Is 5th ed dnd too powerful?


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Bave wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:


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.

That's a gigantic nerf. A 9th level slot to do an average of 40pts of damage? Think about that for a moment. A 17th level wizard dropping one of his most powerful spell slots to do 40 points of damage. Like I said, 5th is going to be nothing but martials and a healer doing the same thing over and over in every combat until WOTC needs to make enough money by generating splat books to re-complicate it all.

A welcome nerf. And if you don't like magic missile cast as a 9th level spell cast meteor swarm. It does 20d6 fire and 20d6 bludgeoning.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

The Exchange

@bave - the game doesn't play like you're describing it at all. I'm not going to go into all your points, but my experience with it so far in no way matches your opinion of the game.

Not sure if you've played any of 5 th edition yet, but sometimes the feel you get from a system just by reading it doesn't match the actual game play.

I would add the caveat that so far I've only played up to level 5 or so, not sure how things go after that.

Also, the core book adds far more to the game than the free online content gives you. The mechanics are the same, but the classes and other options in the core book are pretty diverse.

Cheers


Charlie D. wrote:
Damage is toned down? You are completely, factually, totally incorrect.

The one thing I will say for his example of damage going out of whack is that it IS possible to do a thoroughly ridiculous amount of damage in one hit...it you critically hit on a sneak attack. Reason being, the sneak dice are doubled along with your weapon. So, a high level rogue could theoretically hit for something like 22d6+5 or something on a critical. Still, while a critical hit for 100+ damage is technically possible, it's super unlikely for a number of reasons.


Bave wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:


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.

That's a gigantic nerf. A 9th level slot to do an average of 40pts of damage? Think about that for a moment. A 17th level wizard dropping one of his most powerful spell slots to do 40 points of damage. Like I said, 5th is going to be nothing but martials and a healer doing the same thing over and over in every combat until WOTC needs to make enough money by generating splat books to re-complicate it all.

No one would use a level 9 slot to cast magic missile, and would use it to cast a 9th level spell. But it is possible to do so if you are so inclined, or if you really want to cast 11 magic missiles at once. But for pure damage, you would choose a 9th level spell.

And as it has been stated, it really doesn't sound like you have played 5th edition at all. My experience with it isn't much (finished 2nd session yesterday, might be level 3 next week), but it really comes off as you having only read the basic rules and haven't actually played. The system is fine. There is no reason a new edition should double the power of the classes over the previous edition.


Just do disintegrate. 10d6+40 damage. That's a level 6 or 7, iirc. The lesson is to not waste high level slots for minimal gains. It's like me complaining in pathfinder I can't damage anyone with magic missile when the opponent has shield up.


I'm chomping at the bit to get my hands on the PHB. From what I've seen in the basic rules it isn't too powerful at all, with the exception of the spells hitting a little harder. 3d10 from inflict wounds at 1st level seems high since I'm used to Pathfinder, but I'll wait until I see it in actual play before worrying that it may be OP.


Bave wrote:
Adjule wrote:


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.
That's a gigantic nerf. A 9th level slot to do an average of 40pts of damage? Think about that for a moment. A 17th level wizard dropping one of his most powerful spell slots to do 40 points of damage. Like I said, 5th is going to be nothing but martials and a healer doing the same thing over and over in every combat until WOTC needs to make enough money by generating splat books to re-complicate it all.

Nerved compared to what? PF magic missile maxes out at 5 missiles at CL9 or higher, while in 5E, you get three missiles at level 1, and you can get 5 missiles as early as 5th level (when you gain your first 3rd level slot). I consider that extra slot cost more of a tradeoff than a nerf. There may not be many situations where you want to burn a 9th level slot, but if you have a couple 4th or 5th level slots, it can be very useful.

You also get to regain some of your spell slots during a short rest, and don't have to lock your prepared spells into specific slots until you cast, so that adds versatility as well. I agree that you'd need to be in a really tight spot for MM to be the best use of your lone 9th level slot, but I can imagine a couple situations where it might be the least worst option available.

Shadow Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:
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's saying you get things for free that would be feats in PF, but I'm not sure.

Gods forbid! You mean characters might be able to both pick their nose AND scratch their ass as early as first level?

Obviously a broken system.


insaneogeddon wrote:

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?

Well, one of the big things about 5e is that is more beginner friendly. Including 5 bajillion feats and 8 million skills and spells is not beginner friendly unless certain steps are taken. I've taken a brief look through it, and yes, it does seem like there is a lot compared to 3.5e, but I believe Wizards will do one of two things. They will either limit the scope of the feats you get (ie. everyone gets their own little section of the feats, so there really is only like 10 choices instead of 100), or they will make searching through feats much easier. Having a ton of choices is not a problem when you have a powerful means to narrow them down to exactly what you're looking for.

As for the fact that everyone gets spring attack, free healing, and whatnot, you have to think of it like this: When everyone is OP, no one is OP. If everyone can do something powerful, then it doesn't make anyone more powerful than anyone else.

The balance points are between the adventurers inside the party, and between the party and the enemies. The second balance point can easily be controlled by the DM, so the rules don't effect it much. The most problematic balance point is the balance between classes. Having one player who just feels like they aren't contributing becomes a real downer to the whole group, so making sure all the classes feel equally powerful is of critical importance. There's been how many years since 4e came out and now 5e? I am confident that Wizards has done thorough playtesting and made the core classes as balanced as they can be. This is one of those things that we may have to come back to *after* it gets released.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
insaneogeddon wrote:
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's saying you get things for free that would be feats in PF, but I'm not sure.

Gods forbid! You mean characters might be able to both pick their nose AND scratch their ass as early as first level?

Obviously a broken system.

No way, man. The broken part is that you can open doors without spending a move action. How will GMs cope?!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Doors open without an action? What is this star wars??


3 people marked this as a favorite.
insaneogeddon wrote:
Doors open without an action? What is this star wars??

Nope...Star Trek!

(Ducks to avoid ensuing nerd fight)


Suichimo wrote:
Wrath wrote:
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.

The bonus strength from Rage essentially doesn't count towards the ability cap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bave wrote:

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.

I agree that a game without options or choices is not an especially compelling one, sure. But 5E is a far cry from that. Is it as robust and developed a system as existing systems like 4E and 3.5... which have had years and years of support books and supplements? Of course not. But it seems to present a solid amount of potential for character creation, and I've seen plenty in the PHB that has me very excited about making characters. (For example, the new Warlock, which melds together all my favorite things about both the 3.5 and 4E warlock.)

I also haven't seen any indication that combats are about lengthy, grindy battles. In my own playtesting they were fast and quick-paced, and other reports have been largely the same. Yes, a character moving and taking one attack is going to be much less damage than a character taking 4 attacks with a full-round action. But the counterpoint is that the time it takes to resolve that turn is much faster.

A fight in 3.5 might take 3 rounds of combat, while one in 5E might take 8 rounds of combat. But the 5E fight, in my experience, will take half the real world time of the 3.5 fight, if not less.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
A fight in 3.5 might take 3 rounds of combat, while one in 5E might take 8 rounds of combat. But the 5E fight, in my experience, will take half the real world time of the 3.5 fight, if not less.

That's a really good point esp. when the PCs are of higher levels, where some of the analysis paralysis can take effect (when players start flipping their character sheets over and back deciding which of their many options to choose).


davrion wrote:
Matthew Koelbl wrote:
A fight in 3.5 might take 3 rounds of combat, while one in 5E might take 8 rounds of combat. But the 5E fight, in my experience, will take half the real world time of the 3.5 fight, if not less.
That's a really good point esp. when the PCs are of higher levels, where some of the analysis paralysis can take effect (when players start flipping their character sheets over and back deciding which of their many options to choose).

I haven't played with the final game but we did the play test for about 6 months and my experience was that combats were faster than PF. My regular group plays virtually and we usually get in 2-3 hours per session. In my experience, with 5E we'd get in about 3-4 encounters versus only 1-2 for PF (just finished Reign of Winter part 1). Obviously this wasn't a scientific study or anything but it seemed faster. Character creation also seems quite fast.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ITT: We make bizarre assumptions about 5E after a cursory glance through the rules.

many lols :)


TheRavyn wrote:

ITT: We make bizarre assumptions about 5E after a cursory glance through the rules.

many lols :)

I see a lot of that here. I have played 5 sessions so far, two at 9-10 level, 1 at 1st level, 2 dungeon mastered at 1st to 2nd level. I really like it.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

What I'm seeing a lot of is criticism based on isolating a rule and then viewing it as if it were applied to a 3.X/PFRPG game, instead of viewing of in the context of a 5e game.


Irontruth wrote:
Suichimo wrote:
Wrath wrote:
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.
The bonus strength from Rage essentially doesn't count towards the ability cap.

The Barbarian level 20 class feature is a +4 bump to both Strength and Conditioning, as well as an increase in the stat-cap for those traits from 20 to 24.

Thus, if your Barbarian has 20 strength and 20 conditioning when he reaches level 20 - which he assuredly will - then he bumps to 24 in both stats. And that is independent of the rage bonus to damage.

Webstore Gninja Minion

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a fighty post. Do not stir the Edition Wars pot, and let people play what they want to play without insulting them for it.


How was that edition warring or insulting? I pointed out some dualities in the thinking on these boards and made a point how people generally shine their favored arguments while minimizing opposing views. Ridiculous...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The best place to discuss moderation decisions is in the website feedback subforum.

Back-and-forth with a moderator about what 'edition war' means (and whether "pointing out dualities" and then commenting on the motivations/proclivities of one of those identified groups counts as such) is rarely fruitful or on-topic.


donnald johnson wrote:


I have played 5 sessions so far, two at 9-10 level

What were these like? I'm very curious about higher level play in this edition.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

What a difference from the PF/4E divide. I was turned off of D&D 4E by what the 4E fans were saying they loved about it, but, in this case, I am turned on to the new edition by what the PF fans are saying they hate about it.

I'm guessing that I might like the new edition.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's definitely cool. Reminds me of the best of 2e without all the inane crap I couldn't stand.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's what I'm gathering from the basic rules and what I've heard about the PHB. I'm definitely stoked about a new way to play that gives a nod to the older ways of playing.


I really don't see any difference in playstyle or how players approach the game from a system's stand point. I've been running the playtest in the same manner I've run 3e, PF, 4e, and played in AD&D. Rules and tactics change a bit, sure, but to me there's been no significant difference in playstyle.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Diffan wrote:
I really don't see any difference in playstyle or how players approach the game from a system's stand point. I've been running the playtest in the same manner I've run 3e, PF, 4e, and played in AD&D. Rules and tactics change a bit, sure, but to me there's been no significant difference in playstyle.

I kind of agree - I play pretty much every game the same way. Nonetheless, I can see how system can have an impact for some people - to create a hypothetical example:

If a system provides explicit rules for combat maneuvers and if those are always worse than a standard melee attack, then people will be unlikely to utilise them. In a looser game where the DM will adjudicate the desired action it's easier (as in the players will accept it more readily) to tweak the resolution mechanic so that players will sometimes choose the flashy move and sometimes wont. That's certainly been our experience anyhow.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I really don't see any difference in playstyle or how players approach the game from a system's stand point. I've been running the playtest in the same manner I've run 3e, PF, 4e, and played in AD&D. Rules and tactics change a bit, sure, but to me there's been no significant difference in playstyle.

I kind of agree - I play pretty much every game the same way. Nonetheless, I can see how system can have an impact for some people - to create a hypothetical example:

If a system provides explicit rules for combat maneuvers and if those are always worse than a standard melee attack, then people will be unlikely to utilise them. In a looser game where the DM will adjudicate the desired action it's easier (as in the players will accept it more readily) to tweak the resolution mechanic so that players will sometimes choose the flashy move and sometimes wont. That's certainly been our experience anyhow.

I dunno if i've come across a system where a combat maneuver has been hands down worse than a basic attack. From D&D we have maneuvers from 3.5, an elegant combat system with Pathfinder, and 4e powers that have been pretty good to just attacking. Further, one can use these as examples of how to adjudicate other actions for those who prefer a more free-style approach.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

That's what hypothetical means. :p

I deliberately steered away from an actual game example. It was an in principle comment - the game rules can make a particular game style unattractive so that, for some at least, they won't bother trying what they would in other games.

For a hopefully noncontroversial example: early editions of shadowrun were absolutely deadly. If you didn't do you homework but played a more "kick in the door, guns blazing" style then you were pretty much going to lose. Someone who didn't like the thinking, researching, planning and coordinating parts of RPGs would probably feel the game didn't cater to their needs very well.

I've seen comments about not liking the character creation part of 5E due to enjoying systems with a myriad of options in character creation. I think it's fair to say that 5E doesn't cater well to the people who enjoy spending hours combing through rule books and parsing hundreds of potential options for the exact mechanical widget which will bring their character to life. That may change over time, but it doesn't seem like it to me - the focus during character generation in 5E seems quite different than 4E/PF (to me, anyway).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I've seen comments about not liking the character creation part of 5E due to enjoying systems with a myriad of options in character creation. I think it's fair to say that 5E doesn't cater well to the people who enjoy spending hours combing through rule books and parsing hundreds of potential options for the exact mechanical widget which will bring their character to life. That may change over time, but it doesn't seem like it to me - the focus during character generation in 5E seems quite different than 4E/PF (to me, anyway).

I think they'll probably offer quite a few more options in terms of backgrounds, feats, and the choice you make at 3rd level in the future. All the same, because you only chose two of those once, and the third is an optional thing that you don't get very many of, I doubt it will ever degenerated into the same kind of "build game" as 3.x/PFRPG, where the actual RPG becomes ancillary to character building.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Yeah, that's my first impression too.

I think those who enjoy the game-within-a-game of building a character and getting it "just so" will not be satisfied with the broad strokes approach that 5E takes. I'd expect them to find character building kind of trivial (like going back to the quadratic formula after learning group theory).

It's too early to really say, of course - maybe there's a truckload of splatbooks on the way. Nonetheless, I could imagine someone like that expressing it "5E doesn't suit my play style".

The Exchange

I've gotten to the point in Pathfinder that I have to use a third party character builder to create my PCs. There's sooooo many options.

I like that, don't get me wrong, but GMing that system, particularly in high level games is very difficult.

At the moment 5th ed isn't. I truly hope the game mechanics in their simplistic approach keep,the game easy to run at high levels, even after the splat books come out.

The best part for me is the removal of myriad feats but still well functioning classes. Not having to look up a stat block of feats to understand how a critter works is great.

I think pathfinder could do a lot for their DM's by summarising their NPC baddies with actions in combat rather than feat lists. I know its about word count etc, but for me the complexity gets too much and I usually have to take a break after GMing a campaign.

The 5th ed ones I've dmed so far have been very easy. Nothing at high level yet, so guess we'll see.

Cheers


I'm happy to see feat chains go and instead get bigger feats that do more for you. Sure, this cuts down a bit on options but what they need to do is have ways that players interact with the environment more. If I want to grab a vase and smash it over someone's head, that should be a thing without 1) having to take ridiculous penalties, 2) having to need a feat or a specific Stat score, or 3) have it be SO under powered that doing it is not worth my time or energy.

On top of that, I'm also glad stats aren't the END-ALL, BE-ALL to the game and someone with a score of 12 can still, to a degree, contribute with that score compared to someone with a 17 or 18.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I find I can do more with less in the 5E design, and the players seem more vested in who their characters are instead of exclusively in what their characters can do. It's more conducive to RP and less conducive to Power gaming/Min Max. You CAN still PG/MM, but it doesn't overshadow everyone else like it would in PF if someone made a RP based character vs a MM character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Still waiting to hear people admit they don't like it because its hard to min max or power game to break a dm's campaign. Even more bold would be admitting they do it because they derive enjoyment from feeling overpowered and ruining other peoples fun.


When regards to power, I did notice that in 5e high level wizards can't use Astral Projection to become unkillable while adventuring, and there are no Explosive Runes suitcase nukes or sno-cone wish machines.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Still waiting to hear people admit they don't like it because its hard to min max or power game to break a dm's campaign. Even more bold would be admitting they do it because they derive enjoyment from feeling overpowered and ruining other peoples fun.

Why?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Still waiting to hear people admit they don't like it because its hard to min max or power game to break a dm's campaign. Even more bold would be admitting they do it because they derive enjoyment from feeling overpowered and ruining other peoples fun.

Check out Nathanael Love 's posts about 5e. Or about how he fears that Pathfinder v2.0 might make the horrible mistake of not having wizards be ridiculously overpowered.


JoeJ wrote:

When regards to power, I did notice that in 5e high level wizards can't use Astral Projection to become unkillable while adventuring, and there are no Explosive Runes suitcase nukes or sno-cone wish machines.

Agreed. And the more I read about "buff" spells and concentration the more I see the incentive of using those spells on his allies to help win encounters instead of just doing it himself.

Webstore Gninja Minion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reminder to keep it civil in this thread, thank you.


I've been playing for a couple of weeks now and I can say the mechanics are certainly simplified, but that's a good thing. A process that once tooks hours for me (character creation) now takes around 30 minutes. And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.
If I want my character to wield his grandfather's warhammer, he can do so without worrying about being underpower and overwhelmed later is his career.


Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say that the background mechanics, including the flaws, bonds and such, which are more formally baked into the the character creation process are what adds more emphasis to the role playing. There isn't anything to stop you from doing that kind of thing in previous editions, but it isn't hardwired into the game the same way as it is in 5e.

Diffan wrote:
Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?


P.H. Dungeon wrote:

I would say that the background mechanics, including the flaws, bonds and such, which are more formally baked into the the character creation process are what adds more emphasis to the role playing. There isn't anything to stop you from doing that kind of thing in previous editions, but it isn't hardwired into the game the same way as it is in 5e.

Diffan wrote:
Dragon Knight wrote:

And the game emphasis roleplaying over roll playing.

How? Or more specifically, where?

Backgrounds provide mechanical benefit for players, including starting items and gold, so I guess there is that. However you can bypass this by going to the items section and just getting gold based off class. This modular element it akin to 4E's Theme's, which also provided a mechanical background element with thematic purposes. Backgrounds in 4E do a similar service in providing other benefits (like the often abused "Auspicious Birth / Born Under A Bad Sign" which allows the use of another ability score instead of Constitution for starting HP).

Bonds, Flaws, Traits, etc. are really fun and all and I'm glad they're in the game, but aide from the DM giving out Inspiration because of them, there's no incentive to do any of this at character creation. Sure, it's in the rules to use but it can simply be ignored by a player with no significant loss (well, besides fun and enjoyment).

So as evident with Backgrounds and BOnds/traits/etc. they're not so much baked in as suggestions to utilize because they're cool. I'm sure when I start running more 5E I'll have players completely by-pass this part of the process.

Shadow Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say the biggest emphasis of roleplaying in 5e as opposed to 3.x is that the focus in 5e is on actually playing the game, whereas in 3.x, playing the game is a minor addition hastily taped onto the REAL product...a character creation system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I would say the biggest emphasis of roleplaying in 5e as opposed to 3.x is that the focus in 5e is on actually playing the game, whereas in 3.x, playing the game is a minor addition hastily taped onto the REAL product...a character creation system.

That's a pretty darn subjective statement that is vastly more reflective of the individual player than the actual system, and I say this as someone who enjoys creating NPCs and extra characters for fun. So far I've already created about a dozen PCs with 5e and have only had the opportunity to play the "official" game a few times so far.

Character tweaking, mechanics digging, numbers finangling have ALWAYS been apart of the game, regardless if the system "promotes" it or not.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's powerful enough to have pulled my group from Pathfinder, which we've spent the past three years obsessing over.

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Is 5th ed dnd too powerful? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.