| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without looking at the rules I can't say for sure, but there sure are a lot of feats in 3e/Pathfinder that I wouldn't object to seeing as baseline abilities.
Raising the baseline strength of the martial classes relative to casters would be a major improvement to any of the D&D-based systems, Pathfinder included. So long as the monsters are sufficiently ferocious that they still pose a challenge to these new super-martials, this is probably a good thing.
I haven't taken a look at 5th ed yet. Hopefully, they have dispensed with dissociated 1/day abilities, Rangers who can push targets 10' in any direction with their arrows (wut?) and other such rubbish. We shall see. At this point, I am skeptical of WotC's ability to design a good system. Time will tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on now, I actually liked a lot of the controller forced movements effects. It was a nice tactical choice and not completely horrible like in some other DnD variants I could name.
Any way, I haven't looked into 5e but I'm sure at some point I will. I like the idea of rolling some of the usual suspect feats into class features as less "you must take x, y, and z or you suck; once you have those you can have a unique character build" is a good thing. As for being too powerful, it's all a matter of perspective, and I have no idea what the bestiary is like.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The base power curve of all classes is far lower though. No more open ended stat scores. Stats cap at 22 with best magic items.
Pluses to attacks and saves has been reduced. Everyone has +2 for the first six levels, and where that plus gets added to depends on your class. The plus then goes up by one at 7th level or so, the pattern repeats.
Spells are spent via slots. No need for meta magic feats any more. If you want a more powerful version of the spell you cast it at a higher slot and each spell description clearly tells what it does at higher slots.
The entire combat is streamlined. DMing it is very easy compared to pathfinder at this stage. Purely for the fact I'm not having to keep looking lots of feats up for every NPC.
Magic items are extremely rare, and not designed to be an expectation for the class to succeed. In other words, each class appears to be able to hold its own at all levels whether it has magic items or not. To compensate, each class has abilities that help the scale built into the class.
I've only had the system about a week. Run two games and played some of the starter set. I like it. Liked 4th ed for similar reasons. I like Pathfinder for different reasons.
Pathfinder has far more complexity, and some of that gives great guidelines for things to work. Dnd has far less rails to keep you in, which means DM's are free to make judgements without being limited by pre printed dc's or situations that let rules lawyers try to destroy a plot or ability an NPC or critter might have. For me, that is a freedom I like to see. For others I think it will be a point if confusion or nervousness.less experienced DMs like more guidance in decision making I've found.
This game reminds me a lot of 2nd edition in terms of gear necessity, but absolutely fits into the 3rd edition game mechanics beautifully.
With the monsters they've released so far in free online content, I've gone through parts of Runelords and worked out some easy conversion for it. I could pretty much run all of book one for that with what's out there now. For me that's important, because I find the Paizo paths to be amazing.
I'll be able to give a much better for the feel of the game in a few weeks when I've dmed it for longer.
Cheers
@Wrath - what free content has monsters in it? I only have the free basic rules PDF - but there were no monsters in it...
|
|
@Wrath - what free content has monsters in it? I only have the free basic rules PDF - but there were no monsters in it...
The DM's guide basic set. This part also outlines some magic items.
The support content for the first adventure ( hoard of the dragon queen).
Between those two, there are quite a few critters.
The official players handbook also has quite a few critters in the back for things the players might summon or turn into through wild shape. That ones not free though.
Cheers.
Ps when you get that stuff, check out the lair mechanic it looks like they're going to implement for big critters like dragons. Looks great to me.
|
|
Stats cap at 22 with best magic items.Barbarians can actually hit 24 in Str and Con. I'm not sure HOW they'll do it, since the ability comes at 20, but they can.
Yeah, I've heard that somewhere. Not as huge as the strength 30 odd characters we see in the min max threads for pathfinder/ 3.5 though.
It seems they looked at many of the balance stuff 3.5 had and worked out some of that was the open ended build nature of the game.
I have a gut feeling this edition will appeal to the E6 fans of Pathfinder.
The feat options for this game are nice too. You can choose to take a feat instead of taking a bonus +1 to a stat when they come up on your class. Feats are good, but it's enough of a choice that you'd be thinking hard about it.
Cheers
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats- save feats, re-roll feats, spring attack, shot on run, bonus actions etc etc
Monks can be benders- flying, breathing fire etc
Far less caster martial disparity so cannot even limit players by limiting classes?
It looks to me like someone hasn't actually looked at the 5e rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that mean no theorycrafting of character builds?
Noooooooooo!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on now, I actually liked a lot of the controller forced movements effects. It was a nice tactical choice and not completely horrible like in some other DnD variants I could name.
They were a nice idea, mechanically speaking, but the way they were implemented, like so much of 4th edition, strained credulity even in a world where dragons and prismatic sprays are normal things. Fighters having the standard class ability to burp fireballs would offer interesting tactical choices, as well, but if it cannot be even vaguely justified by the common-sense definition of what a fighter is, it doesn't belong in the game.
I'm thinking that looking at 5e characters compared to pathfinder characters are going to look a bit stronger, yes. But what really matters s how they compare to the monsters and villains they face, which will probably also be comparatively stronger than those of 3.P
Martials got bumped and casters got nerfed. But, when casters get nerfed in a rule set, everyone gets nerfed. Case in point, they've made it much harder to stack significant amounts of buff spells on targets. So, the days of the whole scry and fry 15 minute adventuring day will be much more rare in 5th edition. Whole party flying at their leisure at 7-10th level+? Doubt it. Animal companions stronger than the fighter? Doubt that too.
Additionally casters get fewer spell slots, but slightly more versatility, so there will be pros and cons much like any 2 systems you compare.
I've read a bit, but haven't had a chance to play it yet. Mostly from what I've seen on the boards, it can be pretty gritty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the lack of massive power curve that is so prevalent in Pathfinder. A party a couple levels above and a monster is a cakewalk, couple levels below and it's difficult. 5 levels plus and minus and it's not a noticeable encounter or near impossible.
I like that casters can't be stacking all sorts of spells. Concentration makes the spells special and precious. Can't have fly and displacement on at the same time.
I like that melee get to move and attack throughout their turn. Melee get lots of interesting options and abilities depending on the path taken.
A simplified system with lots of fun and flexibility. Mobs become a threat throughout so it's easier to make encounters.
So far I like what they did.
It looks fun from what I have seen. I would just need to convince everyone I play with to give it a shot. I also wonder if converting pathfinder material will be time consuming or not.
It looks fun from what I have seen. I would just need to convince everyone I play with to give it a shot. I also wonder if converting pathfinder material will be time consuming or not.
That's my number one concern also, I love the Adventure Path line but dislike the convoluted Pathfinder rules and am always on the lookout for a more intuitive system to convert them to. So far I've been using Savage Worlds, but I hope to switch to D&D.5, dependent on compatibility.
I haven't read the guide for 5th yet, but making spells "precious and special" sounds awful for casters. Forcing concentration on buffing spells or require multiround casting, means wizards have to sit around all battle after taking a single casting action; that sounds amazingly boring to me.
That said spells scaling with level does sound like a pretty strong change.
You can still cast attack spells while concentrating on a spell, but you can't concentrate on multiple spells. (At least not by default - that may well become one of the options as they release new material).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats
You lost me with this. What are you talking about? Feats are rare since you have to choose between an ability bump or a feat. Sure you can take all feats, but do you really want your primary state to be a 15? If you're a spellcaster that means your DCs are 12. That's pretty low and easy to make the save (granted, not when you roll like me, but still).
I think he meant that since you can move and attack (for example) in 5E that its like having a whole bunch of feats in PF for free. I think the reference to "reroll feats" was advantage and so on.
I may well be wrong though.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To save time, I'm just going to nominate thejeff as my proxy.
|
|
I haven't read the guide for 5th yet, but making spells "precious and special" sounds awful for casters. Forcing concentration on buffing spells or require multiround casting, means wizards have to sit around all battle after taking a single casting action; that sounds amazingly boring to me.
That said spells scaling with level does sound like a pretty strong change.
That is not how concentration works in 5th. You just can't have two spells that require concentration at once.
Also cantrips scale and spells in general are really strong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said spells scaling with level does sound like a pretty strong change.
Spells scaling is not the right word for it. Many spells you can cast using a higher level spell slot and get a greater effect. The two best examples of this is cure wounds and magic missile. Cure wounds, if you cast it as a 1st level spell from a 20th level cleric, it heals the same amount of damage as a 1st level cleric. Compare that with Pathfinder where you heal 1 more point of damage as a 2nd level caster as opposed to a 1st level cleric. And the damage healed keeps going up until you hit 5th level. In 5e, however, you have the option of using one of your higher level spell slots. So if you want to heal more damage, you have to use a 2nd or 3rd or higher level spell slot.
Magic missile is another example. In pathfinder you automatically get additional missiles as you increase in level. In 5e, if you cast it as a 1st level spell from a 1st level wizard or a 20th level wizard, you deal the same amount of damage. However, you have the option of using a higher level spell slot to get additional missiles.
So while D&D requires less spells for the caster, I'd say it is balanced with the casters having less spells prepared. A 20th level wizard can have a maximum of 25 spells prepared, the same number as a 15th level pathfinder wizard. Mind you, that is before pathfinder adds in extra spells from school specialization and ability score bonuses. When you factor those in (using the absolute minimum ability score needed) a pathfinder wizard at 11th level can prepare more spells than a 5e D&D 20th level wizard. So pathfinder wizards win in overall versatility.
Then there's the fact that 6th level spells and beyond can only really be used once per day. The exception to this is levels 19 and 20 where a wizard can cast a 6th level spell a second time per day and at 20th level where a wizard can cast a 7th level spell a second time per day. Compare it to the 17th level pathfinder school specialized wizard that can cast 2 9th level spells/day.
So yea, like others have said, 5e spellcasters get the nerf.
I do think they'll play very differently.
Definite agreement. (And I did forget about arcane recovery.)
That said spells scaling with level does sound like a pretty strong change.The entire premise of 5th Ed seems to be to dumb it down, make combat take longer, and continue to bend the curve towards martials away from casters.
Who wants to play a game where there isn't any variable dynamics any more? Sure, it's easier, but then you lose so much of the flexibility and variability.
I also never really understood the idea that martials are so underpowered in PFS. Sure, if you have a GM who is completely ignoring the rules of magic/spells and making it very easy it can be otherwise it really isn't there. Certainly not compared to the fact that I have been in a ton of games where fighters around 12th level are running around with AC's in the 40's pretty regularly with saves that are all near impossible to fail all the while the archers are dealing insane amounts of damage every single round pretty much.
Dumb down? Interesting verbiage, but some people do want the rules simplified, so YMMV.
A buddy of mine told me about a session he played over the weekend. Fights were generally very fast paced. The advantage/disadvantage system coupled with flater math made each turn go faster. I think he said the group was 7th level. I love PF, but to be frank, I dont think any system has ever had longer, more drug out combats than 3.X.
Can you expand on why you think combats would take longer in 5th?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the interesting things they did was create a new paradigm of leveling and power. In 3.x and 4E you had relatively low-power starting characters that quickly scale up to demigod levels. In 4E they specifically had tiers representing that, in 3.x the system itself makes that clear; as Sean Reynolds pointed out, basically every 3.5/PF character of 6th level or above is a superhero by RL standards.
In 5e, you start out a bit more powerful so you know you're heroes, but the scaling beyond that is a change in utility and capacity, not as much in direct power. You're still mortals who are part of the same world as the 1st level schmucks, and you don't have this weird dynamic where the adventurers are stronger than 99% of the world's population before they're even halfway through their career. A group of 8th level adventurers still needs to be respectful of the town guard since enough of them can absolutely take them down.
Overall, 5e has a higher baseline and a lower cap than the 3.x editions, with tighter balance between classes at all levels of play. It's pretty solid, though it does feel a little like the junior's edition sometimes.
Until I see a PF or 3.5 combat take 8 hours for a single turn for half the PCs at the table I'm going to say Exalted is by far the slowest game I've ever played
My apologies, I should qualify my statement about combat durations to PF/3.X in relation to other editions of D&D.
Never played Exalted, but I have played OWOD, and Warhammer Fantasy, and they were pretty quick from what I remember.
Until I see a PF or 3.5 combat take 8 hours for a single turn for half the PCs at the table I'm going to say Exalted is by far the slowest game I've ever playedMy apologies, I should qualify my statement about combat durations to PF/3.X in relation to other editions of D&D.
Never played Exalted, but I have played OWOD, and Warhammer Fantasy, and they were pretty quick from what I remember.
As a veteran Exalted 2Ed player and GM who is waiting the 3Ed, I can say that Ulgalanoth is absolutely right. There are many things to love on Exalted, but the combat is really slow sometimes. But the major problem is that every single NPC can take like 5 hours to make. NPC, not encounter.
|
In 5e, you start out a bit more powerful so you know you're heroes,
I don't see why you think characters start out more powerful. 1st level characters (at least ones from the beginner box, I don't have the PHB) are less powerful than their pathfinder equivalents ( lower stats, less domain powers, etc).
Unless you start characters at level 3 which seems to be a very common practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats- save feats, re-roll feats, spring attack, shot on run, bonus actions etc etc
Monks can be benders- flying, breathing fire etc
Far less caster martial disparity so cannot even limit players by limiting classes?
30 bonus feats...?????
From the free Basic rules I see the Fighter getting 7 Feat opportunities (which override the option of taking an Ability Score bump).
What are Save Feats? You mean like Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, Iron Will that were in v3.5 and Pathfinder? I don't have the PHB yet so I haven't seen how good the Feats are yet.
Spring Attack was a ridiculously moronic thing to throw in as a feat in v3.5 and PF, as was Shot on the Run. And everyone gets like one bonus action.
As for Monks being "benders" I say FINALLY!! Do you know how difficult it was to make a "Bender" style character in v3.5? I had to create it's OWN separate class because a Multi-class Monk/Magic-User was a useless attempt that ended in frustration. The only thing close was a Fire-Bender with the Swordsage using Desert Wind maneuvers. Earth Benders were "sorta" done with the Swordsage and Stone Dragon / Iron Heart / and Setting Sun maneuvers.
Even 4E was rather "meh" on the whole concept. It took someone building their OWN whole Avatar: The Airbender system to do that.
So I'm not really sure I understand the problem here. You get a total of +6 to your attacks and saves over 20 levels compared to +10/+15/+20 attacks and +12/+6 saves of v3.5 and Pathfinder OR +15 in 4E.
Then you look at feats, of which Pathfinder nets 10 per 20 levels and 4E's 18 over 30 levels. Feats in Next are based on class, of which only the Fighter has the highest with 7 over 20 levels.
I have to assume this is a joke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone gets like 30 bonus feats- save feats, re-roll feats, spring attack, shot on run, bonus actions etc etc
Monks can be benders- flying, breathing fire etc
Far less caster martial disparity so cannot even limit players by limiting classes?
It doesn't matter how powerful the PCs are, so long as it's commensurate with the power level of appropriate encounters. You can't just say 'wow, they've got more stuff than us, they're more powerful' because they're completely different rules systems ... it only matters within their particular bubble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dumb down? Interesting verbiage, but some people do want the rules simplified, so YMMV.A buddy of mine told me about a session he played over the weekend. Fights were generally very fast paced. The advantage/disadvantage system coupled with flater math made each turn go faster. I think he said the group was 7th level. I love PF, but to be frank, I dont think any system has ever had longer, more drug out combats than 3.X.
Can you expand on why you think combats would take longer in 5th?
The problem is with simplified you get undesirable side effects. The simpler a game system is the less variability you have in it. I could easily make a simple game with the rules on a 3x5 card, one class, one race, one mechanic. Great, but it's boring.
The problem I saw in 5th ED was that the damage was toned down heavily, the healing increased dramatically which leads to grinding battles.
Side effects can be from anything, though. Including, as in Pathfinder, complexity. Pathfinder's rampant expansion of traits, feats, spells, equipment, magic items, and class variants coupled with arcane and increasingly complicated rules has created the bevy of undesirable side effects for its game. Case in point: look at the Rules board. If you need an entire forum just to discuss every odd quirk of the rules, and figure out the wording and discern whether RAW or RAI is how to go, you might have a slight issue with the opportunity for variation created by your game's complexity.
As for the damage / vs healing bit, based on 5 weeks of a test campaign so far, I would say the damage floor has been raised, but definitely not the ceiling. Mythic Finesse on all applicable melee and ranged weapons means critters like goblins can be fairly threatening in large numbers, it's true. However, critical hits only happen on a natural 20 and double damage dice only, not modifiers. So even if you could stack your modifier to a huge degree, it wouldn't cause undue burst damage. Healing isn't a huge deal, our cleric has some in combat heals that he sometimes uses, same with his Channel Divinity. The big help, though, is using your hit dice to heal on every short rest. It's a huge load off the shoulders of the party healer to not have ALL the PCs health replenishment be his responsibility.
I have a gut feeling this edition will appeal to the E6 fans of Pathfinder.
It's hard to say. I consider myself a very strong advocate for E6 (it's actually what I'd run full-time for v3.5) and E7 for Pathfinder but I'm not sure D&D5 will trump it. The elegance, for lack of a better word, in E6 is that your not dealing with "levels" after a certain, early point. There's no need to worry about spell slots and higher levels spells like Wish and Meteor Swarm. And there's still the mini-game of Character Customization that's not as deep in D&D5. Plus v3.5 and Pathfinder have been around a LOT longer AND their stuff is nearly all free online. That way I can look at a site, pick feats and a class, and *BOOM* I'm done.
I see similarities and that's a good thing. Lower numbers and lower intensity for system-mastery are things that can be good. Monsters of lower levels being continuous threats at most levels is also a good thing. The idea that magical items aren't required and that even weapons that are just "+1" being special are tailored to the E6 enjoyment.
I think the biggest hurdles is the use of super-high magic, HP inflation at the later levels of the game, and fantastic abilities that exceed most mortals. These are things that aren't prevalent in E6 due to the nature of stopping the game at a low level. It makes most characters still "mortal" in the sense of their relation to NPCs and to the overall world. For example in D&D5 a 10th level or higher Fighter is getting 3 attacks and has a good chance his AC is close to or above 20. Most guards will have attacks that will only hit on a 17 or higher, thus making him an extremely dangerous foe. In E6 the AC is similar but his HPs are still hovering around 40 to 50 instead of double that. And his saves are still low (+2 to Reflex and Will) and if the system is played right, he's not fully decked out in magical wares. So a Fireball still poses a significant threat to him as do town guards and things like critical hits.
Magic missile is another example. In pathfinder you automatically get additional missiles as you increase in level. In 5e, if you cast it as a 1st level spell from a 1st level wizard or a 20th level wizard, you deal the same amount of damage. However, you have the option of using a higher level spell slot to get additional missiles.
Blasting spells are a lot stronger in 5th edition than they are in 3rd or Pathfinder. Your example of magic missile, in a level 1 slot, deals 3d4+3 force damage. You get 3 missiles total at level 1 that deal 1d4+1 force damage each, and can designate 1-3 targets. If you use a 2nd level slot, that's 4 missiles. You gain +1 missile per spell level of the slot you cast it with. 9th level slot used? That's 11 total missiles for 11d4+11 total damage.
Burning hands does 3d6 fire damage to everything in a 15 foot cone (Dexterity save for 1/2 damage). That's a possible 18 damage at level 1 if you roll really well, which can down even the barbarian. Each slot used above 1st gets an extra 1d6 damage added to it.
It looks like spellcasters will probably be more blasty in 5th edition, instead of controlly, as most control spells require concentration. And those blasty spells are rather damaging, even in 1st level spell slots, including the at-will cantrips. Ray of frost, which deals 1d3 in Pathfinder, deals 1d8 at 1st, and bumps to 2d8 at 5th, 3d8 at 11th, and 4d8 at 17th level.
|
The entire premise of 5th Ed seems to be to dumb it down, make combat take longer, and continue to bend the curve towards martials away from casters.
Have you played 5E or read it? I am curious because I didn't get this impression when I played or read it. Additionally, combat was very fast. I played in a game last night and the speed of the combat was one of the features that stood out to me. Additionally, 5E essentially just got rid of all of the various situational modifiers and replaced them with the disadvantage/advantage system - you call that dumbed-down but I find it elegant.
Who wants to play a game where there isn't any variable dynamics any more? Sure, it's easier, but then you lose so much of the flexibility and variability.
Not sure what you mean here. Class flexibility, combat flexibility, spell flexibility? You aren't saying anything specific here.
|
|
Dumb down? Interesting verbiage, but some people do want the rules simplified, so YMMV.A buddy of mine told me about a session he played over the weekend. Fights were generally very fast paced. The advantage/disadvantage system coupled with flater math made each turn go faster. I think he said the group was 7th level. I love PF, but to be frank, I dont think any system has ever had longer, more drug out combats than 3.X.
Can you expand on why you think combats would take longer in 5th?
The problem is with simplified you get undesirable side effects. The simpler a game system is the less variability you have in it. I could easily make a simple game with the rules on a 3x5 card, one class, one race, one mechanic. Great, but it's boring.
The problem I saw in 5th ED was that the damage was toned down heavily, the healing increased dramatically which leads to grinding battles.
Just to be clear...you are talking about 5E D&D right? Not some other game?
|
Dumb down? Interesting verbiage, but some people do want the rules simplified, so YMMV.A buddy of mine told me about a session he played over the weekend. Fights were generally very fast paced. The advantage/disadvantage system coupled with flater math made each turn go faster. I think he said the group was 7th level. I love PF, but to be frank, I dont think any system has ever had longer, more drug out combats than 3.X.
Can you expand on why you think combats would take longer in 5th?
The problem is with simplified you get undesirable side effects. The simpler a game system is the less variability you have in it. I could easily make a simple game with the rules on a 3x5 card, one class, one race, one mechanic. Great, but it's boring.
The problem I saw in 5th ED was that the damage was toned down heavily, the healing increased dramatically which leads to grinding battles.
Damage is toned down? You are completely, factually, totally incorrect.