes have 2 or more archetypes, and the ones that have only 2 archetypes usually have more customization options within those archetypes (Druid Circle of the Land terrain types, Barbarian Totems, Ranger combat styles, College of Lore Bard skill and spell choice, etc.). Backgrounds also provide a source of customization, as does the optional Feat rules and multiclassing options.
Furthermore, selecting weapons, armor, equipment, and spells also provides a great deal of customization. And since 5Ed does not rely on the "Big Six" magic items, characters can choose quirky magic items without becoming totally ineffective.
I've heard theories about this - that basically Hasbro thinks that they can make more $ as D&D as a brand than from D&D itself. Therefore they have limited reason to increase their pace of release, instead doing just enough to keep the brand pretty solid.
Basically - it's primarily to keep D&D relevant for video games etc. Any $ they make on D&D itself is nice, but it's largely secondary to keeping the brand around and healthy.
On the other hand - for Paizo - books are at the core of their business, so the way to up their profits is to print more books.
That doesn't explain why they're focusing on adventure campaigns (not all of which have a video game analogue) and not crunch. It seems to me, rather, that they're trying to forgo the very problems that past editions had, and the one Paizo's Pathfinder is currently experiencing. Bloat.
But I can't actually get into Hasbro's or Paizo's headspace any more than anyone else.
They focus on adventures campaign because it let them create larger theme that is used for their other products. As of now, I believe that every theme; Tyranny of Dragon, Elemental Evil, Rise of Demon, Curse of Sthrad (well maybe not CoS) have been made into modules for NWN Online. EE have been converted to a board game, RoD has the Sword Coast Legend computer game, and some Drizz't book related.
As others have said, D&D is about a group of heroes banding together to slay monsters using an abstract combat system. I can't think of a single version of the game where someone could replicate a modern military sniper accurately, just because of the way AC and HPs work, but 5E actually comes closer than previous editions because an Assassin Rogue with Sharpshooter actually has a good chance of hitting and killing most things they get the drop on (and they should get it often if they're sniping with a longbow from 100s of feet away.)
Easily one of my favorite things about 5E is how they fixed sneak attack. If I ever run a Pathfinder game again, I am sticking with 5E's sneak attack rules. That 30ft requirement was nonsense, rogues should have their sneak attack get stronger instead of choosing from combat abilities far more clearly suited to fighters, and should have TWF be a reasonable choice instead of the only sensible one.
As others have said, D&D is about a group of heroes banding together to slay monsters using an abstract combat system. I can't think of a single version of the game where someone could replicate a modern military sniper accurately, just because of the way AC and HPs work, but 5E actually comes closer than previous editions because an Assassin Rogue with Sharpshooter actually has a good chance of hitting and killing most things they get the drop on (and they should get it often if they're sniping with a longbow from 100s of feet away.)Easily one of my favorite things about 5E is how they fixed sneak attack. If I ever run a Pathfinder game again, I am sticking with 5E's sneak attack rules. That 30ft requirement was nonsense, rogues should have their sneak attack get stronger instead of choosing from combat abilities far more clearly suited to fighters, and should have TWF be a reasonable choice instead of the only sensible one.
My first 5e character was an Elf Rogue, and I loved how Cunning Action fixed the action economy by allowing you to attack and hide in the same turn. In 3.x, flitting in and out of combat took so long that your contributions were minimal, but in 5e I felt like my desired rogue playstyle was supported.
Yeah, I had one player who loved 3.0/3.5 rogues with lots of house rules, but when I ran PF, he was super frustrated with how sneak attack worked. To the point he changed PCs. Then we switched to 5Ed and he LOVED all the changes to sneak attack.
He also played an elf rogue sniper (assassin).
Yeah, I had one player who loved 3.0/3.5 rogues with lots of house rules, but when I ran PF, he was super frustrated with how sneak attack worked. To the point he changed PCs. Then we switched to 5Ed and he LOVED all the changes to sneak attack.
He also played an elf rogue sniper (assassin).
It helps that martial damage was otherwise scaled back hard in 5E so that the once-per-turn of sneak attack caused it to be impressive damage, rather than laughable as it would otherwise be in Pathfinder.
Another under-the-hood change that helped this was the rewrite of how criticals functions: that only dice are rolled twice, and flat damage bonus is not increased, which is largely the opposite of 3.5/PF. The change to criticals not only benefits rogues immensely, but also places a much higher emphasis on damage dice, unlike in 3.5/PF where the weapon dice was almost inconsequential next to its critical properties.
The real clincher though, was the combination of removing the arbitrary "Rogues have a worse attack bonus" and finally scrapping the antiquated and D&D specific baggage of "Melee should be about Strength"**, to let the rogue archetypes that people want to play actually work.
I think a lot of the issues with PF is its backwards compatibility with 3.5. I think if they ever make a PF 2.0, they take a look at a lot of the good stuff from 5th Edition. Maybe not the bounded accuracy thing, because a big part of PF is all the fiddly little bonuses and coming up with all sorts of combinations (traits, feats, skills, races, class features, spells, magic items, grid positioning, circumstance bonuses, etc.) and bonus types, etc. A lot of the fun of PF is coming up with interesting builds and displaying system mastery. A lot of the fun of 5th Edition is how elegant and intuitive it is. Very simple math and it's very easy to run characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, how surprising. Make it a class worth playing, and people will actually play it.
The range limit of 30 feet makes sense. Consider the description of what a sneak attack entails. You are studying for a weak spot to inflict the most damage. Even military snipers without a scope would have some difficulty doing that after thirty feet.
I disagree with "It should make real-world sense," on principle but it especially does not hold up here because:
1. Legendary heroes have senses far more extraordinary than what is actually possible. Legolas, for instance, definitely performed feats of extraordinary sight far more impressive than spotting a crease in a dude's armor from less than 1/3rd of a football field away.
2. Strength fighters can already, without the aid of magic items, begin play with the STR equivalent of a freaking brown bear and only go up from there. So obviously realism was not the design goal of the development team to begin with.
The 30 ft limit was an obvious design choice made for balance that - like the devs ALWAYS do - vastly overestimates the relative power of the sneak attack ability.
Sneak attack is not so busted that it needed that many restrictions. Favored Enemy is miles stronger and got a BOOST instead of a nerf. Sneak attack will still require the baddies be in melee or surprised - that's enough of a limitation in of itself without all of the additional flanked and within movement range nonsense.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My only complaint is there's no real reason for a rogue to ever want to get involved in melee, since sniping with a bow is just as effective as attacking alongside a melee buddy
I think you're forgetting about TWF. Although you can't get Sneak Attack twice in a round, TWF (even without any investment at all) will still give you twice the odds of landing that important hit.
So in melee, you can use TWF to guarantee yourself two d20 rolls to try and land that Sneak Attack.
By comparison, the ranged rogue only gets a single d20 roll to land that attack unless (A) there's a hiding spot available and (B) they succeed on a Stealth check. If they can fulfill those conditions, then (for that round only) they end up with the same 2d20 that the melee TWF rogue was already getting unconditionally.
So there really is a meaningful tradeoff there.
I have a melee rogue with the Mobility feat. I haven't had a chance to play him a lot, but Mobility gives you a "no-action, Disengage-like" ability that can let you move, two-weapon fight, move and not provoke an OA. Or move, hit, move, hide; move, hit, move, hide. Or move, hit, steal spell component pouch, move. (Thieves can bonus action SoH)
Actually, a hidden sniper gets to roll 2d20 due to Advantage.
Sharpshooter really helps, obviously. So does Skulker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dealing damage or "fake" damage (sleep, etc.) is the best way to end an encounter or stop an opponent. At least the most efficient in most circumstances.
Complex environments can change this, however. Pushing an opponent off a cliff or into a lockable cell can stop that opponent with only one or two actions. Grappling might stop the opponent's action for one or more turns. Maneuvering an opponent into a bottleneck can effectively shut down multiple opponents.
Encounter design (and thus the DM or module or adventure path) can determine a lot of the PCs' options. A series of mostly empty rectangles can severely limit a fighter's options. It might prevent a rogue from using the Hide action. There might not be cover for the ranger to shoot behind from. A barbarian or monk might not be able to benefit from their enhanced speed due to the cramped quarters.
QFT. Combat becomes so much more interesting when there is an environment to interact with, beyond the four walls of the room. Especially for martial characters who otherwise seem limited to a list of actions consisting of:
1. Move in range to hit enemy2. Hit enemy with weapon
3. refer to point 2
I've been making the mistake of having basically empty rooms with solid ground most of my time as a GM, but there is so much more you can do, especially with 5e where martials don't have to stand still to use their full attack potential, and you have more maneuverability while locked in melee, without having to take AoOs.
Put in tables and stairs, and remind players that having the higher ground grants advantage (It's over, Anakin!).
Put bottles and cups of drinks on those tables and let players pick those up and spit in their enemies' eyes to get advantage.
Have ledges they can push an enemy off of and let gravity do the work.
Have things hanging overhead that would deal a lot of damage were they to be cut down while someone stands underneath.
And afterwards use the rope it was hanging by to swing over the battlefield to engage the enemy caster that was hiding behind that line of soldiers.
Most importantly, make these uses of the environment meaningful. Reward players for clever ideas. It's easy to just count that falling chandelier as 3d6 damage and end up making it less useful than if the character had just moved in and made his two greatsword attacks.
Threeshades: You are right. The key is to reward players for clever ideas. The falling chandelier should do 3d6 damage AND make them prone AND maybe knock them out for a round or two AND act as difficult terrain and possibly broken glass caltrops AND the dancing/falling shadows grant the PC rogue Advantage on his Stealth check.