People create characters before they even know the character creation rules and any house rules the DM is including?
D&D's Adventurer League (organized play) is going to have a fixed set of rules due to being the organized play portion of 5th edition. And everything you have mentioned, Aux, is rather foreign to me. What exactly do you consider "casual play"? Some guy decides to sit at an FLGS and wait for players to sit down? Don't they usually have premades done up for their particular playstyle? Also figured they would have a list of what rules they were using that were different from those in the PHB.
I have never done any type of organized play. RPGA, Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Pathfinder Society, and I doubt I will do any Adventurer League for 5th edition.
I'm just excited to pick up my PHB tomorrow. :)
I'm just excited to pick up my PHB tomorrow. :)Good for you bugley - I thought the street date wasn't till 8/19?
Maybe you can provide a sitrep over here after you get a chance to read it?
I promise not to attack you or say anything that will make the game mad.
It is available in Wizards Play Network stores -- which seems to include many FLGSes -- tomorrow. I believe the 19th is when Amazon, Barnes and Noble, etc. will get it.
I have never done any type of organized play. RPGA, Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Pathfinder Society, and I doubt I will do any Adventurer League for 5th edition.
It's definitely a different way to play the game. A large part of that is because DM discretion has be heavily limited to keep variances between tables and groups to a minimum that allows players to comfortably port characters between tables, DMs, and groups. 4E did not do well in organized play precisely because of this problem; it will be interesting to see how well 5E does.
That was a large swath of posts removed.
So, Bugleyman. Got any previews of the PHB for us? I don't have the moneys to get one myself, or I would possibly be reading my own copy and adding some previews myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That was a large swath of posts removed.
So, Bugleyman. Got any previews of the PHB for us? I don't have the moneys to get one myself, or I would possibly be reading my own copy and adding some previews myself.
I haven't had time to more than skim it, and there's quite a bit of material on enworld.org, but if you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Many spells seemed to have been combined. For example, prismatic wall and sphere are now the same spell, you just choose the shape. It looks to be a strict super-set of basic -- nothing is more complicated, there are just many more options. Some chapters -- equipment -- appear to be identical, just with art.
Speaking of the art, it's pretty fantastic. It reminds me of the original 2E books w/ the full color plates; many non-battle scenes, just showing fantasy characters doing cool stuff. Also plenty of ethnic and gender diversity. I recognize some WAR and William O'Connor...overall a very diverse mix.
Yeah, some of the previews of the art I have seen had Mr Reynolds in it (much the the dismay of many over at the wizards forums, who hate his artstyle because Paizo uses him so much with their books).
Is wild shape like it was in 3rd edition (replace the physical stats) like I heard it was? I would look on that enworld thread, but I really don't want to sift through thousands upon thousands of posts. That's my biggest question at the moment, as druid is one of my favorite classes.
Yeah, some of the previews of the art I have seen had Mr Reynolds in it (much the the dismay of many over at the wizards forums, who hate his artstyle because Paizo uses him so much with their books).
Is wild shape like it was in 3rd edition (replace the physical stats) like I heard it was? I would look on that enworld thread, but I really don't want to sift through thousands upon thousands of posts. That's my biggest question at the moment, as druid is one of my favorite classes.
Yes, you do assume the creature's stats a la third edition; However, the creatures you can turn into are sharply curtailed. At 2nd level, you can turn into something with a CR of 1/4 and without a fly or swim speed. At 4th it goes up to CR 1/2 with swim speed OK, but still no flying. At 8th level you get CR 1 and no restrictions on movement types. Also no spell casting. Finally, you get the creature's hit points. If they're depleted, you revert to you normal form (minus the damage taken). It looks to have become a pure utility ability...I doubt you'll be doing much tanking. :P
One thing I appreciated is that the statistics for many animals you may want to wild-shape into are in a PHB appendix.
|
I read through the basic rules several time and I like alot of what I see, except for the changes to spells and spellcasters. The more I re-read what they did the less I like it.
Protection from energy now only gives you resistance (half damage) and its a concentration spell so you'll only have one going at any one time.
The spellcasters ability to help in combat has been severely reduced (except for dealing damage). Buffs/debuffs are all or mostly concentration spells, Wall spells are concentration, etc.
I think they failed big time in their attempt to "balance" martials and casters.
At least this is how I see things.
|
|
That was a large swath of posts removed.
So, Bugleyman. Got any previews of the PHB for us? I don't have the moneys to get one myself, or I would possibly be reading my own copy and adding some previews myself.
I haven't had time to more than skim it, and there's quite a bit of material on enworld.org, but if you have specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
I have a question, whats the difference betwwen Sorcerers and Wizards?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards and Sorcerers no longer share a spell list -- the wizard list is larger. I'm assuming you know how prepared casters work from basic. Sorcerers still know a very limited number of spells, but can always cast any of them as long as they have the slots...basically, they're all always "prepared." This bit is pretty much unchanged from 3E.
Meta-magic is now solely the purview of the sorcerer. Rather than taking higher level spell slots, meta-magic is powered by a new resource: Sorcery Points. You basically get one sorcery point per sorcerer level (starting at 2nd), and use these to power meta-magic (among other things...like creating extra spell slots on the fly). Sorcerers are all about flexibility when it comes to magic...they can mess with spells in ways wizards cannot.
On one hand, I like that the wizard and sorcerer are more distinct. On the other hand, I still don't personally feel the need for two (or three if you count warlocks) full arcane casters. In fact, if they were going to bring over a class from the 4E PHB, I would have preferred Warlord to Warlock. Warlord healing would have fit in perfectly with 5E's hit point and healing paradigm.
|
|
Wizards and Sorcerers no longer share a spell list -- the wizard list is larger. I'm assuming you know how prepared casters work from basic. Sorcerers still know a very limited number of spells, but can always cast any of them as long as they have the slots...basically, they're all always "prepared." This bit is pretty much unchanged from 3E.
Meta-magic is now solely the purview of the sorcerer. Rather than taking higher level spell slots, meta-magic is powered by a new resource: Sorcery Points. You basically get one sorcery point per sorcerer level (starting at 2nd), and use these to power meta-magic (among other things...like creating extra spell slots on the fly). Sorcerers are all about flexibility when it comes to magic...they can mess with spells in ways wizards cannot.
On one hand, I like that the wizard and sorcerer are more distinct. On the other hand, I still don't personally feel the need for two (or three if you count warlocks) full arcane casters. In fact, if they were going to bring over a class from the 4E PHB, I would have preferred Warlord to Warlock. Warlord healing would have fit in perfectly with 5E's hit point and healing paradigm.
Personally I really didnt care at all for most of 4e.
I heard that the bard was going to have 9th lv spells, is this so? Does that make the bard a 4th full arcane caster?
So what does the Warcaster feat end up doing?
Yeah, some of the previews of the art I have seen had Mr Reynolds in it (much the the dismay of many over at the wizards forums, who hate his artstyle because Paizo uses him so much with their books).
Is wild shape like it was in 3rd edition (replace the physical stats) like I heard it was? I would look on that enworld thread, but I really don't want to sift through thousands upon thousands of posts. That's my biggest question at the moment, as druid is one of my favorite classes.
Yes, you do assume the creature's stats a la third edition; However, the creatures you can turn into are sharply curtailed. At 2nd level, you can turn into something with a CR of 1/4 and without a fly or swim speed. At 4th it goes up to CR 1/2 with swim speed OK, but still no flying. At 8th level you get CR 1 and no restrictions on movement types. Also no spell casting. Finally, you get the creature's hit points. If they're depleted, you revert to you normal form (minus the damage taken). It looks to have become a pure utility ability...I doubt you'll be doing much tanking. :P
One thing I appreciated is that the statistics for many animals you may want to wild-shape into are in a PHB appendix.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I heard that the bard was going to have 9th lv spells, is this so? Does that make the bard a 4th full arcane caster?
Yup, bards are full casters. Warlocks, on the other hand, aren't full casters like the others. They work on a different set of mechanics.
So, unless my count is off, it's only three full arcane casters. Plus the two divine ones (cleric and druid).
So what does the Warcaster feat end up doing?Or more generally, is there anything to mitigate the Concentration issue?
Warcaster gives advantage on concentration saves, lets you cast spells with somatic components even if your hands are full of weapons/shields, and lets you use single-target spells to fill in for opportunity attacks.
So it helps some.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
Not sure I like the critical system. Its only a x2 on the damage dice, meaning that you only double the weapon damage then add in everything else. They do allow sneak attack to be doubled on a crit (this is because rogues only get to sneak attack ONCE per round).
How it works is that if you roll a natural 20 its an auto hit and a crit.
Iirc, that's how it worked in AD&D: only on a natural 20 and no confirmation roll. (We had a house rule to roll again, and a second natural 20 was triple damage; if you rolled a third 20, it was an instant kill -- but I don't think I ever actually saw it happen.)
Without a confirmation roll, there will be more crits at lower levels, which, in theory, balances out the lesser damage. By restricting it to natural 20s, the crit rate ought to stay about the same at all levels, rather than them happening more often at higher levels with more bonuses to attack rolls and wider crit ranges, unless they introduce some kind of keen weapon enhancement. Crits become (return to?) more a matter of luck than of build.
I think one of the fighter subclasses (or even just the normal fighter no matter what you choose at 3rd) can crit on a roll of more than just a natural 20. Not sure if that is possible with barbarian, ranger, or paladin or rogue.
I heard that the bard was going to have 9th lv spells, is this so? Does that make the bard a 4th full arcane caster?
It is so, and I suppose it does. No to mention that the bard's spell list is roughly the same size as the sorcerer's.
There is a lot less emphasis on the Divine/Arcane split this time around...in fact, I haven't seen a single place where it makes any mechanical difference.
So, unless my count is off, it's only three full arcane casters. Plus the two divine ones (cleric and druid).
No, you're absolutely correct; I was wrong about Warlocks. The Warlock casting mechanic is strange; I'd have to see it in play. It does cap at 5th level, however.
Paladin and Ranger have 5 spell levels, correct? And I think Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster get up to 4th level?
It is nice to see that you can basically play an Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster from the beginning.
Crits do a lot less damage than in pathfinder or 3e, but since you were also worried about damage and concentration checks that's probably a good thing. The lower damage on crits means that a wizard who takes a crit isn't guaranteed to fail the concentration check he needs to maintain a spell (since it is either DC half the damage or 10, whichever is higher).
IMO pathfinder crit damage can get really ridiculous, especially with great weapons that have a x3 or x4 crit modifier or when characters power attack, smite etc... It can be real easy to one shot a monster with a crit, and it can be equally easily to one shot a PC with a crit, so it can make the game real swingy.
Wizards and Sorcerers no longer share a spell list -- the wizard list is larger. I'm assuming you know how prepared casters work from basic. Sorcerers still know a very limited number of spells, but can always cast any of them as long as they have the slots...basically, they're all always "prepared." This bit is pretty much unchanged from 3E.
Meta-magic is now solely the purview of the sorcerer. Rather than taking higher level spell slots, meta-magic is powered by a new resource: Sorcery Points. You basically get one sorcery point per sorcerer level (starting at 2nd), and use these to power meta-magic (among other things...like creating extra spell slots on the fly). Sorcerers are all about flexibility when it comes to magic...they can mess with spells in ways wizards cannot.
On one hand, I like that the wizard and sorcerer are more distinct. On the other hand, I still don't personally feel the need for two (or three if you count warlocks) full arcane casters. In fact, if they were going to bring over a class from the 4E PHB, I would have preferred Warlord to Warlock. Warlord healing would have fit in perfectly with 5E's hit point and healing paradigm.
Personally I really didnt care at all for most of 4e.
I heard that the bard was going to have 9th lv spells, is this so? Does that make the bard a 4th full arcane caster?
Iirc, that's how it worked in AD&D: only on a natural 20 and no confirmation roll. (We had a house rule to roll again, and a second natural 20 was triple damage; if you rolled a third 20, it was an instant kill -- but I don't think I ever actually saw it happen.)
In AD&D (at least 1st edition which is all I played) there were no official rules for critical hits that I can recall. Any critical hits in a 1E game would have been due to house rules.
EDIT: It's possible that crits may have come into the game in a Dragon article or Unearthed Arcana but I can't remember all of those additions.
My group played a weird amalgam of 1 & 2e when I started playing. I don't have my 2e books anymore, but I do have the 1e PHB and DMG and you're right: I can't find an entry for critical hits. Must have come from 2e. Or, as you say, Unearthed Arcana; we used that book, but I never had my own copy.