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


4th Edition

351 to 400 of 592 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Auxmaulous wrote:
No, I get it Buri - the power of the PCs is relative to the challenges they may face. I just don't like that "locked in" power and intensity.

Would it be sufficient to be able to humble your players with a goblin raid when they're level 20? With Bounded Accuracy, you can do that.


I’ve played all versions of D&D. Even did 30 sessions of 4e, but eventually threw it away in frustration that it did not make our games more fun.

Been playing Pathfinder ever since, which is good, but high level combat is sooo slow I find it almost unbearable.

I’ve now read thru the free 5e rules and I think they seem like an old-school-ification of 3.5e. Which suits me fine. Will give the game a spin first chance I get. Hardest part will be convincing me rpg-conservative friends to try this new green eggs and ham stuff :)

Dark Archive

Buri wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
No, I get it Buri - the power of the PCs is relative to the challenges they may face. I just don't like that "locked in" power and intensity.
Would it be sufficient to be able to humble your players with a goblin raid when they're level 20? With Bounded Accuracy, you can do that.

It isn't so much about humbling the players - I'm not running my games to do that. And you can find a way to challenge any player in any game system - it's just a question of how high you want to ratchet things up to get them challenged. In PF I need to regularly run CR +3 to +4 encounters just to get a sense of fear (players are moderately to highly optimized). In this game it may be more. I need to playtest encounter after encounter party durability and resource use to get a better idea.

My issue beyond challenge (which is still a concern) is pace and immersion - when it comes to healing, resource use, encounter powers. Yeah, I know immersion is met with but "it's magic/it's fantasy!"....that phrase gets tossed around here quite a bit as cover for anything that doesn't make sense. I don't want to run a redline game 100% of the time, where players get dropped, revivified and then the next day they are cooking bacon and eggs as if nothing happened.

I also would like to run a more "silence of the lambs" feel of exploration - something akin to a mix of fear, wonder and extreme caution (think public storage shed scene/fight with buffalo bill) vs. something that requires the pacing of a Michael Bay movie to keep the players challenged or threatened.

The more I read the more I feel that things are taking a binary approach to success and failure in this system - advantage/disadvantage, easy revive and easy healing - so the only choices are absolute death or 100% full. Every encounter as a full encounter - which works great if you are trying to balance encounter challenge vs. party level but it's horrible if you are running a resource restricted game.

Anyway - I'm going over the Basic file again - taking a second look to find problems.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:


Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO.

I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed.

I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).

This is why I'm going to dodge the PHB - but yeah, it is starting to look like too many core components are default very high power or sets the game at very easy mode. This goes to my earlier posts concerning design philosophy. If Wotc is assuming that people want at will cantrips and full overnight healing as a default, then how are they going to lay out the rest of the game as the systems unfold?

Looking like I will be waiting on the DMG - and now at this point I don't think they will come through with what I want. Again, it's looking more like it won't be an option to run this like an older system with a system overhaul, but more likely a new system that has some trappings or "old-like" or "old-ish" but not the same. I don't think the DMG is going to provide us old-schoolers what we are looking for. At...

Ya know...when 5E was first announced and details were trickling in, I remember people getting very excited about the possibility of a modular game that would allow them to subtract and add elements to fit previous versions. Even then I figured that, as long as more powerful options exist, a good chunk (majority?) of those players are going to take the more powerful/complex version. Your last post kind of really gets at a potential problem I see with 5E. What exactly is the target market of existing players? I assumed this game would heavily draw upon the 1E/2E demographic, but opinion there seems to be mixed. And it seems to simplified to really appeal to a lot of 3.5/Pathfinder players. Would love to see some sort of poll with a much larger sample size than a couple of threads on this site.


Auxmaulous wrote:
It isn't so much about humbling the players - I'm not running my games to do that. And you can find a way to challenge any player in any game system - it's just a question of how high you want to ratchet things up to get them challenged. In PF I need to regularly run CR +3 to +4 encounters just to get a sense of fear (players are moderately to highly optimized). In this game it may be more. I need to playtest encounter after encounter party durability and resource use to get a better idea.

This is fine in 5e, actually. That dragon I mentioned? It's a challenge rating 8. So, assuming you're max level, a +3 CR is wtfpwn in their case. You may still not like the level of the game regardless, but level to CR is pretty tightly configured.

Auxmaulous wrote:
My issue beyond challenge (which is still a concern) is pace and immersion - when it comes to healing, resource use, encounter powers. Yeah, I know immersion is met with but "it's magic/it's fantasy!"....that phrase gets tossed around here quite a bit as cover for anything that doesn't make sense. I don't want to run a redline game 100% of the time, where players get dropped, revivified and then the next day they are cooking bacon and eggs as if nothing happened.

Literally the only two things you'd have to do to seal the low resource feel in a campaign ran otherwise RAW is to not allow spell casters, and restrict healing on a rest. Magic items are out by default except where you award them. They're not on the market at large.

Auxmaulous wrote:
I also would like to run a more "silence of the lambs" feel of exploration - something akin to a mix of fear, wonder and extreme caution (think public storage shed scene/fight with buffalo bill) vs. something that requires the pacing of a Michael Bay movie to keep the players challenged or threatened.

I'd hardly describe 5e as a Michael Bay movie. However, you can run an exploration/horror campaign in most any system. The primary components are the behavior of the GM and players such as no/little table talk, keeping them constantly engaged in the story, and so on. The system is secondary in a horror campaign.

Auxmaulous wrote:
The more I read the more I feel that things are taking a binary approach to success and failure in this system - advantage/disadvantage, easy revive and easy healing - so the only choices are absolute death or 100% full. Every encounter as a full encounter - which works great if you are trying to balance encounter challenge vs. party level but it's horrible if you are running a resource restricted game.

Well, things are binary... even in Pathfinder. You either hit or you don't, you either succeed on a check or you don't, you save or you don't, etc. The choice in combat is far from absolute death or 100% full HP. In fact, there's no point where anyone is safe from anyone else. Enemies will always be able to endanger PCs and vice versa. If taken in that resource restricted campaign, that means you can take the low HP/thirsty/starving (yes, 5e has food/water intake guidelines) party, have a snake bite them and slither away, and they'll actually be in danger and have a challenge to overcome.

If you've read the rules at all and conclude what you've posted, then I'm entirely comfortable asserting you either flipped pages and didn't pay attention, you're discounting many aspects of the system, or you're intentionally misrepresenting its elements. If you're running the game and your players constantly have advantage or disadvantage then you're being way too generous with that mechanic. For a resource restricted game, again, it more depends on the campaign. Nothing forces you to allow everything to your players, nothing says they need to be within a days/weeks journey to a well stocked town, and so on.

Auxmaulous wrote:
Anyway - I'm going over the Basic file again - taking a second look to find problems.

I recommend it. I don't see why you can't do in 5e what you just said you want to do. Pathfinder is no less fantastic.


It sounds like the warhammer fantasy rpg would be closer to the feel you're looking for.

Auxmaulous wrote:
Buri wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
No, I get it Buri - the power of the PCs is relative to the challenges they may face. I just don't like that "locked in" power and intensity.
Would it be sufficient to be able to humble your players with a goblin raid when they're level 20? With Bounded Accuracy, you can do that.

It isn't so much about humbling the players - I'm not running my games to do that. And you can find a way to challenge any player in any game system - it's just a question of how high you want to ratchet things up to get them challenged. In PF I need to regularly run CR +3 to +4 encounters just to get a sense of fear (players are moderately to highly optimized). In this game it may be more. I need to playtest encounter after encounter party durability and resource use to get a better idea.

My issue beyond challenge (which is still a concern) is pace and immersion - when it comes to healing, resource use, encounter powers. Yeah, I know immersion is met with but "it's magic/it's fantasy!"....that phrase gets tossed around here quite a bit as cover for anything that doesn't make sense. I don't want to run a redline game 100% of the time, where players get dropped, revivified and then the next day they are cooking bacon and eggs as if nothing happened.

I also would like to run a more "silence of the lambs" feel of exploration - something akin to a mix of fear, wonder and extreme caution (think public storage shed scene/fight with buffalo bill) vs. something that requires the pacing of a Michael Bay movie to keep the players challenged or threatened.

The more I read the more I feel that things are taking a binary approach to success and failure in this system - advantage/disadvantage, easy revive and easy healing - so the only choices are absolute death or 100% full. Every encounter as a full encounter - which works great if you are trying to balance encounter challenge vs. party level but it's horrible if you are running a resource restricted game.

Anyway - I'm going...


I should add, Auxmaulous, that when I said 'enemies are able to endanger the PCs' I didn't just mean leveled things. Commoners are included in that as well. That's the balance of 5e. Furthermore, political intrigue, diplomacy, and role play (yes, seriously) are all black and white mentions in the text of the Basic rules and soon the PHB. It's far from a pure hack and slash 'kill all the things' game.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
P.H. Dungeon wrote:
It sounds like the warhammer fantasy rpg would be closer to the feel you're looking for.

Nah, just 2nd edition. That will do the trick.

Dark Archive

Buri wrote:
This is fine in 5e, actually. That dragon I mentioned? It's a challenge rating 8. So, assuming you're max level, a +3 CR is wtfpwn in their case. You may still not like the level of the game regardless, but level to CR is pretty tightly configured.

I have no doubts that the CR system in their mods are tightly configured - what happens to people running a no 2nd wind or short rest heal version of the game? Do they get to run those published modules out of the box or does the entire thing need to be re-written? Because a level 3 party with limited resources is going to degrade after each encounter (under my rules) but a default 5e party will be able to move along for much more encounters - and each encounter is going to be written closer to APL.

--------------------

Buri wrote:
Literally the only two things you'd have to do to seal the low resource feel in a campaign ran otherwise RAW is to not allow spell casters, and restrict healing on a rest. Magic items are out by default except where you award them. They're not on the market at large.

Restrict healing on rest is default older edition, ban casters doesn't work and isn't and option. It seems ridiculous that a game that is supposed to have an older edition feel doesn't have an older edition power level or hell, even just an OPTION for a lower power level.

--------------------

Buri wrote:
I'd hardly describe 5e as a Michael Bay movie. However, you can run an exploration/horror campaign in most any system. The primary components are the behavior of the GM and players such as no/little table talk, keeping them constantly engaged in the story, and so on. The system is secondary in a horror campaign.

Oh boy, trying to school me in running horror scenarios.

I know what it takes to run horror scenarios or gritty games - been doing it for 30 years (Chill came out in 84, right?).

System IS important. Not being able to easily heal or avoid death (system) is important in a horror game. Not being able to steamroll encounters (system) is important. Having a feeling of powerlessness or being up against something you cannot beat (system) is important.
The system is not secondary in a horror game or campaign - you can run a horror PF game until the players start to attack. Everything else can be set up: mood, pacing, mystery - until combat starts. Then it falls apart. 5e is seeming to follow that road (less so in some regards and more in others).

--------------------

Buri wrote:
Well, things are binary... even in Pathfinder. You either hit or you don't, you either succeed on a check or you don't, you save or you don't, etc. The choice in combat is far from absolute death or 100% full HP. In fact, there's no point where anyone is safe from anyone else. Enemies will always be able to endanger PCs and vice versa. If taken in that resource restricted campaign, that means you can take the low HP/thirsty/starving (yes, 5e has food/water intake guidelines) party, have a snake bite them and slither away, and they'll actually be in danger and have a challenge to overcome.

Using PF as a reference or standard of good isn't a sound argument. People wouldn't be looking at 5e if they felt that PF was the system for them. Holding up PF and saying but "hey, they do it" is the strongest signal to bolt. And it feels like they are competing with PF in many regards - changes to class hp & SLA cantrips being two standouts. Two things I don't like.

--------------------

Buri wrote:
If you've read the rules at all and conclude what you've posted, then I'm entirely comfortable asserting you either flipped pages and didn't pay attention, you're discounting many aspects of the system, or you're intentionally misrepresenting its elements.

Ah, so now I became the enemy of the "new", got it. I'm intentionally misrepresenting its elements because I'm a: PF fan, 4e fan, hate Wotc, etc.

Please - don't go down this path. I want something out of the new system and it isn't providing or going to provide (from the looks of it) so now I'm intentionally misrepresenting? Spare me.

I want and updated version of 1st or 2nd ed and a supported game. This isn't what I want. It has some nice things and addresses some problems that Wotc manufactured in 3rd ed, but it seems to have too many flaws and cracks. Again - waiting on the DMG to see if those cracks are filled. Nothing you have said here defending this system has convinced me otherwise and the rhetoric is starting to turn into a "true believer" fight.


I never called you an enemy. Do not put words in my mouth. I never prescribed you labels either. Put your offense somewhere else. What I said is correct, though. For someone to have talked like they read the Basic 5e rules, you misrepresent them as a whole by claiming they are inadequate to run the game you want. They're not. That doesn't force you to like the system, but it can fit many play styles and campaigns no less adequately than in previous ones.

My crap? I just outlined your own statements and responded to them candidly. If you don't like that, then make different ones.

If you don't like 5th, that's fine. Carry on. My speech is simply pointing out the features of the system as they are and pointing when things aren't given credit so that it's not misrepresented.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Starting to have flashbacks as to why so many people were turned off of 4e - and it wasn't because of the system.


As I said, carry on.

Dark Archive

Buri wrote:
My speech is simply pointing out the features of the system as they are and pointing when things aren't given credit so that it's not misrepresented.

No, you're fabricating things or offering solutions - such as banning casters - as viable fixes for a brand new system. This discussion is on par with a car salesmen pitching a vehicle without a radio and telling the potential customer - "well, you can just sing to yourself while you're driving, can't you?"

You are being an apologist for 5e.
It has it strengths and it has it's shortfalls - which you seem willfully blind to. I want it to work without the need to rewrite the damn thing but to you everything is fixable if you just read the book - even if it isn't.

Bizarre


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the main points of 5e is to be friendly to being molded as needed by GMs. It is a perfectly fine solution and can be done many times with the tools provided so it gets what you want a good majority of the time without feeling contrived. Magic is described as rare, magic items are explicitly not available for sale. To say 'no casters' for a campaign is perfectly legit and viable.

I have yet to see you point out something that doesn't work. It's like you're waiving your arms screaming foul not at anything in particular but just to say something's wrong. But I'm acting bizarre? Whatever. The only thing you've explicitly stated is that you don't like the system. Nothing will change that. That's all on you. But, if you want to actually talk about the system and its particulars then that's something we can have a discussion over. I have zero interest in 'converting' you or changing your view on it.


Buri wrote:
One of the main points of 5e is to be friendly to being molded as needed by GMs. It is a perfectly fine solution and can be done many times with the tools provided so it gets what you want a good majority of the time without feeling contrived. Magic is described as rare, magic items are explicitly not available for sale. To say 'no casters' for a campaign is perfectly legit and viable.

But will banning casters leave just three or four playable classes? I wouldn't want to run, for example, a Knights of the Round Table campaign with only one martial class. One of the things I liked in 2E was that in several of the Historical Reference guides there were non-casting kits for paladins, rangers, and I think bards too.


JoeJ wrote:
But will banning casters leave just three or four playable classes? I wouldn't want to run, for example, a Knights of the Round Table campaign with only one martial class. One of the things I liked in 2E was that in several of the Historical Reference guides there were non-casting kits for paladins, rangers, and I think bards too.

Well, so far we know about the barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue. I would imagine those certainly have zero magic subclasses. Bards and druids could even have a no/very low magic subclasses depending on what's released.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Con tents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook

You could even provide a custom cleric and paladin subclass to highlight martial ability and curb any casting they'd have that would break the standard you have in mind no different than it is encouraged to create custom backgrounds if the provided ones don't fit your concept. Unfortunately I don't see no magic subclasses for sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks. Which, three out of 12 is a distinct minority. It's saying something, imo, when almost half your classes can be perfectly mundane.


thomax wrote:
I’ve now read thru the free 5e rules and I think they seem like an old-school-ification of 3.5e.

I really wish my one player that's "on the fence" about 5th saw it that way. To him, it's too much like 2nd Edition. Since I'm the only one that's ran and truly enjoyed 2nd in my group, I can say that it's not. But, he sees it that way, because things are, quote, "static".


Buri wrote:
JoeJ wrote:
But will banning casters leave just three or four playable classes? I wouldn't want to run, for example, a Knights of the Round Table campaign with only one martial class. One of the things I liked in 2E was that in several of the Historical Reference guides there were non-casting kits for paladins, rangers, and I think bards too.
Well, so far we know about the barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue. I would imagine those certainly have zero magic subclasses. Bards and druids could even have a no/very low magic subclasses depending on what's released.

That sounds like a good list so far. A non-magical druid? I'll be very interested to see what that looks like.

Buri wrote:


http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Con tents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook

You could even provide a custom cleric and paladin subclass to highlight martial ability and curb any casting they'd have that would break the standard you have in mind no different than it is encouraged to create custom backgrounds if the provided ones don't fit your concept. Unfortunately I don't see no magic subclasses for sorcerers, wizards, and warlocks. Which, three out of 12 is a distinct minority. It's saying something, imo, when almost half your classes can be perfectly mundane.

By "could provide a custom subclass" I hope you mean by using some system that the game provides for doing that? Because if I have to make up my own rules out of thin air, then I'm not really playing this game any more, am I?


As I said, it prescribes the same thing for backgrounds. If you're doing what the book says then you actually are.

Lantern Lodge

I'm a little surprised at the use of martial/rogue "archetypes".

In a "I thought they would have used another term for it" kinda way.

Given that the term "archetypes" have been used by other games.


Buri wrote:
Well, so far we know about the barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue. I would imagine those certainly have zero magic subclasses. Bards and druids could even have a no/very low magic subclasses depending on what's released.

The bolded classes have spellcasting subclasses (eldritch knight and arcane trickster), while I am completely certain that the ranger has spellcasting built into the class itself (not sure if any subclass has the spells removed or not). Paladin the same way.

I am pretty sure that, at least in the PHB, bards, druids, and other spellcasters have no reduced/removed spellcasting subclasses.


Adjule wrote:
Buri wrote:
Well, so far we know about the barbarian, fighter, monk, ranger, and rogue. I would imagine those certainly have zero magic subclasses. Bards and druids could even have a no/very low magic subclasses depending on what's released.
The bolded classes have spellcasting subclasses (eldritch knight and arcane trickster), while I am completely certain that the ranger has spellcasting built into the class itself (not sure if any subclass has the spells removed or not). Paladin the same way.

Just to expand on this some:

As you mention, rogue and fighter both have casting subclasses.

Ranger and Paladin do both have spellcasting built in.

Monk has the Way of the Four Elements subclass that "harness their Ki to cast a variety of elemental abilities and spells - from Burning Hands to Stoneskin." So, yeah, cross that one off too.

There are some reports that totem warriors can cast certain spells as rituals, but I haven't seen that officially.

Even if we assume those reports are wrong, that's exactly one class without any spellcasting subclasses.

Adjule wrote:
I am pretty sure that, at least in the PHB, bards, druids, and other spellcasters have no reduced/removed spellcasting subclasses.

Bards are full casters now, so it's even less likely they'll have a no-casting option. The existing options both explicitly cast spells.

Druids get to choose even more spellcasting or some shapeshifting as their options.

References: Escapist (includes a full list of subclasses) - although it seems it might be down at the moment

Cheers!
Landon


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Besides, the whole idea that "Take out the casters" is a valid response to Aux's concern's with the system is ridiculous. Magic and casting classes are a huge part of the feel of D&D and have been from the very start. As far as I can tell, Aux wants a lower powered, grittier version of D&D, not one with huge chunks ripped out and thrown away. Being able to play lower powered casters is part of the appeal.


Adjule wrote:

The bolded classes have spellcasting subclasses (eldritch knight and arcane trickster), while I am completely certain that the ranger has spellcasting built into the class itself (not sure if any subclass has the spells removed or not). Paladin the same way.

I am pretty sure that, at least in the PHB, bards, druids, and other spellcasters have no reduced/removed spellcasting subclasses.

Indeed they do, but you don't have to allow them. However, wizards get no 'no magic' option for sure. That's been confirmed for the PHB.


thejeff wrote:
Besides, the whole idea that "Take out the casters" is a valid response to Aux's concern's with the system is ridiculous. Magic and casting classes are a huge part of the feel of D&D and have been from the very start. As far as I can tell, Aux wants a lower powered, grittier version of D&D, not one with huge chunks ripped out and thrown away. Being able to play lower powered casters is part of the appeal.

It's no different than low magic Pathfinder changes. That said, I did read last night that low magic will be addressed in the DMG.

Grit is a very subjective term that has different meanings depending on the person. If comparing the two, I would describe 5e as grittier than PF in that the more mundane aspects of the world are expressed to matter. Things like caring for gear, eating and drinking, housing, and so on are all things said to be a part of your characters activities in a way that's meaningful. That's mostly so in terms of costing them money. But, it gives DMs a perfectly valid reason to give consequences for ignoring those aspects without being 'cheap' or mean to your players. They're told those things matter.


What? Wizards certainly have a "No Magic" option, they are called Fighters.


Then, they're no longer wizards. They're fighters.


Auxmaulous wrote:

I think they could have done a better job on the base setting. I think the problem though is that if they set them to 0E or 1st ed levels of power as a baseline for the Basic doc many modern gamers wouldn't play because the characters would be too weak.

Yeah, I agree that WotC probably felt they couldn't pare the power level back to 0E/1E levels just to satisfy a minority of gamers who still favor this style of game. It's a business and they have to appeal to the largest market segment they can and that ain't "old-schoolers."

In my dream world, someone (WotC or, as suggested, FGG) would create a variant "Old-Skool" set of rules based on 5E that stripped away most of the modern super-hero style power/abilities and allowed for a classic 1980's (or 70's if that's your thing) version of the game. I would love to be able to play those 80's TSR 1E adventures again without having to do so via PbP or VTT methods. Playing face-to-face is the real draw of the game for me.


Dream no longer! The 5e DMG will contain variant rules for different edition play styles. I have no idea how well it will emulate those versions of the game (and a lot of the feelings on that will probably vary table to table) but it's been confirmed as part of the contents.

Dark Archive

Buri wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Besides, the whole idea that "Take out the casters" is a valid response to Aux's concern's with the system is ridiculous. Magic and casting classes are a huge part of the feel of D&D and have been from the very start. As far as I can tell, Aux wants a lower powered, grittier version of D&D, not one with huge chunks ripped out and thrown away. Being able to play lower powered casters is part of the appeal.

It's no different than low magic Pathfinder changes. That said, I did read last night that low magic will be addressed in the DMG.

Grit is a very subjective term that has different meanings depending on the person. If comparing the two, I would describe 5e as grittier than PF in that the more mundane aspects of the world are expressed to matter. Things like caring for gear, eating and drinking, housing, and so on are all things said to be a part of your characters activities in a way that's meaningful. That's mostly so in terms of costing them money. But, it gives DMs a perfectly valid reason to give consequences for ignoring those aspects without being 'cheap' or mean to your players. They're told those things matter.

But it is different from low-magic PF changes. Low-magic PF games require you run an E5,6,7 X or you do a major system overhaul to cover things like how do players heal, what kind of encounters do you throw at the party, how do you change creature stats (DR, etc) - yet you didn't need to do this in a core 1st or 2nd ed game since lower magic/grittier was part of their default assumption.

So saying "well, for a lower powered game you can ban casters" as a solution for a brand new game where previous editions WERE LOWER POWERED and HAD CASTERS isn't a real solution. Sorry.

And thejeff - thank you for your post and thank you for taking the time to understand what I was trying to get across and what my concerns are. I appreciate that.

Funny thing is, since I'm a critic Buri thinks I hate this game and have nothing riding on it. Right now I'm in for $120 with the Necromancer Games 5e kickstarter - looking to get some real old skool feel books of spells, monsters and adventures. I want this to be my new system - so I am going to be hyper-critical. PF passed me by a long time ago - so it's either this system, go back to 2nd or go to C&C. I wouldn't mind running D&D again - I would actually prefer it.

Dark Archive

Logan1138 wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

I think they could have done a better job on the base setting. I think the problem though is that if they set them to 0E or 1st ed levels of power as a baseline for the Basic doc many modern gamers wouldn't play because the characters would be too weak.

Yeah, I agree that WotC probably felt they couldn't pare the power level back to 0E/1E levels just to satisfy a minority of gamers who still favor this style of game. It's a business and they have to appeal to the largest market segment they can and that ain't "old-schoolers."

In my dream world, someone (WotC or, as suggested, FGG) would create a variant "Old-Skool" set of rules based on 5E that stripped away most of the modern super-hero style power/abilities and allowed for a classic 1980's (or 70's if that's your thing) version of the game. I would love to be able to play those 80's TSR 1E adventures again without having to do so via PbP or VTT methods. Playing face-to-face is the real draw of the game for me.

I feel for you Logan. At the end of the day I can write a 20 page homerules doc and my group will play a modified 5e - so I kind of have an out. For someone who mostly plays in other peoples games you are stuck with whatever the DMs run out there - which will mostly be default.

I tried to convince the Frogs to write a 5e true old skool conversion book but I don't think they are getting into the rules arena besides what they've already done for Swords and Wizardry.

An in-print 70's/80's book would go a long way to making many old skool players happy - we get a new system in print and we get serious considerations on different tiers of power vs. a default that is higher than what we want.

Hell, I would write the thing - but without an OGL it would be treading on some shaky ground.


Hitdice wrote:
Dream no longer! The 5e DMG will contain variant rules for different edition play styles. I have no idea how well it will emulate those versions of the game (and a lot of the feelings on that will probably vary table to table) but it's been confirmed as part of the contents.

Yeah, I'm aware of the notion (and even referenced it in an earlier post) that the DMG might offer some hope of being able to play 5E the way I would like but at this point I'm wary of WotC actually pulling this off. I think it would need to be done (as Auxmaulous suggested) by a company that still currently emphasizes the "old-school" mentality like Necromancer Games/Frog God Games.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:


I feel for you Logan. At the end of the day I can write a 20 page homerules doc and my group will play a modified 5e - so I kind of have an out. For someone who mostly plays in other peoples games you are stuck with whatever the DMs run out there - which will mostly be default.

I tried to convince the Frogs to write a 5e true old skool conversion book but I don't think they are getting into the rules arena besides what they've already done for Swords and Wizardry.

An in-print 70's/80's book would go a long way to making many old skool players happy - we get a new system in print and we get serious considerations on different tiers of power vs. a default that is higher than what we want.

Didn't they recently reissue the 1E rulebooks? or was that just 3E?

Or are you referring to something completely different

Dark Archive

MMCJawa wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:


I feel for you Logan. At the end of the day I can write a 20 page homerules doc and my group will play a modified 5e - so I kind of have an out. For someone who mostly plays in other peoples games you are stuck with whatever the DMs run out there - which will mostly be default.

I tried to convince the Frogs to write a 5e true old skool conversion book but I don't think they are getting into the rules arena besides what they've already done for Swords and Wizardry.

An in-print 70's/80's book would go a long way to making many old skool players happy - we get a new system in print and we get serious considerations on different tiers of power vs. a default that is higher than what we want.

Didn't they recently reissue the 1E rulebooks? or was that just 3E?

Or are you referring to something completely different

No Wotc has reprinted everything - even a limited run 0E box set. The issue is, none of these games are actively supported by Wotc. Frog God has Swords and Wizardry - which is a 0E conversion using the ogl - and they support it with adventure and supplement content. So for 0E games they have that covered.

Other editions have some OSR versions, but they are not exact or even very close. Ex: Castles and Crusades is a bit of a 1st/2nd ed clone - but it's built on the OGL/3rd ed and as such still feels like a modified 3rd ed game. No weapon speed, no weapon damage vs. large, weapons vs. armor, generic stat bonuses vs. stat tables (13-15 +1, etc). Basically it's a heavily modded version of 3rd ed to play like older editions - but you can see a lot of 3rd eds oversimplifications in C&C. I still prefer their Siege system/DC check over 3rd ed/PF - just superior way to manage skills - IMO of course. So just on that merit alone they get a serious consideration from me.

What I was advocating was a 3rd party book that takes on 5e and makes it run more like 1st or 2nd ed. Obviously it would still just be a 5e mod - but I think the basic framework of 5e (primarily bounded accuracy) is a better basis to run a new system 1st-ish or 2nd ed-like game, than say a modded 3rd ed as a foundation.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:


One change that I'm hoping for in the DMG is an alternate xp system that moves away from xp for killing monsters. D&D is one of the only systems that awards xp nearly entirely for killing things. Pretty much every other game grants xp for accomplishing objectives. The D&D default xp system has a pretty profound affect, particularly on published adventures (e.g., pathfinder APs) because it forces the writers to add in extensive "filler encounters" just to ensure the appropriate xp is available. This can often have a negative impact on the pacing of the plot and can cause a storyline to drag out much longer than it should because its stuffed with extra meaningless encounters that really only exist to be source of xp. Sadly, even if the dmg provides an alternate xp system, it looks as though xp for killing things will continue to be the default, and thus will continue IMO to plague published adventures.

Amen to that, brother.

That said, I think it fair to point out that 4e made good strides in that area, so with any luck, that will be one of the things that will get carried forward, or even expanded upon. "Skill challenges" - ie: collective problem solving had XP rewards, and were part of well built 4e adventures from the start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am probably replicating someone elses idea, (or worse yet, missed it in the rules), but I could see a neat way of "old-schooling" disadvantage: have the player roll one die, and I roll the other. That way, if they succeed, they won't really know if they succeeded.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dominic Amann wrote:
I am probably replicating someone elses idea, (or worse yet, missed it in the rules), but I could see a neat way of "old-schooling" disadvantage: have the player roll one die, and I roll the other. That way, if they succeed, they won't really know if they succeeded.

That's a pretty good idea for secret rolls. Say a character has disadvantage when moving silently - he rolls and sees his result (which can be a success) but he knows that he's making a check under duress or suboptimal condition so the DM hides the second roll.

Hmmmmm

Sovereign Court

Auxmaulous wrote:
Dominic Amann wrote:
I am probably replicating someone elses idea, (or worse yet, missed it in the rules), but I could see a neat way of "old-schooling" disadvantage: have the player roll one die, and I roll the other. That way, if they succeed, they won't really know if they succeeded.

That's a pretty good idea for secret rolls. Say a character has disadvantage when moving silently - he rolls and sees his result (which can be a success) but he knows that he's making a check under duress or suboptimal condition so the DM hides the second roll.

Hmmmmm

Thats got potential. Hell I might even start using that in my PF games.

Shadow Lodge

Auxmaulous wrote:
Other editions have some OSR versions, but they are not exact or even very close.

Disagree.

Original D&D (no supplements) - Swords & Wizardry: White Box
Original D&D (most supplements) - Swords & Wizardry: Core Rules
Original D&D (all supplements) - Swords & Wizardry: Complete Rules
Holmes Basic D&D - BlueHolme Prentice Rules
B/X D&D - Labyrinth Lord
BECMI D&D / Rules Cyclopedia - Dark Dungeons
1st Edition - OSRIC

These are all pretty darn close to how the originals worked.

The notable exclusions are 2nd edition, and 2nd edition with the Player's Option stuff added in. I'm unaware of any retro-clones that clone those and stay pretty faithful.


Pan wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Dominic Amann wrote:
I am probably replicating someone elses idea, (or worse yet, missed it in the rules), but I could see a neat way of "old-schooling" disadvantage: have the player roll one die, and I roll the other. That way, if they succeed, they won't really know if they succeeded.

That's a pretty good idea for secret rolls. Say a character has disadvantage when moving silently - he rolls and sees his result (which can be a success) but he knows that he's making a check under duress or suboptimal condition so the DM hides the second roll.

Hmmmmm

Thats got potential. Hell I might even start using that in my PF games.

Except that the result will become obvious soon enough; I don't see the real advantage in that. A decent DM should be able to take the known failure orsuccess and embellish it with description otherwise it's dice a dice-rolling version of the card game War.

Shadow Lodge

Secane wrote:

I'm a little surprised at the use of martial/rogue "archetypes".

In a "I thought they would have used another term for it" kinda way.

Given that the term "archetypes" have been used by other games.

You realize the term predates Pathfinder, right?

By centuries, even.


double post

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Forever Slayer wrote:

Well we all know the basic rules for D&D 5th edition are free for download. If you've read over them, what do you think?

Does it seem like a game you are going to play?

Maybe, but at the moment I doubt it.

Main reason being that I try to get my kids into RPGs, and while Pathfinder has a German localization, I don't think that D&D Next will get one.

Apart from that: from the little I've seen so far, it feels like real D&D to me (contrary to the former edition which I had some problems with getting into), so it's definitely something I would play. If I would run it depends on what I find in the 3 Core Books, namely if it feels different enough from Pathfinder to be used as an alternative system.

Sovereign Court

Denim N Leather wrote:
Pan wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Dominic Amann wrote:
I am probably replicating someone elses idea, (or worse yet, missed it in the rules), but I could see a neat way of "old-schooling" disadvantage: have the player roll one die, and I roll the other. That way, if they succeed, they won't really know if they succeeded.

That's a pretty good idea for secret rolls. Say a character has disadvantage when moving silently - he rolls and sees his result (which can be a success) but he knows that he's making a check under duress or suboptimal condition so the DM hides the second roll.

Hmmmmm

Thats got potential. Hell I might even start using that in my PF games.
Except that the result will become obvious soon enough; I don't see the real advantage in that. A decent DM should be able to take the known failure orsuccess and embellish it with description otherwise it's dice a dice-rolling version of the card game War.

Whats a "decent DM"? If you dont like the idea thats fine but lets not make assumptions about playstyles. This idea allows some doubt in the player's mind which I would hardly consider obvious. Also, a bonus feature could be moving away from binary die results adding some depth to the game on both sides of the screen. This way the GM doesnt have to embellish everything; another feature in the case the GM isnt decent.


Pan wrote:
Denim N Leather wrote:
Pan wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Dominic Amann wrote:
I am probably replicating someone elses idea, (or worse yet, missed it in the rules), but I could see a neat way of "old-schooling" disadvantage: have the player roll one die, and I roll the other. That way, if they succeed, they won't really know if they succeeded.

That's a pretty good idea for secret rolls. Say a character has disadvantage when moving silently - he rolls and sees his result (which can be a success) but he knows that he's making a check under duress or suboptimal condition so the DM hides the second roll.

Hmmmmm

Thats got potential. Hell I might even start using that in my PF games.
Except that the result will become obvious soon enough; I don't see the real advantage in that. A decent DM should be able to take the known failure orsuccess and embellish it with description otherwise it's dice a dice-rolling version of the card game War.
Whats a "decent DM"? If you dont like the idea thats fine but lets not make assumptions about playstyles. This idea allows some doubt in the player's mind which I would hardly consider obvious. Also, a bonus feature could be moving away from binary die results adding some depth to the game on both sides of the screen. This way the GM doesnt have to embellish everything; another feature in the case the GM isnt decent.

Hey man, you don't have to jump down my throat.

D&D is not a game where you roll a die and it's minutes or hours before you find out the result; the dice ARE the reality of the moment.

If you (DM) roll your die in secret and I (player) roll my die openly, in the case of Disadvantage noted above, I don't need to know what you rolled. You (DM) will describe it to me, regardless. There is no increased tension (in my opinion) from having one of the dice rolled in "secret" ... because it's NOT secret, or at least won't be a well or long-kept one.

I'd rather have the player roll the dice and have them be responsible for the failure, not have the DM roll in secret and then tell the player they failed. That IS a playstyle decision.

And I'm okay with that.

I've not been on these boards for a while and was curious as to what the general consensus was for 5E, but I see that for the most part, these boards are still full of ppl that are too quick to take offense and pick nits at every word said.

Well, back to my cubby hole. Have a nice night! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just found out that the potion miscibility table from 1E was back for the playtest! :D

That's definitely something that I want to have in the final game. And if it's not included, I may very well houserule it in.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do I think of fifth edition? Overly complex.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Then you must really loathe Pathfinder.


Kthulhu wrote:
Then you must really loathe Pathfinder.

Play nice. ;-)

351 to 400 of 592 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.