|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts are in line with the two posts above. Having a character concept and translating that onto paper can be a Palladiums-esque book trawl when what you want is ensconced and divided between sources, and as mentioned, not especially organized to indicate utility to builds.
I as an experienced player still spend a lot of time making sure what feats might apply, or alternately just eschew all but the core rules. Tedium is enemy to enthusiasm.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's what 5e does with feats that makes them acceptable again.
It also does a much better job balancing them. No more ridiculous feat chains for mediocre effects for martial characters, while spellcasters get better effects out of one-shot feats. If Paizo applied the same standards to feats for spellcasters that they do to feats for martial characters, then Spell Penetration (for example) would be broken up into a bunch of feats, each only applying to one school, and to a certain range of spell levels (with the lower-level feat as a prerequisite for the higher levels).
Hmmm...I generally find Spell Penetration to be terrible...especially compared to say, Power Attack. To each his own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've mentioned this before, but as a DM, I don't use the "feats and multiclassing" chapter 6 in the PHB at my table.
Even though I've ran over twenty sessions of 5e at this point, I'm still digging a simple game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I've mentioned this before, but as a DM, I don't use the "feats and multiclassing" chapter 6 in the PHB at my table.
Even though I've ran over twenty sessions of 5e at this point, I'm still digging a simple game.
And I'm the opposite throwing in all that optional stuff right off the back including stuff from the DMG and already telling people if you like something in pathfinder or 3.5 let me take a look at it and I'll see if I can turn it into a class path option. This edition sparked my love of making homebrew stuff that had kinda fallen by the wayside in pathfinder cause there was just soo much stuff already.
I haven't played a lot of Next/5E, however two related mehcanics about 5E have me breathing a sigh of relief. The proficiency bonus set-up and the disadvantage/advantage mechanic. Those two changes eliminate, what has been for me, a sore point since d20/3E was first released back on 2000/2001 - numbers bloat. Numbers bloat being ever increasing bonuses to die rolls. I get why it was set-up that way, and was a great way to illustrate clever combos and increased character capability. However, I found it, as a GM, frustrating to an extreme.
That said, I need to see how 5E plays out to higher levels of play to get a more informed perspective.
|
|
I think it would be neat if there were lists of feats arranged by character concept. Like knight, spell blaster, swashbuckler, archer, scholar, sneak-thief, tank, striker, two-weapon fighter, heavy weapon fighter, shield master, uber-healer, buffer, party face, etc. etc.
This was done in PHB II for 3.5E. Im sure you could go around looking at PF guides and make something out of them.
I think it would be neat if there were lists of feats arranged by character concept. Like knight, spell blaster, swashbuckler, archer, scholar, sneak-thief, tank, striker, two-weapon fighter, heavy weapon fighter, shield master, uber-healer, buffer, party face, etc. etc.This was done in PHB II for 3.5E. Im sure you could go around looking at PF guides and make something out of them.
Maybe even a list of suggested feats for each background?
Currently, there aren't a lot of feats, so it's not hard to pick feats at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of 5th Edition, but I do have to concede the following things I like about it.
Backgrounds: Backgrounds feel like what Pathfinder traits should have been like.
Feats: I really like how each feat helps encompass a character concept, and having them bigger and more meaningful reduces the bloat. I do wish they had a level progression, though.
Sorcerer and Monk: Both these classes strike me as very well done. It feels natural that the sorcerer is the metamagic master. The monk is designed so you can pick between being a mystical warrior, a ki blaster, or a ninja with shadow powers. I've honestly been tempted to homebrew Pathfinder versions of these.
Skill & Saves: I like how skills and saves are simplified, though I do wish they left more room for customization.
Advantage/Disadvantage (as a concept): I think advantage/disadvantage was really poorly implemented for so many reasons I've listed elsewhere. However, I really like the idea of encapsulating all circumstantial bonuses into one mechanic. I'm implementing a different version of it in my own RPG projects.
Would you care to share your different version of Adv/Disadv?
Would you care to share your different version of Adv/Disadv?
Sure! My version turns each advantage/disadvantage into a stackable bonus/penalty. For example, you gain a +2 bonus for each advantage and a -2 penalty for each disadvantage.
I did not really like the "roll twice and take highest/lowest" aspect of 5th Edition's implementation because there's absolutely no granularity to it. It's easy to gain an advantage on someone (a very powerful boon) and yet nothing you do can further your advantage. My version tries to fix that while still making it easy to remember and modify a roll. It's easy to calculate the bonus or penalty on something by just counting up all the advantages and disadvantages. My version also allows new mechanics to hook onto the system. For example, sneak attack could be reworked to deal +1 damage per advantage the rogue has on the attack.
The Adv/Disadv system is really quick and elegant. It works really well on the fly, and it really speeds up play because you don't have to look up conditions and stat modifiers and other circumstances. You also don't have to worry about forgetting any modifiers.
|
|
Would you care to share your different version of Adv/Disadv?Sure! My version turns each advantage/disadvantage into a stackable bonus/penalty. For example, you gain a +2 bonus for each advantage and a -2 penalty for each disadvantage.
I did not really like the "roll twice and take highest/lowest" aspect of 5th Edition's implementation because there's absolutely no granularity to it. It's easy to gain an advantage on someone (a very powerful boon) and yet nothing you do can further your advantage. My version tries to fix that while still making it easy to remember and modify a roll. It's easy to calculate the bonus or penalty on something by just counting up all the advantages and disadvantages. My version also allows new mechanics to hook onto the system. For example, sneak attack could be reworked to deal +1 damage per advantage the rogue has on the attack.
Meh...the great thing about 5e's advantage/disadvantage system is that it avoids bonus/penalty bloat, which is probably the WORST aspect of 3.x/PFRGP.
On the other hand, it also isn't gradated at all, which kind of breaks verisimilitude over time. It's roughly equivalent to just plus or minus 4.5 anyway.
Personally, my favorite change was actually standardizing spell levels across classes, and causing spells to scale with spell slot level rather than caster level.
I'm really liking the "arcanist" style casting all the spellcasters get. You get to use all your spells, and you never feel like you prepared the wrong spell, or not enough of the right spell, and that's really fun.
I also like the boosted cantrips. Guidance is super fun to give out (+1d4!), and spellcasters never worry about running of spells and being forced to use crossbows or daggers.
Ritual spells are fun too.
Inspired by 5E's Adv/Disadv, I'm using a similar concept in a PBEM, where Adv allows you to reroll a failed result of 1-10 and Disadv forces you to reroll a successful roll of 15-20. That way, people with Adv are more reliable at routine tasks and people with Disadv fail more often if they're relying on luck (high DCs).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really liking the "arcanist" style casting all the spellcasters get. You get to use all your spells, and you never feel like you prepared the wrong spell, or not enough of the right spell, and that's really fun.
I also like the boosted cantrips. Guidance is super fun to give out (+1d4!), and spellcasters never worry about running of spells and being forced to use crossbows or daggers.
Ritual spells are fun too.
Thanks to Searing Light, my groups have taken to calling any cleric who takes it a Laser Cleric.
speaking of customization... you really, really can go a long way with this system, WITHOUT having to delve into the headache that often results in 3.5/PF from sitting there going "do I take THIS feat or THAT? do I use THIS skill or THAT? do I plan a dip into THIS class or go straight for the PRC or THIS archetype and do I use THIS racial blah blah blah"
I made a Fey-Pact Warlock with the Criminal background the other day for a pick-up convention game, and he feels ENTIRELY different from every other Warlock I've seen or played. I didn't bother taking Eldritch Blast -- he's a Wood Elf, so I took True Strike instead, and use it with his longbow. ALL of his spells and Invocations thus far have been non-combat, things like Charm, Sleep, etc. The game we're in is very, VERY heavy on social interaction, so thus far he's been a powerhouse... and again, he feels ENTIRELY different than the blasting-focused Star Pact Warlock I played with in a Lost Mines intro adventure, both mechanically AND RP-wise. It's always wonderful when roleplaying choices not only align with your actual mechanical choices, but ALSO don't completely bone you if you picked something technically sub-optimal.
I agree Teal; I was particularly happy to see that backgrounds make customization possible in a no feat game.
I wish there was a little more customization at 1st level. Maybe something like PF's traits? I know Backgrounds are 5th Edition's version of traits, but it seems a bit TOO modular sometimes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After doing a few sessions with the non-Playtest rules and having access now to the PHB (instead of just the Core material) there are a lot of good things that I like:
• Bounded Accuracy
• Fluid combat
• Simplicity
• Spell design (like Sleep is a lot of fun and still useful after 1st level)
• Bonus actions and how things interact with them
• Less focus on action-during turn (like "Oh wait, did I already use my Intermediate Interrupt and can I use this ability to trigger another effect that uses my Immediate Reaction, etc.) In 4E it sort of bogged the game down a bit IMO.
• Quicker Combats, though I'm assuming that will increase as we gain levels
• Complete removal of Alignment-based restrictions
Things that I'm not a fan of:
• Critical hits are *yawn*.....boring....
• Not enough substances at 1st level
• Multiclassing Rules as I really didn't like v3.5 style and much more preferred 4E's feats and/or Hybrid class rules.
• Monsters use spells, which have to be referenced in another book, very annoying because it breaks up the flow of the game when the DM has to look up the mechanics.
Monsters having the full text of their available spells printed along side might have been done in 4th Edition, but it's never been done at any other time to my knowledge.
Monsters having the full text of their available spells printed along side might have been done in 4th Edition, but it's never been done at any other time to my knowledge.
Correct, however I never liked it in those editions either. Having to do multiple page references for 1 monster is really annoying. It would have been better to say "These are his common spell attacks"
Firebolt: at-will, 120 ft., 1 trgt, +8 attack, 3d10 fire damage
Fireball: 150-ft. range, 20-ft. area, 5d6 fire damage (save DC 15 1/2).
Etc.
Instead of just throwing out a dozen or so spells from the PHB that the DM now has to look up for their range, components, duration, effects, etc.
At least all monster abilities are listed and we don't have feats to worry about. I do agree that learning all the spells is hard work for GMs.
What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?
The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh right, I forgot to mention: having the Criminal background lets my Warlock act as a poor man's Rogue in a lot of cases. He'll never be as good as a straight Rogue at sneaking, backstabbing, pick-pocketing, and the like, but he CAN and DOES do those things.
Had a similar case in a game I DM'd with a Cleric with the Criminal background. That did not save him when he used Disguise Self to infiltrate a Goblin camp... and totally did not know how to speak Goblin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?
The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.
Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.
Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?
The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.
But that was their intention. It was meant that you start making real character choices at 3rd level, as 1st and 2nd level are supposed to almost be apprentice levels and pass by very quickly.
• Monsters use spells, which have to be referenced in another book, very annoying because it breaks up the flow of the game when the DM has to look up the mechanics.
Do you mean in the two published adventures? Because if you go to the product page for each of them, there is a free pdf download for each that includes all the magic items, monsters, and spells used in the adventure that are not also in the Basic Rules, so that you have them for reference and do not need to even have copies of the core books.
And I'm the opposite throwing in all that optional stuff right off the back including stuff from the DMG and already telling people if you like something in pathfinder or 3.5 let me take a look at it and I'll see if I can turn it into a class path option. This edition sparked my love of making homebrew stuff that had kinda fallen by the wayside in pathfinder cause there was just soo much stuff already.
That sounds cool, I love how the game can accomodate so many styles. I was playing B/X retroclones before I got into 5e and I didn't have a strong history with 3e. The DMG rules I'm using are those that simplify the game even further.
I am running a waterdeep campaign soon and am thinking of discussing with the players about using the spell points variants. Anybody tried them yet?
But that was their intention. It was meant that you start making real character choices at 3rd level, as 1st and 2nd level are supposed to almost be apprentice levels and pass by very quickly.Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?
The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.
Right, "apprentice levels" showed up in the Playtest packets and I was vocally against it on their surveys. I still am to a degree. I don't really think starting at level 3 is the best approach to get around this as a veteran player and would have rather been happy with Level-0 rules for those who want to simulate the farmer-boy grow to soldier thing.
Do you mean in the two published adventures? Because if you go to the product page for each of them, there is a free pdf download for each that includes all the magic items, monsters, and spells used in the adventure that are not also in the Basic Rules, so that you have them for reference and do not need to even have copies of the core books.• Monsters use spells, which have to be referenced in another book, very annoying because it breaks up the flow of the game when the DM has to look up the mechanics.
I get that, but you're missing the point that I have to look elsewhere from the monster description to get info on their actions in terms of their spells. It's annoying when every time the monster goes and I use a different spell, I have to look up range, duration, damage or effect before I can even figure out if that's a good choice at the time. It's an annoyance that could've been fixed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could prepare flash cards for the most popular spells or prepare the monster before-hand. Either is a good choice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm digging 5th edition with the same kind of enthusiasm I had discovering 2e AD&D some 20 years ago, which is saying much. That's a pleasant surprise since the playtests left me rather cool about the whole D&D next thing.
In no order, these are the things i like best:
I can learn and teach the game easily to any type of crowd, be it veteran players or my 7 years-old kids. Even the Beginner's Box wasn't that straightforward (although I still think this was a turning point in RPG history and I will always love Paizo for that).
Choices and options are meaningful both in themselves and in relations to each others. One of my main criticism of 3.5 was that it takes a significant level of game mastery to see how relevant a +1 to hit is compared to a +2 damage or a +1 to one kind of save etc, and the only reason why the Beginner's Box will never be completely kid friendly.
5th edition is easily customizable, and houserules are less likely to crash the game like the house of card that late 3.5 was. Judgement on the fly, rule twists affecting a single scene, plug-and-play subsystems work better here than in any other iteration of D&D since the "advanced" series.
Low level threats can be used much longer into the game thanks to bounded accuracy. I had my doubts at first (especially concerning skills), but now I'm a convert.
Things are loose enough yet the guidelines are precise enough to play the game in the style/genre/ambiance that works for your group. Heck, even sword-and-sorcery and low-magic can work with minimal adjustments.
Settings are less threatened to fall in the Tippyverse paradigm thanks to a better iteration, scaling and distribution of spells. Magic is still a bit too flashy and many spells are still too "out there" for me, but the urge to find a low(er) magic setting is much diminished by 5th ed default magic.
Pathfinder art and layout is still best, but 5th edition is pretty darn good. I especially like that fact that items can be visualized with an illustration or a evocative description. My biggest complaint: when will RPGs publish a character sheet that doesn't feel like a fraggin' tax form?
So anyhow, there are more but these are the main elements that work for me.
So come-on Paizo, impress me with Pathfinder Unleashed!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, "apprentice levels" showed up in the Playtest packets and I was vocally against it on their surveys. I still am to a degree. I don't really think starting at level 3 is the best approach to get around this as a veteran player and would have rather been happy with Level-0 rules for those who want to simulate the farmer-boy grow to soldier thing.But that was their intention. It was meant that you start making real character choices at 3rd level, as 1st and 2nd level are supposed to almost be apprentice levels and pass by very quickly.Substance as in, options. A 1st level Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian are all pretty much the same unless your human and the DM has agreed to the 1st - level feat variant. The paladin doesn't feel very divine until 3rd level.What do you mean by substances at 1st level? Like cold iron, silver, etc.? Or alchemical substances, like acid, thunderstone, tanglefoot bags, etc.?
The monsters are so straightforward, there really is room for spell descriptions.
To put a counterpoint to this... my mom hasn't played D&D since 1983, and she'd only played like... two or three sessions, so I was essentially re-introducing her to the game. For her, starting out as a Ranger with very few options was way better. She was already super nervous about trying the game because she doesn't like games that are too complex (which is ironic because as a kid SHE was the one who introduced ME to Ultima Underworld and Might and Magic...) and scared she wouldn't understand the rules. It was the ENTIRE reason she never played 3.5 or Pathfinder with me -- I'd try to help her create a character and she'd go "This is just too complicated." and leave.
In this case, creating a character was much simpler, and it meant she had a lot of time to ease into learning the game without having to worry about too many options early on. She picked a race, a class, some skills, and a background, and was good to go. I also think Lost Mines of Phandelver is a wonderfully designed adventure in this regard too: it starts out with something simple (go punch some goblins to rescue your buddy!) and then slowly ramps up the complexity of each area (NPC interaction, ruined mansion, ruined castle, outdoor open-ended adventure, REALLY BIG DUNGEON OF DOOOOOM), so newer players can ease into the game slowly without feeling too overwhelmed.
As a veteran player, is it annoying to have to wait to 3rd level in a lot of cases to get the cool stuff? Yeah! But you have to remember, this game isn't just for veterans, and any game lives and dies by its casual audience and how many new players it can get into the hobby.
Shrug...it is better than 4th ed. But it is a little too simple and still fixes 'problems' that I and my groups in general don't have...at the cost of things we do like.
But at least it more captures the spirit of D&D than 4th ed ever did in my opinion and would play it.
Do you criticize Pathfinder for that? I've never seen them reprint every single spell, feat, ability, etc. in their adventures.
Yep, and 3.5 too. However with both systems it isn't an issue anymore just because the game has been out since 2000 and 2008 respectively, giving DMs time to learn what the spells do, etc. That doesn't mean that an alternative solution wasn't there, it was, they just didn't utilize it.
And I'm not even saying they have to put FULL disclosure on every spell an enemy or NPC has access to in their write-up, just the most common ones that particular NPC/Enemy will bring to bear in combat.
|
|
Do you criticize Pathfinder for that? I've never seen them reprint every single spell, feat, ability, etc. in their adventures.Yep, and 3.5 too. However with both systems it isn't an issue anymore just because the game has been out since 2000 and 2008 respectively, giving DMs time to learn what the spells do, etc. That doesn't mean that an alternative solution wasn't there, it was, they just didn't utilize it.
Perhaps, but 3.5 and Pathfinder also have a metric f@#$ton more feats, spells, abilities, etc. I really doubt you or any GM knows all of them.
|
|
Right, "apprentice levels" showed up in the Playtest packets and I was vocally against it on their surveys. I still am to a degree. I don't really think starting at level 3 is the best approach to get around this as a veteran player and would have rather been happy with Level-0 rules for those who want to simulate the farmer-boy grow to soldier thing.Sure, but I think you are looking at folks wanting this entirely for flavor reasons. For many, it is about ease of play. I've got a player in my group who thought it was fantastic that she could spend two sessions learning the character and getting a feel for the class, before needing to actually make the key decisions that would define her future playstyle.
Barbarian certainly feels distinct from the others, since it gets Rage right out of the gate. Ranger and Paladin get unique at level 2, when they get spells. Is that really any worse than 3.5, where paladins have to wait until level 4 for spells and 5 for a mount?
IIRC, the Player's Handbook actually recommends that as a group becomes more familiar with the rules, they go ahead and start at level 3.
Right, "apprentice levels" showed up in the Playtest packets and I was vocally against it on their surveys. I still am to a degree. I don't really think starting at level 3 is the best approach to get around this as a veteran player and would have rather been happy with Level-0 rules for those who want to simulate the farmer-boy grow to soldier thing.Sure, but I think you are looking at folks wanting this entirely for flavor reasons. For many, it is about ease of play. I've got a player in my group who thought it was fantastic that she could spend two sessions learning the character and getting a feel for the class, before needing to actually make the key decisions that would define her future playstyle.
How many people are really confused by a feat or two and 1-3 spells and/or maneuvers? I think the majority of people buying into 5e are going to be experienced players to which a few added options aren't player - breaking choices that will leave people dumbfounded from the get-go.
Barbarian certainly feels distinct from the others, since it gets Rage right out of the gate. Ranger and Paladin get unique at level 2, when they get spells. Is that really any worse than 3.5, where paladins have to wait until level 4 for spells and 5 for a mount?
Barbarians ALL feel the same out of the gate barring weapon choices. I get that's the idea, just not a fan. As for the Ranger and Paladin, it's not worse but it isn't all that much better. I just like more options at earlier levels. A 4e Paladin got multiple choices and he felt like a divine warrior from the get go where's a 5E paladin just sort of doesn't
I think that they did a lot of things quite well in 5E, but I'm not as impressed with the rather severe character creation process.
Perhaps, but 3.5 and Pathfinder also have a metric f!&+ton more feats, spells, abilities, etc. I really doubt you or any GM knows all of them.Do you criticize Pathfinder for that? I've never seen them reprint every single spell, feat, ability, etc. in their adventures.Yep, and 3.5 too. However with both systems it isn't an issue anymore just because the game has been out since 2000 and 2008 respectively, giving DMs time to learn what the spells do, etc. That doesn't mean that an alternative solution wasn't there, it was, they just didn't utilize it.
You're right, published adventures were pretty ridiculous with throwing in material from other supplements that any given DM might not have access to. For things like feats and class features there were times they'd reprint the feature in the monster Stat block or on the same page for ease of reference, though spells were another matter. At the least we'd get a small subscript abbreviation of the boom it was in. But not so with 5e.
There are only really three rules books out right now. Even if they are going to add the superscripts to indicate references, they certainly won't do it for the three core books.
We are also rather getting away from the point of 'favourite' things in 5E, as opposed to things you think WotC have done badly for a long time.
|
'Weapon Finesse' being a weapon quality, along with using Dex for damage for such weapons are quite nice. Frees up some stringent Str-only builds.
Archetypes being 'baked' into the class are quite nice. Hope they expand on that here and there, in the future.
Monks are less MAD, with Dex being more of a focus (similar to the Weapon Finesse mentioned above).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few additional "Favorite things"
• Self Healing via Hit Die. Not as potent as Healing Surges but I'll take it where I can get it.
• Cantrips. YAY, no more Wizards with crossbows and can't be magic-users for 1/2 the day.
• Non-Magical Healing. Personally I would have loved to have a Warlord sub-class but some of the maneuvers and a feat or two can shore up this area quickly enough. At least I can hold out for future supplements.
• PRof. Bonus is universal. Long gone are the days of various attack progressions and multi-attacks decreasing with each swing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few additional "Favorite things"
• Self Healing via Hit Die. Not as potent as Healing Surges but I'll take it where I can get it.
• Cantrips. YAY, no more Wizards with crossbows and can't be magic-users for 1/2 the day.
• Non-Magical Healing. Personally I would have loved to have a Warlord sub-class but some of the maneuvers and a feat or two can shore up this area quickly enough. At least I can hold out for future supplements.
• PRof. Bonus is universal. Long gone are the days of various attack progressions and multi-attacks decreasing with each swing.
It's always interesting to see that one man's trash is another man's treasure: I dislike ALL of the things you listed above about 5E.
One of the things I do like about 5E is that WotC actively promote the idea that the game should be modified for YOUR table and encourage you to tinker with the rules to make the game play the way YOU want it to play rather than slavishly adhering to the "One True Way". So, Diffan can keep all of the points he listed above and have fun, while I can alter them to play the way I want and have fun.