I have an undergraduate degree in Psychology with a minor in Counseling. I went the other way for a career though as I have an MBA in Finance and a Law Degree with a focus on Corporate and Tax Law. Currently I practice (ah the "practice" of law cause no one ever seems to get this law thing right!) as a Tax Attorney specializing in Tax Controversy and State and Local Tax Law though I do a bit of everything as the job calls for. I am in my late 30's with a wife, a baby, and two great danes. Have lived and gone to school in New Jersey my entire life. My side interests include RPG's, weightlifting and spending time with my kid and my dogs. I was trying to write a book but life got too busy so I had to put that on the back burner (for now). I would love to be more active but time is short and my wife hates the outdoors so it makes such a prospect difficult at best!
I do like bounded accuracy, but I think they could have dropped the feat system (as written for 5e, incredibly generous), the level stat advancement and a slew of other smaller things (at-will cantrips, overnight healing, short rest healing, no long term effects).
The Feat system is really just an option so you can hack that off completely as a DM. I see what you mean though, having to make too many changes to make it run the way you want makes no sense when previous iterations of the game have rules which you prefer.
I am sticking with 3.5 as I DO like all of the options and the number crunching. My game is RP heavy, 50% or more of game play, so I feel my campaigns already have the "feel" that 5E is looking for.
I will not run excessive epic level campaigns any longer though, they are too much work for me nowadays.
Have you ever run a game set in an above ground ruin? With partial walls about three feet high, you know you describe this to the players and they are like, "meh, okay, so put the grid down and let's fight the monsters," right?
So last weekend I ran an off the cuff improvised 5e game for two players, playing a Bard (Charlatan) and a Wizard (Hermit)and these two fellows were attacked by grindylows in a watery ruin. A couple of the grindylows scrambled up the ruined wall and attacked the characters with spears from an elevated position.
What happened next warmed my aging heart. The players started asking specific questions about the walls, where they were broken, crumbling, how they could get up on the walls and get in on that advantage nonsense. Having this new mechanic, brought these players into the game in ways that Pathfinder never did (and they both are veteran Pathfinder players)
I'm not sure where I related this before, but yeah, same thing happening here. In stead of:
DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.
Player: I Sneak down...got a 19. Did I do it?
...in stead of that, I now have this...:
DM: You see Merchant Filder talking with a town watch Sargent about 50' away at the opening of the street into the alleyway you are hiding in. He looks around, places some coin in the watchman's palm and they continue whispering.
Player: What's around me? Are there piles of refuse? Garbage, crates, that kind of thing? I'll take some soot and cover my face, arms, and shiny metal bits on my armor and stuff...weapon blade, belt buckle, etc. Is there something I can carry in front of me...like maybe an old potato sack?
DM: Yes, lots of shadows and refuse in the ally. You paint yourself up and hold the potato sack in front of you as you creep forward...roll a Stealth with...
Interesting. I have been running 3.5 for a long time and my players have always looked at their surroundings for advantages to assist in what they are doing.
Kthulhu, I think the fact that they have remained silent on this issue is why so many fans have been annoyed with Wizards.
I don't think that Wizards should feel compelled to release any book on PDF/digital format. Digital releases will capture market share of some people who simply will not purchase physical products any longer. It may be that Wizards prefer for the physical copy to run its course and sell as many copies as possible and that a digital copy may hurt sales of that physical product. It was certainly a concern I had (granted on a much smaller scale) when publishing.
My personal opinion is that (is it Dungeonscape I don't really know or care all that much as I won't be switching) their digital offering will be similar to DDI where electronic copies of core books may be available.
Ultimately, I think that the 5E release was a solid version of the game which I would enjoy playing. I fact, I have already pre-ordered the DMG.
Paizo's decision to release both physical and PDF/digital offerings at the same time could be a deciding factor (and it seems has been based on many posts in this thread) for consumers of RPG products to stick with Paizo instead of going to D&D 5E.
Digital authoring with sufficient means, such as Wizards has, could have easily been accomplished already if that was their strategy. I know, I had a small publishing company and did print as well as digital books on Kindle and on Amazon.
Did you also offer character building and campaign support? Dungeonscape is much more than a rules compendium.
Also, please, don't throw around 'easy' on custom made programming project. They're anything but.
If you read my entire post, you would see that I stated:
Dennis Harry wrote:
I think they are waiting for something similar to DDI where they may make the core books available. I am not certain about that just a hunch. The DDI initiative for 4E was a stumble (in many respects) and I am sure they do not want to make that mistake again. THAT sort of digital offering would take considerably more time than a PDF or a Kindle or Amazon digital offering.
So I acknowledge that a custom made programming project would be difficult to produce.
However, releasing the D&D Players Guide on Kindle, Amazon digital, or a PDF format would have been EASY, I know because I released books in this format on a shoestring budget. Wizards opted not to go this route, thus the criticism they are receiving from certain people.
The wait thing with digital can easily turn into an eating your cake and having it too request. Digital authoring takes time. Creating those tools take more time. Patience is necessary. Yes, Wizards could have released PDFs by now. They could have done it at release. However, Dungeonscape is doing much more than what PDFs can accomplish. Since I'm a firm believer that you can always do better, I'm excited to see what it delivers.
Digital authoring with sufficient means, such as Wizards has, could have easily been accomplished already if that was their strategy. I know, I had a small publishing company and did print as well as digital books on Kindle and on Amazon.
I think they are waiting for something similar to DDI where they may make the core books available. I am not certain about that just a hunch. The DDI initiative for 4E was a stumble (in many respects) and I am sure they do not want to make that mistake again. THAT sort of digital offering would take considerably more time than a PDF or a Kindle or Amazon digital offering.
I prefer a physical book to a digital book so it does not matter to me. Though if a PDF is available I will on occasion purchase it for download it if I think it is worth it.
I like it for the simplicity of character creation.
The options of using feats or not using feats creates the modularity that WoTC claimed would be present and I think they came through on that promise. The feats themselves do multiple things which is a great concept as well.
Love the backgrounds, my only complaint is that the options are a bit limited, but I think the DMG will give more choices in that department. Someone on another thread pointed out to me that these backgrounds were the result of several concepts melded together and I get that, still I was expecting something a bit more robust from the stand point of choices in the PHB.
I modified almost every adventure in some way and inserted a number of homebrew and other modules to extend the AoW campaign to 26th level (3.5 rules).
From most to least:
1) The Whispering Cairn - I did the least modification here. My players also enjoyed this one a great deal.
2) Champions's Belt - The player's enjoyed the arena combat. This is also one of the modules where I felt I needed to do very little modifications to make it fit for me.
3) Spire of Long Shadows - The flashbacks were a big hit with the players. The Radiant Servant of Pelor player was able to chew up a great deal of the low level Spawn making the encounters less deadly than I anticipated. Despite the ease once combat began, the sheer number of undead had the players sweating bullets.
4) Three faces of Evil - I changed everything about the Caves but left the rest as is.
5) A Gathering of Winds - I place this as high as I do because I made the Rod of 7 Parts a big time Macguffin in my campaign. Otherwise I may have skipped this one altogether.
6) Kings of the Rift - I made significant changes here but the combats were stellar and the players really enjoyed them.
7) Prince of Redhand - I liked this one, even though I modified it almost 100%, because it was not combat heavy and was a nice change of pace.
8) Into the Wormcrawl Fissure - I modified this one heavily and threw out at least 2/3rds of the module. Dragotha was a terrific villain otherwise I may have rated this last.
9) Dawn of a New Age - I heavily modified this as well. Again, Kyuss encounter was amazing or I would have rated this second to last.
10) Hall of Harsh Reflections - The doppleganger plots gave the characters fits. A decent offbeat dungeon crawl but not as good as some of the other modules.
11) Encounter at Blackwall Keep - I had to modify this almost completely to save it from being too easy. I skipped the siege altogether.
12) Library of Last Resort - I used the overview and very little else here.
Maybe this thread should be retitled "Yeah I was slumming it with Pathfinder but now that ACTUAL D&D is back I'm better now..."
I love how it seems like Deja vu from around 2007 or so when everyone was basically bashing and saying the same thing about 3.5 in preparation for 4E.
The more things change the more they say the same I guess.
Overall I think more responses on this thread are from people sticking to Pathfinder than vice versa. I am still running 3.5 with some Pathfinder rules as fixes and have no plan to switch to 5E as a DM.
I can honestly say I like what I have seen from 5E though and would play a game utilizing that system. Whereas with 4E the changes were not something I was on board with, the only 4E book I purchased was the DM's guide for Dark Sun.
Are you playing any specific world or set of modules or just 2Ed homebrew? I played a little 2Ed a few years back, the DM spliced in a feat from 3.5 though we did not play enough to see how the "experiment" would work.
I played 2nd edition from the time it came out in 1989, to 2000 when 3.0 was released (at which point I switched).
Having played the rules-intensive variations of d20 (from 3rd edition D&D to Pathfinder) for 12 years, I wanted a return to a simpler rule-set...
To answer your question however, I make use of most of the TSR published settings. Currently I am running a solo campaign for my wife set in the "From the Ashes" era of World of Greyhawk, and I am also running a separate "one-shot" game for a separate group using the original "Ravenloft" module combined with "Ravenloft II: The House on Gryphon Hill".
Wild. I did the exact same thing, 1989 got the Red Box and jumped into AD&D 2Ed that same year. In 2000 a close friend of mine who was running Exalted purchased the 3rd edition books and I have been playing it ever since (well 3.5 once that came out but close enough). I love the "From the Ashes" era of Greyhawk, lot of interesting Modules from that time period. I have the old boxed set which plays like Risk for Greyhawk.
I played a LOT of Vampire from '93 to '01 as well as some Cthulhu and Cyberpunk.
I agree, the 5E rules do offer a much simpler rule set. Still, I enjoy the complexity of 3.5 and so do my players. Perhaps once the next few campaigns I have lined up are done we will consider switching over.
Yeah, I completely dropped PF and moved on before the DDN playtest started and made the switch to 2nd edition AD&D.
So 5th edition really doesn't offer me anything that I want or don't already have...
Are you playing any specific world or set of modules or just 2Ed homebrew? I played a little 2Ed a few years back, the DM spliced in a feat from 3.5 though we did not play enough to see how the "experiment" would work.
The more I read the PHB the more I like what Wizards has done with 5E. It feels like a blend of 2Ed and 3.5 to me. I still wont switch to the system as a GM but I will play the system.
New players require much more rigid bearings to bridge the link between sheet and fictional character. it's super hard to get them excited for playing a fantasy rpg with more convoluted rules than the US tax code. I even have to use a turbo tax software just so character generation doesn't take hours.
I will disagree here, the US Tax Code is more complex :-) I should know, I am a tax attorney.
Still I do see your point. New players do need to sometimes run through a character once or maybe even twice to "get" an understanding of the complex 3.5/Pathfinder system. However, utilizing just the Players Guide and no other options for 3.5 makes this less of a difficult exercise.
Phb says you can work with your DM to either tweak existing backgrounds or create your own.
Which, while I don't know anything about the backgrounds to speak of, pleases me greatly.
I would be a bit annoyed if there were a limited number of backgrounds for a character... our kingmaker game is turning out awesome, but almost EVERY background trait involved you being a part of the noble family... I like a LITTLE more variety in character backgrounds ;)
For purposes of 5E I think what they have released so far works well. Even if a group consisted of 5 fighters if each fighter took a different background, each would add unique expertise to the group.
Phb says you can work with your DM to either tweak existing backgrounds or create your own.
I have a fairly elaborate background system for my homebrew FR campaign. I am really looking to 5E as a DM for ideas I can use out of the box or tweak slightly. So far I dont think I have gotten that from the PHB.
Keep in mind when you look that many of the backgrounds got rolled up into variants on the others.
I guess I am just not seeing a lot of the similarities from the initial Playtest to the finished product.
I get your point though, they were looking to streamline not create a plethora of options which is one of the main complaints about 3.5.
Once I get the DMG I guess I will see if they have more background options. If not, I may just find some way to incorporate the early Playtest material into the Background/Kit system I have houseruled for my games.
The 5E PBP I am playing in just started tonight so I am pretty excited to see how 5E functions as we move along in the campaign.
The gripe I've seen about the older editions is that they're not actively developed. That's also the big grip about sticking with Pathfinder as it is now if Paizo does a new version. I'm curious how that matters regardless of edition. Have those folks really exhausted all the adventures each system has to offer?
Totally agree, not to mention literally hundreds of issues of Dungeon magazine adventures with 2E/3E/3.5 adventures and adventure paths.
For as long as I have run 3.5, at least half of the material I have used was 2Ed modules and sourcebooks converted to 3.5. As much as I find the Pathfinder modules and adventure paths appealing there is so much source material from older editions that own that I still have not and probably will never get to run.
As much as I love Pathfinder, having a less dense option is quite attractive. There may be other games in that niche like C&C, but I only just got the PH for that via the reprint Kickstarter so it doesn't have much of a headstart against 5e with me. And 5e has, so far, been easier to get into. Plus, 5e is virtually guaranteed to have a much bigger network of players.
Different strokes for different folks I suppose. That is one of the reasons why I like 3.5/Pathfinder because of all of the different options. When I can I play in 2Ed games as I liked that iteration of D&D (the first one I played with) but I prefer 3.5. I did pick up the 5E book and I will be playing in a 5E PBP but I would probably not switch over to 5E as a GM.
The problem with giving background a lot of substance in a setting-neutral book is that the more substance you give them, the more likely they are to not fit well with any given setting.
You are taking a very reasonable position to be sure Kthulhu. I will need to look back at the playtest material and compare it to the backgrounds as presented in the new PHB to explain exactly what I mean by "lack of substance". It may just be my perception as I have not looked at the playtest material in 2+ years. I will present an example later on today to explain what I mean :-)
Picked up the Players Guide. Bit disappointed with backgrounds. Gameplay seems good. I will be playing in a 5E pbp so I can test gameplay soon enough.
They are completely optional though. I didn't use their backgrounds for my character.
I was hoping for more background options with a bit more substance to them. The first playtest i was part of i thought did a better job with them. I like them for 5e but I dont see them being useful for an add on to my 3.5 games. Perhaps when I get the DMG there will be expanded backgrounds included.
Below is my first attempt at a 5.0 character with the Basic Rules 2.0.
Back story for the character is included. Let me know if you need anything else for my submission DM.
Torbin Juventus:
Torbin Juventus
Human Male (Variant)
Lawful Good
5’11” – 180 lb.
19 Years Old – Dark Hair – Blue Eyes – Scar on left cheek from training accident
Speed 30’
Cleric
D8 – HP = 9
AC = 16
Proficiency Bonus +2
Mace – 1d6 Bludgeon
Crossbow – 1d8 Piercing (80/320)
Saving Throws – Wisdom – Charisma
Common, Ogre
Strength 10
Dexterity 8
Constitution 13
Intelligence 12
Wisdom 16
Charisma 15
Proficiency
Medicine
Insight
+1 Bonus Skill – Religion
Athletics
Intimidation
Weapon Proficiency – Light and Medium Armor, Shields, Simple Weapons
Bonus Feat (none listed in Basic Rules 2.0).
Equipment – Mace, Scale Mail, Light Crossbow (20 Bolts), Explorer’s pack, Shield, Common Clothes, Belt Pouch (10 gp)
Spellcasting (Inert)
Divine Domain (Inert)
Background - Soldier
Specialty - Healer
Personality Trait - I’m always polite and respectful.
Ideal – Our lot is to lay down our lives in defense of others. (Doing the right thing is never easy).
Bond – I fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.
Flaw – I’d rather eat my armor than admit when I am wrong.
Backstory -
Torbin’s parents Starn and Melinda migrated from Solamnia to Langtree before Torbin’s birth. As a former “Solamnic Knight”, Starn was a skilled fighter even as a man in his late teens. He was easily able to sign up with young Baron Ivor of Langtree as a ready sword for the Barony.
Torbin came along first followed by his sister Kaitlin. Starn and Melinda never discussed what prompted them to leave Solamnia, only that “things were different” than they had been. His Grandfather, Raphael had been an influential Knight but Starn’s own father was not quite so virtuous. That is the extent that Torbin knows about his past.
His sister excelled as a seamstress even at a young age while Torbin seemed to excel at, well very little it seemed. Tarn as well as Ivor would regale Torbin of tales of the Lost Gods, especially Kiri Jolith. Torbin sought all he could learn about the Gods even though they were looked at with great spite for having abandoned their people as Torbin’s friend Todd would always say.
Still the teachings of Kiri Jolith always stayed with Torbin even as he reached young adulthood and began to train with the Baron’s army. Torbin simply did not have the coordination or strength of his father. After a near tragic accident whch resulted in a scar and no los of vision (thankfully), Torbin took up practice with a mace abandoning the flail he sought to become proficient with.
On a trek through dangerous territory a fight broke out with a group of goblin raiders resulting in a number of the soldiers of the scouting party becoming wounded. Torbin seemed to pick up bandaging and curing ills very well, sensing what a problem would be even if not readily apparent. Since tgat day 6 months ago Torbin has dedicated himself to the craft of battlefield medic as part of the army of the Baron. Torbin often wonders what it would be like to utilize magic as the stories would tell that followers of the Gods such a Kiri Jolith possessed. Wishful thinking! Torbin has settled into a routine in the army and has started contemplating perhaps starting a family of his own…
Great. I will work on my concept tonight. The year is Circa 356 AC still? So the Dragonarmies have started spreading across Ansalon but the War is not "common knowledge" yet, just rumors of War correct? Thanks.
I have a pretty strong grasp on the DL campaign world having read most the of the novels. I ran a DL campaign about 22 years ago under AD&D rules. Recently I played through the Key of Destiny adventure Path in the Age of Mortals under the 3.5 rules.
The Players Handbook should be here in the next few days. Dotting for interest in the Prophet archtype. I would prefer a Cleric of Kiri Jolith but would play a cleric of Mishakal if that is the specific slot open.
I think the background mechanic also goes a long way to making a character feel "unique", but I guess that depends on what your idea of feeling unique is- some people want to a lot of mechanical options to make a character feel unique and other players can play two characters that are almost identically mechanically but have them feel completely different based on things like personality and background.
I have been using a background mechanic in my D&D games since 2002 lifted it from Vampire the Masquerade and expanded on it in the ensuing years. However, this is one if the reasons I will be picking up the books to see how 5E does it. Perhaps I can implement changes to what I already use. Getting excited for the new PHB.
Bill also wrote Night of the Walking Dead for Ravenloft, my all time favorite module. I ran it twice for D&D and modified it once for Vampire the Masquerade in the Dark Ages. He is ok in my book!
3.5 monk is really good after the errata. The point of confusion is that they changed the name of the monk class to 'unarmed swordsage';)
Very true. Now I want to play a Vow of Poverty Unarmed Swordsage!!
and I would totally let you do it :-)
I am starting a new campaign in the fall using 3.5 rules based in Waterdeep. Topping out at 17th level though, 18-38 are just too much work for me with my work schedule and a young child.
Despite the power levels of 20+ in 3.5 my opinion is that it is balanced, it just takes some work. My NPC's were as nasty as the PC's in many instances. I ran a campaign from level 1-38 and another from level 1-26 so I have a great deal of experience DMing Epic Level play.
I'm excited for 5e. I'm going to download the PDF today and give it a go. A big reason I avoided 4e was because I had this huge investment in 3.5 material(over 100 books) and didn't want to see them not get used, so I went with Pathfinder. But, every Pathfinder game I was in, the DM's refused to allow 3.5 material. In my current PF game, after some pleading, I'm actually playing an Incarnate from Magic of Incarnum, and I can tell the DM regrets letting me do it. I've asked about other 3.5 options, and he just groans, so, I guess that's that.
I think it's a shame how many 3.x (and pre-WotC) DMs just say NO to entire books. Even during my 3.0 and 3.5 years, I seemed to be the only DM I knew who just banned or nerfed the individual cheesy options. I still have my massive collection of 3.0 and 3.5 books, which I hardly used before 2008, and not at all after.
4e's "Everything is Core" slogan sounds silly, but it seems to have a positive influence on DMs in this regard -- I'm actually the only 4e DM I know who outright bans anything. 5e sadly seems to be going back to the core stuff vs. optional stuff mentality, possibly with even more emphasis than any prior edition. :(
I rarely ban anything outright. I even allow players the Vow of Poverty if they can present a rational reason for why their players take it. Perhaps it is because I buy al of the gaming products myself and I would prefer that my investment is utilized so if I ban a book it becomes a waste of my own money.
So what I really don't understand is why people wouldn't at least try the free rules? I mean I completely understand not putting money into another system that might be invalidated or preceded by another edition a few years down the road but from the looks of the way things are going, Basic is all free with options to play characters to 20th level with monsters and ways for people to make up their own adventures.
So there is not cost investment with the Basic rules, no subscription, or signing of forms, or any of that stuff. It's free and usable and a "complete" game from all portrayals. That way NONE of it interferes or supersedes someone's financial desires to continue to support Paizo. And, really, who can't decide to switch the game just once to give it a go from their normal Pathfinder campaigns? Even for a beer/soda and pretzels kind of game?
Time is an investment. My friends and I have precious little time as it is - we have it nicely set up to meet once every 2 weeks and play in our long-running campaign that we enjoy, using a system that fits this campaign perfectly - a system that we really like and know well.
And as others have said - to what end? We're not interested in learning a new system (in fact, that's the LAST thing any of us want to do, it's the antithesis of fun), we're already having loads of fun playing something that is suited very well for us... with a new system, could we have "more" fun? What is "more"? It is measurable, or even relevant or material? (Very likely not.)
Why not try it? Why would we even bother, given the above? Time is a real investment... and it's a HUGE one.
(I find your "don't really understand" pretty strange, when it's pretty obvious AFAIC - I don't think you've thought about it as hard as you should have.)
This is certainly another very valid reason why I don't forsee myself switching to any other gaming system for a while. I have a child and three of my players have children. At this point we play a 9 month schedule (taking summers off completely) and during the 9 month rotation we play twice a month. That gives us 18 games a year. Time in my situation is indeed a scarce commodity.
