Now that the Basic rules are available for free, and you have had the chance to look it over once or twice, how do you feel about it? What are your thoughts?
Coming from a group that still plays 3.5 (Pathfinder when it rotates to my turn to GM), I'm very happy. There seems to be elements of each previous edition in a way that makes it simpler than 3.5. At least, that's how it look to me.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the look of it and I'm eager to give it a try. I followed the playtest pretty closely and I enjoyed the direction it was going. As much as I love Pathfinder it is a rules-heavy system and I tend to prefer a more rules-light system so having that option with D&D is really nice.
I plan on diving in and giving it a shot. If it turns out to play as light as I hope it does I'll be a happy gamer. I get to have my fantasy RPGs any way I like it. :D
Seems OK, nothing startling.
I doubt this will sway me from Pathfinder, but I'm a little intrigued. They should've given at least 2 options per class, though. It's hard to gauge a class when you have pretty much one way to play them.
|
Some okay ideas (simple encumbrance, advantage/disadvantage, +2 ability score every four levels).
Some dumb ideas (ability score increases tied to class features, for some reason sons races only get +1 to ability scores thus only gaining benefit for odd scores)
Without seeing monsters, adventures or traps I don't know enough to judge.
Check out Frog God Games website - They've put out a free adventure 'The Wizard's Amulet' as well.
I'm probably one of the target audiences: my gaming groups play mixed-edition, mixed-setting games, mostly CRB-only because few of us have the time/interest in learning "too many" rules. We mostly say "D&D" when we're playing PF rules--inaccurate, but habit.
My last homebrew campaign was Pathfinder rules, but set in the Forgotten Realms -- 3e campaign setting book for deities and other crunch, but mostly 1e grey box for maps / ideas, with some 2e regional supplements; mix of original material, parts of adventures pulled from old Dungeon magazines, and Paizo material (Crown of the Kobold King, some pieces of Council of Thieves, a few other borrows.)
My gaming groups are (a) a pack of 40-something long-time grognards, mostly with kids, who play a rotating mix of systems not including PF, and (b) a pack of 30-somethings who came to gaming post-college, who play mostly PF. Both sets are more "casual" gamers: I'm pretty much the only one in either group who "reads forums" anywhere, and most of my players have never cracked more than the CRB. I've mentioned before that Rogue is probably the most popular class at my tables.
So far -- from a fast and incomplete read through the 5e Basic PDF and email chain with one of groups who have given it the same -- I generally like what I see in the Basic rules. I think we'll play some of it, especially in the group with more old-schoolers that switches up systems frequently, but probably not go whole-hog with hardcovers, etc.
I love the idea of a "complete-while-limited" 20-level version of the rules -- from the 1e/2e experience, the 4 classes as presented, plus the "backgrounds", seem to me to offer a lot of opportunities for varied and diverse characters.
As somebody who has taught PF to a dozen new players in the past few years, I honestly think I like the 5e "proficiency bonus" one-progression-to-rule-all-your-rolls mechanic over the 3.5/PF style of BAB, high/low saves, class/trained/untrained skills, etc.
I appreciate the more limited skill set, and the way that spells scale in a much more limited fashion -- and that spells are back to a "traditional" system rather than the 4e powers/rituals stuff.
Maybe somebody who paid more attention to the playtest & rumor mill can say:
- What should I expect from monsters? I loved 4e's monster design, as a much more elegant and easy to use approach. (With apologies to Erik Mona, I don't personally see much appeal in monsters and PCs using identical rules when there are more straightforward options.)
- How about magic items? Any system that kills off the (imho) justified-only-for-the-thrill-of-bookkeeping design conceit of "the big 6" will get a pretty serious look from me.
Overall, though, Wizards is probably not going to see much of my cash for 5e. Paizo makes stellar modules and APs -- and I already own enough adventure content that I've estimated my currently-9-month-old twins will be old enough to GM some of it for me before I have a chance to work through it all myself. I've got boxes of campaign setting material in the basement, including 4 editions worth of Forgotten Realms. I'm happy (enough) with (houseruled) Pathfinder, which I already own a goodly amount of, that I'm not searching for a new primary system.
So far, I think 5e Basic is most likely to end up my go-to "nostalgia" system, using quick and dirty conversions of past edition adventure/setting content that I already own, while Pathfinder remains my groups' primary system.
After a quick review of Basic and the Starter Set, I'd put myself in the "mildly positive" group.
There are some things here that simply make no sense (humans get a +1 to everything? The cantrip Ray of Frost eventually out-damages Magic Missile cast as a first level spell?) but overall I like what I see. Specifically fewer rules and "fiddly bits" than 3E. I still miss the self-contained stat-blocks of 4E, though.
I expect my opinion will evolve as a I read (and especially try out) the rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After a quick review of Basic and the Starter Set, I'd put myself in the "mildly positive" group.
There are some things here that simply make no sense (humans get a +1 to everything? The cantrip Ray of Frost eventually out-damages Magic Missile cast as a first level spell?) but overall I like what I see. Specifically fewer rules and "fiddly bits" than 3E. I still miss the self-contained stat-blocks of 4E, though.
I expect my opinion will evolve as a I read (and especially try out) the rules.
I was very opposed at the 2 point/4 level stat increases myself until I realized that the base starting stats (if you use PB or fixed array) was considerably lower than 3rd ed. So out the gate, the best stat for a human (unless you roll) is a 16 if you don't roll for your stats - this is after adding in the +1 on all the stats. I think the highest stat out the gate is a 17 (Dwarf with +2 Str to highest array stat of 15). And I really like the fact that they cap the stats at 20.
If I allow my players to roll their stats then I may only allow a 1 point progression per 4 levels, if at all.
I think that they have taken great strides to control the number ranges - to hit, AC, skills, etc, and I really appreciate it. This might be the "sweet spot" edition - yet to be seen since I still need to see the beasties and their xp values (again, easily scalable).
I do dislike the cantrips - not their power per say, I just don't like at will shooting-sprouts-of-fire-all-day that was ported over from PF. More of an immersion thing for me plus I do feel that magic as a rule should be a finite vs infinite resource (personal preference).
If I run this I will probably do what I did with PF cantrips: No prep needed - you can cast any cantrip as you need, but limited to 3 times a day + casting stat mod. My players like the versatility to cast orisons or cantrips without specifically preping them and since we are all old school players they were ok being limited per day. Under this houserule I don't care if a higher level version of Ray of Frost does more damage than MM, MM still doesn't need a to-hit roll and the Ray (under my rules) is still limited in use per day.
I really like the fact that in the base game there are no stat boosters, I'm hoping if they do put them in that they end up having very little numerical effect and are more focused on their utility, ex :Bull Strength gives the character Advantage for all STR checks and any skill checks that are based in STR for the duration. So it's easier to perform STR tasks (smash down doors, life items one class higher, etc) instead of getting +2 to hit and damage as a flat, generic combat bonus.
There are few other things that I dislike, but overall my reaction is positive and I think most things can easily be fixed or scaled to fit my gaming expectations better than 3rd ed or PF ever could.
I don't even think it will be hard for me to convert PF stuff to this system since I already wrote out some guidelines for converting PF to AD&D 2nd ed.
|
|
I love your cantrip thoughts Auxmaulous. X times a day sounds like a reasonable houserule.
Thanks Pan, my players like the fact that they didn't need to prep a Stabilize (planning for critical failure) when something bad happens. The fact that that they have access to it and any of their other 0-level class spells around 7-9 (8 on average for casting stat) times a day works well.
These things are minor utility so to me having a full selection of 0 level spells as you need them with an X use a day just made more sense than prepping a few a day.
Now that the Basic rules are available for free, and you have had the chance to look it over once or twice, how do you feel about it? What are your thoughts?
Personally, I'm OK With the rules. They resemble the playtest rules fairly well with slight alterations here and there. My group, while trying the playtests, were "meh" on it. I think we'd have fun (and had fun with the playtest) but I'm not sure if it's something they'll want to invest their time in. Right now we currently have a few v3.5 campaigns to finish up, a Pathfinder campaign to finish up, an a few 4E campaigns to finish up.
Some of the things that intrigue me:
• Bounded Accuracy - This is one of the biggest draws for me. I'm getting really tired of he ridiculous bonuses, ACs, attack mods, etc. that I'm seeing with v3.5 / PF and 4E. I don't need to have PC's who has AC 29 - 32 at 13th level. It's just.....unnecessary and creates a HUGE immersion problem when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the world. I mean, my 13th level v3.5 Fighter has an AC 29. That means he can literally go into any small village and destroy EVERYTHING without fear of reprisal from the locals. Even if 30 villages attack him at once, his AC (even prone) is likely high enough (mechanically speaking) he can lay there for a while and not take damage. That, to me, is just dumb. With bounded accuracy, AC 18 is HIGH but still hit-able with a d20 + ability modifier.
• Rituals - This is something ported from 4E (well, I think it originally came from an Unearthed Arcana source) and it's something that I really like. No mage wants to waste a precious spell slot prepping a spell that will, most likely, not be used but it's nice to have as a backup.
• Module Healing Rate - This is one of those "iffy" topics that everyone has a different opinion on. Some want "gritty" healing and some like "non-gritty" healing. Personally I'm a fan of overnight healing because it means that I don't have to put unnecessary time restraints on my dungeons and can keep the pace going well.
• No forced Alignment Mechanics - This is one of the many reasons I avoid TSR games and feel obligated to change all my v3.5 / PF ones. The idea that deities don't have their own champions seems silly to me. 4E removed alignment mechanics and so does Next. Of course anyone can add them in if they want and I'm cool with having mechanics thrown in from the DMG to enhance other people's games.
• At-Will magic (Cantrips / Orisons) - Taken from PF's at-will cantrips / 4E's at-will powers this allows caters to be casters throughout the day. Some people like it, others don't. It IS a fixed rule but I'm sure people can find ways to limit it. Personally I think it makes me playing a wizard feel more "wizardly" than "Um, I do nothing but "help action" to save on spell power" 3/4 encounters of the day.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At-Will magic (Cantrips / Orisons) - Taken from PF's at-will cantrips / 4E's at-will powers this allows caters to be casters throughout the day. Some people like it, others don't. It IS a fixed rule but I'm sure people can find ways to limit it. Personally I think it makes me playing a wizard feel more "wizardly" than "Um, I do nothing but "help action" to save on spell power" 3/4 encounters of the day.
This is the biggest stickler for me and am pretty sad they didnt put it on a dial. Maybe the PHB/DMG will give me some options to mod this unwanted feature.
Bounded Accuracy - This is one of the biggest draws for me. I'm getting really tired of he ridiculous bonuses, ACs, attack mods, etc. that I'm seeing with v3.5 / PF and 4E. I don't need to have PC's who has AC 29 - 32 at 13th level. It's just.....unnecessary and creates a HUGE immersion problem when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the world. I mean, my 13th level v3.5 Fighter has an AC 29. That means he can literally go into any small village and destroy EVERYTHING without fear of reprisal from the locals. Even if 30 villages attack him at once, his AC (even prone) is likely high enough (mechanically speaking) he can lay there for a while and not take damage. That, to me, is just dumb. With bounded accuracy, AC 18 is HIGH but still hit-able with a d20 + ability modifier.
I am 100% with you on BA. In fact, I would say its the crown jewel of 5E.
This is the biggest stickler for me and am pretty sad they didnt put it on a dial. Maybe the PHB/DMG will give me some options to mod this unwanted feature.At-Will magic (Cantrips / Orisons) - Taken from PF's at-will cantrips / 4E's at-will powers this allows caters to be casters throughout the day. Some people like it, others don't. It IS a fixed rule but I'm sure people can find ways to limit it. Personally I think it makes me playing a wizard feel more "wizardly" than "Um, I do nothing but "help action" to save on spell power" 3/4 encounters of the day.
Auxmaulous's idea of X/day sounds reasonable. Much like various Pathfinder classes have. An easy houserule if anything.
Bounded Accuracy - This is one of the biggest draws for me. I'm getting really tired of he ridiculous bonuses, ACs, attack mods, etc. that I'm seeing with v3.5 / PF and 4E. I don't need to have PC's who has AC 29 - 32 at 13th level. It's just.....unnecessary and creates a HUGE immersion problem when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the world. I mean, my 13th level v3.5 Fighter has an AC 29. That means he can literally go into any small village and destroy EVERYTHING without fear of reprisal from the locals. Even if 30 villages attack him at once, his AC (even prone) is likely high enough (mechanically speaking) he can lay there for a while and not take damage. That, to me, is just dumb. With bounded accuracy, AC 18 is HIGH but still hit-able with a d20 + ability modifier.I am 100% with you on BA. In fact, I would say its the crown jewel of 5E.
I think it does help the game in the long run, especially with keeping monsters relevant for longer.
Yep +1 to BA
It's good that monsters stay somewhat relevant for higher levels
Plus, thankfully, touch AC has gone.....never a great fan of tougher monsters having such high NA bonus just to make their AC relevant
One thing I like is that it looks like they are moving away from high numbers and so many modifiers. It will be strange getting used to a fighter and a wizard having the same to hit roll, but I am sure it won't take long.
One thing I like is that it looks like they are moving away from high numbers and so many modifiers. It will be strange getting used to a fighter and a wizard having the same to hit roll, but I am sure it won't take long.
That is actually something I DON'T like about 5E: proficiency bonus being applied unilaterally to all classes for every situation. A wizard should not have the same bonus to hit that a fighter has because a fighter has trained really hard to be good at fighting, a wizard has not.
I would have preferred to see a continuation of the 3.X/PF system of unique progression by class for various abilities. For example a 1st level Fighter would get +2 to attacks, +2 to primary save, +1 to secondary save and +1 (possibly +0) to skills. A Thief might have +1 to attack, + 2/+1 to saves and +2 to skills. Wizards get +0 to attack, +2 to spell casting (for attack rolls and DC), +1 (or +0) to skills. These bonuses would then progress at different rates by category for each class.
I don't think the above progressions would have made the game that much more complex which is what I believe they were trying to avoid (complexity) by having "one Bonus to rule them all".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like is that it looks like they are moving away from high numbers and so many modifiers. It will be strange getting used to a fighter and a wizard having the same to hit roll, but I am sure it won't take long.That is actually something I DON'T like about 5E: proficiency bonus being applied unilaterally to all classes for every situation. A wizard should not have the same bonus to hit that a fighter has because a fighter has trained really hard to be good at fighting, a wizard has not.
I would have preferred to see a continuation of the 3.X/PF system of unique progression by class for various abilities. For example a 1st level Fighter would get +2 to attacks, +2 to primary save, +1 to secondary save and +1 (possibly +0) to skills. A Thief might have +1 to attack, + 2/+1 to saves and +2 to skills. Wizards get +0 to attack, +2 to spell casting (for attack rolls and DC), +1 (or +0) to skills. These bonuses would then progress at different rates by category for each class.
I don't think the above progressions would have made the game that much more complex which is what I believe they were trying to avoid (complexity) by having "one Bonus to rule them all".
Well, once the different characters are built (5e), the Fighter will have a higher Melee/Ranged attack (depending on their focus) than a Wizard.
Sure, the Wizard might have a magic attack bonus that equals the Figher's melee/ranged, but the Wizard surely will be relatively poor in melee/ranged compared to the Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I like is that it looks like they are moving away from high numbers and so many modifiers. It will be strange getting used to a fighter and a wizard having the same to hit roll, but I am sure it won't take long.That is actually something I DON'T like about 5E: proficiency bonus being applied unilaterally to all classes for every situation. A wizard should not have the same bonus to hit that a fighter has because a fighter has trained really hard to be good at fighting, a wizard has not.
I would have preferred to see a continuation of the 3.X/PF system of unique progression by class for various abilities. For example a 1st level Fighter would get +2 to attacks, +2 to primary save, +1 to secondary save and +1 (possibly +0) to skills. A Thief might have +1 to attack, + 2/+1 to saves and +2 to skills. Wizards get +0 to attack, +2 to spell casting (for attack rolls and DC), +1 (or +0) to skills. These bonuses would then progress at different rates by category for each class.
I don't think the above progressions would have made the game that much more complex which is what I believe they were trying to avoid (complexity) by having "one Bonus to rule them all".
Well, once the different characters are built (5e), the Fighter will have a higher Melee/Ranged attack (depending on their focus) than a Wizard.
Sure, the Wizard might have a magic attack bonus that equals the Figher's melee/ranged, but the Wizard surely will be relatively poor in melee/ranged compared to the Fighter.
To my mind, the proficiency bonus reflects skill through training. A wizard is not as skilled at fighting, thus he/she should not have the same base attack bonus/proficiency bonus as a fighter for combat. I don't care that the fighter will probably end up with a higher total attack bonus (due to high STR or DEX). It just doesn't "feel" right to me for a Wizard to have the same level of "skill" in fighting that a fighter has.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it will be palatable to you, but even with high strength, the wizard will only match a fighter with daggers and quarter staffs. The fighters training manifests as breadth, rather than depth (apart from feats and fighting styles, which will, I presume, represent the depth).
EDIT: that was a reply to a deleted post, but it might be of interest anyway.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is a better melee combatant than the wizard. He has his proficiency bonus (+2 with every weapon in basic, as there are no exotic weapons)and a higher Strength score than the wizard (16, +3 modifier). And I'm sure there will be feats that improve it further. So thats at least a +5 bonus on his attack roll.
The wizard, on the other hand, only adds his proficiency bonus to a handful of weapons (+2), and most likely a 10 strength (+0 modifier). Its unlikely for the wizard to have any feats to improve this, so a total of +2. Should he use the same weapon as the fighter (not a dagger or quarterstaff), then this drops to +0.
Last I checked, a +5 is bigger than a +2. And it applies to every melee weapon in Basic, as opposed to only a dagger and/or quarterstaff.
The wizard needs to hit things with his spells. And as far as I can tell, touch attacks are gone. When attacking with a spell, the wizards attack bonus is +5. The same as a fighter attacking with a weapon. The wizard is as good at hitting things as the fighter. Just in different ways. The fighter is good at hitting with weapons. The wizard is good at hitting with spells.
The fighter is a better melee combatant than the wizard. He has his proficiency bonus (+2 with every weapon in basic, as there are no exotic weapons)and a higher Strength score than the wizard (16, +3 modifier). And I'm sure there will be feats that improve it further. So thats at least a +5 bonus on his attack roll.
The wizard, on the other hand, only adds his proficiency bonus to a handful of weapons (+2), and most likely a 10 strength (+0 modifier). Its unlikely for the wizard to have any feats to improve this, so a total of +2. Should he use the same weapon as the fighter (not a dagger or quarterstaff), then this drops to +0.
Last I checked, a +5 is bigger than a +2. And it applies to every melee weapon in Basic, as opposed to only a dagger and/or quarterstaff.
The wizard needs to hit things with his spells. And as far as I can tell, touch attacks are gone. When attacking with a spell, the wizards attack bonus is +5. The same as a fighter attacking with a weapon. The wizard is as good at hitting things as the fighter. Just in different ways. The fighter is good at hitting with weapons. The wizard is good at hitting with spells.
You said what I was going to in the last paragraph. A wizard will still suck compared to a fighter when attacking with a weapon. A wizard attacking with a spell should be just as good as a fighter attacking with a weapon.
Has Next stuck with the 4E thing of most/all spells having to-hit rolls rather than saves?
In most previous versions a caster's "to hit" with spells wasn't really important, except for a few specialized builds. Mostly he just didn't have to roll an attack.
No, they switched back to how it was in 3.X. Single target spells generally require an attack roll, area spells generally require a save. Though there are some exceptions.
Though after going back and looking through the spell list, there don't seem to be many spells that require an attack roll. Fire Bolt, Inflict Wounds, Mordenkainens Sword, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp, and Spiritual Weapon seem to be the only ones that require a spell attack roll. At least in Basic.
PF gnome wizard and human fighter both with 16 str have identical attacks
It's not the pure numbers. What makes a class unique in any d20 games is the funky extras.
Next wiz and fighter ' play' very differently
|
|
PF gnome wizard and human fighter both with 16 str have identical attacks
It's not the pure numbers. What makes a class unique in any d20 games is the funky extras.
Next wiz and fighter ' play' very differently
Well yes and no, part of the expectation is the whole package, that included dedicated feats. The optimal Fighter feat at that level is Weapon Focus, something the Gnome wizard will probably not have.
The Fighter and every other full BAB class has better progression and to-hits at level 1 and higher (everyone in 2nd ed had a 20 THACO at level 1 IIRC) from 1st ed AD&D through PF as a total package - training, feats, weapon specialization (2nd ed), Str bonus and class abilities.So there is a major changed in this edition - and I know why - they want to control the number range for all classes.
If they protect the weapon proficiencies than I don't see a problem - in reality they are trying to control this in a few ways:
- Damage is really tied to weapon and some training (Class abilities). Lighter weapons are ok, but they are not damage dealers.
- Weapon Proficiencies are locked, so a wizard is locked out of anything melee or ranged that does better than 1d6. With no damage bonus and bonus to hit (and ranged touch AC) he is going to be a subpar melee or ranged combatant.
- Attack sequence. Extra attacks/actions locked into class, fighter gets these over other classes - so this is an area that is protected and the fighter owns.
But this is a big change, so much so that I may give front line fighters a very small bump to-hit via training or class ability.
I'm holding off on this because all indicators show that they will be getting something just based off of what the basic fighter has already been allocated (archery/ranged +2 to to-hit with ranged weapons). if they don't come out with it, I will do a numbers analysis at CR and AC with any changes or bonuses adhering to bounded accuracy as core design philosophy and then put something out in my houserules doc (which I will post).
I think it will be considerably easier to make a multiclassed character in this game. In effect, all the classes are one - so you would just need to parse out proficiencies and some limitations on armor, weapon use and full class abilities (for balance).
it wouldn't be hard to mesh a Fighter and Wizard right now into one class (and call it Elf) that gives both fighting (all weapons but less training) and casting (all spells, but limited casting perks) and you have a multiclassed character.
PF gnome wizard and human fighter both with 16 str have identical attacks
It's not the pure numbers. What makes a class unique in any d20 games is the funky extras.
Next wiz and fighter ' play' very differently
At first level they do, thanks to the gnome's size bonus. The fighter rapidly passes that.
I am kind of curious if this would help in making a gish? If you boost str, don't worry much about Int and focus on buff spells, how far are you behind a fighter, even without the buff spells. You can get decent weapon proficiencies from race. I'm not sure about armor.
I tried to find any kind of Arcane Spell Failure but didn't find it. A Mountain Dwarf Wizard would probably make a pretty tough Gish. (I didn't look very hard; I'll look again...use some Ctrl+F magic)
EDIT: found it, page 79. Proficiency in Armor= 0% ASF. No proficiency= 100%.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard could use his Dex bonus to hit and to damage with finesse weapons, which I think the dagger is (I am assuming as that's the quintessential rogue weapon, and I don't have the pdf on this computer). Of course, a dagger won't be doing as much damage as a long sword, but they would still have the same bonus to hit and damage (if the fighter has 16 Str and the wizard 16 Dex).
Speaking of weapons, I do like that they have finesse weapons, which you can use Dex for hit and damage. And using a longsword 1h deals 1d8 while using it 2h deals 1d10. I don't, however, like that a gnome can't use a 2h weapon (which has the heavy property) as well as a human can. Went back to the old 3.0 weapon sizes (may have had in 4th, but not sure). I don't know. Maybe it's a good thing, as they should be able to use a longsword 1h or 2h. Again, don't have the pdf on me so can't be certain.
One of the things I thought 4th edition got right was no stat penalties due to race. Pathfinder improves on the 3rd edition, as a bonus to Str didn't require -2 to 2 abilities. But I think having just bonuses to scores is the best choice. It opens up some other combos, such as gnome fighters or dwarf rogues or elf barbarians, without feeling like you are gimped. Once the PHB and DMG come out, I will attempt to start converting things I like about Pathfinder over to 5th edition, once I can see the more "complicated" classes instead of the basic ones. Also, so I can see how other domains and other such things that classes unlock at 3rd level work out. Might even convert some 4th edition stuff. Who knows?
I am still very surprised at how much I actually like 5th edition, and this is just the basic rules.
|
|
Proficiencies don't seem that locked. Both elves and dwarves gain weapon proficiencies.A gish wizard will have the stat damage and a good weapon. He won't have the fighter's class abilities and actions to boost that. OTOH, spells.
Racial weapons are not the highest damaging weapons in the game. The two handers still hold that title.
That was the point I was trying to make - damage output/optimal damage is somewhat class protected via proficiencies. So while a longsword and battle axe are great (like versatile weapon feature), they are not on the highest end of the damage spectrum.
Keep in mind - I think every hit point of damage given (not taken by PCs, these are cheap and too easily replenished) is going to weight a bit more in this game - since creatures are probably (guessing) going to have lower hp overall than in PF. Still get the CON bonus (bad idea) but at least the stats are not going to be 10 HD with 32 (+11) Con - effectively doubling the hit points (3rd ed math). Each point of outgoing damage the PCs is going to cause is going to be a big deal in this edition. That is why a 1d6 + no damage bonus vs. say a 1d8+3 or a 2d6+3 + multiple attacks is going to bring the Fighter back into the fold.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I thought 4th edition got right was no stat penalties due to race. Pathfinder improves on the 3rd edition, as a bonus to Str didn't require -2 to 2 abilities. But I think having just bonuses to scores is the best choice. It opens up some other combos, such as gnome fighters or dwarf rogues or elf barbarians, without feeling like you are gimped.
LOL, bringing back stat penalties based on race for my home game.
And a bonus to hate me more - bringing back racial class limitations (no Gnome or Halfling paladins, etc). Not sure about racial class LEVEL limitations yet, need to see how the multiclass systems is going to look like.
Hey, you can't make everyone happy - that's why we have house rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things I thought 4th edition got right was no stat penalties due to race. Pathfinder improves on the 3rd edition, as a bonus to Str didn't require -2 to 2 abilities. But I think having just bonuses to scores is the best choice. It opens up some other combos, such as gnome fighters or dwarf rogues or elf barbarians, without feeling like you are gimped.LOL, bringing back stat penalties based on race for my home game.
And a bonus to hate me more - bringing back racial class limitations (no Gnome or Halfling paladins, etc). Not sure about racial class LEVEL limitations yet, need to see how the multiclass systems is going to look like.
Hey, you can't make everyone happy - that's why we have house rules.
No hate for you from me. If that's how you like it, then more power to ya. :) I just probably wouldn't play in one of your games. Not a fan of the limitations, for the most part. I removed them when I ran 2nd edition.
And like you said, can't make everyone happy. That's what house rules are for.
|
|
A wizard could use his Dex bonus to hit and to damage with finesse weapons, which I think the dagger is (I am assuming as that's the quintessential rogue weapon, and I don't have the pdf on this computer). Of course, a dagger won't be doing as much damage as a long sword, but they would still have the same bonus to hit and damage (if the fighter has 16 Str and the wizard 16 Dex).Or he could use a longsword (elf) or battleaxe (dwarf) and take a 16 str. And use buff spells to keep up with the fighter's class abilities. (Probably. I haven't looked into the spells too deeply yet.)
I'd also be shocked if there weren't feats or other ways beyond race to get weapon proficiencies, freeing up those 2-handed weapons.
No more self buffs to-hit on the spell chart, no more bull's strength, etc. Not even as many defenses (Prot Evil). IDK, the list and control is pretty tight in basic...right now. If they open up some options I think it would destroy their balance objectives between the classes as they currently exist.
That is why if I add anything to Fighters it will be incredibly small numbers +1 or +2 at best (higher level), because to hits +mods + other vs. existing AC range is going to be very narrow.
I think feats are going to be so valuable that if a Elf wanted to be a caster and also get good at his sword, it is going to be at a huge shift in character direction. Remember - if you take a feat at your 4hd progression you don't get any stat buffs (+2 on one stat or +1 on two), that is pretty significant. Feats are going to be a big part of character power and will have a pretty big footprint in this system (guessing at this).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use the levels of exhaustion rules they provided. Explain to players that while they are considered "At-Will" using them does cause some level of exertion, so abusing the use of them could lead to gaining a level of exhaustion. It probably won't come up in play, but in game you can still justify why wizards can't stand on the battlements defending a city all day long by hurling cantrips at their enemies.
At-Will magic (Cantrips / Orisons) - Taken from PF's at-will cantrips / 4E's at-will powers this allows caters to be casters throughout the day. Some people like it, others don't. It IS a fixed rule but I'm sure people can find ways to limit it. Personally I think it makes me playing a wizard feel more "wizardly" than "Um, I do nothing but "help action" to save on spell power" 3/4 encounters of the day.
This is the biggest stickler for me and am pretty sad they didnt put it on a dial. Maybe the PHB/DMG will give me some options to mod this unwanted feature.
Bounded Accuracy - This is one of the biggest draws for me. I'm getting really tired of he ridiculous bonuses, ACs, attack mods, etc. that I'm seeing with v3.5 / PF and 4E. I don't need to have PC's who has AC 29 - 32 at 13th level. It's just.....unnecessary and creates a HUGE immersion problem when viewed in conjunction with the rest of the world. I mean, my 13th level v3.5 Fighter has an AC 29. That means he can literally go into any small village and destroy EVERYTHING without fear of reprisal from the locals. Even if 30 villages attack him at once, his AC (even prone) is likely high enough (mechanically speaking) he can lay there for a while and not take damage. That, to me, is just dumb. With bounded accuracy, AC 18 is HIGH but still hit-able with a d20 + ability modifier.I am 100% with you on BA. In fact, I would say its the crown jewel of 5E.
|
|
One of the things I thought 4th edition got right was no stat penalties due to race. Pathfinder improves on the 3rd edition, as a bonus to Str didn't require -2 to 2 abilities. But I think having just bonuses to scores is the best choice. It opens up some other combos, such as gnome fighters or dwarf rogues or elf barbarians, without feeling like you are gimped.LOL, bringing back stat penalties based on race for my home game.
And a bonus to hate me more - bringing back racial class limitations (no Gnome or Halfling paladins, etc). Not sure about racial class LEVEL limitations yet, need to see how the multiclass systems is going to look like.
... who ... who hurt you, Aux? Who hurt you in your life to make you this way? T____T
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Use the levels of exhaustion rules they provided. Explain to players that while they are considered "At-Will" using them does cause some level of exertion, so abusing the use of them could lead to gaining a level of exhaustion. It probably won't come up in play, but in game you can still justify why wizards can't stand on the battlements defending a city all day long by hurling cantrips at their enemies.
Oh, it would come up in play. If my players can make a 1d10 ranged attack for free every round they would use it every round. This was an intentional design consideration to make Wizards closer to Fighters in their "attack per round". Me being who I am - I can't let that stand.
But implementing exhaustion as a control would be a good fix using the existing mechanics.
Maybe I will baseline 4 (level 1) + casting stats per day (long rest) per my original house rule and allow extreme stress optional use could take you through the exhaustion tract - maximizing or stopping at level 3 exhaustion. Maybe in units per level (1 extra cantrip at level 1 advances track 1, 2 at 2nd advances track 1, etc). Need to play with the math. if it's too generous I could see players trying to redline it.
-
I will probably also use the exhaustion tract for my 1st ed emulation part of my houserules for any and all spell casting over the course of the day.
Man, that was an ugly system - brutal - I miss it.
Little extra option for my doc.
|
|
... who ... who hurt you, Aux? Who hurt you in your life to make you this way? T____TOne of the things I thought 4th edition got right was no stat penalties due to race. Pathfinder improves on the 3rd edition, as a bonus to Str didn't require -2 to 2 abilities. But I think having just bonuses to scores is the best choice. It opens up some other combos, such as gnome fighters or dwarf rogues or elf barbarians, without feeling like you are gimped.LOL, bringing back stat penalties based on race for my home game.
And a bonus to hate me more - bringing back racial class limitations (no Gnome or Halfling paladins, etc). Not sure about racial class LEVEL limitations yet, need to see how the multiclass systems is going to look like.
LOL!
Just the way I was raised in gaming - having a fighter at level 1 with 6 hp sucked, but it was terrifying and memorable at the same time.Paladins were human (and needed a 17 Cha from a crappy array of rolled stats) and there were no elven barbarians. Racial class limits existed for multiple reasons - balance out the races & to maintain theme an feel for the game (human Pallys). I'm going more for theme/feel part vs. racial restrictions due to demi-humans having more racial abilities than humans - that isn't the case in Chargen anymore.
I'm also not going to go 100% old school limits, I will probably allow some kind of specialist Dwarven Wizards (if they have them) - Transmuters - because they make sense..... but the willy-nilly notion that anyone can be anything even one day POTUS, is out the window! Screaming as it falls.
If a player cries as he tells me he has to play a Halfling Barbarian or a Gnome Knight - I might listen to him (record it actually, for playback later on).
I'm always open to stupid character ideas, c'mon - I've been a Gamma World Ref since '82 - the ultimate system and home of the stupid character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not surprised but not a fan of pew-pew cannon casters and clerics. I really like how its written its a pleasure again to read D&D rule books. I hope to run a few one shots at various levels over the summer to get a feel for how this beast plays at the table. Thats about it for now.I noticed that too. Wonder if they did that on purpose or it just fell out that way? Hmm... now that I think about it, I guess the editor would claim it was written that way on purpose LOL!
Oh yes its quite on purpose. I know many people hate the "crossbow wizard" and like to have a sun up to sun down caster option for blasting. I dont begrudge them that I just want a dial to turn that off when I play. Its a very cleverly written AEDU system. You can get rid of the encounter powers by modifying the short rest so some dial ability is built in. I am a litle surprised all this was in the basic game but I guess I shouldnt be.