Now that you have access to the basic rules for 5th edition, what do you think?


4th Edition

101 to 150 of 592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

I never kept up with the playtest so I don't know what to expect in the PH other than mire choices. I think more choices is a good thing. I hated how little choice I saw in the free PDF.

I know it would be unfair to judge the system on this.little bit released so far. While I am willing to examine more, I was extremely disappointed at what u saw so far.

It looks to me like it is really designed for absolutely brand spanking new people who can only be shown so much before their eyes glaze over. At least the first 2 levels seem to be training wheels like a tutorial level or 2 like in many video games. This could be helpful for experienced players who want to introduce tabletop to people who never played before. I understand the best way to make sure somebody learned nothing of a subject is to give them goo much of a data dump that their brains cannot handle. So a slow curve us needed for brand new people. I also understand the masses of experienced players will just start at 3rd level as so many if them already do.

I really hate the restriction on ability scores, both not being able to buy past 15 and capping at 20. I think it is an attempt to prevent characters being particularly effective. This will extend the.length of flights, decreasing how often a fight ends before the weakly built pc gets to take a second turn. That would greatly reduce how many players wine that they are irrelevant compared to the player next to them.

I hate the basic games lack of flanking and the removal of five foot steps. Also very turned off how attacks if opportunity work, or are so unlikely to ever get provoked in the first place. Yes, I know removing 5' steps should thus allow mire AoO but when a person can dance all around you in a single turn, that does nit sit well with me that they can move about so much without. provoking.

I hate how they seem not to know a way to make the ftr look good st fighting so it looks more to me like they choose to make everyone else suck at fighting instead. For example, nearly all weapons have the exact same stats. Non ftr use d6, ftr use d10/12 or 2d6. All weapons have the same crit range/modifier so there is nearly no choice left to the player, again, they make others suck so the ftr can inky comparatively look good by doubling crit range, instead if giving everyone a choice and then give the ftr an extra choice like increase threat range ag or multiplier.

I do like how spells can use a higher level slot to more powerful effect. It is like the augmenting Psionics rules that I like. I dislike tbat spells do not scale from just haveing a high caster level if I recall correctly. Means those low level spells become.good for nothing but clean up phase.

So I would be willing to pick the book off the shelf at Barnes & Nobel to reevau it it so.e mire but currently, the odds are against actually buying more material. If I.play 5e, it.will only be Lilly because I dud nit have a chance to go join a second table.if PF thY week, or try another system like dragon age or Nearly anything post apocalypse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raymond Lambert wrote:

I never kept up with the playtest so I don't know what to expect in the PH other than mire choices. I think more choices is a good thing. I hated how little choice I saw in the free PDF.

I know it would be unfair to judge the system on this.little bit released so far. While I am willing to examine more, I was extremely disappointed at what u saw so far.

It looks to me like it is really designed for absolutely brand spanking new people who can only be shown so much before their eyes glaze over. At least the first 2 levels seem to be training wheels like a tutorial level or 2 like in many video games. This could be helpful for experienced players who want to introduce tabletop to people who never played before. I understand the best way to make sure somebody learned nothing of a subject is to give them goo much of a data dump that their brains cannot handle. So a slow curve us needed for brand new people. I also understand the masses of experienced players will just start at 3rd level as so many if them already do.

I really hate the restriction on ability scores, both not being able to buy past 15 and capping at 20. I think it is an attempt to prevent characters being particularly effective. This will extend the.length of flights, decreasing how often a fight ends before the weakly built pc gets to take a second turn. That would greatly reduce how many players wine that they are irrelevant compared to the player next to them.

I hate the basic games lack of flanking and the removal of five foot steps. Also very turned off how attacks if opportunity work, or are so unlikely to ever get provoked in the first place. Yes, I know removing 5' steps should thus allow mire AoO but when a person can dance all around you in a single turn, that does nit sit well with me that they can move about so much without. provoking.

I hate how they seem not to know a way to make the ftr look good st fighting so it looks more to me like they choose to make everyone else suck at fighting instead. For example, nearly all...

Its so strange that I could not be more opposite.

The game looks to me to be actually designed by somebody who actually understands how system complexity works, like the MTG desingers as opposed to 3.x which has a lot of needless complexity for almost no gain and lots of trap options that frankly shouldn't be in the system in the first place. I like that choices in next are actually playable at the table. I think that P2E could really take take this to heart. Don't put options that are tedious at the table in the game.

The game has flanking. It has flanking in a system that is designed for miniatures less play (YES TO THAT, the longer I play the less I think minatures are worth the time and effort. In the playtests I ran attacks of opportunity were provoked quite a bit, especially in the way that they were first invisioned, if you want to try and move around an armed comatant you get hit first. P2E would do really well to remember that and make it easy (even easier than 5E) for people to take a lot of attacks of opportunity. Quite frankly you CANNOT move past an armed person no matter how much of a threat the person behind them might be. Anybody with even rudementary levels of martial arts or fencing knows this.

I really like the restriction on ability scores. Honestly, when 3.X came out WOTC should have done a much better job of saying a 12 is a good score, 14 is a very good score and a 16 is the most you can start with. If you play that way, so hat it takes 20 level to get a +5 stat P2E math works a crapload better. in d20 games 16s should have ALWAYS been thought of as being the new 18's. (I wonder if 3d6, drop lowest add 4 would be a better way of making stats as well).

The fighter still has some problems but he is really better than everybody else at fighting especially at higher levels where he can bust out 6 or more attacks. I have long thought that the fighter needed a B09S remake but I also know that this won't happen because to many people want a fighter that can only do the things the next one does
a) make attacks b) be strong/fast they have at least added c) don't get hosed by saves constantly so thats nice.

I really like what they did to the spell system end to end. The spell scaling is one of the WORST examples of linear warriors/quadric wizards around. By tying spell power increases to spell slots it pushes the wizards back towards linear power scaling.

It doesn't change that if they don't have adventure paths or good expansion content I won't play but seriously a lot of the core ideas are ones that should be examined for P2E even if they choose a slightly different implementation.

Dark Archive

I played the first half or so of the starter set. That, and reading the recent release of the free pdf is where I got the impressions I have. As a starter set, it seems to really be just a tutorial level or two. I wanted to buy a reach weapon and the GM said no because the starter set has no reach weapons and he us trying to gage the starter set on its own. I respect his experiment. It will only be about two games anyway. We cleared out the cave complex and we expect to finish thr starter set in one more game. So far, I hated what I saw in the stRter set and free PDF. I am trying to remember material will be expanded. Not a single attack of opportunity happened all game, even when I tried to position myself so they would provoke as they passed.me to get to others. I wad told once you are engaged, they can dance all around you and not provoke as long as they do not leave you.

I do agree poor choices are better left unprinted, anytime.mire is written, it is usually my terrible price of garbage tiny touch screen phone keyboard messing up the word more.


Raymond Lambert wrote:
I played the first half or so of the starter set. That, and reading the recent release of the free pdf is where I got the impressions I have. As a starter set, it seems to really be just a tutorial level or two. I wanted to buy a reach weapon and the GM said no because the starter set has no reach weapons and he us trying to gage the starter set on its own. I respect his experiment. It will only be about two games anyway. We cleared out the cave complex and we expect to finish thr starter set in one more game. So far, I hated what I saw in the stRter set and free PDF. I am trying to remember material will be expanded. Not a single attack of opportunity happened all game, even when I tried to position myself so they would provoke as they passed.me to get to others. I wad told once you are engaged, they can dance all around you and not provoke as long as they do not leave you.

Out of curiosity, was 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder your first edition of D&D?


@ Raymond: There are attacks of opportunity rules in the starter set. If you leave a threatened square you provoke an AoO as in 3.5/pathfinder/4e. However there is a disengage action that can be used as your action. If you use that action you don't provoke any attacks of opportunity when you take you move action for the round. You forfeit your attack when you use this action, but it lets you move past enemies to get in a better position. It might be that your GM used the disengage action with the goblins so that they were able to move past you without taking any AoO.


So what is the starter set adventure like? Goblins in a cave complex?

It's not another rehash of Keep on the Borderlands is it?


Starter Set Adventure:

Actually, that is exactly how it starts: Goblins in a cave. From there it goes to raiding a brigand's complex, going through some ruins (with a dragon), and finally through a large-ish mine. Maps are very well done, but there isn't much back story.

My impression after one read-though is that it continue's WotC's recent run of mediocre adventures. YMMV.


I really don't like at will cantrips, but I like BA and the simplicity of the game. I will probably play a lot of D&D Next. I will still play PF as I am starting to get into PFS scenarios. And I really like your AP's and hope to be buying more as long as they stay creative.


Is it just me or does it really weird that the evil wizard, having 5 hit dices and act like a 4th level caster,labeled as CR1?


The adventure in the starter set is fairly sandboxy. Characters have lots of freedom to do what they want- lots of little quests to do and a few small dungeons that don't have to be completed in a particular order. It reminds me a lot of the first adventure in the Kingmaker AP (though the Stag Lord is a cooler villain than the villain in this adventure). I think it's a decent adventure for players and GMs new to the game. For experienced players and GMs it will seem like pretty typical D&D fair- the usually suspects for monsters, NPCs, quests goals, dungeon locations etc…

I'm not sure if I'd run it for my home group of experienced players, but I'd definitely consider running it for a group of people who were new(isn) to D&D.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well mine should be in the mail today. I'm pretty excited as I'm quite happy to sit down and teach my daughter D&D with a system that seems pretty easy to play from the start and HOPEFULLY not get too out of hand in later levels.

Of course in true D&D fashion with friends and no rules lawyers, we'll probably make up a fair bit and focus on FUN over anything else :D

She's 11 and I told her the four classes. She asked which each of them did and when I explained the rogue/thief class her eyes lit up and a grin of mischief hit her.

... am I going to have a lot of midnight phone calls from her asking to get bailed out of jail? O__O

Spoiler:
I don't actually believe that so don't worry


2 people marked this as a favorite.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:

The adventure in the starter set is fairly sandboxy. Characters have lots of freedom to do what they want- lots of little quests to do and a few small dungeons that don't have to be completed in a particular order. It reminds me a lot of the first adventure in the Kingmaker AP (though the Stag Lord is a cooler villain than the villain in this adventure). I think it's a decent adventure for players and GMs new to the game. For experienced players and GMs it will seem like pretty typical D&D fair- the usually suspects for monsters, NPCs, quests goals, dungeon locations etc…

I'm not sure if I'd run it for my home group of experienced players, but I'd definitely consider running it for a group of people who were new(isn) to D&D.

I intend to run it for experienced players. It will play different to other d20 so they will need to forget what they know

Sandbox, freedom, choice............more adventure, less path please


With regards to the dragon scenario.

Time is something a dragon doesn't worry about. He would not just gobble up the sister right away. He would more than likely take his time and not really worry about any outside intrusions. Remember, dragons are arrogant and live for a long time, there will he plenty of time to become that hero and go save her.


Am I reading the basic rules correctly in that the allowable Dex bonus is the same for each armor category (entire bonus for light armors, +2 for medium armors, and 0 for heavy armors)?

If so, this is so minor and nitpicky that I hesitate to even mention it, but I did like in 3.x that in each armor category there was a variety of allowable Dex bonuses. This meant that a character's Dex bonus and the armor's base AC were both considerations in which armor was picked, and this led to a variety of preferred armors.

Now, in most cases, each character is just going to gravitate to the same armor types: studded leather, half plate, and plate.

Also, "chainmail is now a heavy armor" is going to appear in all those "things that changed in 5th edition that you didn't know about" threads.


Andostre wrote:

Am I reading the basic rules correctly in that the allowable Dex bonus is the same for each armor category (entire bonus for light armors, +2 for medium armors, and 0 for heavy armors)?

If so, this is so minor and nitpicky that I hesitate to even mention it, but I did like in 3.x that in each armor category there was a variety of allowable Dex bonuses. This meant that a character's Dex bonus and the armor's base AC were both considerations in which armor was picked, and this led to a variety of preferred armors.

Now, in most cases, each character is just going to gravitate to the same armor types: studded leather, half plate, and plate.

Also, "chainmail is now a heavy armor" is going to appear in all those "things that changed in 5th edition that you didn't know about" threads.

I think that's by design; that is, a conscious choice to favor simplicity and consistency over additional detail which may (or may not) be more "realistic." I happen to like the change, but it is entirely a matter of opinion, of course. I do think that padded armor imposing disadvantage on stealth is a clear WTF moment, though.

As for "chainmail is heavy armor" -- That was a point of confusion during the very first 5E session I ran.


bugleyman wrote:
Andostre wrote:

Am I reading the basic rules correctly in that the allowable Dex bonus is the same for each armor category (entire bonus for light armors, +2 for medium armors, and 0 for heavy armors)?

If so, this is so minor and nitpicky that I hesitate to even mention it, but I did like in 3.x that in each armor category there was a variety of allowable Dex bonuses. This meant that a character's Dex bonus and the armor's base AC were both considerations in which armor was picked, and this led to a variety of preferred armors.

Now, in most cases, each character is just going to gravitate to the same armor types: studded leather, half plate, and plate.

Also, "chainmail is now a heavy armor" is going to appear in all those "things that changed in 5th edition that you didn't know about" threads.

I think that's by design; that is, a conscious choice to favor simplicity and consistency over additional detail which may (or may not) be more "realistic." I happen to like the change, but it is entirely a matter of opinion, of course. I do think that padded armor imposing disadvantage on stealth is a clear WTF moment, though.

I can (and do) get behind the overall design decision in favor of simplicity, but I like it more applied to things that need to be added up in the midst of combat, not a relatively static number on your character sheet. But as you say, that's a matter of preference, and it is a pretty minor nitpick.

Quote:
As for "chainmail is heavy armor" -- That was a point of confusion during the very first 5E session I ran.

Called it! (Retroactively.)


Assuming you can afford the better armours. The entire economy of D&D has changed in this edition, which IMO is a pretty significant change to the game (in a good way). Because it isn't assumed that PCs will have magic items, and since magic items aren't by default available for purchase DMs aren't under any requirement to give out big/unrealistic hordes of treasure. Consequently, PCs might be saving up a while to buy expensive mundane armour.

For instance, I'll probably start my adventurers pretty poor and make adventure a while to get the money they need to upgrade mundane gear.

Andostre wrote:

Am I reading the basic rules correctly in that the allowable Dex bonus is the same for each armor category (entire bonus for light armors, +2 for medium armors, and 0 for heavy armors)?

If so, this is so minor and nitpicky that I hesitate to even mention it, but I did like in 3.x that in each armor category there was a variety of allowable Dex bonuses. This meant that a character's Dex bonus and the armor's base AC were both considerations in which armor was picked, and this led to a variety of preferred armors.

Now, in most cases, each character is just going to gravitate to the same armor types: studded leather, half plate, and plate.

Also, "chainmail is now a heavy armor" is going to appear in all those "things that changed in 5th edition that you didn't know about" threads.


I love the advantage system and dislike the ability score cap, seems like a needless restriction. Do dragons and titans have 20 strength, or more?

I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.


GypsyMischief wrote:

I love the advantage system and dislike the ability score cap, seems like a needless restriction. Do dragons and titans have 20 strength, or more?

I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.

1) I too like the simplicity of the advantage/disadvantage system. Keeps things flowing pretty quickly.

2) The ability score cap is really not "needless" at all. One of the core design concepts of 5E is the notion of "bounded accuracy" which is in place to keep number escalation to a minimum. Attack bonuses and armor classes are all in a much tighter range now than in 3.X/4E/PF and a limit on ability scores (which would influence attack bonuses) is essential. Large monsters can have STR scores higher than 20. The cap is just for PCs.

3) Mages have the same attack bonus (for the weapons they are proficient with) as every other class. Their overall attack bonuses for fighting with weapons might be slightly lower as their STR and DEX scores probably won't be as high as more martially inclined classes since they will likely be focusing their ability score increases on INT. Personally, I don't like this change at all. I think Wizards should be worse at fighting with weapons than other classes because they spend their training time focusing on spell casting.


Logan1138 wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:

I love the advantage system and dislike the ability score cap, seems like a needless restriction. Do dragons and titans have 20 strength, or more?

I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.

2) The ability score cap is really not "needless" at all. One of the core design concepts of 5E is the notion of "bounded accuracy" which is in place to keep number escalation to a minimum. Attack bonuses and armor classes are all in a much tighter range now than in 3.X/4E/PF and a limit on ability scores (which would influence attack bonuses) is essential. Large monsters can have STR scores higher than 20. The cap is just for PCs.

3) Mages have the same attack bonus (for the weapons they are proficient with) as every other class. Their overall attack bonuses for fighting with weapons might be slightly lower as their STR and DEX scores probably won't be as high as more martially inclined classes since they will likely be focusing their ability score increases on INT. Personally, I don't like this change at all. I think Wizards should be worse at fighting with weapons than other classes because they spend their training time focusing on spell casting.

2) Even more so since you can get even more stat boosts than in 3.x.

3) They will be worse. As you say, they likely won't have the same stat bonuses, but they also won't be getting the various special abilities the martial classes get. Their Base attack bonus is the same, but that's very different than being as good at fighting with weapons.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:
I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.

Sounds good to me. I also hope fighters get to learn to cast spells. I'm not sure where this trope of the swordsman being inept at magic came from, but it needs to be put down.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The cap only applies to PCs (and in theory most small/medium sized humanoid races). I LOVE the cap on ability scores. I like that they say that the normal human maximum for an attribute is 18 (though they allow for adventurers to go up to 20). This keeps the game in the realm of a fantasy game, and makes the game feel a bit less like a super heroes game in a fantasy setting, which is what pathfinder and 4e feel like to me (especially at higher levels). As soon as attributes start going over 18-20 the game begins to feel more like a super heroes rpg and less like a fantasy rpg.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I glanced over the free PDF a bit, and I was very intrigued by a couple of things.

One is the way there's saves tied to every ability score instead of just three. I'm shamelessly stealing this for future homebrew stuff.

The other is the "proficiency" mechanic. There's a bonus (which scales very slowly with level) that is applied to anything you're "proficient" in: certain skills, certain saves, certain weapons, certain tools*, and your save DCs. This will be influencing future homebrew one way or another as well.

*I also like that certain skills have been replaced by the concept of being proficient with certain tools that you would have to use for that skill anyway. For instance, instead of having Disable Device as a skill, since it always involves thieves' tools, you'd just be proficient in thieves' tools and get that proficiency bonus to anything you use those tools for. I like it!


@Logan- Mages still are worse at fighting- especially than the fighter.

Let's say you build a 3rd level elven mage, and your mage has a 17 Dex. Since you are an elf you get some proficiency with decent weapons. So you could fight with a rapier and have +5 to hit and do 1d8+3 damage.

The fighter with 17 strength might have a longsword and have +5 to hit and do 1d8+3 damage.

In that respect they seem about the same in a fight. However, the fighter will very likely have a higher AC since he will probably have a shield and heavy armour. He will almost certainly have more HP to spare. He will have a benefit from his fighting style, and he will crit on a 19-20 (assuming champion build). He can regain hp with second wind, and he can take an action surge to hit the mage twice during a fight. At fifth level he will make two attacks each round.

So the fighter is still going to trounce a mage in a straight up fight, even if the mage is pretty good with a rapier.

What it does mean for the mage is that, depending on how you build him, he may not be totally useless in melee if he runs out of spells. He's certainly not going to outshine the fighter though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I read all the playtest rules, but I didn't do the surveys. I still feel like I got everything I wanted. I've been DMing RIse of the Runelords for the past year using PF, and I just started to get burned out around level 8. I found myself doing more math and less exploration of the narrative elements of the game and at the table we were spending more and more time talking about rules elements and what character/monster could or couldn't do, and while this was fun in the same way deck building in magic is fun, I personally yearned for something else. I have a two players from my long term group that really enjoy character optimization and I'm sure they would prefer to stick to PF. But since neither of them want to GM PF, they'll have to find someone that wants to.

I think Wizards is doing a smart thing and producing a game for DMs. Their first product was a DM product. The reason I think this is clever is that DM are organizers of games. Ask yourself, if you're primarily DM or are a player, how hard is it to find a game? If you don't live in an area with other roleplayers, on roll20, it appears that advertisements for DMs appears 50 times as often as an add for players. I can DM/GM a game anytime I want, pretty much. And if I was willing, I could bring in new players. With 5e, I probably will, because of how easy it is to play.


thejeff wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:
I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.
Sounds good to me. I also hope fighters get to learn to cast spells. I'm not sure where this trope of the swordsman being inept at magic came from, but it needs to be put down.

Well that was needlessly catty. I apologize for reading LOTR as a child and in turn desiring a magician who can wield a sword. I guess I should only want to play my fantasy games the way Gygax intended. Break out the THAC0, boys, and get that Dwarven druid out of my face, I don't like new things, rabble rabble rabble.

I'm just going to stick with Savage Worlds, WOTC already has a bunch of my money.


That's pretty much exactly how I've been feeling about PF lately.

Ari Kanen wrote:

I read all the playtest rules, but I didn't do the surveys. I still feel like I got everything I wanted. I've been DMing RIse of the Runelords for the past year using PF, and I just started to get burned out around level 8. I found myself doing more math and less exploration of the narrative elements of the game and at the table we were spending more and more time talking about rules elements and what character/monster could or couldn't do, and while this was fun in the same way deck building in magic is fun, I personally yearned for something else. I have a two players from my long term group that really enjoy character optimization and I'm sure they would prefer to stick to PF. But since neither of them want to GM PF, they'll have to find someone that wants to.

I think Wizards is doing a smart thing and producing a game for DMs. Their first product was a DM product. The reason I think this is clever is that DM are organizers of games. Ask yourself, if you're primarily DM or are a player, how hard is it to find a game? If you don't live in an area with other roleplayers, on roll20, it appears that advertisements for DMs appears 50 times as often as an add for players. I can DM/GM a game anytime I want, pretty much. And if I was willing, I could bring in new players. With 5e, I probably will, because of how easy it is to play.


GypsyMischief wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:
I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.
Sounds good to me. I also hope fighters get to learn to cast spells. I'm not sure where this trope of the swordsman being inept at magic came from, but it needs to be put down.

Well that was needlessly catty. I apologize for reading LOTR as a child and in turn desiring a magician who can wield a sword. I guess I should only want to play my fantasy games the way Gygax intended. Break out the THAC0, boys, and get that Dwarven druid out of my face, I don't like new things, rabble rabble rabble.

I'm just going to stick with Savage Worlds, WOTC already has a bunch of my money.

Given that spellcasters are already by far the most powerful classes in the game, I'd actually kind of assumed you were being sarcastic.

Less cattily (is that a word?), letting one class do everything well is not a good idea in a class based system. Whether that's giving the fighter spells or letting the wizard be a good swordsman.
That said, there are already plenty of ways to play a gish in D&D/PF and always have been: From Elves in 0D&D through multiclasses in AD&D and to Eldritch Knights and Dragon Disciples and Magi and probably other variants in PF today.

But making the core Wizard a good melee fighter without giving up something for it is not a good plan.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:

@Logan- Mages still are worse at fighting- especially than the fighter.

Let's say you build a 3rd level elven mage, and your mage has a 17 Dex. Since you are an elf you get some proficiency with decent weapons. So you could fight with a rapier and have +5 to hit and do 1d8+3 damage.

The fighter with 17 strength might have a longsword and have +5 to hit and do 1d8+3 damage.

In that respect they seem about the same in a fight. However, the fighter will very likely have a higher AC since he will probably have a shield and heavy armour. He will almost certainly have more HP to spare. He will have a benefit from his fighting style, and he will crit on a 19-20 (assuming champion build). He can regain hp with second wind, and he can take an action surge to hit the mage twice during a fight. At fifth level he will make two attacks each round.

So the fighter is still going to trounce a mage in a straight up fight, even if the mage is pretty good with a rapier.

What it does mean for the mage is that, depending on how you build him, he may not be totally useless in melee if he runs out of spells. He's certainly not going to outshine the fighter though.

I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about this topic but I should have been more precise in my original statement: I don't like the fact that a wizard can have the same ability to hit a foe in combat with a weapon as a fighter.

I realize that fighters will have extra "stuff" (higher AC, more HP, etc) that makes them better overall in a melee fight but the mere fact that a 1st level wizard will often have the same chance to hit while using a weapon(+4 or +5) as a 1st level fighter simply "feels wrong" to me.

NOTE: Elves do not get proficiency with a rapier (at least in the Basic PDF), they only get long sword and short sword for melee weapons.


Logan1138 wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:

@Logan- Mages still are worse at fighting- especially than the fighter.

Let's say you build a 3rd level elven mage, and your mage has a 17 Dex. Since you are an elf you get some proficiency with decent weapons. So you could fight with a rapier and have +5 to hit and do 1d8+3 damage.

The fighter with 17 strength might have a longsword and have +5 to hit and do 1d8+3 damage.

In that respect they seem about the same in a fight. However, the fighter will very likely have a higher AC since he will probably have a shield and heavy armour. He will almost certainly have more HP to spare. He will have a benefit from his fighting style, and he will crit on a 19-20 (assuming champion build). He can regain hp with second wind, and he can take an action surge to hit the mage twice during a fight. At fifth level he will make two attacks each round.

So the fighter is still going to trounce a mage in a straight up fight, even if the mage is pretty good with a rapier.

What it does mean for the mage is that, depending on how you build him, he may not be totally useless in melee if he runs out of spells. He's certainly not going to outshine the fighter though.

I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about this topic but I should have been more precise in my original statement: I don't like the fact that a wizard can have the same ability to hit a foe in combat with a weapon as a fighter.

I realize that fighters will have extra "stuff" (higher AC, more HP, etc) that makes them better overall in a melee fight but the mere fact that a 1st level wizard will often have the same chance to hit while using a weapon(+4 or +5) as a 1st level fighter simply "feels wrong" to me.

NOTE: Elves do not get proficiency with a rapier (at least in the Basic PDF), they only get long sword and short sword for melee weapons.

I think the point you're choosing to ignore is that in 5E, perhaps more than other editions, "chance to hit" isn't what defines "good with a weapon". Overall, fighters are going to hit harder and more often, starting at first level and with the difference growing with levels.


@Logan

I had the same reaction as you when I first heard that they had gone with a flat proficiency bonus that scales the same for all classes, as opposed to in the playtest where different classes had slightly different attack bonus advancement. Apparently it was done to make the multi-classing rules smoother. Now that I've had a bit of time to sit with the rules I don't mind it, but to get past it you kind of have to look beyond those base bonuses when you consider what defines a character as being good at something.


Ari Kanen wrote:


I think Wizards is doing a smart thing and producing a game for DMs. Their first product was a DM product. The reason I think this is clever is that DM are organizers of games. Ask yourself, if you're primarily DM or are a player, how hard is it to find a game? If you don't live in an area with other roleplayers, on roll20, it appears that advertisements for DMs appears 50 times as often as an add for players. I can DM/GM a game anytime I want, pretty much. And if I was willing, I could bring in new players. With 5e, I probably will, because of how easy it is to play.

I am curious to see how 5E turns out, but I think it's really really really too early to see how much 5E is a DM's game. Right now it's early in the game, and so they need to set up the basics, which is going to be pretty GM friendly. I would be willing to bet we will see a lot more player support than DM support, simply because it's more profitable and that was the pattern for the last two editions of the game.

It is simpler right now, but again I think complexity may very well increase, even if its at a lesser rate than 3.5/Pathfinder.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
For instance, I'll probably start my adventurers pretty poor and make adventure a while to get the money they need to upgrade mundane gear.

Because of the base change that magic items aren't assumed, I'm heavily thinking of changing the economy further. Change the base trade payout to sp instead of gp per day, adjusting the ratios of cp to sp and so on to something more realistic, and adjusting lifestyle costs to work with these as well. Item prices will be tweaked as well. You can finally do something about these issues and not feel like you're screwing over your players.


GypsyMischief wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:
I hope mages finally get to learn how to fight. I'm not sure where this trope of the magician being inept in melee came from, but it needs to be put down.
Sounds good to me. I also hope fighters get to learn to cast spells. I'm not sure where this trope of the swordsman being inept at magic came from, but it needs to be put down.
Well that was needlessly catty. I apologize for reading LOTR as a child and in turn desiring a magician who can wield a sword. I guess I should only want to play my fantasy games the way Gygax intended. Break out the THAC0, boys, and get that Dwarven druid out of my face, I don't like new things, rabble rabble rabble.

I don't know of anything in any edition since 3e that would in any way prevent you from playing a mage that could fight with a sword. In fact, every edition since 3e has featured advanced classes specifically for mages that fight with a sword. What, exactly, are you complaining about, here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't want mages to be an out of the box gish, or come close to dedicated swordsman in terms of melee power, but I do want proficiency with a slightly wider berth of weapons than Staff, Sling, Club, Dagger and Crossbow. However, that universal to-hit progression thing is pretty nifty, that's pretty much exactly what I was going for. An adventuring mage is still an adventurer, and I feel as though adventurers worth their salt can swing a pointy stick to some effect.

@Scott Betts, I'm not looking for a gish, man, I just want to be a mage that can attack that guy standing in front of him with a sword, and not get laughed at when he rolls a 19 and still doesn't connect. Initially I wasn't complaining, I was just sayin' "Hey, what if we could assume that adventuring magicians have some competency with weapons, so that the early levels weren't so brutal." And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.


There are 12 classes coming total each with several sublcasses. Through them, vast majority mix melee and casting to some degree. All except the wizard will have a martial option. Similarly, through them all martials will have magic options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GypsyMischief wrote:
And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.

Sadly, that's all too common. We tend to turn on each other quite readily. :-/


I'm still working my way through the pdf. I did have a double take in the race description for dwarf. Where it says "bold and hardy" somehow I read that initially as "bald and hairy" which gave me a very odd mental picture.


yukarjama wrote:
Is it just me or does it really weird that the evil wizard, having 5 hit dices and act like a 4th level caster,labeled as CR1?

It's one of those things that is a bit jarring, but in fact the CR system in PF and 3E is woefully inaccurate when dealing with the actual challenge posed by NPCs.

(There are a set of NPC Rogues in Council of Thieves which apparently are CR 10, but when you actually analyse their stats, they are comparable to CR 6 monsters.)

That said, monsters seem to be a lot deadlier than you'd initially assume in 5E...

Cheers,
Merric


GypsyMischief wrote:

I don't want mages to be an out of the box gish, or come close to dedicated swordsman in terms of melee power, but I do want proficiency with a slightly wider berth of weapons than Staff, Sling, Club, Dagger and Crossbow. However, that universal to-hit progression thing is pretty nifty, that's pretty much exactly what I was going for. An adventuring mage is still an adventurer, and I feel as though adventurers worth their salt can swing a pointy stick to some effect.

@Scott Betts, I'm not looking for a gish, man, I just want to be a mage that can attack that guy standing in front of him with a sword, and not get laughed at when he rolls a 19 and still doesn't connect. Initially I wasn't complaining, I was just sayin' "Hey, what if we could assume that adventuring magicians have some competency with weapons, so that the early levels weren't so brutal." And then I got trounced, because the forums are a happy place.

Partly because it wasn't clear that's what you were saying, rather than "Why can't wizards also be fighters?"

Still, even that's always been possible if you're willing to devote some resources to it. And at early levels being a couple points behind in BAB isn't that big a deal. The fighter's advantage is coming more from str bonus and feats than BAB.


Exactly. Finally. This is one of my favourite changes in the new edition (possibly my most favourite). It's a real game changer.

Buri wrote:
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
For instance, I'll probably start my adventurers pretty poor and make adventure a while to get the money they need to upgrade mundane gear.
You can finally do something about these issues and not feel like you're screwing over your players.


thejeff wrote:
Given that spellcasters are already by far the most powerful classes in the game, I'd actually kind of assumed you were being sarcastic.

Spellcasters are the most powerful in what game? In 3.5? In Pathfinder? In Next?

Just because spellcasters had a problematic power level in a past edition doesn't mean that is guaranteed to be the case in the new one. Assuming that they have found a better way to balance them - and my sense thus far is that the have - allowing for more versatile builds for the class is not inherently unbalancing. And a wizard able to be competent in melee combat - but still not the star of the show that the fighter will be - seems quite reasonable to me.

One can object to the idea for thematic reasons, but as mentioned, there are plenty of works of fantasy fiction (like LOTR) where being a wizard doesn't mean you can't swing a sword. You can object to the idea for balance reasons - but I haven't seen any actual indications that anything here unbalances the game.

And, again, the wizard does just inherently become an expert swordsman. If you have the stats to support it, and the proficiency to wield a weapon - whether from racial features or otherwise - you get to be competent at using that weapon. Like you said - past editions had plenty of ways to blend such skills, including Elves in 0D&D.

So now an Elven Wizard gets to be a decent swordsman. Why is this version somehow a problem compared to the versions in the past?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Logan1138 wrote:

I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about this topic but I should have been more precise in my original statement: I don't like the fact that a wizard can have the same ability to hit a foe in combat with a weapon as a fighter.

I realize that fighters will have extra "stuff" (higher AC, more HP, etc) that makes them better overall in a melee fight but the mere fact that a 1st level wizard will often have the same chance to hit while using a weapon(+4 or +5) as a 1st level fighter simply "feels wrong" to me.

This change in D&D 5E is due to bounded accuracy.

Quoting:
"The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases."

So fighters are better than wizards in combat due to the damage they do, the hit points they have, and their class features. Follows one of the core design principles of D&D 5E that is bounded accuracy.


Matthew Koelbl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Given that spellcasters are already by far the most powerful classes in the game, I'd actually kind of assumed you were being sarcastic.

Spellcasters are the most powerful in what game? In 3.5? In Pathfinder? In Next?

Just because spellcasters had a problematic power level in a past edition doesn't mean that is guaranteed to be the case in the new one. Assuming that they have found a better way to balance them - and my sense thus far is that the have - allowing for more versatile builds for the class is not inherently unbalancing. And a wizard able to be competent in melee combat - but still not the star of the show that the fighter will be - seems quite reasonable to me.

One can object to the idea for thematic reasons, but as mentioned, there are plenty of works of fantasy fiction (like LOTR) where being a wizard doesn't mean you can't swing a sword. You can object to the idea for balance reasons - but I haven't seen any actual indications that anything here unbalances the game.

And, again, the wizard does just inherently become an expert swordsman. If you have the stats to support it, and the proficiency to wield a weapon - whether from racial features or otherwise - you get to be competent at using that weapon. Like you said - past editions had plenty of ways to blend such skills, including Elves in 0D&D.

So now an Elven Wizard gets to be a decent swordsman. Why is this version somehow a problem compared to the versions in the past?

It's possible that 5E has solved the caster/martial disparity problem that existed in OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 3.x and PF (in different forms and to different degrees), and that was addressed by by drastically flattening abilities in 4E, and has done so with a system that looks far more like those earlier versions than like 4E. I find it unlikely.

And again, it depends on what you mean by "decent swordsman". If you mean "Can hold a sword without embarassing himself", that's been possible with minimal investment in every version of the game. If you mean "Can compete with the martial classes in melee", which is what I assumed the OP meant by "get to learn how to fight", it's also always been possible, but required enough investment to weaken their casting abilities. Which is a good thing. Even if there was no caster/martial imbalance, allowing casters to fight as well as martials and cast would inherently create one.

So yeah, I have no problem with a mage being proficient at using a sword, whether from a racial feature or multiclassing or a feat or what have you. I have a problem with them being close to as competent as a fighter with swords without giving up some of their casting ability. Or what would be the point in being a fighter. Note that in 5E, "competent" would not include just the proficiency/base attack bonus, but the overall packages of things that martials get to be better at fighting.

Similarly, fighters shouldn't just add spellcasting without giving up some fighting ability, as I, admittedly snarkedly, pointed out in my original reply. For exactly the same reasons and with the same kinds of limits.

TLDR: I don't consider an Elven wizard to be a decent swordsman, just because he has proficiency with the weapon. Without a very specific build (and probably more buff spells than I've seen yet in 5E), he's going to rapidly become a lousy swordsman and it will be a waste of his time and very dangerous to rely on his sword in any real combat. Especially when he's got scaling combat cantrips to use:)


The Basic game is just a baseline.

Individual groups have preferences, and it's explicitly understood that they can adapt the rules for the way they want the rules to operate.

Basic is going to usually go with the easiest or least complicated option.

But for example:
Melees: full prof. on weapons
Clerics: half prof. on weapons
Wizards: no prof. on weapons, disadvantage on non-prof

Or some variation.

More complicated to explain or remember, but it isn't going to break your game.

Dark Archive

thejeff wrote:
It's possible that 5E has solved the caster/martial disparity problem that existed in OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 3.x and PF (in different forms and to different degrees), and that was addressed by by drastically flattening abilities in 4E, and has done so with a system that looks far more like those earlier versions than like 4E. I find it unlikely.

Caster/Martial disparity didn't exist in OD&D, AD&D or BECMI - it was a Wotc invention via 3rd ed.

Never heard or seen a power gap between fighters and wizards in older editions of the game. In many cases Fighters would run roughshod over some encounters (all the bonuses from str, specialization and the broken double specialization, save paradigm, etc) while casters had considerably less spells, spells were harder to cast and some had some dire & risky side effects, lower hp, etc. The class had to be played cautiously at all levels.

I could make viable Martial BBEG in older editions - some that were scary, not so much in 3rd + 3rd ed derived games.
And by not so much I mean - not at all.


thejeff wrote:
And again, it depends on what you mean by "decent swordsman". If you mean "Can hold a sword without embarassing himself", that's been possible with minimal investment in every version of the game.

Except that isn't the case. If a wizard, in 3.5, spends a feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency, and has an average Strength score, than they are moderately competent with it at level 1, when compared to the Fighter. But, by level 10, it has become basically useless for them.

With the approach Next is taking, the Wizard who has some basic melee combat ability at level 1 will still retain that basic competency at level 10. Does that mean that swinging the weapon will be their best option each round? Probably not. But the ability to use it and not embarass themselves will be there, without the significant investment it would take to do the same in previous editions.

thejeff wrote:
If you mean "Can compete with the martial classes in melee", which is what I assumed the OP meant by "get to learn how to fight", it's also always been possible, but required enough investment to weaken their casting abilities.

Ok, sounds like we are actually on pretty close to the same page. A lot of the comments I've seen were concerns that the removal of different BAB classes made the wizard 'as good a swordsman' as the fighter. I don't think it does, but I think it does give them a level of melee skill that is functional, without being nearly as heavy an investment as required in the past.

I agree that a build where the wizard is just as much a threat in melee as the fighter, and just as capable of taking punishment on the front lines, is the sort of thing that should require a specific build and the right resources to manage.

But I also think that there is a difference between being a capable melee combatant, and a melee expert, and that letting wizards have access to the first option - if they have the stats and proficiency to back it up - is a good thing.


Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's possible that 5E has solved the caster/martial disparity problem that existed in OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 3.x and PF (in different forms and to different degrees), and that was addressed by by drastically flattening abilities in 4E, and has done so with a system that looks far more like those earlier versions than like 4E. I find it unlikely.

Caster/Martial disparity didn't exist in OD&D, AD&D or BECMI - it was a Wotc invention via 3rd ed.

Never heard or seen a power gap between fighters and wizards in older editions of the game. In many cases Fighters would run roughshod over some encounters (all the bonuses from str, specialization and the broken double specialization, save paradigm, etc) while casters had considerably less spells, spells were harder to cast and some had some dire & risky side effects, lower hp, etc. The class had to be played cautiously at all levels.

I could make viable Martial BBEG in older editions - some that were scary, not so much in 3rd + 3rd ed derived games.
And by not so much I mean - not at all.

Now that's just not true. It was different. Maybe you never saw it. Some people claim there's no such thing in PF. But it makes no sense to claim it didn't exist.

You can argue that it was ameliorated by how hard it was to get a magic-user up to high levels. I've seen plenty of claims that overpowered high level magic-users were justified by the high death rate of low level ones.

I won't go further than this, since it was a side point to a side argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And again, it depends on what you mean by "decent swordsman". If you mean "Can hold a sword without embarassing himself", that's been possible with minimal investment in every version of the game.

Except that isn't the case. If a wizard, in 3.5, spends a feat on Martial Weapon Proficiency, and has an average Strength score, than they are moderately competent with it at level 1, when compared to the Fighter. But, by level 10, it has become basically useless for them.

With the approach Next is taking, the Wizard who has some basic melee combat ability at level 1 will still retain that basic competency at level 10. Does that mean that swinging the weapon will be their best option each round? Probably not. But the ability to use it and not embarass themselves will be there, without the significant investment it would take to do the same in previous editions.

thejeff wrote:
If you mean "Can compete with the martial classes in melee", which is what I assumed the OP meant by "get to learn how to fight", it's also always been possible, but required enough investment to weaken their casting abilities.

Ok, sounds like we are actually on pretty close to the same page. A lot of the comments I've seen were concerns that the removal of different BAB classes made the wizard 'as good a swordsman' as the fighter. I don't think it does, but I think it does give them a level of melee skill that is functional, without being nearly as heavy an investment as required in the past.

I agree that a build where the wizard is just as much a threat in melee as the fighter, and just as capable of taking punishment on the front lines, is the sort of thing that should require a specific build and the right resources to manage.

But I also think that there is a difference between being a capable melee combatant, and a melee expert, and that letting wizards have access to the first option - if they have the stats and proficiency to back it up - is a good thing.

I suspect by level 10 (and probably well before), the wizard with a martial proficiency is going to essentially non-functional in melee. He might hit almost as well, due to bounded accuracy, but he'll attack less often, do less damage, do less criticals and probably many other things I'm not even thinking of. As well as die much quicker on the front lines. He'll still be fighting a bit worse than a 1st level fighter. Which is going to be basically useless at 10th level. Especially if you compare it to even the free scaling attack cantrips.

It appears different because combat scales differently. Rather than scaling the to hit, it's scaling by attacks and damage and other features. So the to hit stays in the same range and the wizard looks passable, if you just look at that, but none of the other stuff scales up.


Auxmaulous wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's possible that 5E has solved the caster/martial disparity problem that existed in OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 3.x and PF (in different forms and to different degrees), and that was addressed by by drastically flattening abilities in 4E, and has done so with a system that looks far more like those earlier versions than like 4E. I find it unlikely.

Caster/Martial disparity didn't exist in OD&D, AD&D or BECMI - it was a Wotc invention via 3rd ed.

Never heard or seen a power gap between fighters and wizards in older editions of the game. In many cases Fighters would run roughshod over some encounters (all the bonuses from str, specialization and the broken double specialization, save paradigm, etc) while casters had considerably less spells, spells were harder to cast and some had some dire & risky side effects, lower hp, etc. The class had to be played cautiously at all levels.

I could make viable Martial BBEG in older editions - some that were scary, not so much in 3rd + 3rd ed derived games.
And by not so much I mean - not at all.

There was some disparity, altouth it wasn't nearly as much as is seen today. A 10th level fighter in 1st ed. had not just his own abilities to draw on, he also had followers. However, a magic user with the same amount of experience was a full level higher - the magic user needed more xp to advance initially, but at around 6th level it shifted and the fighter needed more.

101 to 150 of 592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Now that you have access to the basic rules for 5th edition, what do you think? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.