Charles Dunwoody's page

I hosted a party once and put Doritos in a glass bowl on a table for my guests and myself to enjoy. I was glad Frito-Lay made the Doritos because I didn’t have time and honestly they were good at it. I worked hard on the table to make a fine presentation. One of the guests also brought a bag of Doritos to share which I really appreciated. I had done so much work to prep the table for the party and that little bit of extra help was appreciated.

However, when I went to pour the guest’s Doritos into a glass bowl to join the others on the table, he shouted at me. Frito-Lay, he demanded, always placed the bag out open to share Doritos. No glass bowls. It wasn’t done. Only a moron would use glass bowls.

To be honest, I was taken aback at the rudeness. I had done so much extra work to make the table nice for the party. While I appreciated the guest bringing extra Doritos to my table to share I was stunned that they thought that both they and Frito-Lay could dictate how my party was run at my table. And the party wasn't about the Doritos anyway. It was about the guests and me enjoying time together. The Doritos helped but the Doritos weren't the actual party.

When my guest realized I wasn’t going to change my table to meet his demands he grabbed his Doritos and stormed off. I was still perplexed but a bit relieved. While I appreciated the fine Doritos Frito-Lay worked so hard to make and the Doritos the guest brought to share, ultimately it was my table and my party and I was doing the work to host not Frito-Lay and not my guest. Maybe the guest could find another host who would do what the guest told them to do since I would not. Then I went back to the table and the party to enjoy my time with my other guests. They enjoyed the Doritos in a glass bowl just fine.

EJDean wrote:

Charles Dunwoody wrote:

Power Attack and Quick Reversal both sound really useful. And the 14th level shield ability oddly specific. Maybe it has more applications.

Yeah, +1 or +2 to Reflex saves requiring an action to activate. Not exactly thrilling for a 14th-level ability.

At level 14?

Imagine a +3 Shield.

Suddenly you're getting a +5 to Reflex Saves - Not bad at all.

Comparison:

A limited wish lets you create nearly any type of effect. For example, a limited wish can do any of the following things.

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.

Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 4th level or lower, even if it belongs to one of your opposition schools.

Undo the harmful effects of many spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.

Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects, such as a single creature automatically hitting on its next attack or taking a –7 penalty on its next saving throw.

A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save DC is for a 7th-level spell. When a limited wish spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 1,000 gp, you must provide that component (in addition to the 1,500 gp diamond component for this spell).

Power Attack and Quick Reversal both sound really useful. And the 14th level shield ability oddly specific. Maybe it has more applications.

Demon Lord of Paladins! wrote:

This is where the GM steps in and says "You don't have time to do that," end of issue.

WHAAAAAT?!

The GM, cannot, just, arbitrarily decide that a character is not allowed to do something if the rules say she can.

Why not? If it doesn't make sense the GM should make a ruling of no. The rules don't build worlds, write adventures, set up a place to play, invite people, teach the rules, buy the books and RPG extras, and make everything run smooth. Not even the designers do all of that.

The GM does. The rules flow from the GM, the rules don't run the game. The rules aren't Pathfinder any more than a recipe is the meal. The play at the table is the game just like the meal is what the chef is ultimately trying to create. And like a chef who finesses ingredients and presentation, so to the GM sometimes has to adapt on the fly. Often times actually.

So... I can't be the only one baffled by the 2E announcement. The desire for a system similar to 3.5 DnD is what drove Pathfinder's creation and what kept people coming back... why drop all of that now out of the blue?

If we give feedback, we can stop 2E. Surely Paizo will listen and realize this isn't what we, as a community, want.

I'm considering coming back for 2E. So it makes sense to me. And 2E is something I want. Perhaps quite a bit. Time will tell.

I'm not playing 1E now. 2E might bring me back as a customer though.

A lot of the threads here seem to be from existing PF players. I was just wondering if anyone else, like me, is not currently playing PF but is here to check out 2E.

I think it would help Paizo to know how many new people they are drawing in (or like me back in) because of the possibilities of 2E. I liked PF 1E but the math outweighed the fun for me after a few years.

If 2E fixes that I may start playing PF again in August. My group loves playtesting so they would be onboard as well.

Why did 2E interest me? The promise to remove the Christmas tree effect but keep character creation options, the possibility of reduced complexity in creating NPCs/monsters, the change to actions in combat while keeping fights tactically full, and adding in the alchemist and goblin to make PF its own unique system.

I like the idea of starting fresh again. And the possiblity of great 3rd party support. I also want to create my own world to game in and PF would be great for that if I don't feel like I'm fighting with the rules.

This new game, which seems to be selling well over at DriveThruRPG has gotten my attention

Has anyone here played it and willing to offer up a review?

I haven't played it, but I've listened to the author online for a few years now. He has gone from doing videos for fun to going full time into writing:

Drunkens &
Dragons.

I plan to buy ICRPG as soon as I have the cash. The part I like best is effort. Effort is to succeeding at a task to what hit points are to winning combat. If a chest has a heart (10) effort you need ten points of effort to get it open. You can pick it, bash it, phase through, but it takes ten points.

Do you need the Pathfinder rules to play this, or does the book have all the needed rules?

The same logic could be applied to stop at level 5.

Then you could have lots and lots of APs if they were all just double-issues!

Yeah, no.
APs serve to market and showcase the game and game world. The game does not exist to market and showcase the limited scope of the APs.

However, lots of players run PF up to the middle teens. So stopping at level 5 would cause those players to miss out on many levels of popular play in SF.

Levels 16 to 20 have a much smaller audience, so small that Paizo publishes little support for those levels. So why include them at all? Cut them out, add in more spaceships, planets, and aliens.

In addition, some real balance issues come into play at those levels. I'd rather have the core rulebook designers spend more time on less levels and shoot for more balance and playtesting that way.

For those who had the pleasure of playing a 5th Edition game, are my concerns actually present in the game? Having a character adapt in response to their adventure experiences has massive appeal to me. A character that follows a set path and doesn't change with respect to their experiences strikes me as really boring.

I converted my D&D Next campaign over to 5E and played it to 21st level. We started a new campaign and are now up to 4th level.

I heavily use factions and downtime in the game to open up in world possibilities for character growth. While the PCs do choose some class abilities and ability score increases, and for some classes spells, it is factions and downtime that really make the characters unique.

Here are two examples. One PC choose a background of keeper (law enforcer) and another judge (like the traveling hanging judges of the Old West). Both backgrounds also exist as factions which the PCs can advance in. They can do so by completing quests that advance that faction's goals or by spending downtime working those goals.

I tied feats and multiclassing to factions. PCs who join factions get a big mechanical benefit but this option isn't necessary to make factions work.

Downtime also works wonders. PCs can pursue all kinds of activities, including improving skills. Or work in a faction, run a business, carouse, start rumors about enemies, and many other options.

So PCs grow, just not all in the same way. Some PCs increase faction renown, some work on making new items, and some work on building new temples and locations for their factions. The warlock looks for eldritch tomes of mind-blasting secrets while at the same time working in his family's growing merchant empire.

PCs also train at each level. This gives them even more exposure to NPCs who might be part of factions. And opens up new rumors of adventure as well.

All of this works in reverse as well. If a PC wants to learn a feat or multiclass, they can look around for a faction to join. I create one that fits the world. Or they might want training in a new skill; a new NPC mentor might fit the bill.

Add to these character building exercises all the weird and wonderful magic items they find (I use the tables in the DMG to make about half the magic items unique) and each PC is truly unique; shaped by both player will and the ongoing adventures and exploration.

I haven't had a PC want to make a magic item yet, but this would lead to a big quest with all kinds of challenges to overcome. Once completed, the magic item that came out of a quest would have unique powers and a history created through adventure.

The players just have to be reminded that their characters can try to learn and/or do anything. They just have to ask around, research, or seek answers to see how to accomplish what they want whether that is learning a new skill or getting a henchperson (flumphs make great henchpersons).

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Snowblind wrote:

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Well, they're 55% more likely to succeed, and DCs cap out at 30, with the average being 15.

So...someone with a +0 succeeds at an average check 30% of the time, someone with a +11 does so 85% of the time, and thus almost three times as often.

There are also various magical and a few non-magical ways to increase that theoretical maximum. Including the aforementioned Class Abilities of various sorts.

In a lot of ways, it's pretty similar to E6, which has similar 'issues' with skills and attack bonuses not scaling beyond a certain point (the scale's a little bigger in E6, but I don't think either goes beyond about +20 or so), just spread out over more levels and with up to 9th level spells.

So an expert rock climber falls to their death 15% of the time.

Sure if you aren't playing 5E? Otherwise you follow the rules which state (unless the DM has a good reason to override the rules of course):

To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success—the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.

thorin001 wrote:

Charlie D. wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.

Really? Biggest possible modifier at 20th level is +11 (stat+proficiency) The D20 has a swing of 19. The die is far more relevant than ability. And it is even more pronounced at lower levels. Add to that the fact that no auto success due to high skills was a big part of the design philosophy. So my comment is both accurate and factual.

How does this work out in terms of skills.

Are high level characters capable of super-human feats like climbing a brick wall covered in grease at night in the rain.

Or are worlds class climbers only 15% more likely to succeed than a novice?

Most likely a super-human feat would be very hard (DC 25) near impossible (DC 30). A rogue could have +12 or higher to a Strength (athletics) check with Expertise so it would be tough but not impossible. A 20th level barbarian may also have a +12 to Strength (athletics) check. With advantage a character might also get two chances to try to succeed. A normal human at +0 to +4 cannot succeed at very hard or near impossible tasks at all.

A rogue may have Expertise and double his proficiency for climbing to make the harder DCs easier to hit. Reliable Talent makes proficient skills that roll a 9 or less a 10 so he or she also succeeds on easier checks more often.

Kalindlara wrote:

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It is the concept that the dice should be a bigger factor in determining success than character ability.

What? That is not even close to accurate or factual.

I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

If you have read the responses so far you have only heard a small part of what bounded accuracy is. First, a wizard does not have a +6 to hit with a long sword like a fighter. A wizard is +0 to hit with a longsword. And a high level fighter attacks four times (eight with a class feature) while a wizard attacks once. From Basic D&D for Players here are what proficiency is added to:

• Attack rolls using weapons you’re proficient with
• Attack rolls with spells you cast
• Ability checks using skills you’re proficient in
• Ability checks using tools you’re proficient with
• Saving throws you’re proficient in
• Saving throw DCs for spells you cast (explained in each spellcasting class)

And here's the explanation about bounded accuracy. There are six reasons explained as to why it is used in 5E:

bounded accuracy explained by Rodney Thompson

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

I suspect the same incompleteness would be true of any game that's developed enough. Core 5E feels complete because there hasn't been much added. Core PF would feel complete and is perfectly playable on its own. It's only when compared with the rest of the game as it's developed that it seems incomplete. The only way to avoid that is to not introduce any new concepts after the core is out.

5E isn't getting many new supplements. Since the DMG has come out only a handful of PDFs have come out, many only playtest rough drafts, one POD of around 30 pages, and a hardcover adventure. One more adventure is on the schedule for this year developed by Green Ronin. And that is all that has been announced.

So core 5E won't change very quickly as long as the current brand manager is in charge.

Factions? I'm not even sure what factions are. Are they part of the core rules? Or a setting thing?

Factions are in the DMG. Organizations the PCs can join. The more things the PCs do that match the factions goals the higher they can go, the more influence they have, the more benefits they gain, and the more enemies they can make.

In the setting I'm running there is a faction for law enforcers and one for judges. A different PC belongs to each one. Sometimes their factions come down on the same side of an issue and other times they disagree. Working it out and also dealing with the criminals and the assassins those criminals may send after highly successful enforcers and judges spices up the game.

I am playing 5E now and I don't think Pathfinder needs to go down that road (although Unchained has some 4E/5E isms like using feats to multiclass). 5E is seen as simple here on the Paizo boards. What drives character builds in 5E are more backgrounds and factions rather than class building. I like this because factions in particular really tie characters to the world and to each other if designed well.

As to PF, the only really weird thing about the Core Rulebook is that is has many outdated things when compared to PF. Take 5E out of the picture completely.

Core has no traits or archetypes. It has prestige classes. Core is missing main rules that as far as I can tell are considered standard now. And it has prestige classes that as far as I can tell many of which are completely useless in a majority of campaigns.

And that is strange. If I was brand new and I bought the Core Rulebook and found out many prestige classes don't work or that I shouldn't use a crossbow as a fighter I would be confused. And when other people were talking about archetypes and traits I would also be confused. Or how fighters and rogues suck. Or how overpowered clerics, druids, and wizards are.

It would just be tough to get the Core only. I'd feel I was missing out and way behind in understanding the system. And I'd feel like a part of the big book I just bought is full of suck. Especially if someone showed me the Unchained fighter, monk, and rogue (and maybe barbarian).

I think I would also have a damn hard time understanding the Christmas tree effect and even how to level up (all new players I've introduced to PF have struggled somewhat with leveling up). If I remember correctly, the Core doesn't even talk about or define the Christmas tree effect. That is a pretty core concept of the game.

I don't have a solution. But the Core Rulebook does not seem to represent Pathfinder completely anymore. And I personally and as a total opinion find that really weird.

5E is likely too streamlined to appeal to the majority of PF players. But at least the PH feels complete and is a solid next step from Basic D&D.

This blog post is not light on details.

I am unlikely to be playing PF in thousands of years.

But isn't it cool to think if you are here in thousands of years that you COULD still play Pathfinder if you wanted to? That printed Core Rulebook might come in handy.

Congrats to both of you! Well earned.

The reality is, a company can make a small profit on an RPG like Paizo has. I would even say that Paizo is making good money as they just hired around three developers.

What frustrates some D&D players is that WotC could make decent money on D&D TRPG. Not Transformers money, that would be silly. But good money. But they are choosing not to.

It isn't that WotC can't make money on D&D TRPG. That I could understand. It is that they are choosing not to and are, instead, trying to make money on the name D&D.

When Marvel turned to movies for big cash, they kept their fans happy at the same time. They still put out comics that don't make a lot of money while at the same time putting Easter eggs in the movies and staying close to what comic fans want. And they make gobs of money on the movies, while still keeping the comics going in a manner that fans have enjoyed for decades.

WotC is not choosing to do that with D&D. They don't handle the TRPG like any other TRPG company. In fact, instead of treating TRPG D&D like the juggernaut it could be (with PDFs of existing books and some really amazing exciting ideas coming out in rule and book form every couple of months and hiring more great talent like Paizo does) they instead offer almost nothing. Just a minor PDF here or there and one or two hardcovers a year. Maybe an extra one here or there. They could lead the charge in the TRPG world with great product (but little money) while rallying the hardcore fans behind them in computer games, movies, and TV (bigger money).

It makes little sense to leave money lying on the table, but WotC seems to be doing just that.

One TRPG product in four and a half months seems too slow for an RPG the size of D&D. And no new products are yet listed or even hinted at all for the future. Not one.

I woke an hour before work to watch the first episode. I so regret not being sick today.

5E has a lot of gnarly things I'm not keen on, and the "3.5 Lite" feel of the whole thing isn't to my or my group's liking, honestly.

It's fine for teaching new players how to play tabletop RPGs, especially D&D, but for long-time players it's really lacking in a lot of options.

The skills system, for one, really just ticks off pretty much everyone in my group, and multiclassing is just not as nice & easy as in 3.5/Pathfinder (how spells work with multiclassing is a little nice but odd, but that's the only saving grace for it).

Every class just basically boils down to being a lighter version of their Pathfinder counterparts, which means there's a lot less mechanical customization than in PF.

Again, all this is fine for teaching newbs how to play - you sit down and create a vaguely-cookie-cutter character Warrior, Mage, Cleric, Thief, or Archer character, run through a couple dungeons so that they learn the basic ins & outs of how tabletop RPGs work, and then you move onto the "big kids'" game with much more customization and slightly harder rules.

I've said it in other threads, but 5E vs Pathfinder is basically just the old BECMI vs AD&D rivalry all over again, only this time it's between two companies, rather than an internal rivalry in the same company.

I don't think you play the same 5E I do. The downtime rules alone introduce a huge new facet to the game as do factions.

Warlock is a class unique to 5E and not in PF. The difference between an eldritch knight, champion, and battle master are vast and that is just one class out of twelve.

If you include multiclassing, feats, factions, and pick and choose some options from the DMG the game has a huge number of options, many of which are not in the PF Core Rulebook. Changing how default healing works for example or how deadly combat is.

With all of the PF books though, that game is more complex of course. If that is what you meant I agree since 5E is only a few months old. But the comparison breaks down if you include all the PF books released over several years.

Check out the ree Basic D&D PDF for 5E.

Combat works without iterative attacks. Most fighting classes get a second attack at 5th level. The fighter gets a 3rd and 4th at 11th and 20th as well. You might be able to adapt this for PF.

Here are the basics of combat attacks and movement:
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.

You can break up your movement on your turn, using some of your speed before and after your action. For example, if you have a speed of 30 feet, you can move 10 feet, take your action (includes attacking), and then move 20 feet.

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

I like what I see. Strange the monk didn't get an elemental boosts though.

free D&D races & spells from WotC

I think this is the first 5E PDF on Drive Thru RPG also.

I am done arguing with faceless people on the internet. Many of you deal too much in emotion and not enough in concrete fact. I will leave you to it.

I leave with this. Police officers are in the overwhelming number of cases the men and women following and enforcing the law. Criminals are always men and women breaking it.

Sometimes you get shot while out shopping.

Read more: http://www.odmp.org/agency/1000-detroit-police-department-michigan#ixzz3LKy GM7RQ

Cameras on police also help to protect them against false accusations of abuse and brutality. If, for example, Darren Wilson's version of his encounter with Brown is true and he had had a camera on, then both Brown's initial attack on him and his final charge at him would have been captured on film and there would have been little to no controversy over it.

A grand jury decided what Officer Wilson said is true. I really do not know any better or more civilized way to determine if a police officer was right or wrong than an impartial jury.

Of course, the very people who claim Officer Wilson is wrong then go and burn down a Little Caesars. Because that shop owner did what exactly? So criminals are mad that a criminal was shot and they react with criminal actions to show how criminal police officers are. It makes less than no sense.

And seriously, reread Officer Wilson's description of his encounter with Mike Brown and tell me he's not either hallucinating or drawing on the old racist stereotypes of the giant scary Negro:

If you have ever been violently assaulted then I'll accept that you are the rare individual who is not traumatized by such a brutal event. But for the vast majority of people, a violent beating is not like on TV. First, any hard hit can kill or cripple. Second, it is truly terrifying no matter your training or even if you are armed. I've been violently beaten once and in other conflicts several times and I understand how Office Wilson felt: the fear, the emotions, how fast things happened. He fell back on training: if you feel your life is threatened, shoot. If a criminal flees, shoot.

Fact: Mike Brown roughed up a shopkeeper and robbed him (video evidence and eyewitness). Fact: Officer Wilson was punched by Mike Brown (photo evidence and eyewitness). Officer Wilson was attacked in his car by Mike Brown (DNA evidence and eyewitness). Fact: after the above Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown.

What is amazing to me is that Mike Brown punched a police officer and fought him inside his squad car. Who does that?

Oh yes that's right, a criminal.

I for one am glad that Officer Wilson survived such a violent and deadly encounter. I hope he heals mentally and moves on with the life he preserved (his own).

To those who know American police and policemen I've the following questions:

- Why it seems the few policemen using excessive violence are covered and not sanctioned (even "just" fired)?
- Why policemen shoot so quickly? Considering only force will solve the problem.
- Is it that these policemen are fearful or that they want to enforce a morale or a concept of society of their own?
- Does killing someone as a policeman improves your image among your colleagues?

I know several police officers. Most of the responses to your questions here make me sick.

My police officer friend has a stellar multi-year record in law enforcement. He testifies as a expert witness. He should not have to have a camera on him to prove his innocence, his word should be good enough unless evidence shows something to the contrary.

My friend has a wife and kids. He is active in the community.

Say he tells a big guy to get down on the ground (the guy just roughed up a shopkeeper). The big guy attacks, punches my friend, fights him in his squad car.

Should my friend die for this felon? Or should he shoot the criminal and go home to his family?

My friend deals with the scum of the earth. Child molesters, child abusers, pimps, rapists you name it. He needs to be able to threaten them and rough them up if they don't comply so he can stay safe and so can the rest of us.

How about an armed intruder? Say some criminal goes to an elementary school and is killing kids and teachers. If my friend is first on the scene he may have to go in alone to protect those people. He has training and gear but so many things can go wrong. Yet cops go in to those situations all the time to protect life. And what other option is there? No police response? Those opposed to police officers using violence should decide what other option is there? Criminals running over everyone?

Do some small number of cops violate procedure or break the law? Sure. Should all cops be judged as guilty until proven innocent? Hell no.

If you threaten a cop you should expect to get hurt. If you violently punch a cop you should expect to get shot. That way the cop protects me and he or she gets to go home to his or her family at night.

You say you don't want to be hurt or shot? Then don't commit crimes, do obey a police officer's directions, and don't punch cops. If the police officer is wrong you can sue and pursue justice for yourself later. If you are wrong you go to jail. That is how it should work.

In other words, put yourself in a police officer's shoes. If someone was trying to kill you or others would you kill them to stop them? What if it was your job to have make life or death decisions like that? How well would you do?

I read only two pages of the guy's recaps. Lots of modules listed so far and he's barely cracked the book open:
-spell points!
-lots of new combat options (disarm etc.)
-faster healing option
-grid based combat (square and hex) option
-magic item creation option.

Not sure what you're looking for in optional rules, but it sounds like the DMG will be full of options. Plus creation rules for monsters, magic items, races, etc. Along with the magic items, treasure guides, and monster lists.

Digital is dead. But the Monster Manual for 5E is still great. I can continue to use pencils, paper, and dice. 5E isn't so complex that it really cries out for digital tools anyway.

I stay here because the forums are better laid out than the WotC forums, and the people overall seem to be better than a lot of the ones from the other place.

I also don't rage hate Pathfinder, and love a lot of the things it has. But overall, and it could just be because "Ooooh shiny new!", but I just really love the more simplistic nature of 5th edition. Like Charlie D, I am extremely annoyed and can't really stand the things he listed.

I played D&D Next (playtest) for about a year and we converted to D&D 5E and we are just about to hit 17th level. It isn't shiny new to me anymore but it works really well. I haven't been able to play to this high a level since 1st edition (and I had loads of free time back then unlike now). And while playing D&D Next and D&D 5E I've used old D&D (all editions including 4E) stuff and PF stuff converted over.

What I like is the combo story and leveling joys the players experience. They are exploring a souped up Isle of Dread (I did not remember how many times that place was visited in Dungeon magazine!) and really digging the weird monsters, strange and unsettling villagers, and isolation.

At the same time, the player of the barbarian is really looking forward to hitting 20th level. Barbarians break the ability score cap of 20 in Str and Con at that level, with both adding +4 for a possible 24 in each! He will hit both and he's really looking forward to it.

So, I finally got a chance to look it over. It's good, but I'm not sure what is "amazing" about it. I didn't look it over thoroughly, so maybe I'm missing something?

It is full of classic monsters and classic D&D lore with great layout, great art, useful variant rules, and a spread of monsters that work for all levels. Details like what happens to PCs bitten by a lycanthrope or turned into vampires is included. Has funny art in the table of contents and in the index which is also entertaining.

I have playtested D&D 5E from 13th level to 15th level using these monsters and the math is sound also.

So all around good stuff and should be useful for years.

The d20 isn't the problem, it is the DC range used with the d20. Once a DC or AC gets in the high 20s and above the d20 becomes more and more meaningless.

Cut down the DCs and ACs and the math at all levels flattens and the game plays well for a longer range of levels. Also, cut down on the extra actions with various modifiers (BAB for example) and go to less modifiers in general. Cutting magic items out of the math completely helps with this.

As to magic items, instead of having bonuses go from +1 to +5 make +1 the norm. +2 is rare and +3 is the holy avenger of magic items.

As to casters, don't let spells increase by character level but have the spells increase by spell level (so more damage for a fireball requires preparing it at 4th level or higher). Let martial damage have a level range as well (so weapon dice might double at 10th and triple at 20th for example as a class feature in place of high BAB).

I would start with a PDF of Waterdeep and the North and if you want more big world info get FR for 3E.

The best place to ask questions about 5E is on Mike Mearl's twitter account. He answers questions daily.

However, if Wizards has a plan but isn't ready to announce it he will simply say that. But you can always ask and he likely to respond.

We are playing D&D 5E at 15th level. The party has a barbarian, cleric, paladin, ranger/rogue (arcane trickster), and wizard.

The wizard does fire off some attack spells. He has also cast haste and invisibility on others. He had his familiar fly up to a cloud castle to get a rock so he could teleport the group up safely. Blink is a favorite defensive spell to cast that can him completely off the battlefield.

The cleric also attacks and buffs others. If PCs get hurt badly he casts some healing. Heroes' Feast is expensive but gets cast before a big combat sometimes if he has the time.

The paladin has many spells cast as a bonus action so he buffs his smite a lot.

The barbarian took the totem path so he frequently communes with nature before wilderness treks to seek out any unnatural dangers like fiends or undead.

The rogue hasn't used his arcane spells much yet. He has cast some control spells using the ranger list.

What you don't see is several minutes of casting buff spells or a cleric growing in size and casting a spell to fight better than a fighter. Combat is really fluid. A concentration spell may fail after a hit or another concentration spell may become really important. Casters have to think a bit about what they want to accomplish. Spells don't solve everything.

Teleport is a good example. Without thinking to send his familiar up to grab a rock, the spell can misfire. The spell in a vacuum isn't an instant win or a instant problem solver.

Great book. We converted our D&D Next playtest campaign over and are playing with 5E at 15th level.

Unlike 4E, this book has all the races from previous editions and most of the classes (the warlord of 4E is absent).

Art is amazing, really top notch. Graphics are great. Humorous art is back in places, if you liked that in 1E.

Game uses bounded accuracy so plusses and abiltiy scores have caps to keep things manageable. Casters have to cast spells at higher levels to get improved effects.

Game is designed first and foremost to run adventures that feel like D&D. That is hard to explain but two years of playtesting went into it and it works. Second but very important are rules not too complex but with options that work. Playtest covered that goal well as well.

Charlie D. wrote:

Starting in 2015 they plan to make an announcement about OGL/open source.

That's the only part that really gets my interest. Adventures are great, but are not going to take the place of actual books about the different worlds; PF, while it started with adventurers, also included, and still includes, more in their APs besides the adventure and they still ultimately started a line to support the actual world itself. Video games, merchandise, boardgames, and movies look great on paper, but ever since 3.5, boardgames are the only ones to have really come through. In the end, I'm seeing mostly what I've seen for the last ten years; lots of plans, big goals, and not much else. The novels need a major shot in the arm for most of their readership to see them as anything but Drizzt novels plus a few others that try to capitalize on Drizzt's success. For this edition specifically, they have plans for more books and for electronic support beyond the core books, but nothing major, and very little besides adventures, actually scheduled beyond the core books, with no specifics on how the electronic support will work. If they are actually serious about supporting an OGL this time, it will be less of a problem, but with that announcement not until next year, that still leaves at minimum a several month gap between the core books and whatever either they or anybody else can put out. So, in the end, we end up in the same place as before, a lot of potential, but the opportunity of directly feeding off the initial boost from the sales of the core books probably squandered due to lack of anything else immediately following (a few adventures don't really count for sustaining momentum).

I'm not saying that they are going to fall flat on their face again, just that unbridled optimism is not yet something that most people are going to be able to easily muster. They've talked these same talking points constantly for at least a decade, and while the new edition is doing better than I expected, it's...

The funny thing is, Wizards doesn't announce stuff too far ahead now until they are sure they can follow through. Which is better than promising and not following through. But then people complain that they aren't announcing enough stuff.

The core books won't even all be out until Nov. I can't possibly see what Wizards could announce now when they haven't even rolled out the new edition yet.

I would also say the PH is a success by Mike Mearl's standards. He has tweeted as much.

But yeah, I don't think you're going to hear any big grandiose new plans from Wizards in the next few weeks. Unless they are 100% sure they are ready to announce something they can follow through with.

This is a lot of what I'm seeing as well. There's a lot of people looking at the new edition, and even a lot of people buying one or more of the core books, but not really a lot of people automatically switching over entirely. While this doesn't have to hurt WotC, it will require a different strategy than what they leaned on in the past, and so far at least they haven't shown themselves to have any strategy at all. The lack of any books for any of their world IPs even scheduled at this point will especially limit any long term effects the boost from the core sales could have provided, as those are the best chances to boost sales without going super rule heavy.

They are in a position very similar to where they were after the OGL was released, where they have to figure out how to adjust to the new market to at least some degree rather than having the market automatically adjust to them. So far their only response to those concerns is largely none at all, either in comments, products, or anything else. Not precisely the kind of proactive response I expect to see from a company that is supposedly the market leader.

Have you been to their website? They did two years of open playtesting. They already have an adventure out for FR (remember that PF started out their world with an adventure too), video games, merchandise, minis, boardgames, electronic support for the RPG, and maybe an upcoming movie. Mike Mearl and the D&D twitter feed answer questions nearly every single day on many topics including D&D. They leak previews on various websites as well as their own.

They have five RPG books coming out between Aug and Nov of this year, a mini game and minis (through another company), plus all the novels, video games, etc. Heck they even have D&D Kree-O toys coming out.

Starting in 2015 they plan to make an announcement about OGL/open source. They will open up limited playtesting when needed if a rule seems to be a big problem. And they are already working on the next adventure for D&D 5E.

Also, they started their organized play at Gen Con.

All this info is easy to find. They are doing a lot now that D&D 5E is finally here.

Ganryu wrote:

He does have a good point. It looks like casters will never get to cast more than one 8th, and one 9th level spell per day. The spell recovery mechanic doesn't work on those slots, and even at max level the spell casting chart only lists "1" for 8-9.

Not sure I'm a fan of it being limited that much.

I am a fan. One wish a day is plenty. Or time stop. The wizard gets to dominate one combat but not all of them.

Lamontius wrote:

Crystal Frasier wrote:

Lamontius wrote:

I do not understand the daughter-as-son thing at all

Shardra's parents thought she was a boy, and raised her as their son.

How did they think that? What happened? Is this like in WotR, where there was a biological change due to magic? What am I missing?

Crystal can probably explain it better, but...

She's a woman because she identifies as a woman. However, physical characteristics at birth, before she was able to speak and express who she was, led her parents and others to identify her as male.

What else are parents to do in Golarion? How would you identify an infant if not by, uh, physical characteristics? And why would that make things bad: "It's a sorry lot for a proud dwarven daughter to be raised a miserable dwarven son"?

That sounds like it was bad for her parents to raise a male-equipped person as male. Did they fight her on changing to female once she spoke up or something? Just seems odd like a sentence is missing or something unless it is covered a lot more in a dwarf book or something.

I can run the adventures I want in a world I like. I can use all of my 1E and 2E stuff easily again. I can also easily convert DCC RPG and LotFP RPG adventures and other OGL D20 fantasy. Heck, I even used 4E's Gloomwrought boxed set. D&D Next is a blast to play (we're up to 13th level so far) and when we convert I expect the enjoyment to continue.

Basically, running D&D Next feels like running AD&D 1E to me without the arcane and strange rules. In other words, for me, it is perfect. Lots of action, weird monsters, a world to build, and with much of the character options from later editions for the players to enjoy.

Here's an example. The PCs were 11th level and using a faulty teleport circle. They teleported to a sky island (floating rock in the sky) and the circle went dead. They were surrounded by 100 zombies who attacked in waves.

That combat was intense. Especially as the zombies were actually coffer corpses and about half of them stood back up after getting knocked down.

I can't see me DMing a combat like that in 3E or 4E. But it would have worked in 1E and now it works again in 5E.

The big boss fights that worked somewhat well in 3E and 4E now also work in 5E. For example a lich or dragon has special powers if attacked in its lair. The crypt or cave itself may rise up against intruders to protect the boss monster.

I like the flavor also. All my years of D&D knowledge work again. 4E could be frustrating because so much of that knowledge didn't work. 5E brings back the usefulness of that knowledge while still keeping the best innovations made in 4E that don't completely change the basics of D&D.

I find comfort in 20 levels, many races and classes to choose from, fireball being 3rd level, hex crawls, dungeon crawls, dragons being deadly. and clerics and wizards having different magic. I also like the warlock being added in, adapted from 3E and 4E. I like the dragonborn (from 3E and 4E) and the tiefling (2E but with 4E origin).

D&D 5E is fun. It is traditional. It is also modern with tie ins to other game types besides TRPGs. It also has several new rules with bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage being big ones but also backgrounds providing many skills and the roleplaying aspects of ideals, bonds, and flaws.

Lots of what happens in 5E is subtle. Spells not scaling by character level but by spell slot level is one. Bounded accuracy is another. Buff spells being curbed by concentration works. Feats (from 3E and 4E) are optional and magic items aren't built into the math. Character power being defined not by plusses to a d20 or a high AC but by class features and damage output is yet another.

5E was well playtested and runs so smooth that it actually, on the surface, looks bland and like every other edition. That is intentional. The real test is in how it plays. And it plays well, both for players and their characters, and for the DM and the world he or she is running and/or building.

I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about this topic but I should have been more precise in my original statement: I don't like the fact that a wizard can have the same ability to hit a foe in combat with a weapon as a fighter.

I realize that fighters will have extra "stuff" (higher AC, more HP, etc) that makes them better overall in a melee fight but the mere fact that a 1st level wizard will often have the same chance to hit while using a weapon(+4 or +5) as a 1st level fighter simply "feels wrong" to me.

This change in D&D 5E is due to bounded accuracy.

Quoting:
"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases."

So fighters are better than wizards in combat due to the damage they do, the hit points they have, and their class features. Follows one of the core design principles of D&D 5E that is bounded accuracy.

Sorry, Charlie. None of that is novel. Mearls did much of the same with Iron Gods. BAB is now proficiency bonus. Buff spells don't stack is easily done with descriptors in 3rd edition. Skills has been done before. It feels like they tried to think of the best parts of every system and throw them together, instead of building a coherent organic system.

It's not for me. And sadly, I fear it's not impressive enough to draw many established gamers into giving up their current systems and investing in a new one. It might work well for new gamers. Time will tell.

I think you mean Iron Heroes.

You got it right. This is D&D. 4E went for the new and now 5E is blending all the editions together. I ran 3.0, 3.5, PF, 4E, and D&D Next. I know which one runs the fastest and helps me DM the most.

As for you, you have lots of other options. So let me enjoy D&D 5E and you can play your RPGs. No need to try to diss 5E just 'cause it doesn't work for you. And just because I'm playing 5E doesn't mean that 3E isn't great for you.

As for me, I have no doubt it will bring plenty of gamers in, both old and new. Heck, Mike Mearls even posted in the new forums. I have seen things I never thought I'd see happen.

Indeed. I read through it, but I didn't see anything especially novel or improved over my current system or even 3rd edition. I expected better.

Spells don't scale unless you use a higher level slot.

Just pulling out magic items is a huge improvement. Cutting down the math and modifiers is another.

Basic D&D PDF is available.

Really easy to download.