| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baddies n monsters don't need pc 'level' of stat blocksthat's one of the things I like about Pathfinder/3.5e. For me, its EASY to add say a fighter level to an orc. For 4e I never had the online computer program to generate a human commoner or an orc fighter so I couldn't do it.
Mike
Er...did someone tell you that 4e monster-making requires software? If so, they lied to you; there are handy guidelines right there in the DMG. I've been making monsters without DDI since day 1; I even wrote a handy guide to monster creation for 4e!
It's all pretty straightforward; monster-making in 4e is just results-oriented rather than process-oriented, as it is in 3.x.
Baddies n monsters don't need pc 'level' of stat blocksthat's one of the things I like about Pathfinder/3.5e. For me, its EASY to add say a fighter level to an orc. For 4e I never had the online computer program to generate a human commoner or an orc fighter so I couldn't do it.
Mike
Er...did someone tell you that 4e monster-making requires software? If so, they lied to you; there are handy guidelines right there in the DMG. I've been making monsters without DDI since day 1; I even wrote a handy guide to monster creation for 4e!
It's all pretty straightforward; monster-making in 4e is just results-oriented rather than process-oriented, as it is in 3.x.
Interesting document. Not sure I'd ever want to think of something like a 'go to power' for a role but interesting concept.
The note on the save bonus (specifically your mechanic for avoiding conditions) caught my attention.
I've definitely noticed the element you seem have designed the monster rule to combat. All that said even with a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding the condition for a solo I'm not sure it'd really solve the issue - do you find that it does?
Personally I tend to just give some of my monsters various powers to counter act some of these types of effects. Powers that say things like 'at the start of X's turn it may end any one condition currently effecting it' or 'At the start of X's turn all ongoing effects of any power with the divine keyword end'.
Obviously one can do a lot more (wording the power however one likes) and I do so based on the flavour of the monster in question. I'm leery of a hard coded rules based answer - I've found players are really rather good at countering hard coded stuff like this but if you mix it up with powers like 'when X is hit with a power that has Y conditions it may make a save as an opportunity action to remove said condition (I recently used this with a Death Knight that could save against, among other things, being marked) you can avoid your players getting into some specific routine like readying actions to put their stun powers on the monster after the monster upkeep phase.
Anyway interesting PDF.
I've been making monsters without DDI since day 1; I even wrote a handy guide to monster creation for 4e!Interesting document. Not sure I'd ever want to think of something like a 'go to power' for a role but interesting concept.
I included the go-to powers for a couple of purposes: to serve super-fast monster creation in the event that a DM is low on time and/or creativity, and to serve as concrete examples of what each role power should do. (I remember thinking that the DMG descriptions of each role are somewhat vague for the purpose of monster-creation. Or maybe I'm just the kind of guy who needs examples.)
I used them a couple of times, but yeah, I wouldn't want them used for every single monster!
The note on the save bonus (specifically your mechanic for avoiding conditions) caught my attention.
I've definitely noticed the element you seem have designed the monster rule to combat. All that said even with a 1 in 3 chance of avoiding the condition for a solo I'm not sure it'd really solve the issue - do you find that it does?
Are you talking about the elite and solo resilience?
Honestly, resilience was the last idea I added to Marvelous Monsters, and I didn't get to play test it much before I had to leave my group. I had a couple of optimizers in the group, but they didn't go in for the 'stunlock with massive save penalties or UENT' stuff.
But I read the forums, and like solving problems from a universal perspective, so I figured "If an elite is supposed to be a two-in-one, it should be able to shake off nasty conditions half the time. (Save to ignore.) If a solo is supposed to be a four-in-one*, it should be able to shake off nasty conditions three out of four times. (Save w/ +5 bonus to ignore.)" Not sure where you're getting 1-in-3 odds from; maybe I explained something poorly?
*It's always been difficult for me to scrape together even four consistent players, so I treat solos as four-in-ones rather than five-in-ones. I'm actually surprised that the 4e team designed solos as five-in-ones, even if five players is the average party size, because it implies that every party needs five PCs, and it kinda limits big boss fight options. (It's hard to have a boss encounter with lackeys without breaking the encounter-building guidelines.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Outside of my current campaign, I'm done with Pathfinder. The last 6 months has left me with the distinct notion that Paizo is leading Pathfinder with PFS more than anything else. As a system, to lead your development by majority input from the most conservative arm of your player base is just bad, and recent rulings on system wide erratas have no place. PFS should be distinctly its own thing probably with its own CRB equivalent. Until that changes I probably won't be coming back.
5th ed makes a lot of right decisions in that you can spring board so many concepts and gives players and GMs wide latitude to dress things up with just the basic rules. You can say what you want about GM fiat in PF but it's one thing to adapt a system to your game and another entirely to have that kind of flexibility written into the core assumption of the rules that gives you many variants, advice on what affects what, etc. and leaves things open yet mechanically inclusive to give them meaning from within that system. It feels like a more inclusive and overall more robust system from the start rather than putting on a dress of GM bolt ons.
So one interesting thing i noticed about 5ed recently, is that they seem to have acknowledged what a longsword actually is as it seems to have the "bastard sword" included this time, being 1d8 damage when used one-handed and 1d10 when used two-handed. And there is no bastard sword in the weapons list (but that doesn't really mean much on its own, seeing as the weapons list for this document is a lot shorter than the 3ed PHB list)
So one interesting thing i noticed about 5ed recently, is that they seem to have acknowledged what a longsword actually is as it seems to have the "bastard sword" included this time, being 1d8 damage when used one-handed and 1d10 when used two-handed. And there is no bastard sword in the weapons list (but that doesn't really mean much on its own, seeing as the weapons list for this document is a lot shorter than the 3ed PHB list)
I really like the concept too, makes it seem and feel far more versatile than just adding 1.5 Str modifier when wielded in 2-hands. Plus I like they suggest that the long sword could serve as a Katana too
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the new rules a lot, and, um, the reduced weapons list reminds me of my Blue Book equipment lists.
I am actually more excited about the changes to feats, and how each feat is supposedly powerful enough to warrant not getting +2 to your ability scores instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No power attack- yeah!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how some of the combat feats appear to be focusing on a "fighting style" instead of just a certain maneuver or weapon (e.g. "great weapon fighter").
Yes that caught my eye as well, I am hoping that in future books we'll get "Dirty fighter" or "Combat pragmatist".
I am actually more excited about the changes to feats, and how each feat is supposedly powerful enough to warrant not getting +2 to your ability scores instead.
From today's Legends & Lore article (for any that haven't seen it yet):
In fifth edition, each feat is like a focused multiclass option. It comes with everything you need to realize a new dimension to your character. Most feats either give you a number of small upgrades bundled together, a significant new class feature that you’ll use a lot, or a lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to a single ability score.
And the only example of a feat we currently have:
For example, in my current campaign I’m playing Kel Kendeen, a chaotic neutral wizard dedicated to chaos and anarchy. I took the Lucky feat, which gives me the ability to roll an additional d20 when making an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, and choose which result to use. It’s extremely useful for getting out of tight spots, such as when I’m saddled with disadvantage or really need to make a roll. In portraying Kel, the Lucky feat fits him like a glove. As an adept of chaos, he constantly puts himself into dangerous positions—such as wearing a crown of ultimate evil or demanding an audience with the tyrannical overlord of a city—only to have things bounce his way. Fortune favors a fool, at least in Kel’s case.
I am actually more excited about the changes to feats, and how each feat is supposedly powerful enough to warrant not getting +2 to your ability scores instead.From today's Legends & Lore article (for any that haven't seen it yet):
In fifth edition, each feat is like a focused multiclass option. It comes with everything you need to realize a new dimension to your character. Most feats either give you a number of small upgrades bundled together, a significant new class feature that you’ll use a lot, or a lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to a single ability score.And the only example of a feat we currently have:
For example, in my current campaign I’m playing Kel Kendeen, a chaotic neutral wizard dedicated to chaos and anarchy. I took the Lucky feat, which gives me the ability to roll an additional d20 when making an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, and choose which result to use. It’s extremely useful for getting out of tight spots, such as when I’m saddled with disadvantage or really need to make a roll. In portraying Kel, the Lucky feat fits him like a glove. As an adept of chaos, he constantly puts himself into dangerous positions—such as wearing a crown of ultimate evil or demanding an audience with the tyrannical overlord of a city—only to have things bounce his way. Fortune favors a fool, at least in Kel’s case.
Thank you for the link, this got me even more excited. I can't wait for the player's handbook to come out.
I think i need to give the rules a more in depth read. Like how damage scales for weapon attacks and i havent really taken an in depth look at spells and feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I ran my first session of 5E over the weekend. We began the Starter Set adventure using the basic rules.
The game moved along well. We spend a total of five hours, which included character generation and dinner. During the ~3.5 hours we actually spent playing, we got through five combats and wrapped up the first section of the adventure. It reminded me of "reset" 3rd edition with many of the corner-case rules removed. I particularly liked the "hybrid" prepared/spontaneous spell-casting model shared by the cleric and the wizard. Someone at the table described it as a "D&D greatest hits," which I think was very appropriate.
We tried going map-less for a combat, but it just didn't feel quite right. Then we tried a grid with minis, and while that was close, it felt a bit "fiddly" for the rules-moderate nature of the game. We decided next time we're going to use minis and maps, but without a grid, and just measure distance with string. That should offer a visually appealing tactical representation without the restrictive feel of a grid. Since the rules don't assume a grid, it seems like the best balance. It also seems appropriate given D&D's war-game roots.
One thing I noticed was the need to read and re-read the basic rules. With several iterations of D&D and Pathfinder rattling around in my head, it was really tough to keep everything straight.
Naturally the lack of customization in the Basic Rules was very confining, but the experience left me really wanting to see the Player's Handbook. I still fear WotC is going to make bone-headed mistake at the last minute, but I'm excited in spite of myself: 5E might end up being close to my "ideal" D&D. If so, it will become my "go-to" game for fantasy role-playing, but it seems highly likely that I'll be sticking with Pathfinder for organized play unless most of my friends switch (thanks, network effects!).
Outside of my current campaign, I'm done with Pathfinder. The last 6 months has left me with the distinct notion that Paizo is leading Pathfinder with PFS more than anything else. As a system, to lead your development by majority input from the most conservative arm of your player base is just bad, and recent rulings on system wide erratas have no place. PFS should be distinctly its own thing probably with its own CRB equivalent. Until that changes I probably won't be coming back.
5th ed makes a lot of right decisions in that you can spring board so many concepts and gives players and GMs wide latitude to dress things up with just the basic rules. You can say what you want about GM fiat in PF but it's one thing to adapt a system to your game and another entirely to have that kind of flexibility written into the core assumption of the rules that gives you many variants, advice on what affects what, etc. and leaves things open yet mechanically inclusive to give them meaning from within that system. It feels like a more inclusive and overall more robust system from the start rather than putting on a dress of GM bolt ons.
Yeah - I was talking about resilience though I think I slightly misunderstood your rule (just reread it). That said my larger point of
having concerns about a universal answer to this issue I think stand.The issue your calling out is an issue but I think its better to deal with it individually in the powers of the monsters as compared to some kind of go to rule. I guarantee that your players will simply find another angle to get by your universal rule (for example instead of stun lock they might stack penalties) but maybe more importantly if you craft powers for the monsters defenses its one more chance to give your different monsters more interesting aspects that play to whatever their theme is. The enemy super ninja has recovery powers because she is super highly trained with unbelievable mind over matter abilities and avoids the worst effects because she has a lot of powers that let her dodge hits. The Colossus simply outlasts your players powers the evil priest has an evil God backing his play. The Lich has a ton of spells and its spells with pretty darn have strong miss effects etc. etc.
In effect the problem is real and out there but addressing it is actually an opportunity for the 4E DM to focus on what makes this monster unique and interesting and therefore to add to the fun and variety of the game. Plus sometimes you can craft interesting encounters around the fact that Monster X does not have any such defenses - maybe your forcing the players to choose between dealing with this guy where their powers work great or another threat or maybe the real defense is that their are more targets then they can handle etc.
I'm shocked, shocked and appalled that you misquoted me when replying to TS' brilliant post, Jeremy! ;)Yeah - I was talking about resilience though I think I slightly misunderstood your rule (just reread it). That said my larger point of having concerns about a universal answer to this issue I think stand.
There certainly is an advantage to giving each elite or solo a (set of?) unique resistances, I won't debate that. I just prefer to have a global solution for these kind of things, though you do make a good about stacking save penalties -- it might better to simply roll a d4 instead of a save. Elites ignore a condition on a 3 or 4; solos ignore a condition on a 2, 3, or 4.
Right now though, my larger problem is that I'm in a very transitory phase of my life, and am not likely to do any gaming for at least another year or so. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Played one session so far, and read (I think) all the material that has been released. Super happy with I'm seeing, and I burned out on GMing PF and 4e long ago.
5e seems to be channeling a lot of aspects of E6 that I was intrigued about. It carries a lot of the simplicity, and still give players enough choices for players to feel progression. If feats and spells remain in line with this, through subsequent products and levels, I think 5e will pretty much filled the niche for me.
In both of the most recent editions of the DnD 4e and 3.X, I noticed players tended towards the character creation and math aspects of RPGs. Character optimization, tinkering with math was a pretty huge component of the conversation and forum talk that I saw. I think this will remain a strong niche and folks that don't mind having that as an aspect of their game will either stick to PF or move on to other games that cater to it.
As a DM, I think 5e built something I can work with. I've noticed since we've started our campaign I'm going through my old material from Dragon and 1e all the way to 3.5 stuff looking for campaign material. Not for builds, but for story. I like the fact that I can spend as little or as much time as I want, and that I'll be able to build encounters on fly. This was possible in other editions, but I realize that the stress of doing so will just be lower.
For my campaign I'm doing my own reboot of Forgotten Realms, using only the Greybox and FR1-6. So we're playing as though nothing in the novels ever happened (mostly because so much has happened, I can't really track it all). The world's going to be grittier, and less forgiving. More George Martin than Tolkien.
And I like that this is all really easy to do without having to be an expert in the rules.
Our group played about 3 sessions or so of the 5E Starter Set.
It was very easy to DM. I used miniatures for the first session, but then went to just drawing a map on graph paper and tracking marching order. That worked very well. And, though I expect we'll continue using miniatures, we'll be ditching the grid in favor or string or rulers.
But, what I'm most happy with is the change in the underlying math of the game (resulting from Bounded Accuracy) that allows for low level monsters to remain threats (in larger numbers) at higher levels without adding all kinds of levels to the beasts. Also, the new math doesn't appear to be all that hard to reverse engineer for Pathfinder stuff (so converting Pathfinder material (even the classes and feats) shouldn't be too hard, at all).
So, my plans are to get the core books of DnD5e and homebrew the rest of what I want from my 1e, 2e, 3e/3.5, and PF collection. I plan on continuing to purchase upcoming Paizo products like the Advanced Class Guide and Pathfinder Unchained and use them as sourcebooks for a PF/5E hybrid.
I heartily agree with the idea that "5e seems to be channeling a lot of the aspects of E6 that I was intrigued about."
|
Is using string and rulers really easier or better than a grid?
In a system that does not use a grid, using a ruler (or string) allows for more accurate "diagonal" movement (as far as actual movement rates are concerned).
A grid tends to dictate how a character moves from one spot to another (not always, but rules for moving around a grid due tend to limit how a character may move from one square to another), whereas just using a ruler (or string) frees the character to move across the map without any such imposed limitations...
Is using string and rulers really easier or better than a grid?
It's really up to you (especially as it's a system neutral option).
Depending upon the size of the battlefield, rulers, strings, or tape measures might work better for some folks.
For instance, one of our DM's enjoys having large battlefields built in 3D on 4 ft by 8 ft foam boards. He might have several minibattles within a single larger battle all going on at once. If my elf sorcerer with his trusty bow wants to fire a shot at an enemy 3/4's of the way across the board at an angle, it's often quicker to use a tape measure to calculate distance.
Also, he's not a fan of the 1-inch grid. Says it seems too small next to some of the Reaper minis we use. So, gridless works better for him.
|
Is using string and rulers really easier or better than a grid?
It stops the feel of moving a piece on a board. My players just say what they are going to do (move and/or attack etc.) and I quickly measure. No counting spaces and moving a pawn around makes the game faster and is less distracting to me.
|
Thanks for answering my questions folks. I still dont get it but thats ok. Using string and tape measure sounds way more fiddly then counting grid squares. In systems Ive used that have been gridless and/or theater of mind, we used a distance designation system. Basically you were extra long, long, medium, short, or personal range from the target. Actions determined how much distance you could gain/close from the target. In D&D/PF though we like using minis and attacks of opportunity so the grid works just fine. I do have to give kudos to the designers of 5E I am glad they left the system felxible enough for multiple play styles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have always used miniatures, coming from a wargame background it was obvious and it settled a lot of issues (marching order, position, tactics etc.). A grid and a tape measure both have their uses. We always used (and use) tape measures / rulers in large outside encounters. Buildings and dungeons are laid out in 5' squares. It really works out about the same. The grid is simply a convenience readily usable for confined spaces. The entire "either / or" bit makes me blink and go "huh?".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell to the yes!
I'll still be picking up adventure paths from Paizo now and then, but system-wise I'm finally putting 3E/Pathfinder away for good and I won't be missing it.
*twweeeeeeetttt* yellow flag thrown to the side
from the anouncers booth
Oh, this looks bad, Bob. The ref is calling a fifty three post penalty for raising the Katana issue
That's right, Dave. We've seen this before in many threads. This thread is in real danger of being kicked to the curb
You said it, Bob. How many times can a poster be called on that before it becomes a technical foul?
Well, Dave, that all depends on the ref, if she doesn't stay right on top of that 53 post limitation for discussing the Katana in any way, it could go into overtime, and that risks a complete lock down. Back to our topic. Oh, it looks like the Generic Dungeon Master is stepping up to try and deflect the issue
Haha, nice. :-)
Still, I like it.
It's more of a replacement for adding the 1.5 STR mod, right? That isn't in the rules as far as I can tell.So one interesting thing i noticed about 5ed recently, is that they seem to have acknowledged what a longsword actually is as it seems to have the "bastard sword" included this time, being 1d8 damage when used one-handed and 1d10 when used two-handed. And there is no bastard sword in the weapons list (but that doesn't really mean much on its own, seeing as the weapons list for this document is a lot shorter than the 3ed PHB list)I really like the concept too, makes it seem and feel far more versatile than just adding 1.5 Str modifier when wielded in 2-hands.
As far as I know, yes. Adding 1.5 Str to 2-handed weapons isn't in the Basic Rules doc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm strongly considering 5th edition, more strongly than I did 4e, but it mostly depends on what people around me want to play.
Pathfinder? I'm game.
5th Edition? A new challenge, cool.
Shadowrun? I call being the decker.
|
I will be passing on d&d for the first time ever. This one just has no appeal, I have a system that works for me and my group. Yes if has it's flaws but then they all do, what's important to me and my group is that we are having fun and for us that means Pathfinder. The only other system currently competing for my time and dollars to any degree is Star Wars ( both edge of the empire and age of rebellion). Good luck to 5e but it just isn't for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder! I lost trust in WotC because of D&D 4.0. I still play Magic: The Gathering (White/Green deck for the win!) and still buy WotC D&D 4.0 books for some story inspiration, but I am not found of the 4.0 rule system and am not believing 5.0 will be to my liking, unless it does for Pathfinder what Pathfinder did for D&D 3.X!
Better yet, the basic rules which include everything you'd need to create and run a character are free.
Hell to the yes!
I'll still be picking up adventure paths from Paizo now and then, but system-wise I'm finally putting 3E/Pathfinder away for good and I won't be missing it.
That is all well and good, but what do your other heads say?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably won't be picking up the PHB, since I don't like the current default power level of some of the offerings of the basic pdf to increase - and from the ToC it looks to be more of the same, just greater in power/detail.
I will probably pick up the DMG and MM and see how I can use those to mod or enhance the existing basic game framework. From the looks of it (and I could be wrong) the PHB is going to just be an increase in player power (feats) and options for power - something I do not want for my game. If they present more player class options on par with the basic doc then I might pick it up, but if the basic doc adds in these classes as a "basic" version when it gets updates as they have stated - than no, I see no need for the PHB in my game besides something for my players to hold in their hands.
The content of the PHB based on previews of some feats makes me cringe actually and from the looks of it, it seems like this book is being presented as a power baseline and will not have the adjustable dials (could be wrong about that).
People here may not get all of that - I just want to have and run a game that focuses less on character options, running the maze of options to maximize every choice and complex mechanical character options for the players to gain mastery over. Do not want that. I just want a game that focuses on gaming and less on PC details and progressing planning/system & CharOp master.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been extremely dubious of 5th edition. Pathfinder is great and I feel like I would be happy playing it as my RPG of choice for many more years.
Back in '07 I got on the 4E hype train early on but was hugely let down when the books came out. What I saw of the first 5E playtest packet didn't really excite me, and I was already prepared for another crap D&D product so didn't pay the playtest much attention after that.
However, after seeing the basic rules and checking out the sneak peeks/spoilers that are going around the web, I think my mind has been changed. 5E is looking great. The game mechanics seem to have a more familiar D&D feel to them that 4E lacked. I love what they are doing with advantage/disadvantage, concentration buff spells, and keeping hit/save bonuses reigned in with the rather modest proficiency stat. I am officially on the 5E hype train now!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably won't be picking up the PHB, since I don't like the current default power level of some of the offerings of the basic pdf to increase - and from the ToC it looks to be more of the same, just greater in power/detail.
I will probably pick up the DMG and MM and see how I can use those to mod or enhance the existing basic game framework. From the looks of it (and I could be wrong) the PHB is going to just be an increase in player power (feats) and options for power - something I do not want for my game. If they present more player class options on par with the basic doc then I might pick it up, but if the basic doc adds in these classes as a "basic" version when it gets updates as they have stated - than no, I see no need for the PHB in my game besides something for my players to hold in their hands.
The content of the PHB based on previews of some feats makes me cringe actually and from the looks of it, it seems like this book is being presented as a power baseline and will not have the adjustable dials (could be wrong about that).
People here may not get all of that - I just want to have and run a game that focuses less on character options, running the maze of options to maximize every choice and complex mechanical character options for the players to gain mastery over. Do not want that. I just want a game that focuses on gaming and less on PC details and progressing planning/system & CharOp master.
It like this was made for you.
|
|
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.I probably won't be picking up the PHB, since I don't like the current default power level of some of the offerings of the basic pdf to increase - and from the ToC it looks to be more of the same, just greater in power/detail.
I will probably pick up the DMG and MM and see how I can use those to mod or enhance the existing basic game framework. From the looks of it (and I could be wrong) the PHB is going to just be an increase in player power (feats) and options for power - something I do not want for my game. If they present more player class options on par with the basic doc then I might pick it up, but if the basic doc adds in these classes as a "basic" version when it gets updates as they have stated - than no, I see no need for the PHB in my game besides something for my players to hold in their hands.
The content of the PHB based on previews of some feats makes me cringe actually and from the looks of it, it seems like this book is being presented as a power baseline and will not have the adjustable dials (could be wrong about that).
People here may not get all of that - I just want to have and run a game that focuses less on character options, running the maze of options to maximize every choice and complex mechanical character options for the players to gain mastery over. Do not want that. I just want a game that focuses on gaming and less on PC details and progressing planning/system & CharOp master.
Yes this I where I am at. Will modularity be a thing or will it not be. That is the question.
|
|
As far as I can tell, the whole "adjustable dials"/modularity thing isn't part of the game. Isn't even really being talked about any more. The only vestige I see is the "Use feats or just get stat increases" thing.
My understanding is that the modularity/alternate/side bar rules are all supposed to be in the DMG - or was promoted as such. Since this isn't out and we don't have a ToC, then we are going to have to wait.
Bugley, as far as C&C is concerned - I have the older books and backed the more recent KS (and received my new printing PHB) - I like certain things about C&C, and 5e (bounded accuracy keeping the sweet spot for most of the game). Haven't decide if I will run a core C&C with some tweaks, a modified 2nd ed (taking some bits from 5e or C&C) or a modified 5e. Sort of at a crossroads right now.
I have a feeling that 5e will not be as modular as I like, I don't think the basic game as it's written (and with my mods) would win out over C&C or a revised and modded 2nd ed.
I can wait for the new DMG to see what they are going to do before I pass judgement - that's going to be the book to watch.
Bugley, as far as C&C is concerned - I have the older books and backed the more recent KS (and received my new printing PHB) - I like certain things about C&C, and 5e (bounded accuracy keeping the sweet spot for most of the game). Haven't decide if I will run a core C&C with some tweaks, a modified 2nd ed (taking some bits from 5e or C&C) or a modified 5e. Sort of at a crossroads right now.
I picked up the PHB and Monster's and Treasures a few years back; there was a lot to like. I mentioned it because from my read-though it seemed like it might be just what you're looking for...