| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been keeping up with the playtests and whatever. I'm curious, though, what's actually new in 5th edition if you compare it to 3.5e and 4e?
I have a vague memory of seeing something a long while ago about how the new weapon system was supposed to make weapons much more flexible... Or something...
But what else is there? Can someone sum up the big differences?
More DM adjudication, less math, less complexity (comparatively speaking), less emphasis on magical gear, less round-to-round choices (or, I should say less codified mechanics that fuel choices). At least that's my experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, more game at the table. I have about 95% less discussions with my players about edge cases, weird rules, complex build options between sessions. We play the game now, and between sessions my players read up on lore and recount cool moments. It is actually incredibly awesome.
The other thing so far is complex, large fights that are fluid and rapidly resolved.
The above are the "outcomes" of 5e for me (over 4e and PF) rather than a dissection of rules differences.
|
What has been written about captures a lot of it: bounded accuracy, magic items not baked in, feats not baked, minis and maps not baked in, and curbed power of casting spells (through concentration and scaling) are big ones.
Stuff back for 5E or new that are small but interesting:
-bard casts 9 levels of spells now
-some fighters, monks, and rogues cast wizard spells (up to around 4th level or so) now
-paladins are not just LG (same as 4E)
-warlock is core (like 4E)
-wild mage is back in the form of the chaos sorcerer
-big boss monsters can have lair powers
-DMG will be a big hackers guide to D&D (wounds/vitality system, THAC0 as an option, mass battles, how to build various rule elements, much more).
Cool :O
I just finished reading the pdf that someone above linked. Looks good so far.
One thing I'm really curious about, though, is the fact that I can't find any information about if it's possible to get more spells per level as a wizard by having high intelligence.
It seems that the spell growth on higher levels taper out at 6th level. The spell list for levels 1-9 at 20th level looked something like this
4 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1
Seems like an attempt to avoid overpowering casters, but it looks like instead they will be spell starved at higher levels. Especially since you now have to user higher level slots to scale spells. Cone of Cold, for example, was level 5.
I think the idea is, at least in my opinion, you save your actual spell slots for special moments. Most of your actual attacks would be with your cantrips, which do scale automatically (eventually reaching 4d8 or 4d10 damage). Actual spell slots would them be saved for things like area damage, buffs, or miscellaneous spells (like Knock and Comprehend Languages).
|
|
Cool :O
I just finished reading the pdf that someone above linked. Looks good so far.
One thing I'm really curious about, though, is the fact that I can't find any information about if it's possible to get more spells per level as a wizard by having high intelligence.
It seems that the spell growth on higher levels taper out at 6th level. The spell list for levels 1-9 at 20th level looked something like this
4 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1Seems like an attempt to avoid overpowering casters, but it looks like instead they will be spell starved at higher levels. Especially since you now have to user higher level slots to scale spells. Cone of Cold, for example, was level 5.
In some ways you do using arcane recovery:
Arcane RecoveryYou have learned to regain some of your magical energy by studying your spellbook. Once per day when you finish a short rest, you can choose expended spell slots to recover. The spell slots can have a combined level that is equal to or less than half your wizard level (rounded up), and none of the slots can be 6th level or higher. For example, if you’re a 4th-level wizard, you can recover up to two levels worth of spell slots. You can recover either a 2nd-level spell slot or two 1st-level spell slots.
But your Int does play a role.
Here's the rule about Int:
You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your Intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots. For example, if you’re a 3rd-level wizard, you have four 1st-level and two 2nd-level spell slots. With an Intelligence of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination, chosen from your spellbook.
You use that rule. Then you then use the various spell slots to cast any of those spells at the spell slot level.
Here's the example:
For example, if you’re a 3rd-level wizard, you have four 1st-level and two 2nd-level spell slots. With an Intelligence of 16, your list of prepared spells can include six spells of 1st or 2nd level, in any combination, chosen from your spellbook. If you prepare the 1st-level spell magic missile, you can cast it using a 1st-level or a 2nd-level slot. Casting the spell doesn’t remove it from your list of prepared spells.
Cool :O
I just finished reading the pdf that someone above linked. Looks good so far.
One thing I'm really curious about, though, is the fact that I can't find any information about if it's possible to get more spells per level as a wizard by having high intelligence.
It seems that the spell growth on higher levels taper out at 6th level. The spell list for levels 1-9 at 20th level looked something like this
4 4 4 3 3 2 1 1 1Seems like an attempt to avoid overpowering casters, but it looks like instead they will be spell starved at higher levels. Especially since you now have to user higher level slots to scale spells. Cone of Cold, for example, was level 5.
He does have a good point. It looks like casters will never get to cast more than one 8th, and one 9th level spell per day. The spell recovery mechanic doesn't work on those slots, and even at max level the spell casting chart only lists "1" for 8-9.
Not sure I'm a fan of it being limited that much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ritual Spells. Most of your out of combat spells will be cast as rituals, which add 10 minutes to the casting time, and do not use a spell slot to cast. So long as the spell has the Ritual tag.
So technically, you will always be able to cast some spell, and your only limit is time.
Ritual Spells. Most of your out of combat spells will be cast as rituals, which add 10 minutes to the casting time, and do not use a spell slot to cast. So long as the spell has the Ritual tag.
So technically, you will always be able to cast some spell, and your only limit is time.
That didn't work all that well in 4E, and I don't see it working this time either. It's a nice concept, but the casting time is too long for a lot of things that you will usually have little or no warning about.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He does have a good point. It looks like casters will never get to cast more than one 8th, and one 9th level spell per day. The spell recovery mechanic doesn't work on those slots, and even at max level the spell casting chart only lists "1" for 8-9.Not sure I'm a fan of it being limited that much.
I am a fan. One wish a day is plenty. Or time stop. The wizard gets to dominate one combat but not all of them.
That didn't work all that well in 4E, and I don't see it working this time either. It's a nice concept, but the casting time is too long for a lot of things that you will usually have little or no warning about.Ritual Spells. Most of your out of combat spells will be cast as rituals, which add 10 minutes to the casting time, and do not use a spell slot to cast. So long as the spell has the Ritual tag.
So technically, you will always be able to cast some spell, and your only limit is time.
I think the idea is that those won't normally be cast in the dungeon, but when the party is in town or other (somewhat) safe conditions.
Except that a lot of the stuff they relegated to rituals in 4E at least were things that you typically would not have 10 minutes between the initial knowledge of needing and actually needing it. Or even if you did have warning and time, you wouldn't have an effective opportunity. The fact of the matter is that 10 minutes for your typical D&D spell is excessive. The spells that can support it generally already do, and are usually divination spells that have little impact on the immediate situation. I could see one minute, which is enough to make them difficult but not impossible, but 10 minutes is too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you need a spell immediately, just cast it like normal and use up a spell slot. If you have the time available, that's when you do the ritual spellcasting version.
If you need a spell immediately, just cast it like normal and use up a spell slot. If you have the time available, that's when you do the ritual spellcasting version.
That's a decent compromise that could work. As I said, the concept was good, it was just the execution of it in 4E that was problematic. If 5E can effectively resolve the execution problems, than the limited spell slots won't be a problem.
Am I seeing a total playstyle change for casters?
Buff spells seem out now, since they require concentration. In fact the whole controller role of caster seems very nerfed. The least nerfed spell type seems to be direct damage, though even that has taken a rather massive hit.
For example, the spell scaling seems fairly weird. Formerly spells scaled with caster level, but no they scale with spell level.
But I don't really see how fireball is worth using a higher level slot for. I can't imagie it would be worth it to cast fireball as a level 5 spell, for example. especially not with the more limited slot count per level on the higher levels.
I'm happy with the system in general, though.
Am I seeing a total playstyle change for casters?
Buff spells seem out now, since they require concentration. In fact the whole controller role of caster seems very nerfed. The least nerfed spell type seems to be direct damage, though even that has taken a rather massive hit.
For example, the spell scaling seems fairly weird. Formerly spells scaled with caster level, but no they scale with spell level.
But I don't really see how fireball is worth using a higher level slot for. I can't imagie it would be worth it to cast fireball as a level 5 spell, for example. especially not with the more limited slot count per level on the higher levels.
I'm happy with the system in general, though.
That is the biggest concern I am feeling. Buff spells are now next to useless, control spells are now next to useless, damage spells may be decent, but are going to get pretty boring if they are the only effective combat spells available. Making many spells ritual spells may save spell slots or it may end up being a massive waste of time. Clerics are in even worse shape as at least 75% of their spell list is now pointless in the types of encounters that most spells are cast in. I can understand that some draw back of power was necessary, but this just seems a bit far, and forces wizard back into spamming fireball and clerics being stuck with no useful spells but healing spells. If they had made it concentration + a number of rounds based on level somehow, they could have gotten a very similar effect power wise without limiting the usefulness of most spells. As it is, if I were a wizard, I would simply never get into combat. I would spend my spell slots to make me money to buy mercs to do that for me, since there would be very little that I could bring to the battle that they couldn't; why risk my own life when there is so little benefit to it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't have a problem with it. When I play 3e or PF it's obscene the amount of thi.gs that stack and can stay on for a LONG time, spanning multiple encounters even. It was to the point that you really didnt need a Fighter if there was a cleric in the group and wizards / druids were worse.
Besides, buff spells are still good and contribute to the party but don't necessarily make encounters trivial. And they have things like Cantrips to rely on and Clerics can still wade in with mace in hand.
Still seems like over the top nerfing on paper at least. Like I said, it wasn't that things were cut back (that was needed), but rather the amount they cut back that took me back. Going with just concentration seems like overkill. Concentration + a number of rounds equal to 1/2 caster level or something similar would have limited the massive stacking on the first round and still made it so that casters might actually feel like they are getting something by leveling. Clerics, on the other hand, are basically either now healbots or holy warriors that happen to throw out healing spells from time to time; not much room for anything else. Now, it actual play, it might end up being decent, but it comes off as way over the top on paper, and convincing people to try it out even if it is decent in actual play is going to be a hard sell. People who actually enjoy playing casters could still very easily see it as a very deliberate and unnecessary attack on caster classes, making it much harder to convince them to even try out the new system. In the end, even if it works out well enough in play, I have to question whether it's really worth it to nerf magic that hard and that bluntly.
It might have been better to have just the battlefield control spells be Concentration. Give the buffs a set duration, but limit them to 1 at a time (from any source) per target.
That I could see. Battlefield control spells being concentration actually makes many of them more useful than having a web sitting in the middle of the battlefield 3 rounds after it served its original purpose and now doing nothing but getting in the way. Likewise, a set duration for buffs with a limit of how many one person can benefit from keeps them useful without tying a caster up just to keep them up or having to constantly worry about being hit by a random nobody on the battlefield in order to be effective at doing anything other than cantrips and fireballs. Nobody should have to fear the first hit in a combat, since the chances of getting hit no matter where you are is always present; if they choose to stand around after the first hit, that's their own fault, but the first hit should never be able to reduce anyone's effectiveness to a limited or nonexistent role in the battle unless it's a really, really good hit.
Making casters kind of useless, that's new. Unless you want to be a wizard who wears armor and swings a sword, you can do that now. But reshaping reality on a whim? They don't do that kind of thing anymore.
I think some people are missing a big point about concentration and wizard power regarding what it is that the monsters choose to do.
remember that like each Player Character, the DM must decide what each monster is going to do
Going after the wizard to shut down a spell (breaking concentration) sounds delightful, but that means you aren't going after the fighter or rogue, which is going to leave you wasting a round doing damage to someone who wasn't damaging your monsters in the first place.
The problem is bigger than that, though. Targetting the soft wizard has always been a problem from both sides of the screen and getting anyone to actually fight the fighter as design seems to want is not any easier this time around. Attacking the caster will continue to disrupt spells, give you a higher chance of successfully doing damage and possibly taking out an enemy, as most arcane casters have no armor and little hp, and forces the martial types to chase you, limiting their ability to truly focus in on their full damage potential. It is never a waste of time to attack the caster unless you use terrain to force the enemy to attack someone else, and they actually made it even easier than before by limiting the ability of casters to shape the battlefield and buff allies in a way that casters need in order to not simply be chased off the battlefield because they aren't able to effectively able to do much else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player's Handbook (which is the same as the Basic Game), page 203: "Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. [].
Taking damage. [].
Being incapacitated or killed. []."
Concentration allows you to cast other spells that are immediate, such as attack spells.
Last time I was playing, I was a fighter, our wizard cast fly on me, and while I was flying and attacking (move part of movement/attack/move the rest of the movement), and the wizard was blasting things, the cleric was casting damage spells, and healing. Was a fun battle, until the draco lich showed up.. :) .... :(
I like to play a game to get the feel of a game, reading a thing really doesn't give a feel of the game. Buff magic is one of the things that I hated about 3.x.
Buff spells can be scaled as well. Fly for example: if cast as a 5th level spell, two characters can be affected. Having two characters bouncing around the battle field would be high fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying this to be glib, but if you don't like the rules for Concentration as they relate to buff spells couldn't you just...ignore them? That seems like a pretty easy solution, although I have no idea if that might have repercussions elsewhere.
Those of us who like the idea of keeping casters in check get what we want (full concentration rules in effect), those who don't can just ignore or modify them to ease the restrictions to get closer to 3.X/PF levels of caster power.
I think some people are missing a big point about concentration and wizard power regarding what it is that the monsters choose to do.
remember that like each Player Character, the DM must decide what each monster is going to do
Going after the wizard to shut down a spell (breaking concentration) sounds delightful, but that means you aren't going after the fighter or rogue, which is going to leave you wasting a round doing damage to someone who wasn't damaging your monsters in the first place.
Yeah, it seems to me that the other side of the "fewer active spells" coin is that its not that useful to target the magicuser (leaving the melee characters unmolested). If you could dispel all of a PF magicuser's spell with an attack, it would be a no brainer - I think there's a different calculus here.
Whether the resultant system is balanced or not (from a "fun for everyone" perspective) is going to be difficult to tell without playing a lot, I think.
I think some people are missing a big point about concentration and wizard power regarding what it is that the monsters choose to do.
remember that like each Player Character, the DM must decide what each monster is going to do
Going after the wizard to shut down a spell (breaking concentration) sounds delightful, but that means you aren't going after the fighter or rogue, which is going to leave you wasting a round doing damage to someone who wasn't damaging your monsters in the first place.
Yeah, it seems to me that the other side of the "fewer active spells" coin is that its not that useful to target the magicuser (leaving the melee characters unmolested). If you could dispel all of a PF magicuser's spell with an attack, it would be a no brainer - I think there's a different calculus here.
Whether the resultant system is balanced or not (from a "fun for everyone" perspective) is going to be difficult to tell without playing a lot, I think.
The wizard is still the softest and easiest to kill target on the field even without spells making him a major threat. Add in that I've been seeing indications that controlling the battlefield and enemy movement is going to be difficult at best, and going after the caster doesn't lose any appeal, it just now gives different reasons to do so. It will be interesting to see how things shake out over time, but the problem hasn't been removed, just shifted, from what we have seen so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making casters kind of useless, that's new. Unless you want to be a wizard who wears armor and swings a sword, you can do that now. But reshaping reality on a whim? They don't do that kind of thing anymore.
They still can. Note that 5e wish only has a verbal component now. Spells are overall more robust and singularly more powerful than in previous editions but spell slots are what's precious. On a stretch of downtime, though, that can still be 10+ wishes done between sessions. Plus, you can actually create wealth with it to the tune of 25k gp per casting.
To add to the thread though, each class basically has its own spell list even between the sorcerer and wizard. Some features in other classes let you cherry pick a spell from different lists here or there, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wizard is still the softest and easiest to kill target on the field even without spells making him a major threat. Add in that I've been seeing indications that controlling the battlefield and enemy movement is going to be difficult at best, and going after the caster doesn't lose any appeal, it just now gives different reasons to do so. It will be interesting to see how things shake out over time, but the problem hasn't been removed, just shifted, from what we have seen so far.
There are a couple devastatingly effective spells at higher levels. One example, can't remember the name, is an 8 hour duration spell that makes all attacks against you take disadvantage and you can't be surprised. It will be interesting to see how it plays out but those gems are still there.
still waiting to get my hands on players. Based on whats in the players how difficult will it be to play as a necromancer?
Quite easy actually. At level 6, if you do the necromacy wizard, you get Undead Thralls which gives you additional undead, gives your undead additional HP, and your proficiency bonus on their attacks. At level 14 you can just point at an undead and take control of it even if it was made by someone else. Plus, the actual spells like animate dead are just tasty.
|
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.
Some magic items require you to attune to them before you can use them and you can only be attuned to 3 item at any one time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until someone hits the wizard and your ability to fly goes away.Player's Handbook (which is the same as the Basic Game), page 203: "Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. [].
Taking damage. [].
Being incapacitated or killed. []."Concentration allows you to cast other spells that are immediate, such as attack spells.
Last time I was playing, I was a fighter, our wizard cast fly on me, and while I was flying and attacking (move part of movement/attack/move the rest of the movement), and the wizard was blasting things, the cleric was casting damage spells, and healing. Was a fun battle, until the draco lich showed up.. :) .... :(
I like to play a game to get the feel of a game, reading a thing really doesn't give a feel of the game. Buff magic is one of the things that I hated about 3.x.
Buff spells can be scaled as well. Fly for example: if cast as a 5th level spell, two characters can be affected. Having two characters bouncing around the battle field would be high fun.
You are wrong.
You get hit and that does not automatically end concentration: Page 203, Players Handbook, "Taking Damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage."
I guess I should have entered the entire text of the rule.
At higher levels that save can be impossible. But, that feels right to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Until someone hits the wizard and your ability to fly goes away.Player's Handbook (which is the same as the Basic Game), page 203: "Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. [].
Taking damage. [].
Being incapacitated or killed. []."Concentration allows you to cast other spells that are immediate, such as attack spells.
Last time I was playing, I was a fighter, our wizard cast fly on me, and while I was flying and attacking (move part of movement/attack/move the rest of the movement), and the wizard was blasting things, the cleric was casting damage spells, and healing. Was a fun battle, until the draco lich showed up.. :) .... :(
I like to play a game to get the feel of a game, reading a thing really doesn't give a feel of the game. Buff magic is one of the things that I hated about 3.x.
Buff spells can be scaled as well. Fly for example: if cast as a 5th level spell, two characters can be affected. Having two characters bouncing around the battle field would be high fun.
You are wrong.
You get hit and that does not automatically end concentration: Page 203, Players Handbook, "Taking Damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon's breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage."
I guess I should have entered the entire text of the rule.
I don't see that being a major problem if the spell lost is effecting the wizard; the wizard player knows the risk and probably planned accordingly. Where I see that becoming a major problem is when that spell is on the fighter, and they are relying on it to tank someone that could wipe the entire party out if it goes down. Or really any other situation that another character or the party as a whole is relying on that spell. That is where the instant loss of the spell when the wizard is faced with an impossible save is going to upset people, because at that point, it doesn't just hurt the wizard, it hurts the entire party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!
So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!
If the indications about not being able to do much of anything to control enemy movement that I seem to be hearing are true, this is going to become a major complaint real quick. Some reliance on luck is not a bad thing, but if the lack of being able to use a particular spell comes from the fact that no amount of tactics can stop the spell from being disrupted, it becomes a problem very quickly. The system risks making the success or failure of a spell based entirely on luck and that is not going to go over well if that turns out to be the case, especially given that the wizard is traditionally the class that most favors tactics and planning. The fact that it effects both PCs and NPCs equally will help it be accepted to a greater point than if it only affected PCs, but it won't stop it from being an issue.
I personally would have gone with concentration plus 1 round, or at least the end of the current round, if it is forcefully dispelled, much the way fly in 3.5 allows the person to float down to the ground before it completely fades away if dispelled. I get what they were trying to do with the concentration duration, and it's not a bad idea, but as written it's too much given the amount of chaos that occurs in a typical fight. Building in a short buffer would give people a chance to react before it goes away without taking away the danger of being in combat. In the end, I foresee a lot of people making house rule variants that modify, but keep the basic idea of, the concentration duration simply because as written it's too chaotic to effectively use, either as a PC or a NPC, over the course of a campaign.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!
One of the reasons I like it is that I'm hoping it makes it more valuable to acquire miscellaneous magic items, rather than focussing on boosting your main schtick.
A magic item allowing you to fly become that much better in a world where the magicuser cant just effortlessly make the entire party flit around.
Admittedly, I dont think of it as a change but rather as a difference. I'm not particularly wedded to any ruleset, so I dont really have a "default" understanding of how magic should work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!"Heavy spell casting combo", like casting fly on the fighter. "Heavy spell casting combo", which doesn't really exist because you only get one concentration spell.
And since neither wizards nor clerics have proficiency with Constitution saving throws, even the base 10 will fail pretty often.
Not sure how much PF you have played or DMed? I stand by my combo statement, at least in all the PF games I am involved in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So some risk that your "tactics" (aka spell buff routine) might come undone and actually make you have to adjust your tactics is now bad and frustrating? I guess I can see how it would upset people, but to me it adds a large dollop of luck to any tactic that relies on a heavy spell casting combo. To me I actually like it, noting it affects NPCs too!One of the reasons I like it is that I'm hoping it makes it more valuable to acquire miscellaneous magic items, rather than focussing on boosting your main schtick.
A magic item allowing you to fly become that much better in a world where the magicuser cant just effortlessly make the entire party flit around.
Admittedly, I dont think of it as a change but rather as a difference. I'm not particularly wedded to any ruleset, so I dont really have a "default" understanding of how magic should work.
Agreed. In my 5e campaign magic items are actually treated as precious things, as they should be.