Well, seeing as I've been in the beta, pretty much since it's started... I think I can qualify for this.
Pro: It's a much simpler rules set, hearkening back to an earlier era of gaming.
Con: It's a much simpler rules set, hearkening back to an earlier era of gaming.
Which for some may be a deal breaker. It takes things from other D&D and derivative games, like the save system which is akin to the one used in Castles and Crusades (but not quite), it's a basic D20 higher the better at it's core. It's also pretty easy to house rule anything in and out of it, if to want, from the older or newer versions of D&D.
A few more pluses is the skill system, depending on the 'background' you can be all sorts of things from a wilderness guide to a guild thief to a healer to soldier, and without being limited to your class choice. So if you want to be a Soldier Cleric, go right ahead! Some backgrounds are better for some than others, but really, there's nothing holding you back other than you. Most of the Fighting Men get innate combat styles, and by Fighting Men I mean Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. And they get a choice of Duelist, Two Weapon, Two Handed, Defensive and Archery. The Barbarian doesn't get that, but it doesn't need it, really.
Also, each class gets at least two choices (in the playtest) as to what type of 'path' you want to follow. Wizards get something based on the school of magic (although are not limited in spell choice, get a cute trick based on their school), the Rogue had two (but it was the playtest, so not everything was there) Assassin and Thief, which had two separate styles to the five finger discount, the Paladin had Oaths, the Barbarian could have chosen to a Berserker or a Totem Warrior... Every class had a choice of play style.
The Feats system, I'm not too keen on, but I need to see what they do with it next month. But at in the basic system, every so often (typically level 4 or 5) a class gets to put a +1 in two stats or a +2 in one, or you could forego that and pick a feat instead, which had three or so special abilities that you get from the get go.
At the same time, it pretty much kills anything that 4e brought to the mix. Namely even a smidge of class balance. Because it goes back to the older style of D&D, it brings back the Caster and Caddies style of gameplay that 4e attempted to change. Which to me is it's biggest flaw.
The Non-caster classes get a few cute tricks as I pointed out, but Casters get new tricks with every single spell they pick up. However, on the plus side they do get some Cantrip/Orison level spells that do a decent amount of damage so that they never have to go back to fumbling with a dagger, dart or crossbow ever again. No more shooting yourself in the foot!
Now if you like magic that does everything better than any skill ever will, go for it. This is a great game, and even better, you can change it, because that's the entire idea behind it.
5e is essentially 2.5e, I haven't had enough time playing it to decided if I either like it or hate it.
I wouldn't say it's 2.5e, I think it's more a combination of things they saw with 3e with a few items from 4e tossed in and rolling it back to a more simplistic view of d20.
So far I've only got the Starter Box but I think it just might have potential.
I hear that some people might have pdf copies of the final playtest and have been playing.
Anyone have any pros and cons about the game they'd like to share?
Not sure from this post if you know, but there is a free basic PDF that should be available here for people to try as well.
|
Not sure from this post if you know, but there is a free basic PDF that should be available here for people to try as well.So far I've only got the Starter Box but I think it just might have potential.
I hear that some people might have pdf copies of the final playtest and have been playing.
Anyone have any pros and cons about the game they'd like to share?
You know, I forgot I downloaded that a couple weeks ago. I'll have to read it and see.
Thanks all for the response.
@Christopher V Brady Personally I like a lot of standardised rules.
The rules look more interesting than 4e's, at least from a glance. But my group won't be playing it, so really doesn't matter. After nearly 30 years and literally thousands of dollars spent on D&D, Pathfinder, and other RPGs we've decided that because we just don't get together as much as we once could we'll stop purchasing new things that aren't Pathfinder or PF 3PP products. Not that we have anything against the new edition; we're just old and tired... lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So far I've only got the Starter Box but I think it just might have potential.
I hear that some people might have pdf copies of the final playtest and have been playing.
Anyone have any pros and cons about the game they'd like to share?
I think they have a lot of good ideas and improvements over the previous editions. How casting works, or how they try to lessen the fighter/wizard gap. If you are tired of Pathfinder's buffing of casters and nerfing of non-casters even compared to 3.5, 5e might be worth a try for you.
I think they have a lot of good ideas and improvements over the previous editions. How casting works, or how they try to lessen the fighter/wizard gap. If you are tired of Pathfinder's buffing of casters and nerfing of non-casters even compared to 3.5, 5e might be worth a try for you.
They have a a lot of ideas that look good on paper and that people seem to think work so far, but only seeing the full product and seeing them at high level will show whether they actually work. The limits on magic and and magic items especially is going to be pushed to the limits as a lot of both players and DMs are going to insist on high treasure games, just as they have for every edition to this point, regardless of whether the rules encouraged it or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have a a lot of ideas that look good on paper and that people seem to think work so far
Indeed. If we learned anything from Pathfinder we better be sceptical.
but only seeing the full product and seeing them at high level will show whether they actually work.
High level D&D never 'worked'. At least not in this century.
High level D&D never 'worked'. At least not in this century.
I would say never, honestly. Older editions staved off the numbers trainwreck longer than 3.x, but it still came eventually, and it will still effect 5th edition as well. The only real question yet to be answered is how soon, and can people live with the results when it does go crazy.
Can you elaborate on the advantage/disadvantage system, please?
Advantage/Disadvantage system is how 5e handles the numerous bonuses and subjectivity that is in every situation.
3.?/Pathfinder: You get +2 to your roll for such and such
5e: You get Advantage on your roll for such and such.
Advantage means you roll 2d20 and take the best result. (Disadvantage is the opposite.)
This is intentionally supposed to reduce the math/calculation load.
Most spells provide advantage/disadvantage instead of numerical pluses or minuses, things like rogue sneak attacks only occur on attacks with advantage (unless you're "flanking"), for example.
|
Its got a couple of okay ideas I'll steal for houserules. Namely the advantage/disadvantage system, and maybe some of the subclesses even though I'll have to alter them.
Speaking as someone who tried to use (dis)advantage: be careful using it with large numbers of attacks.
In the first playtest, kobolds and cave rats both got advantage for outnumbering enemies. Keeping eight kobold's attacks in separate pairs was a huge pain.
In my experience trying to port it to Pathfinder, it didn't even work well with the earliest iterative attacks. It was gone by the time my players got to three attacks (not hard with rapid shot or two-weapon fighting).
That said, I think it's a good mechanic for any game that has a single attack a round. Making Pathfinder (or even 5e) that game is a bit tricky, however.
Cheers!
Landon
Advantage/Disadvantage system is how 5e handles the numerous bonuses and subjectivity that is in every situation.
3.?/Pathfinder: You get +2 to your roll for such and such
5e: You get Advantage on your roll for such and such.Advantage means you roll 2d20 and take the best result. (Disadvantage is the opposite.)
This is intentionally supposed to reduce the math/calculation load.
Most spells provide advantage/disadvantage instead of numerical pluses or minuses, things like rogue sneak attacks only occur on attacks with advantage (unless you're "flanking"), for example.
The main thing is that it doesn't stack - two times advantage (e.g. flanking, charging) doesn't give the bonuses twice. It does succeed in reducing the amount of fiddly modifiers (something that is a major weakness of Pathfinder).
However, this reduction in complexity will most likely primarily welcomed by groups that want to focus on roleplaying and storytelling (because it makes for shorter fights with less rule discussions), while min-max optimiser groups might not like it as much as it removes the bonus stacking inherent in Pathfinder combat.
From the advice given in the PHB, if you're in such a stacked position that you'd genuinely get multiple advantages, then you probably shouldn't even ask for a roll.
I expect that a lot of GMs are going to houserule a very limited form of Advantage/Disadvantage stacking. As written, any number of Advantage and Disadvantage conditions cancel out completely. If you have five different things that give you Advantage and only one Disadvantage, you get neither. A more realistic rule that I expect a lot of GMs will use is that Advantages and Disadvantages cancel each other out on a 1-to-1 bases, and you get whichever is left (which still doesn't stack, so you're never rolling more than 2 dice).
I've had the same thought. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to see that show up as an option in the DMG.
I expect that a lot of GMs are going to houserule a very limited form of Advantage/Disadvantage stacking. As written, any number of Advantage and Disadvantage conditions cancel out completely. If you have five different things that give you Advantage and only one Disadvantage, you get neither. A more realistic rule that I expect a lot of GMs will use is that Advantages and Disadvantages cancel each other out on a 1-to-1 bases, and you get whichever is left (which still doesn't stack, so you're never rolling more than 2 dice).
Heh. I never realised that was the written rule. I've just been using it as you suggest (and will continue to do so - also as you suggest). :)
I don't understand your hate on teleport. If you're up to enumerating why you don't like it then let's discuss it.
I can't help but question your campaigns, then. You can only use it effectively if you've seen a place at least once or have an accurate drawing of an area if you're talking about greater teleport. Have you tried not pulling punches on those failure rolls? Even with greater teleport, given its range is unlimited, a drawn picture could easily land you in an area that looks very similar to the intended destination. Afterall, if you just use scry on a spot which gets just a target and its immediate surroundings, you gotta ask how many caves, forests, libraries, etc. exist that could look pretty much exactly like what they just scried on in the whole of the material plane. Plus, if it's vital enough for a caster to teleport to, then I'd think it'd be a magical place itself the majority of the time. Things like teleport trap exist for that reason. In the end, though, there are a lot of ways to handle it that don't marginalize your campaign.
I don't understand what you mean by kid gloves and spells. Charm Person, for example, works for an entire hour if they fail their initial save. Blasty spells are very blasty from the moment you get them and then are more blasty if you prep them in higher level slots. Counterspell is a reaction spell that automatically succeeds if the spell if of the same level or lower than the slot you prepared it in and higher with a check. The same is true with dispel magic. Wish can duplicate all spells from any class of 8th level and lower for free as it only requires a verbal component and that kind of "it just happens" stuff is common with higher level spells. Foresight gives all attacks against you disadvantage and makes you immune to being surprised for 8 hours.
So, it's rather simple to create a caster that can hit you very hard and lock you down. Was there something else about spells that you found kid glovey?
As to martials, rogues are actually pretty sweet being able to close to attack and back out without provoking round after round. Fighters can get a metric f-ton of attacks. Each class can be very flavorful with backgrounds and just roleplaying out your abilities with the descriptive text provided.
Again, I'm not sure what you meant by kid gloves. If you get ambushed then you're likely to lose a fight if your attacker is anything close to onpar with you. Then, there are enemies. Many dragons, for example, get legendary actions, which all 'legendary' creatures get, that let them do more things per round than just their turn. For example, several times a round they can take extra actions after another characters turn such as making an attack or other thing as is in their write up. After that there are lair actions that make them even more formidable if you face them in their home territory. It can be downright brutal.
I liked the adult red dragon's legendary power in the DM Basic Rules. 3/day it can decide that yes, it actually did make its saving throw. I didn't even look at the lair powers, and skipped over the rest of the monsters to see what all that pdf included.
I thought it was interesting that monster hit dice are based off their size instead of type. d4 (tiny), d6 (small), d8 (medium), d10 (large), d12 (huge), and d20 (gargantuan). And I finally got the reason for my biggest dislike of the playtest (and the biggest reason I was writing off 5th edition because it made no sense to me), which is "What makes a creature a monstrosity?". And it seemed like the first portion of the DM Basic Rules pdf was a sort of monster creator.
Just wish they had a conversion guide for the whole thing. I would like to convert some races, classes, monsters, etc from previous editions, as well as create some new ones.
|
|
I liked the adult red dragon's legendary power in the DM Basic Rules. 3/day it can decide that yes, it actually did make its saving throw. I didn't even look at the lair powers, and skipped over the rest of the monsters to see what all that pdf included.
I thought it was interesting that monster hit dice are based off their size instead of type. d4 (tiny), d6 (small), d8 (medium), d10 (large), d12 (huge), and d20 (gargantuan). And I finally got the reason for my biggest dislike of the playtest (and the biggest reason I was writing off 5th edition because it made no sense to me), which is "What makes a creature a monstrosity?". And it seemed like the first portion of the DM Basic Rules pdf was a sort of monster creator.
Just wish they had a conversion guide for the whole thing. I would like to convert some races, classes, monsters, etc from previous editions, as well as create some new ones.
So 'Monstrosities' is the new name for 'Magical Beasts", wonder why the change in creature type?
So 'Monstrosities' is the new name for 'Magical Beasts", wonder why the change in creature type?I liked the adult red dragon's legendary power in the DM Basic Rules. 3/day it can decide that yes, it actually did make its saving throw. I didn't even look at the lair powers, and skipped over the rest of the monsters to see what all that pdf included.
I thought it was interesting that monster hit dice are based off their size instead of type. d4 (tiny), d6 (small), d8 (medium), d10 (large), d12 (huge), and d20 (gargantuan). And I finally got the reason for my biggest dislike of the playtest (and the biggest reason I was writing off 5th edition because it made no sense to me), which is "What makes a creature a monstrosity?". And it seemed like the first portion of the DM Basic Rules pdf was a sort of monster creator.
Just wish they had a conversion guide for the whole thing. I would like to convert some races, classes, monsters, etc from previous editions, as well as create some new ones.
This is what the "monstrosity" type for monsters is about, according to the DM basic rules pdf:
Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense—
frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly
natural, and almost never benign. Some are the
results of magical experimentation gone awry (such
as owlbears), and others are the product of terrible
curses (including minotaurs and yuan-ti). They defy
categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all
category for creatures that don’t fit into any other type.
Seems like it's a catch-all. The monster types are Aberration, Beast, Celestial, Construct, Dragon, Elemental, Fey, Fiend, Giant, Humanoid, Monstrosity, Ooze, Plant, and Undead. Makes me wonder what the non-good, non-evil outsiders would be categorized under, if there isn't an "outsider" type anymore. While I kinda prefer the 3rd edition and Pathfinder monster types, finally getting a definition of "monstrosity" makes me a bit happier. Some monstrosities (such as owlbears) may be changing category in my games, though. Why does an owlbear have to be a magical experiment gone awry, and not a natural occuring creature (like the griffon)?