|
So what books are available now and what book are still month(s) away?
I know that the PH will be available from online stores in 3-4 days and I have heard that the PH is at normal stores right now.
Anyone care to guess why they didnt put all 3 core books out at the same time like they did with 3e and 4e?
|
|
So what books are available now and what book are still month(s) away?
I know that the PH will be available from online stores in 3-4 days and I have heard that the PH is at normal stores right now.
Anyone care to guess why they didnt put all 3 core books out at the same time like they did with 3e and 4e?
Staggered release of the core rulebooks isn't new. Hell, for 1e, the Monster Manual came in 1977, the Player's Handbook in 1978, and the DM's Guide in 1979.
So what books are available now and what book are still month(s) away?
I know that the PH will be available from online stores in 3-4 days and I have heard that the PH is at normal stores right now.
Anyone care to guess why they didnt put all 3 core books out at the same time like they did with 3e and 4e?
They didn't release the 3rd edition core books at the same time. They were released 1 month after each other, though. As for which 5th edition books are available: Just the PHB. September sees the Monster Manual release, and we have to wait until November for the DMG.
And what Kthulhu said (not in relation to what I quoted).
|
|
So what books are available now and what book are still month(s) away?
I know that the PH will be available from online stores in 3-4 days and I have heard that the PH is at normal stores right now.
Anyone care to guess why they didnt put all 3 core books out at the same time like they did with 3e and 4e?
They didn't release the 3rd edition core books at the same time. They were released 1 month after each other, though. As for which 5th edition books are available: Just the PHB. September sees the Monster Manual release, and we have to wait until November for the DMG.
And what Kthulhu said (not in relation to what I quoted).
Maybe they didnt for 3.0 but all three 3.5 core books came out at the same time.
Perhaps the idea is to "prolong the hype" and have prime place in the new releases section of book shops for three solid months plus.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also am a big fan of rolling ability scores. Balance among players is just not that big of a deal to me, as I feel a greater sense of accomplishment, and many times a stronger connections to a character who "Overcame the odds" and succeeded anyway.
That's what heroism is to me. It's fine that you find it stupid to roll ability scores, as your opinion really doesn't effect the way I play the game...so I'm not insulted by your comment. Probably could have been worded differently, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
In most fantasy fiction there is a great gap among the characters and that usually is OK. Gandalf and Frodo had nowhere close to similar stats and abilities, but Frodo seems to be just as much if not more a hero to me.
I've been thinking about rolling ability scores in 5E and realized that the method they suggest is too powerful. They are using the "roll 4, drop the lowest" method which was an option presented in the 1st Edition AD&D DMG but that method was for a game where you generally did not receive a bonus from a stat unless said stat was 15 or higher. You pretty much had to use the 4d6 drop lowest method to have any chance of getting one or two ability scores of 15+.
5E is much closer to Moldvay Basic (which only allowed 3d6 for ability score generation) which gave players' a +1 for a score of 13-15, +2 for 16-17 and +3 for an 18 while 5E gives players' a +1 at 12-13, +2 at 14-15, +3 at 16-17 and +4 at 18. Those are pretty close in their "tiers" and would suggest that rolling 3d6 would be more appropriate for 5E. Add in the fact that players' can increase their stats now unlike in Moldvay Basic and 1E and it just seems overkill to roll 4d6, drop the lowest in 5e.
Thoughts?
|
Still, if you really play since 1976 you must have been in games where some people could not play their concept because their rolled abilities did not allow them to pick the class. Was that fun? Did it improve everyones enjoyment that player A (who was lucky) could pick his 'dream character', while player B (who was unlucky with his rolls) was stuck with a much reduced choice?
Maybe you even witnessed a situation where a player suicided his character because he didn't want to play someone unable to contribute?
Pre 3rd edition D&D was a different game. You did not start off making a character knowing exactly what you were going to make, because you had to determine what your stats were first. Sure, you might have had an idea or two of what you wanted, but if you did not roll high enough, it was no big deal...
At least that is how everyone I gamed with did it, because we accepted that the rules of the game were, roll stats, THEN pick race and class based on the results of the die rolls... If we rolled poorly, it was: "ah shucks, better luck next time!"...
Yeah yeah yeah, YMMV and all of that... ;-P
I've played plenty of games with rolled stats and it usually worked out fine. Still, I have had some bad experiences where one person had uber-stats and dominated the game.
Or with really low stats, but those usually got rerolled.
Yes, DM pity can alleviate the worst effects. I don't see how this makes it more fun. It actually promotes the idea that it would be good if the playing field was even for all players.
My favorite is to roll a bunch of sets of stats, usually one each, and have everyone use whichever of those they prefer. Balance between characters, the fun of adding a bit of randomness to it and none of the irritation of point buy.
Yes, that's a great approach.
I played a game where I let someone have all 18's in every ability score. She often rolled well, hit the monsters most of the time, made her saves, and sometimes didn't make her saves.
What did she do that she deserved this special treatment that your other player's didn't?
Everyone had fun, and strangely enough no one argued statistical analysis of the first players ten or fifteen percent advantage.
I am not sure how you get from having all classes to choose vs. having only a small subset available to some percentage value.
|
|
I played a game where I let someone have all 18's in every ability score. She often rolled well, hit the monsters most of the time, made her saves, and sometimes didn't make her saves.What did she do that she deserved this special treatment that your other player's didn't?
Why did she have to do something for it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as having limited options. Well, again we pay different games, with different people. The people I have player with most of my life are not bothered by limited options, in fact the people I player with most of my life were not bothered by limits of any kind, they just wanted to pay
I much prefer games with limited options (my ideal character generation method is 3d6, six times in order, with both racial level limits and class pre-requisites).
I dont have much hope, but in my ideal world the DM's Guide will have a section on replicating this kind of play again. The focus on builds rather than random character generation is one of the main things that turns me off modern RPGs.
|
As far as having limited options. Well, again we pay different games, with different people. The people I have player with most of my life are not bothered by limited options, in fact the people I player with most of my life were not bothered by limits of any kind, they just wanted to payI much prefer games with limited options (my ideal character generation method is 3d6, six times in order, with both racial level limits and class pre-requisites).
I dont have much hope, but in my ideal world the DM's Guide will have a section on replicating this kind of play again. The focus on builds rather than random character generation is one of the main things that turns me off modern RPGs.
What do you think of the random chargen system in ultimate campaign? How about Traveller you ever try out that system?
Thing I like about 5E is im ok with stat rolling again. Between stat caps and BA its no longer an issue which is refershing because I wont play PF unless its Point buy.
I quite like the look of the ultimate campaign system, but haven't actually played a pathfinder character since it came out (I've run a PF campaign, but the players don't share my preference for randomness, so that was point buy). As such, I haven't read it through, in depth. I prefer learning rules by doing, rather than through study.
I played the original traveller and liked it (despite the "you might die during character creation" mechanic. I think we ended up house ruling that to being -1 to a random stat through injury). I also really liked the DCC character "funnel", as a mix between chance and choice.
I generally approach the game as starting pre-character generation - so it doesn't bug me if my abilities and relative power is subject to the vagaries of chance, just like the application of those abilities is once we commence adventuring. Of course, the games I prefer often have stat bonuses of -1 for a stat of 3 and +1 for a stat of 18. If I played lots of pathfinder, my preference could change.
|
Yeah, I agree that many of the things I don't like could probably be lifted out although the changes to HP recovery might necessitate some finagling of monster HP as they are pretty high from what I have seen and might put the PC's at too much of a disadvantage if not dealt with.
Unfortunately, I have not gamed with a regular group for over 20 years so I would have to accept the role of DM which I neither like all that much (definitely prefer being a player) nor feel up to the challenge with my long hiatus from regular gaming.
I'm in the same boat as you Logan on all your concerns - in my case though I am the default DM so I can easily make the system changes. You being mostly a player and wanting them is why I really hope there is an "official" 1e/2e variant in the DMG so you have at least a remote chance of finding a group to play the game you want with a DM running these options as part of their core game: no recharge/hd recovery, no full hp on rest, no 0-level spammable cantrips (though I think this one is going to be in every game unless a 1e/2e variant just drops cantrips altogether).
The hp fix is easy actually - I would do what I do right now to convert 3rd ed/PF monsters to 2e - drop all Con bonus hp. Again, I still need to see all the player output to know if that's a viable fix (seeing some 4d6 or 8d6 damage folding for some player attacks posted around here making me re-think the value of this game).
|
|
I quite like the look of the ultimate campaign system, but haven't actually played a pathfinder character since it came out (I've run a PF campaign, but the players don't share my preference for randomness, so that was point buy). As such, I haven't read it through, in depth. I prefer learning rules by doing, rather than through study.
I played the original traveller and liked it (despite the "you might die during character creation" mechanic. I think we ended up house ruling that to being -1 to a random stat through injury). I also really liked the DCC character "funnel", as a mix between chance and choice.
I generally approach the game as starting pre-character generation - so it doesn't bug me if my abilities and relative power is subject to the vagaries of chance, just like the application of those abilities is once we commence adventuring. Of course, the games I prefer often have stat bonuses of -1 for a stat of 3 and +1 for a stat of 18. If I played lots of pathfinder, my preference could change.
I hear you. My preference with point buy in PF comes more from the GM side of the screen. Its really difficult to run encounters for a group that has too much of a spread in stats. Also, I'm a hard case when it comes to rolling. I have no patience for mulligans and fail-safes that many modern stat rollers pile onto their generation methods. 5E appears that you can have a stern rolling method and it shouldn't allow too much separation at the table. Id be willing to give it a go again and that's a bonus for 5E.
|
Regarding the staggered release: this is about prolonging the hype. It creates an environment where gamestore owners see a lot of repeat business during the early months. The starter kit is designed to provide the foundation materials needed from the DMG and MM. The statement has been made that campaigns can be played in August.
On the topic of feats vs ability bumps: the feats generally give a one point bump and goodies that are generally better than the 3.5 feats on top of that. Often, they are akin to two 3.5 feats. The accuracy bounding concept, as well as a cap of 20 on ability scores, means that rushing ability bumps isn't the must-have that might be seen through 3e family experience.
I'll be giving it a shot. It has it's good points. It has some areas for which I like some other games better. I don't know of a single RPG I've ever played where the same could not be said.
Played my first game of 5th edition yesterday (august 17th), and had quite a bit of fun. Human paladin, human monk, human warlock, halfling rogue, my dwarf fighter, and a wood elf monk. The human monk showed interest in changing characters to a wizard of some sort (we were a bit melee heavy).
The warlock was absurd, using his eldritch blast (1d8 I think it is), plus an additional 1d6 with his hex spell. 1-shot the head creature of the starter set adventure (at the beginning, not the big bad). For the most part, aside from the warlock (brings be back to the absurdity of the 3rd edition warlock), it was fun. My defense-focused fighter (going eldtritch knight) managed to get hit 2x with his 19 AC. Almost brought low, but managed to survive (2nd wind was great making up for no one with any healing magic).
I can't really comment on much after just 1 game (and no real magic users), other than it being really fun. Combat went smoothly since you didn't have to keep track of so many little +1s. Overall, I like it.
I can't really comment on much after just 1 game (and no real magic users), other than it being really fun. Combat went smoothly since you didn't have to keep track of so many little +1s. Overall, I like it.
They actually managed to make the difference between magic users and melee much smaller. Less higher spell slots, less prepared spells, and concentration mean that they don't dominate the game completely after the first few levels.
In addition, most melees have a spellcasting specialization(archetype) available, such as the Eldritch Knight for the fighter and Arcane Trickster for the rogue.
Played my first game of 5th edition yesterday (august 17th), and had quite a bit of fun. Human paladin, human monk, human warlock, halfling rogue, my dwarf fighter, and a wood elf monk. The human monk showed interest in changing characters to a wizard of some sort (we were a bit melee heavy).
The warlock was absurd, using his eldritch blast (1d8 I think it is), plus an additional 1d6 with his hex spell. 1-shot the head creature of the starter set adventure (at the beginning, not the big bad). For the most part, aside from the warlock (brings be back to the absurdity of the 3rd edition warlock), it was fun. My defense-focused fighter (going eldtritch knight) managed to get hit 2x with his 19 AC. Almost brought low, but managed to survive (2nd wind was great making up for no one with any healing magic).
I can't really comment on much after just 1 game (and no real magic users), other than it being really fun. Combat went smoothly since you didn't have to keep track of so many little +1s. Overall, I like it.
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.Played my first game of 5th edition yesterday (august 17th), and had quite a bit of fun. Human paladin, human monk, human warlock, halfling rogue, my dwarf fighter, and a wood elf monk. The human monk showed interest in changing characters to a wizard of some sort (we were a bit melee heavy).
The warlock was absurd, using his eldritch blast (1d8 I think it is), plus an additional 1d6 with his hex spell. 1-shot the head creature of the starter set adventure (at the beginning, not the big bad). For the most part, aside from the warlock (brings be back to the absurdity of the 3rd edition warlock), it was fun. My defense-focused fighter (going eldtritch knight) managed to get hit 2x with his 19 AC. Almost brought low, but managed to survive (2nd wind was great making up for no one with any healing magic).
I can't really comment on much after just 1 game (and no real magic users), other than it being really fun. Combat went smoothly since you didn't have to keep track of so many little +1s. Overall, I like it.
I completely agree. Just feels wrong. And the limited Lay on Hands that paladins get at level 1 (5xpaladin level of hp healed per day) doesn't quite make up for healing spells. Still a fun version of the game.
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.
It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.
Yes, it's a tier one class, so it is common to have parties with clerics, but far from every party has one.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.
Mal - you need to look at the "old-school devotee" part of what you quoted.
3rd =/= Old-school
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.Mal - you need to look at the "old-school devotee" part of what you quoted.
3rd =/= Old-school
Well, I guess if you are under 25, 3E would qualify as old-school. ;)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an old-school devotee, it "ruffles my jimmies" to see a party with no cleric in it. I know that was an intentional design philosophy (carried over from 4E, I believe) so no one would be "forced to play the cleric" but it just feels so strange and "wrong" somehow.It's not like you need one in 3e or Pathfinder.Mal - you need to look at the "old-school devotee" part of what you quoted.
3rd =/= Old-school
No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.
And frankly, despite my preference for older systems in many ways, it's a good choice. I remember arguments about who'd get stuck playing the cleric back in the old days. Healbot really isn't a fun role for many people. It's not good game design to force people to play things they don't like.
That's why a lot of clerics were NPCs.
That's why I never heard of it before the internets.
Everyone has a different experience/YMMV/insert Internetism
also
14 =/= Old-school