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


4th Edition

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

sunshadow21 wrote:
It's the same problem they had with 4E, where they tried to make changes that many current players didn't understand and they made no effort to really educate people about those changes. Rendering entire sections of the spell list useless to the currently accepted playing style is not going to go over well unless they also show how to use them effectively in the new system and can show that the new system can be just as good with a simple shift in tactics. That is not something I have seen to date, and it's not something they can rely on DMs to automatically know either. ..

You mean like in the 2E-3.0 switch when blasting suddenly got massively nerfed?


thejeff wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
It's the same problem they had with 4E, where they tried to make changes that many current players didn't understand and they made no effort to really educate people about those changes. Rendering entire sections of the spell list useless to the currently accepted playing style is not going to go over well unless they also show how to use them effectively in the new system and can show that the new system can be just as good with a simple shift in tactics. That is not something I have seen to date, and it's not something they can rely on DMs to automatically know either. ..
You mean like in the 2E-3.0 switch when blasting suddenly got massively nerfed?

Wasn't around to see for that transition, so I don't know how well they covered that gap or if it just filled itself in on its own. I do know that the "let it shake itself out" approach was a complete failure for 4E, and has the strong potential to be equally bad this time around, as the changes were made to the entire magic system, not just the math found inside the spells themselves, which is where, at least in my experience, the main shock came from when trying to play a blaster mage. The system as a whole didn't have as much of an effect in hurting blasters as much as the overall number inflation that happened elsewhere in the system, but not the spells themselves. Reducing spell slots, focusing on cantrips, and reducing most non-damage combat spells to concentration have a greater impact that can't be easily adjusted by going into individual spells and updating the math.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In high-level games prior to 3e, wizards were very powerful, but some of the ways they are most powerful in d20 games were an absolute joke. If your 20th level wizard cast a save-or-die spell against anything vaguely level-appropriate, then you got to watch the GM roll a 4, tell you it made the save, and then have your face eaten by said monster. If you went full-nova and exhausted all your spells, you didn't have them all back an hour after waking up the next day...you had to spend several days studying your spellbooks to fill up those slots again (10 minutes per spell level for every single spell...a single 9th level spell ate 1.5 hours of preparation time). You didn't max out Concentration so that it would be almost impossible to fizzle while casting a spell, you hoped none of the bad guys were packing 1 hp damage darts. You didn't auto-learn 2x whatever spell you wanted every time you leveled, you picked a single spell every time you got access to a new level of spells, you rolled to see if you could learn it, and if you failed, you moved down to your 2nd choice and repeated the process.


Kthulhu wrote:
In high-level games prior to 3e, wizards were very powerful, but some of the ways they are most powerful in d20 games were an absolute joke. If your 20th level wizard cast a save-or-die spell against anything vaguely level-appropriate, then you got to watch the GM roll a 4, tell you it made the save, and then have your face eaten by said monster. If you went full-nova and exhausted all your spells, you didn't have them all back an hour after waking up the next day...you had to spend several days studying your spellbooks to fill up those slots again (10 minutes per spell level for every single spell...a single 9th level spell ate 1.5 hours of preparation time). You didn't max out Concentration so that it would be almost impossible to fizzle while casting a spell, you hoped none of the bad guys were packing 1 hp damage darts. You didn't auto-learn 2x whatever spell you wanted every time you leveled, you picked a single spell every time you got access to a new level of spells, you rolled to see if you could learn it, and if you failed, you moved down to your 2nd choice and repeated the process.

Again, you are assuming that the majority of lapsed players played pre 3rd edition casters routinely into high levels. WotC did much the same thing with 4E and learned the hard way it's not a safe assumption. For the most part, they seem to have learned their lesson, as most of 5E doesn't directly challenge the basic ideas found in the newer d20 editions. The magic system will be a real test, as it is the only major section that challenges the d20 systems and the general assumptions that come with them. How well WotC (and to a large extent, DMs that want to run 5E) communicates why the changes were made and what source material they started from is going to have a major impact on how well it received beyond the small core of long time D&D fanatics that are the only ones to have really seen the full material thus far.


Kthulhu wrote:
In high-level games prior to 3e, wizards were very powerful, but some of the ways they are most powerful in d20 games were an absolute joke. If your 20th level wizard cast a save-or-die spell against anything vaguely level-appropriate, then you got to watch the GM roll a 4, tell you it made the save, and then have your face eaten by said monster. If you went full-nova and exhausted all your spells, you didn't have them all back an hour after waking up the next day...you had to spend several days studying your spellbooks to fill up those slots again (10 minutes per spell level for every single spell...a single 9th level spell ate 1.5 hours of preparation time). You didn't max out Concentration so that it would be almost impossible to fizzle while casting a spell, you hoped none of the bad guys were packing 1 hp damage darts. You didn't auto-learn 2x whatever spell you wanted every time you leveled, you picked a single spell every time you got access to a new level of spells, you rolled to see if you could learn it, and if you failed, you moved down to your 2nd choice and repeated the process.

This makes me want to pick up a 2e PHB.

Shadow Lodge

You can almost certainly get one of the reprints from Amazon, and you might even be able to get a non-reprint version for almost the same price (possibly even cheaper).

Shadow Lodge

So how do skills work in 5e? How do you get them, how do you increase them, etc.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
So how do skills work in 5e? How do you get them, how do you increase them, etc.

The Basic Rules can still be downloaded here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
So how do skills work in 5e? How do you get them, how do you increase them, etc.

You get them primarily from backgrounds (a new thing you pick during character creation). Some classes, such as rogues, gain additional skills.

They increase automatically as you level, although more slowly than something like True20. It scales from something like +2 at 1st level to +7 at 20th.

That's basically it. Some skills are called "tool proficiencies" instead, but they work exactly the same way.

Cheers!
Landon

Shadow Lodge

Sound to much like the 4e skill system. I hated the 4e skill system. Skills are one of the ways to make your character different from everyother character in the game, 4e threw that way.

We'll have to see how this newish skill system works by making a few characters when I get the PH.


Read the basic rules PDF. You can choose which skills you are proficient in from your class.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Sound to much like the 4e skill system. I hated the 4e skill system. Skills are one of the ways to make your character different from everyother character in the game, 4e threw that way.

We'll have to see how this newish skill system works by making a few characters when I get the PH.

No offense intended, but I think that this is exactly the mentality 5e is designed to shift the game away from. In 1e every fighter had exactly the same mechanics. All of them. What made your fighter different from the others was the way you played it. 1e focused on role-playing as the method of differentiating characters, not mechanics.

By the time 3.5/PF rolled around, the mechanics had been tasked with differentiating characters, which I think, paradoxically, made it harder to actual role-play the character you wanted. You can't have a character that does X unless you take ten levels of a skill or the four feat chain to make it possible. Then you have a game about building your character rather than playing your character.

5e harkens back to the older editions where mechanics wasn't used to get in the way of role-playing. I don't want a "robust" skill system... because all that does is tell me what my character can't do...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Title wrote:
Now that you have access to the basic rules for 5th edition, what do you think?

Currently? "Hm... I could use a snack."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Version 2 of the PHB basic rules is up as is version 1 of the DMs. The v2 Players has a few more pages. The DMs PDF is 61 pages. The DM PDF includes about 160 monsters (and all the information necessary to understand the monsters as well) and 10 NPC types, information about encounters, plus some magic items. Nice look at that end of the game for free. The monsters are basically statblocks and necessary information, the MM should have far more information.

new basic PDFs


Well the dinosaur names are back (i.e. Allosaurus, not Sharp-tooth meativore or whatever). So that is a good sign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Well the dinosaur names are back (i.e. Allosaurus, not Sharp-tooth meativore or whatever). So that is a good sign.

I do think WotC went a little overboard at times, but I never really understood the disdain that gets heaped on the use of "in-world" names, at least not for dinosaurs. After all, it seems unlikely anyone would refer to them by genus in a world largely devoid of the scientific method.


Also, don't forget that spellcasters are able to regain spent spellslots after a "short rest" (1 hour long) of 5th level or lower (or was it 6th?).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Well the dinosaur names are back (i.e. Allosaurus, not Sharp-tooth meativore or whatever). So that is a good sign.

I do think WotC went a little overboard at times, but I never really understood the disdain that gets heaped on the use of "in-world" names, at least not for dinosaurs. After all, it seems unlikely anyone would refer to them by genus in a world largely devoid of the scientific method.

for a lot of people, those names are more awkward to use and kind of harder to convey what it is the monster they are facing is. At any rate, I assume that everything in the game books is in the english translation of whatever language the PC's and NPC's actually use. So just because I use the term Tyrannosaur, doesn't mean myself as a player is literally saying the same thing in common.

I mean...PC's face minotaurs, and minotaur is a greek derived name that basically Refers to the Bull of Minos. I don't see how a group of characters facing a Tyrannosaur is any more odd than characters facing a Minotaur, or any other monster pulled from real life mythology.


Buri wrote:
Read the basic rules PDF. You can choose which skills you are proficient in from your class.

I'm not sure if that helps in this case since that it functions a lot like how skills worked in 4th edition. One significant different I find though is that the backgrounds allow a larger amount of skill customization options in D&D Next even before feats or other systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

for a lot of people, those names are more awkward to use and kind of harder to convey what it is the monster they are facing is. At any rate, I assume that everything in the game books is in the english translation of whatever language the PC's and NPC's actually use. So just because I use the term Tyrannosaur, doesn't mean myself as a player is literally saying the same thing in common.

I mean...PC's face minotaurs, and minotaur is a greek derived name that basically Refers to the Bull of Minos. I don't see how a group of characters facing a Tyrannosaur is any more odd than characters facing a Minotaur, or any other monster pulled from real life mythology.

I hereby sick my RageHate ClawBeast of Rage on you. ;-)

Shadow Lodge

Wands and Staves have change alot. Wand of Magic Missiles has a max of 7 charges(this is a sever drop in charges for wands, although if I'm reading the wand of detect magic right it does have any charges you just have to hold it). Some wands and staves will recharges some of their expended charges each day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

a friend just sent me this: DnD 5E Umberhulk

This is apparently a page from the monster manual. Art seems great. I really love the layout and formatting. Also this make me hopeful each monster will get a whole page, like the Paizo bestiaries do. Also seems like there is a lot more flavor included in the entry, than what I recall 4E had (from memory).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Decided to look at ENWorld, and saw this on the front when I scrolled down a little: 5th edition Sphynx
Edit: Also, this: The Tarrasque of 5th edition

It does look like each monster will be getting its own page, which is nice. Definitely makes it easier to locate compared to the 3rd edition Monster Manual. A lot of the art looks really good, but I have seen a few that are rather horrible.


The Tarrasque isn't immortal, eh?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
The Tarrasque isn't immortal, eh?

The one in the original legend wasn't.


JoeJ wrote:
Buri wrote:
The Tarrasque isn't immortal, eh?

The one in the original legend wasn't.

and on the other hand, the original Tarrasque bears no resemblance to the DnD version


Awesome. I like when things stay true to what they are.

Shadow Lodge

I figure it can be like Godzilla. You might kill Godzilla (as in the original and Godzilla vs. Destoroyah), but in a few years, another Godzilla will turn up.

Shadow Lodge

Looks like poison just does hp damage and wont kill you, just bring you to 0 hp. At least that all I get from the basic DMG, so probably more to poison then seen in that pdf.


At 0 HP you need to start making death saves. Are you wanting outright death?

Grand Lodge

Buri wrote:
Are you wanting outright death?

Nothing like 2nd edition's Type F poison... Make the save, you live, fail the save, you die!

Made just average "giant" spiders, quite deadly...

Shadow Lodge

Buri wrote:
At 0 HP you need to start making death saves. Are you wanting outright death?

Is there a way to kill a creature/pc who is at 0 hp? If death is just a 50/50 chance to save with a cumulative save/fail first to 3, not sure if I find that all that dangerous.

Death should be a real danger.

Shadow Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
Buri wrote:
Are you wanting outright death?

Nothing like 2nd edition's Type F poison... Make the save, you live, fail the save, you die!

Made just average "giant" spiders, quite deadly...

I liked that it acknowledged that, even of you made your save, it was still g~!++!n poison.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Buri wrote:
At 0 HP you need to start making death saves. Are you wanting outright death?

Is there a way to kill a creature/pc who is at 0 hp? If death is just a 50/50 chance to save with a cumulative save/fail first to 3, not sure if I find that all that dangerous.

Death should be a real danger.

Additional hits count as an automatic death-save failure. Further, anything that does your max HP or more in damage when you're at zero will instantly kill you. Finally, rolling a 1 on a death save counts as two failures. So anyone is potentially two rounds from death at any time.

Seems plenty dangerous to me.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Buri wrote:
At 0 HP you need to start making death saves. Are you wanting outright death?

Is there a way to kill a creature/pc who is at 0 hp? If death is just a 50/50 chance to save with a cumulative save/fail first to 3, not sure if I find that all that dangerous.

Death should be a real danger.

Additional hits count as an automatic death-save failure. Further, anything that does your max HP or more in damage when you're at zero will instantly kill you. Finally, rolling a 1 on a death save counts as two failures. So anyone is potentially two rounds from death at any time.

Seems plenty dangerous to me.

Actually seems to take a long time to die to me. Way easy to get help before you die.

Your at 2 hp and your opponent hits you for 10 and knocks you to 0 hps (unless your max hp are 8 which kills you out right), then spend the next 2-3 rounds insuring you dont get back up......in my opinion thats way to long.

This is only my opinion on this of course.


That depends on what happens between the time you fall to 0 and your first death save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, you can bleed out for minutes in Pathfinder until you die depending on your Con score. :/ Plus, you just need a single save there. In 5th, you need 3 successes to pull you out of the threat of death.

Shadow Lodge

Buri wrote:
Well, you can bleed out for minutes in Pathfinder until you die depending on your Con score. :/ Plus, you just need a single save there. In 5th, you need 3 successes to pull you out of the threat of death.

True but the save DC in PF is 10+negative hp, so its a bit harder to make for some classes since its a Fort save.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
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.

Well, I have found that there is a 2e clone out there. I haven't read through it fully, but what I have skimmed is fairly close to faithful.

For Gold & Glory

Shadow Lodge

Digitalelf wrote:
Buri wrote:
Are you wanting outright death?

Nothing like 2nd edition's Type F poison... Make the save, you live, fail the save, you die!

Made just average "giant" spiders, quite deadly...

I think you are remembering wrong. Type F was Death/0.

The worst poison on the chart was Type N. Death/25. That means that if you fail the save, you die. If you make the save, you still take 25 damage.


bugleyman wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Buri wrote:
At 0 HP you need to start making death saves. Are you wanting outright death?

Is there a way to kill a creature/pc who is at 0 hp? If death is just a 50/50 chance to save with a cumulative save/fail first to 3, not sure if I find that all that dangerous.

Death should be a real danger.

Additional hits count as an automatic death-save failure. Further, anything that does your max HP or more in damage when you're at zero will instantly kill you. Finally, rolling a 1 on a death save counts as two failures. So anyone is potentially two rounds from death at any time.

Seems plenty dangerous to me.

Not to mention, attacking a creature within 5 feet of you that is unconscious is an auto-crit, which is equal to two failures.

Grand Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
I think you are remembering wrong. Type F was Death/0.

Nah, I wasn't going for the worst... :-)

551 to 592 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.
Recent threads in 4th Edition