I quite like the D&D Basic races and are likely to convert them to homebrew and Pathfinder/3.5.
There is to much 4E in 5E though I think to really drop large amounts of $$$ on it. Getting the starter set so we can actually play it and try it out, see what the players and myself think and go from there. Could be keen the on the MM though so I can slap AD&D AC and MR on them and use it in homebrew.
Quite keen on hacking the parts I do like and adding them as house rules in a Castles and Crusades/Pathfinder hybrid type game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am looking forward to D&D Next/5e ... I'm excited to see that Forgotten Realms is the initial "setting" (FR has been my favorite campaign setting since I got into D&D way back in the late 80's early 90's).
I will get the starter set (actually off July 15th) and may even download the free basic D&D PDF for my players to peruse. Not sure if there will be a "switch" ... but I for one love knowing that "Tyranny of Dragons" was outsourced to Kobold Press! Knowing that Wolfgang Baur and Steve Winter worked on Tyranny of Dragons makes me believe it will be a FANTASTIC adventure/campaign/storyline.
So, I'm considering it strongly. (Oh, not necessarily switching mind you, I'll actually get to be a player in Mummy's Mask (later this year) as I'm wrapping up Rise of the Runelords). But likely running the Tyranny of Dragons adventures ... I hope.
~Dean
VoP made a monk character actually useful and playable in a 3.5 game I played in.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.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 looked at the VoP but I couldn't get over the idea that you give up magical items. The Monk, IMO, desperately needs magical items and the feat doesn't scale to the point that such items would probably enter the game. I did, however, use Vow of Poverty for a my wandering Sorcerer character because I didn't want to use any Item Creating feats OR worry about holding a plethora of magical items on me. So it was just home spun clothes and a longspear with a few things of food for the day. I found the use of spells cast (like Mage Armor) in conjunction with the feat's bonuses, it worked out pretty well.
Stick vow of poverty on a wild shape Druid using natural spell= lolz. Note I hate Natural spell and have banned it from the table.
The monk is just a crap class in most versions of D&D and is a waste of a class and that is before you consider the genre.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are supposed to be more powerful than martials.
No.
Fortunately, at this point there is basically zero industry support for your version of balance (save the shackles of the d20 ruleset).
A lot of caster spells are concentration. This will limit them I think
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hama, Scott please start a new thread. This is not the one for yet another caster vs martial debate.
It's cool, there's really no need to debate it. The discussion has been had, and the paradigm going forward is abundantly clear. Hama can make a thread if he wants, but I don't see much point in diving into the fray over caster-martial parity again.
My Sunday home group will stay with Pathfinder no matter what. Well unless the Dragonlance world gets some support with a lengthy new campaign than they would be willing to give it a try.
For the public campaigns I have just about played everything there is in PFS and find that there really isn't enough for me to play at the rate I like playing so I will likely try D&D but will probably keep with PFS as my main game and play D&D when playing PFS isn't an option.
Stick vow of poverty on a wild shape Druid using natural spell= lolz. Note I hate Natural spell and have banned it from the table.
That'd actually be pretty funny to watch. Hell, I might even try that on some unsuspecting DM who runs v3.5.
The monk is just a crap class in most versions of D&D and is a waste of a class and that is before you consider the genre.
Sadly it's true. As much as I like the feel and archetype the Monk is attempting to emulate, it often falls flat due to the system's limitations. In v3.5 one way I was able to help it out was give it a Fighter's Base Attack Bonus and changed the Flurry of Blows progression.
4E's Monk attempt was much better, giving them movement abilities in addition to a nice strike feature and burst attacks.
5E's Monk, from the playtest, didn't do too bad. My friend played on for a while in one of the playtest adventures and did pretty amazing until one of our PCs (who died and was instead roleplaying a Kobold that we rescued) ended up turning on us and shooting the monk in the back of the head with a crossbow. So lets hope that they continue with that version, I liked that one of the options was an Avatar: The Last Airbender version with elemental attacks.
Already switched to a system of my own making (with a lot of input and player testing by my players). They don't like pathfinder's complexity and research time requirement to get it, they are unhappy with all the bloat and some of the mechanics they consider ridiculous. You may call them casuals but PF has many design problems and some people just don't consider it clean (especially with its ever-growing bloat and balance issues).
Some of my friends continue to run pf games, so it looks like I will play some pathfinder for a while.
Definitely want to try the next dnd, been gaming for a while.
Yes, I'll be switching, from a hodge-podge of rules from various editions primarily centered around Labyrinth Lord, to D&D 5e.
And by “switching” I mean committing to a few campaigns, not marrying.
The other editions (and similar games like S&W, ACKS, PF) are still there if I, after a while, find that I like them better.
I’ve just read the Basic Rules and I’m stoked.
Every page inspires me to play.
But... the GM stuff will be what decides the matter.
If it easily affords a sandbox style I’m onboard.
If it doesn’t, I’m not.
Simple.
Because the "old problem causers" were (almost) all in core, and you presumably liked them since you are still playing with the same core material?
/shrug
Maybe.
Never got into 3.x before pathfinder, but there are some horror stories attached to the bloat...
Pathfinder cut it out and reworked the multiclass rules. Reworked the core classes. In my opinion they brought over and remade everything that they wanted for this game... I'm not going to track down a decade old book on the off chance something could be reworked to fit the new rules...
If a player wants to use something specific from an older book, they'd probably have that book(or pdf) for you to use. You wouldn't have to track anything down.
You never got into 3.x before Pathfinder. Which, your comment about "horror stories about bloat" tells me you never actually played 3.x, or you'd have seen that the "horror stories" almost all came from the CORE 3 books. Druids, Clerics, and Wizards were gods among men compared to anything that came out of a splat book. Even then, splat books were entirely optional.
I really don't get what was so horrible about having more options.
If I can get a group together to play 5e, I'll ditch PF for good. I've already come to terms with the death of 3.5(it has been 6 years, it ain't comin' back), so rather than play a heavily houseruled version of 3.5 I don't really care for, I'll gladly reboot with 5e. My book collection is just a pile of paperweights at this point anyway, might as well start over fresh.
*Also, new Ravenloft material has been announced for 5e. So, I'm all set.
I am one of those you dislike Josh. The moment we converted to PF, i stopped using 3.5 content.
I don't want it "tainting" my Pathfinder "purity". :D
It's just that most options, especially the books that came out at the end of 3.5 lifetime are ridiculously broken imo.So I decided to not use any 3.5 content.
I, occasionally, allow something, after I see that it would mean the world to the player, and after looking up the feat/class/spell, and asking my friend (who is an incredible minmaxing powergamer) to break the game with the spell in every theoretical way.I didn't care that PF was 3.5 compatible. What sold it to me was all the things it fixed and the fact that it wasn't 4E.
That's understandable. A player in my group said the same thing you said, except switch PF and 4e around. I don't ask anyone to enjoy a particular thing as much as I do. I realize my enjoyment from playing 3.5 wasn't shared by all.
You say PF "fixed" things; I think it broke more than it fixed. Just opinions and all that. As long as you're enjoying what you're playing, that's what matters.
I am curious about what was "ridiculously broken" that came out at the end of 3.5's lifecycle... We all know the most broken stuff came out first in the PHB.
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!!
Also, new Ravenloft material has been announced for 5e.
When and where? The only thing I’ve seen so far is the the basic rules (which I have, yay!), the two Tyranny of Dragons books, the starter set, the PHB, the MM and the DGM.
+ Some non-book–stuff (figures, screen, mats) from 3PP.Let us into the loop Josh! :)
Also, new Ravenloft material has been announced for 5e.When and where? The only thing I’ve seen so far is the the basic rules (which I have, yay!), the two Tyranny of Dragons books, the starter set, the PHB, the MM and the DGM.
+ Some non-book–stuff (figures, screen, mats) from 3PP.Let us into the loop Josh! :)
I read it on the wizards.com boards, it was quoted from an interview in Forbes. Nothing specific, but mentioned a few settings getting revisited, with Ravenloft mentioned getting new stuff. I'm trying to find it again.
Found it:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2014/04/11/secrets-from-the-tyranny- of-dragons/
”The Forgotten Realms is our flagship setting for the new edition, however we are supporting, or will support, all of our key settings in the future.” That includes Ebberon, says Perkins, and “you are going to see more Ravenloft stuff very soon.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks a lot for the quick reply!
...
There is to much 4E in 5E though I think to really drop large amounts of $$$ on it.
Really?
Are we talking about the same game?
Each version of NEXT that I've played couldn't be more opposite of 4e.
It's funny how fans of each edition all look at 5e and say "Where's my slice of the pie?" The fans who're happy with 5e all seem to take it as its own beast, which I think is the best way to look at any new edition.
There are bits of 4e in there, like the shield spell being reactive, but ya really gotta look. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
There is to much 4E in 5E though I think to really drop large amounts of $$$ on it.
Really?
Are we talking about the same game?
Each version of NEXT that I've played couldn't be more opposite of 4e.
• HD healing = Healing Surges.....sorta
• Overnight full healing = 4E style
• Short Rest abilities = Encounter Powers.....again sorta
• At-will spellcasting (Cantrips / Orisons) = At-Will spells
• No Alignment mechanics / restrictions
• No racial ability score penalties
• Shortened Skill list akin to 4E's instead of the vast 3.5 list
• Rogue's Sneak Attack happens without any "sneak" required.
• Paladin smites work against anything (from the playtest anyways).
• Ritual spells = pretty much what 4E did.
In short, many of the 4E-isms have remained but received a "old school" paint job and don't call out game-ist elements like "squares" or "Push, Pull, Slide". Additionally they went back to the older wording for things like adventuring day instead of Encounters.
Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.
I'm a 4e naysayer (a bigger 3rd ed naysayer actually - that was the beginning of the decline imo) and I like basic as a starting point - but everything you listed IS a problem for me.
The difference here is that these problems are actually workable from this lowered baseline than anything I could do with a 3rd ed/PF based high powered default and number assumptions already built into system.
I am going to fix:
- HD/Short Rest Healing - removed to a very low healing rate
- Overnight Healing - Removed to a much lowered healing rate
- Second Wind - limited in how much it can heal and exploits, cannot be used to heal more than you started between the rest periods.
- At-will casting of orisons/cantrips - changed (already posted somewhere on these forums)
- Racial ability score penalties - Coming back
- (Bonus) Level caps for DEMI-HUMANS.... once the multi-classing rules come out.
- Rogue attack sneak attack will have specific qualifiers to gain advantage
- Paladin smites (taken out for 1st ed and 2nd ed house rules)
- Alignment mechanics - I will bring them back, but to 1st ed/2nd ed levels, not the crazy that is PF/3rd ed games
- Expanded Skills - adding only a few
- 4e and 3rd e aspects of spells (reactive response or stackable numbers) will be changed to reflect earlier systems. Ex: The way Mage Armor in basic now gives you a baseline AC instead of +X. Shield spell will get a similar (shorter duration) treatment, something that will more closely resemble 1st or 2nd ed player handbook entries.
So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to strip out to get the game I want.
Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.
Actually, uh, yeah. *raises hand*
Am I terrible for admitting that?
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.I'm a 4e naysayer (a bigger 3rd ed naysayer actually - that was the beginning of the decline imo) and I like basic as a starting point - but everything you listed IS a problem for me.
The difference here is that these problems are actually workable from this lowered baseline than anything I could do with a 3rd ed/PF based high powered default and number assumptions already built into system.
I am going to fix:
[snip]
So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to strip out to get the game I want.
Honestly, this could be done with 4E and 3E with little fuss. I think that perhaps your more willing to mod this version than others?
I mean, for 4E to reflect some of the significant changes you suggest, it would take about the same to get working.
Healing Surges would be greatly reduced and remove full overnight healing to something less significant.
At-Will spellcasting (X/per day or X/per encounter)
Include Racial Penalities
Include Alignment restrictions / Race restrictions
Paladin smites (or even spell/prayers that use radiant damage must target evil)
Rogues need special ways to obtain Combat Advantage
Expand Skills
Remove Immediate Reactions / No Action attacks and spells full bar OR make them a standard action to use.
In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just play older systems? And this isn't a post to tell you *NOT* to play 5E or to change to to your liking, I'm just curious as to why it's easier or OK to change 5E but not go to the same lengths with 4E or 3E?
In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just...
Not to speak for Auxmaulous, but for me it's a matter of quantity of house rules rather than difficulty of individual house rules. For example, making 3.x play the way I want requires a lot of house rules, while making TSR D&D play the way I want requires...well, I don't think that's possible because I'd end up literally rewriting the entire game.
PS: Thanks for your rundown of 5e 4e-isms!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.
Actually, uh, yeah. *raises hand*
Am I terrible for admitting that?
Haha, not at all. Hell I've been saying that since I opened up the 4E PHB in 08'. It also shows just how important 1st impressions are and how something as simple as layout and colors can skew people's opinions.
In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just...Not to speak for Auxmaulous, but for me it's a matter of quantity of house rules rather than difficulty of individual house rules. For example, making 3.x play the way I want requires a lot of house rules, while making TSR D&D play the way I want requires...well, I don't think that's possible because I'd end up literally rewriting the entire game.
PS: Thanks for your rundown of 5e 4e-isms!
No problem, they're just things that I've noticed that appear to work in similar fashion to 4E when we were playtesting. But I guess your right in that if somethings are ingrained with the system and if it's harder to remove / rewrite then it's easier to just play something else. Perhaps 5E's mechanics are simpler to remove than previous editions?
|
No problem, they're just things that I've noticed that appear to work in similar fashion to 4E when we were playtesting. But I guess your right in that if somethings are ingrained with the system and if it's harder to remove / rewrite then it's easier to just play something else. Perhaps 5E's mechanics are simpler to remove than previous editions?
This I believe was implied by the design team to be a goal of 5E. As the PHB and DMG come out we shall see how simple it is to play with the 5e chassis. This will be huge in determening how much 5E I end playing.
Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.
As someone who was disappointed with 4e, I can say that I think you've got a point. One of the reasons I think 3e got a less negative reaction than 4e is that while it made significant changes to the system, it drew attention to how it drew on D&D's roots and traditions. Moreover, some of the biggest structural changes, such as in magic items and their creation, were modular and easily ignored or modified to fit the older assumptions.
Basically, how WotC positioned its new changes mattered. And I don't think 5e will make the same mistakes.
But I guess your right in that if somethings are ingrained with the system and if it's harder to remove / rewrite then it's easier to just play something else. Perhaps 5E's mechanics are simpler to remove than previous editions?
5e fans seem to think so, but that's actually one of the 5e 'features' that I'm confused about. Old school DMs like to tout 'easy to house rule' as a feature of old school games, which I find equally baffling. I find it easy to house rule any and all editions, 4e a bit more so than the others due to its transparency. I haven't read thru 5e yet, but I know I'd have to do quite a bit of house ruling to make it personally DMable. Perhaps not as much house ruling as I did for 3.x, but far more than I need to do for 4e.
So I don't know if I'm missing some subtle quirk of 5e that makes it super easy to house rule, or if this is just a marketing slogan that's being regurgitated by its fans.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the thread topic...
Scanning the quickstart rules, it looks like a good game. I wish they had just created a new setting rather than a rebooted-rebooted FR (I love FR, but would prefer to see it retired than changed as much as it's been, and see a new thing in its place). But I can still deal (indeed, by just using the mindset that it's basically, to me personally, a new setting with an old name).
If I find an opportunity to play, I'll probably use the quickstart rules to make a character and play, and buy the books later if I find a group that will play in multiple campaigns (I probably won't buy them at launch because see below).
I will still also play Pathfinder, and having invested a lot of time and money into it, GM most of my own campaigns in that system.
Especially as, Pathfinder is still a living, supported system in its own right.
I expect Pathfinder will be the dominant system in my life some time to come, but apart from my current preference to run that system (because I like it for my campaign world and because I've already got a lot of material for it and more will continue to come out) that is very largely out of convenience... while I know a lot of gamers, most of us are in our late 30s/early 40s and many are now busy raising families or occupied by other things... those of us who do have time to play/run.... Pathfinder's the system the particular circles I run in people know the best and can often agree upon. Although I'm sure if we found a GM willing to run DND many of us would also try it. So I probably won't buy the DND books at launch simply because I don't know if I'll get to really use them. I have a few game books on my shelf I've never really gotten to use, so I've started not buying books until I know I can be guaranteed of getting a few campaigns out of them. That's less to do with disinterest in a new system and more to do with sheer frugality.
I find the "there can only be one" attitude amongst many gamers distasteful. I think we can prove ourselves to be better than blind brand loyalty. I generally think the more active, loved, supported systems in the RPG world, the better. The more successful game companies in the world, the better--for us and the game companies. Even if I still ultimately end up mostly playing Pathfinder, and of course I continue to wish Paizo success, I also truly hope that DND does well, that people enjoy it, that it attracts new RPG players to the fold, and that WotC is very successful with its launch. I also hope that indeed that there are many gamers who do play BOTH games, and encourages a gamer community where we do not arbitrarily draw lines in the sand over favorite brand names but rather share with each other the many different games we like and play them all with each other and have fun no matter what book's open on the table at the time. I think that will be a stronger and healthier gaming community, and will enable the industry itself to be stronger and more profitable.
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!!
Druid or Swordsage make up your mind;). Book of Exalted Deeds got this bad rep based on maybe 2 feats in the whole book and for the most part they are less powerful than core options. Its just when you start marrying things together you will have trouble. BoED also broke bards with the words of creation feat as well (doubles bardic music effect). We had a bard gioving everyone +8 to hit and damage at level 8 or about 170% of the parties average DPR and we could have made her give +16 to hit and damage.
We had a a party full of archers with rapid shot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.I'm a 4e naysayer (a bigger 3rd ed naysayer actually - that was the beginning of the decline imo) and I like basic as a starting point - but everything you listed IS a problem for me.
The difference here is that these problems are actually workable from this lowered baseline than anything I could do with a 3rd ed/PF based high powered default and number assumptions already built into system.
I am going to fix:
[snip]
So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to strip out to get the game I want.
Honestly, this could be done with 4E and 3E with little fuss. I think that perhaps your more willing to mod this version than others?
I mean, for 4E to reflect some of the significant changes you suggest, it would take about the same to get working.
[snip]
In all honestly this is quite easy to do but the question is: Do people want to make the changes that make the game more preferable to them? For 4E, the answer was NO. And I have to ask: Why is it OK for 5E? If someone is going to alter the game THIS much to emulate older systems, why not just play older systems? And this isn't a post to tell you *NOT* to play 5E or to change to to your liking, I'm just curious as to why it's easier or OK to change 5E but not go to the same lengths with 4E or 3E?
Just like 3e, 4e has too many built-in design assumptions to rip them out. In effect the amount of house rules needed would be easier to go back to an earlier edition of the game (more on that). And like I said, this also applies to 3e - but isn't as obvious because 3e's problem is the accumulation of numbers and problems over repeat play and over the course of character levels. You need more to match existing numbers, big six, characters folding on themselves (item creation) and a bunch of other unforgivable nonsense.
So what you end up with in 3rd ed/PF low level play is slightly similar experience to older versions of the game, but as numbers, and the need or pressure for number optimization mounts the "game" part falls apart. Also the ease of the game - not talking about numbers knowledge and the amount of knowledge to attain system mastery - I'm talking about the actual "how easy it is to fight and survive" part of the game is just too easy. I think some of this "too easy" is also tainting 5e.
-
Why is it OK for 5e? Why is it easier to change?
Bounded accuracy - something I was doing in my home designed games since '97. Moving away from escalating numbers as a selling and motivational tool/reward for players - and just avoiding bad math games.
As a baseline, 5e is a better working frame to try and rebuild 2nd ed, with numbers in better control than 2nd ed could ever hope for. Because even 2nd ed is flawed in it's math - just not as bad as 3rd (no number control) and 4th (too much number control).
So if it turns out that the proficiency bonus for Fighters in 5e is too low for my (and my players) liking, I can institute a small trade-off feat system/class ability that will give them a +1 or +2 to hit to break away from all the other classes - a feat or skill, fighting style or whatever works. But it is MUCH EASIER TO ADD THAN TO SUBTRACT from a bare bones system, even with all the flaws and design directions 5e has taken (hand hold healing, too easy on the players, no negatives at CharGen, etc) it will still be very easy to change this system. I already have a working doc a few pages long that changes the entire feel of the game - with some small and modular changes.
I don't know if this is a marketing gimmick, but so far - all the changes I plan on instituting don't change the core game. Even the healing/rest changes or spell changes. None of it. You have to accept the proficiency number as a workable number or have a way to tweak it - since this is the binding mechanic of the system, but as of now that number is so low that you can easily add class features or skills to supplement it without wrecking the game.
-
Probably also on how tightly tied together the mechanics are. If anything you change leads to needing changes in other things, it can become problematic.
Hate to agree with thejeff (no really, I hate to agree with thejeff - ask him), but he's hit on it 100%.
Answering a few different posts here - Summation: IMO 5e mechanics are much easier to change or remove and you don't break the rest of the game. I don't think that Wotc would anticipate the severity of the changes I'm making to their core Basic game (lol, can't please anyone) - but it can be done. So far, no headaches or thoughts of burning my 5e work down.
Yet....
|
|
- Alignment mechanics - I will bring them back, but to 1st ed/2nd ed levels, not the crazy that is PF/3rd ed gamesNot to start an alignment thread, but what do you see that's so crazy different about alignment mechanics between AD&D & 3.x?
Less spells and abilities tied to alignment.
In 1st/2nd ed you had a few spells tied to alignment (good v evil), but morality, good and evil were just flat out less quantified in older editions. So I'm talking both raw number of spells & abilities associated with alignment (so much so, that it becomes a 3rd ed build consideration) to the pure combat ability/damage dynamic associated with (enemy/opposed) alignment.
I think when dealing with these subjects it's better to come from an abstract with very few mechanical features vs. what 3rd+ offered as almost another power source for targeted abilities: damage that scaled vs. evil, ranking of evil (detect evil), DR/evil &good, smiting, etc. All of it just became another component of hard delineated and mechanical character class abilities - older editions just didn't have it boxed up so neatly. It wasn't the focus. I prefer that.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
In short, many of the 4E-isms have remained but received a "old school" paint job and don't call out game-ist elements like "squares" or "Push, Pull, Slide". Additionally they went back to the older wording for things like adventuring day instead of Encounters.Most of this I find pretty funny because if someone had just done with with 4E at the onset such as formatted the powers to look like 3.5 spells / Maneuvers ala Tome of Battle instead of the color-coded boxes, removed Squares with Feet, used more traditional / fluid terminology instead of gamer jargon, and made it more clear that powers were subject to DM adjudication then I think 4E would probably still be supported by the fanbase to this day.
It's quite funny to see many 4E-naysayers gush over how great WotC is for bringing D&D back when so many 4E elements have remained on the fundamental level.
I totally agree, and in fact if you look at Kobold Quarterly's 4e stuff, it has that feel. Just using a serif font and not putting the stats in a box makes it much more palatable to older D&D players.
And really, Pathfinder borrowed a lot from 4e too, but that didn't really upset people since they did it under the radar.
So I don't know if I'm missing some subtle quirk of 5e that makes it super easy to house rule, or if this is just a marketing slogan that's being regurgitated by its fans.It probably depends mostly on how much you'd have to house rule it to meet you needs.
Probably also on how tightly tied together the mechanics are. If anything you change leads to needing changes in other things, it can become problematic.
I think there's two levels of house-ruling, from a GM standpoint:
1) How easy is it to house rule: aka, how clear is it that by changing x, it also affects y and z? And if I only want to change x and y, but not z, can I do it?
2) How much do I have to change to make the system play the way I want?
Sounds reasonable.
On a side note, I just ran across an ENworld thread in which a bunch of fans are dogpiling a 5e DM for wanting to eliminate the hard cap on ability scores. A desire that I sympathize with, even if it has obvious balance implications.* I would have expected more replies with constructive ideas to eliminate the cap and maintain balance, or at least a few more "Yeah, rulings not rules!"
But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)
*How balanced 5e is to begin with remains to be seen...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)
Well of course, the people at ENWorld tend to be some of the most vocal fans of the game. I think one thing that's interesting about 5e is how many different people, from OSR grognards to 4e anime fans are at least looking into the system.
Of course everything won't please everyone. There will be fans from each edition who will very vocally say that 5e is the worst thing ever, others will argue about playing 5e by RAW, plenty will like it ok as a 2nd or 3rd system, but not keep as their main system, and many will house-rule some of the rules they don't really care for.
But overall, I think D&D is doing everything right so far: an open playtest, re-releasing their old catalog as PDFs, reprinting the old 1e stuff, posting their design notes on their design blog and forum, and releasing the basic rules for free as a PDF.
The main missing piece to me is the Game License, but seeing 3rd party publishers tentatively embracing the new edition when they didn't with the last edition may be a good sign. Only time will tell if the legal department steps up like the design and development team has.
|
|
On a side note, I just ran across an ENworld thread in which a bunch of fans are dogpiling a 5e DM for wanting to eliminate the hard cap on ability scores. A desire that I sympathize with, even if it has obvious balance implications.* I would have expected more replies with constructive ideas to eliminate the cap and maintain balance, or at least a few more "Yeah, rulings not rules!"
But it seems that 5e fans don't take house ruling any more lightly than other editions. :)
*How balanced 5e is to begin with remains to be seen...
I think this type of suggestion will garner more costructive ideas once 5E has some road behind it. Right now I think people are just in a try it before you change it mode. As people become more experienced and comfortable I expect a whole lot of tinkering will be going on. No need to make hasty generalizations just yet.
|
|
On a side note, I just ran across an ENworld thread in which a bunch of fans are dogpiling a 5e DM for wanting to eliminate the hard cap on ability scores. A desire that I sympathize with, even if it has obvious balance implications.* I would have expected more replies with constructive ideas to eliminate the cap and maintain balance, or at least a few more "Yeah, rulings not rules!"I'm not fond of hard caps. I'd rather have no cap and less ability boosts or better yet more cost for higher boosts.
But I'm also not fond of house rules before playing the system enough to have an idea how it works in practice.
Well, obviously I'm in a different camp on this one.
I know certain things that I like (thematically - like limited cantrips) and things that may become issues mechanically so I change them up front. I don't want to run the game out the gate with what I know is going to be a problem with play style preferences as it would just be a waste of what little time I get to game every month.That being said, I don't think I will be making major tweaks or mechanical changes - such as lifting ability caps - anytime soon. I'm not going to make changes to my game that take it out of the version I want to run (1st ed and 2nd ed modes). One of the reasons why I am leaning towards this system is the fact that I DO NOT need to make MAJOR MECHANICAL changes to get the game I want like I would with 3rd ed or PF: Changing stat mods, house rule inherent bonuses for x-mass tree effect/big six, terrible and boring magic items (my guess is that they will be more like 1st/2nd ed - I hope at least), crafting, WBL, CR, etc. Everything wrong with 3rd ed PF that is difficult to change due to the assumed math isn't a problem in 5e. 5e will have it's own problems I'm sure.
I think I have a pretty good grasp of the number ranges and control they are looking for as a design philosophy in 5e and as such I will try to give that design philosophy everything it needs to function properly - at it's most base of course,...I still will house rule away like madman to get what I want.
They never give me the game I want.
|
So to me, this is just a better starting point to get a 1st/2nd ed feel with some easy mods, while having a game that is actively supported. As much of the 4e-isms and 3rd-isms will be chucked and flushed down the toilet as I can possibly strip and rip out of the system. 5e just gives me less to...
Out of curiosity, if a 1e/2e feel in a living breathing game is what you're trying to accomplish, why not go with something such as Castles & Crusades? That game specifically already has all of the stuff you want to strip out stripped out.
Having read the D&D Basic PDF, it was interesting to see how much that 5e has that other game systems have already been doing for a number of years.