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.
Would you consider a College of Valor bard or Battle Master fighter "warlordy?"
I also am liking how elegant linking one proficiency bonus to Attacks, Saves, Skills, and Spell DC and Attacks is.
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.
All of those are in 4e :)
Maybe there should be a way to use spare the dying to allow the target to spend Hit Dice as an action or bonus action or reaction? Maybe incorporate it into the Healer feat?
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.
I think this goes to illustrate the difficult position Wizards is in when they first created this edition. I will say that wizards has always promoted the idea of making a game the way you want to certain degrees.
|
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.
All of those are in 4e :)
Yes but 4E made them terrible lol. I don't hate 4E I just was uber dissapointed in it, when 4E was announced and they were describing pre-release I was all super excited because 5E was what I was expecting.
As for the non-magical healing funny story. When I read the PHB I came up with a house rule and my players agreed with it. You can use HD recovery during a short rest as long as you use one charge from a healers kit per character healing. So when I got the DMG and read that as an official variant I laughed my ass off for a couple of seconds.
We also houseruled that you don't heal to full health with rest, rather that you heal any unused HD without a healers kit and then your HD pool resets.
The only other houserule is that you need equal amounts of advantage and dissadvantage to cancel themselves out. I don't do the well there are 8 reasons you have dissadvantage, but you did pick up that lucky penny last round, soooo regular attack.
But even as a new DM in 3.5 (when I learned the game) I was creating houserules and homebrews right out the gate so the fact that 5E right now only has two things that I thought needed a houserule out the gate is pretty impressive!
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.
Would you consider a College of Valor bard or Battle Master fighter "warlordy?"
I also am liking how elegant linking one proficiency bonus to Attacks, Saves, Skills, and Spell DC and Attacks is.
Battle Master fighter, yes to a degree. The biggest thing about the Warlord in 4E was that it used Intelligence as a secondary stat AND they could opt to use their turn to allow other people to attack all the time (instead of being tied to Short Rest mechanics). As for the Valor Bard, not really considering that the Bard is magical in nature and the Warlord isn't. I could reflavor the spells to be non-magical but that sort of defeats the purpose IMO.
Yes but 4E made them terrible lol.
Obviously, some would beg to differ.
I don't hate 4E I just was uber dissapointed in it, when 4E was announced and they were describing pre-release I was all super excited because 5E was what I was expecting.
As for the non-magical healing funny story. When I read the PHB I came up with a house rule and my players agreed with it. You can use HD recovery during a short rest as long as you use one charge from a healers kit per character healing. So when I got the DMG and read that as an official variant I laughed my ass off for a couple of seconds.
If I'm not mistaken that was the way it originally was in the Playtest, that if you wanted to spend your Hit Die, you needed a Healer's Kit to do so. Now it just helps stabilize people. Though I'm not entirely sure what this houserule is supposed to do or represent?
We also houseruled that you don't heal to full health with rest, rather that you heal any unused HD without a healers kit and then your HD pool resets.The only other houserule is that you need equal amounts of advantage and dissadvantage to cancel themselves out. I don't do the well there are 8 reasons you have dissadvantage, but you did pick up that lucky penny last round, soooo regular attack.
But even as a new DM in 3.5 (when I learned the game) I was creating houserules and homebrews right out the gate so the fact that 5E right now only has two things that I thought needed a houserule out the gate is pretty impressive!
Over the years I've houseruled v3.5 and Pathfinder a LOT, including things like armor as DR, Wound/Vitality system, disease tracks, and other things to the like. So far I haven't house-ruled much of 5E because I really haven't delved too deeply into the system for something to come up. Everything appears to be working as intended so far "officially".
(...) As for the non-magical healing funny story. When I read the PHB I came up with a house rule and my players agreed with it. You can use HD recovery during a short rest as long as you use one charge from a healers kit per character healing.(...)If I'm not mistaken that was the way it originally was in the Playtest, that if you wanted to spend your Hit Die, you needed a Healer's Kit to do so. Now it just helps stabilize people. Though I'm not entirely sure what this houserule is supposed to do or represent?
The fact that broken bones don't heal overnight without some kind of explanation, I guess.
I've heard of people allowing HD healing during short rest up to half the character's hp, but requires magical healing or healing kit when below 1/2 hp.
Maybe the fluff of healing all hit points during a long rest is represented by the PCs splinting or putting plaster casts on broken limbs and using those ministrations to get back up to their fighting best. Maybe? :-P
(...) As for the non-magical healing funny story. When I read the PHB I came up with a house rule and my players agreed with it. You can use HD recovery during a short rest as long as you use one charge from a healers kit per character healing.(...)If I'm not mistaken that was the way it originally was in the Playtest, that if you wanted to spend your Hit Die, you needed a Healer's Kit to do so. Now it just helps stabilize people. Though I'm not entirely sure what this houserule is supposed to do or represent?The fact that broken bones don't heal overnight without some kind of explanation, I guess.
I've heard of people allowing HD healing during short rest up to half the character's hp, but requires magical healing or healing kit when below 1/2 hp.
I'm not sure I follow? If someone narrates HP loss as broken bones, wouldn't that also impact nearly everything they did until healed? And at what point does the damage taken = broken bones? If a character with 35 HP takes 15 damage, is that sufficient enough? And if so, what happens when that character tries to attack with that arm or use their reaction to block (via Shield Master feat)? Are added penalties added when they try to climb or use the arm in any way?
I just don't think D&D's HP system is designed well enough to accomplish the gritty feel many people seem to want from it. Falling off a 40 ft cliff SHOULD negatively impact your character for a long while, regardless of level, but in D&D-land so long as you have 1 HP remaining, you can climb that cliff again, swim, fight, drink and carousel around for as long as you want. Which makes constraints on healing seem overly penalizing for seemingly zero gain.
|
I'm not sure I follow? If someone narrates HP loss as broken bones, wouldn't that also impact nearly everything they did until healed? And at what point does the damage taken = broken bones? If a character with 35 HP takes 15 damage, is that sufficient enough? And if so, what happens when that character tries to attack with that arm or use their reaction to block (via Shield Master feat)? Are added penalties added when they try to climb or use the arm in any way?
I just don't think D&D's HP system is designed well enough to accomplish the gritty feel many people seem to want from it. Falling off a 40 ft cliff SHOULD negatively impact your character for a long while, regardless of level, but in D&D-land so long as you have 1 HP remaining, you can climb that cliff again, swim, fight, drink and carousel around for as long as you want. Which makes constraints on healing seem overly penalizing for seemingly zero gain.
I think that unless you are using some type of really nasty critical hit system, it's best to think of hit points as a combination of luck and a measure of how far you are from exhausted...actual physical injury not happening until you are past unconscious at 0 hp.
Matthew, are monsters and NPCS also subject to lingering wounds too?
(...) maybe (hits) are not actually broken bones?
I like to see hit points as a renewable bank of "readyness" or stamina buffer, with damage representing tiring parries and taxing dodges. PCs don't get injured before they reach 0 hp.
However, the action of regaining hp is, and has always been, referred to as "healing", suggested that there is wounds to heal in the first place. Some people are also bothered that a "hit" doesn't produce a connecting hit (if damage = tiring parries). In either case, regardless of the severity of those wounds, the fact that they heal that much without magic or medicine over a period of 30 minutes is stretching verisimilitude even for D&D's standards. Thus reliance on healing kit.
It's apparently stated somewhere in the DMG that up to half its hp, a PC doesn't show much signs of battle and that from half hp, more serious cuts and bruises start to appear. That's where the "healing from below half hp requires healing kit" comes from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way that a lot of my friends deal with HP is that HP isn't so much the actual damage you take, but your combat endurance. They supplement this with a Death and Dismemberment table. Instead of going into negative HP when you hit 0, they roll on a table. Bad result (usually like, a 1) means you're insta-gibbed. Good result (it's usually a d10, so, a 10) is you're at 0 HP but totally fine. Everything in the middle is stuff ranging from "You lose an arm / are permanently crippled" to "You break a bone and are ineffective at X things for Y days."
|
I like to see hit points as a renewable bank of "readyness" or stamina buffer, with damage representing tiring parries and taxing dodges. PCs don't get injured before they reach 0 hp.
This is the way Warhammer Fantasy RP 1e & 2e handles 'hp'. Has the effect of players retreating from combat rather than slugging it out to the bitter end. The fear of losing a hand or leg is a powerful motivator for role-playing self-preservation.
|
|
Funnily enough that reminds me that my players want me to reintroduce my rules for limb loss from pathfinder somehow, and the crit deck, so I think an easy thing to go for is that if a crit reduces a character to 0hp there's a chance that it causes limb loss or broken bones, maybe a chart with varying oddsor something
I'm using the lingering wounds option from the DMG but allowing a con save to avoid it. I'm also applying a con modifier to the die roll (plus a penalty based on how much damage the PC took in the "triggering blow").
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?
I suppose there is a really strong desire for "Gritty" style combat and, I'm assuming, to make entering combat a really tough choice regardless of level? With rules regarding losing limbs even a 10th level Fighter with 75 HP is still wary of Kobolds and Goblins if they score a critical hit and chop off their arm.
Personally, I don't think D&D is the genre or game overall to mimic this particular style.
I'm finding just regular critical hits are brutal enough. The hill dwarf cleric 3 in my campaign kept getting critted last night. It was actually kind of frustrating, because
1. He doesn't get to make it to a lot of sessions anymore.
2. He's invested in AC--heavy armor and shield, but it doesn't help with crits.
3. He's the primary healer, but he had to spend most of his healing on himself.
The druid couldn't make it last night, either, but at least the paladin was there to heal the cleric.
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?I suppose there is a really strong desire for "Gritty" style combat and, I'm assuming, to make entering combat a really tough choice regardless of level? With rules regarding losing limbs even a 10th level Fighter with 75 HP is still wary of Kobolds and Goblins if they score a critical hit and chop off their arm.
Personally, I don't think D&D is the genre or game overall to mimic this particular style.
Yeah I like a nice gritty game, but d20 isn't geared to that IME
|
|
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.
I think the paradigm of 5e being simpler, and Paizo having the lock on complex works. The two finally exist in an ecosystem that can support both.
But to what 'problems' do you refer?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want "gritty" with a D&D-esque fantasy roleplaying game system you should REALLY be running Lamentations of the Flame Princess, not 5th edition.
I think the paradigm of 5e being simpler, and Paizo having the lock on complex works. The two finally exist in an ecosystem that can support both.
THIS
This is why I think the edition-warring between Pathfinder and D&D 5 is bloody stupid. Like, people have had the gall to ask me, "TealDeer, why on earth do you write/create for Pathfinder when it isn't your favorite tabletop system?"
1. Because I enjoy money and it's way easier to freelance for Paizo than it is for Wizards
2. Because even if Pathfinder isn't my favorite system, I respect the heck out of it and I believe very strongly that it has a place in the tabletop RPG ecosystem.
In truth D&D 5 does what I WANTED D&D 4 to do: it presents a streamlined, simplified version of the game that's great for introducing new players to the concept of tabletop fantasy role-playing in this particular genre. The emphasis in the rulebooks on improvisation and DM fiat is what brings 5th above and beyond 4th; 4th was so rigid that I think the continual comparisons it got to an MMORPG were actually fair. The DM barely had anything to adjudicate in 4th because everything was so regimented (as an aside, this is why I think the 4th edition board games were actually rather nice boardgamifications of D&D). 5 is... 5 is like a good old Western in some ways. You can play fast and loose with the rules, things are simpler, folks is folks.
Meanwhile, Pathfinder exists for those who want very fine modular control over every aspect of the game, and people who really want to have a clear, pre-existing rule for just about everything, but still want to have the flexibility in creation and play that 4th edition didn't allow. Is it too complicated sometimes for cranky ol' me sitting in my porch rocking chair to want to play on a regular basis? Sure! But I am so glad it exists for people who like that style of gameplay, and even though I like a simpler game, Pathfinder gives me a huge font of inspiration for how to adjudicate things in other games. Heck, just the other day I was coming up with rules for taming wild animals in 5th edition, and I turned to Pathfinder to get ideas on how to balance those rules.
/ramble ramble ramble TL;DR: D&D5 and Pathfinder sit at opposite ends of a fantasy RPG spectrum, and that's awesome and great for the hobby.
I like a lot of stuff in 5e, but currently it feels too liberal in handing out multiattacks to monsters.
Haven't had too much experience yet, but the monsters always have more attacks to make than the PCs, as well as more HP. I've played 6 combats with 3 different characters, and in 3 of them, at least 2/4 people have hit 0 hp during a fight.
I like that the Archer Rogue works now, though it depends on the GM letting you use the Hide action a lot (which means Wild Elf or Lightfoot, or Skulker feat).
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?
As written, it's pretty easy to lose an eye or limb. My players like the idea of risk, but they don't really enjoy huge negative effects on their characters actually happening a lot. They also like rolling dice.
...it's way easier to freelance for Paizo than it is for Wizards.
I enjoyed your entire post, but I thought this bit was noteworthy. I'd like your opinion as a freelancer: How much of the difficultly in freelancing for Wizards is of their own making?
Talking about another company's hiring practices is most likely frowned upon in these forums.
I wasn't talking about anyone's hiring practices. I was asking a freelancer (by definition not an employee) his opinion of WotC's licensing practices, because he mentioned it is much harder to work for WotC than Paizo. I was wondering how much of the extra difficulty was due to WotC's failure (so far) to release a public license for 5E vs. other factors of which I -- not being a freelancer -- may not be aware.
If you believe the subject of licensing to be taboo, I suggest you flag my post and let the moderators decide. I'm sure they won't be shy about telling me not to discuss the topic. :-)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you wish to take an elegant smooth system and make it complicated? I genuinely don't know why you would wish to do that?
You do understand that the very first words out of my mouth were "my players want me to..."
If you can think of a better reason to I'd love to hear it, and I don't understand why anyone would argue against players asking for something that we all (we being me and my players) enjoy.
As to your elegantly smooth and make it complicated, I don't think that a rule saying if you hit 0 from a crit roll %s and compare to chart is some mind bogglingly complex game changer. Giving monsters spellcasting is more complex.
And one could argue that the fun of a simple elegant system is finding ways to complicate it towards your tastes because you have the freedom too, It's way harder to add rules to pathfinder because there are so many variables to consider, but adding things to 5 is a breeze because it is so well designed to be modular in the first place.
In there spirit of the OP, here are ten things I love about 5th edition:
1. Advantage/Disadvantage.
2. The art.
3. Wizard casting.
4. Bounded accuracy.
5. The (full) range of races and classes included in the PHB.
6. Finesse weapons.
7. Character backgrounds.
8. Spells that scale when cast from a higher-level slot.
9. Caster multiclassing.
10. Inspiration
Talking about another company's hiring practices is most likely frowned upon in these forums.I wasn't talking about anyone's hiring practices. I was asking a freelancer (by definition not an employee) his opinion of WotC's licensing practices, because he mentioned it is much harder to work for WotC than Paizo. I was wondering how much of the extra difficulty was due to WotC's failure (so far) to release a public license for 5E vs. other factors of which I -- not being a freelancer -- may not be aware.
If you believe the subject of licensing to be taboo, I suggest you flag my post and let the moderators decide. I'm sure they won't be shy about telling me not to discuss the topic. :-)
It's she, actually (or they).
Anyway it's the lack of a public license, combined with just... idk I think it's a general philosophy difference. Paizo does things like RPG Superstar and other like... community-based ways of basically mining their fanbase for talent. Superstar is really what pushed me into trying to freelance at all -- I basically started freelancing when this year's Superstar began. I am not an expert, I've literally been doing this for two months! But thus far? Yeah, it's mostly having to do this weird song and dance around 5th edition material because of the lack of a public license scheme, while I could self-publish a Pathfinder product on RPGNow tomorrow thanks to the OGL.
There are other factors, I think, but about those I can only speculate.
How about, "I've done freelancing for 3pp companies doing Pathfinder stuff mostly, and have only done one 5e piece so far and that one the publisher and I had to do a weird jig to make it ~legal~, while with OGL stuff it's like bam write, put the OGL on it, sell."
It's she, actually (or they).
My apologies.
Anyway it's the lack of a public license, combined with just... idk I think it's a general philosophy difference. Paizo does things like RPG Superstar and other like... community-based ways of basically mining their fanbase for talent. Superstar is really what pushed me into trying to freelance at all -- I basically started freelancing when this year's Superstar began. I am not an expert, I've literally been doing this for two months! But thus far? Yeah, it's mostly having to do this weird song and dance around 5th edition material because of the lack of a public license scheme, while I could self-publish a Pathfinder product on RPGNow tomorrow thanks to the OGL.
There are other factors, I think, but about those I can only speculate.
How about, "I've done freelancing for 3pp companies doing Pathfinder stuff mostly, and have only done one 5e piece so far and that one the publisher and I had to do a weird jig to make it ~legal~, while with OGL stuff it's like bam write, put the OGL on it, sell."
That's pretty much what I expected. I honestly don't know what they're thinking, but I'll leave it at that.
Ah, the OGL "Keeping gaming companies married to a specific rule-set since 1999!"
Well I for one am glad WotC hasn't released an OGL yet. I think they'd be better served by up-dating and reviving their GSL to be more expansive. If they allow their basic rules to be expanded upon by 3PP, that would be a good start too. But, in all honesty, people have already been using the Basic rules for creating and converting adventures to 5E for months now. And as far as I know the only things to be hit with C&D letters are on-line character builder programs that give out information beyond the Basic Rule-set. Something WotC has every right to protect.
Ah, the OGL "Keeping gaming companies married to a specific rule-set since 1999!"
Well I for one am glad WotC hasn't released an OGL yet. I think they'd be better served by up-dating and reviving their GSL to be more expansive. If they allow their basic rules to be expanded upon by 3PP, that would be a good start too. But, in all honesty, people have already been using the Basic rules for creating and converting adventures to 5E for months now. And as far as I know the only things to be hit with C&D letters are on-line character builder programs that give out information beyond the Basic Rule-set. Something WotC has every right to protect.
...which in no way obviates the extra effort currently required to jump through the (unnecessary) hoops created by not having a license. After all, WotC could change who they go after (and why) on a whim, and most people simply can't afford to contend with their legal department...whether or not it is acting within WotC's rights.
Whether WotC calls it -- the OGL or the GSL or the OG-GSL -- they need to release a viable license sooner rather than later if they want a shot at building robust 3rd party support for 5E. Perhaps they don't want third party support.
Ah, the OGL "Keeping gaming companies married to a specific rule-set since 1999!"
Well I for one am glad WotC hasn't released an OGL yet. I think they'd be better served by up-dating and reviving their GSL to be more expansive. If they allow their basic rules to be expanded upon by 3PP, that would be a good start too. But, in all honesty, people have already been using the Basic rules for creating and converting adventures to 5E for months now. And as far as I know the only things to be hit with C&D letters are on-line character builder programs that give out information beyond the Basic Rule-set. Something WotC has every right to protect.
...which in no way obviates the extra effort currently required to jump through the (unnecessary) hoops created by not having a license. After all, WotC could change who they go after (and why) on a whim, and most people simply can't afford to contend with their legal department...whether or not it is acting within WotC's rights.
Whether WotC calls it -- the OGL or the GSL or the OG-GSL -- they need to release a viable license sooner rather than later if they want a shot at building robust 3rd party support for 5E. Perhaps they don't want third party support.
I think they want 3PP support because, heck, 4E even had 3PP support. However I feel they don't want a repeat of what happened with Paizo in the off-chance they change up systems in X-amount of years. And to both provide 3PP support AND protect themselves later on, they need to be very specific on what gets released so 3PP needs to do more leg work mechanics wise.
I just want to be able to look up spells more easily. The spell organization in the PHB is terrible (why doesn't it say under the spell which classes get it and when?)
P.S. I just registered a U.S. trademark on "OG-GSL." Or maybe "OGSL?"
:P
P.S. I just registered a U.S. trademark on "OG-GSL." Or maybe "OGSL?"
:P
The Ice-T of gaming licenses.
|
|
I just want to be able to look up spells more easily. The spell organization in the PHB is terrible (why doesn't it say under the spell which classes get it and when?)
It's not horrible as it is, you just have to realize that you have to reference the class list and then look up the spell rather than page through the spell descriptions.
Yeah those cards just fill the table we find and more importantly they don't list concentration as a spell parameter
Ah groovey. Thanks
"Concentration, up to X rnd/min/hr/whatever" would have cost too much? I think one more word per card is well worth the clarity! :P
The second printing of the spell cards is supposed to label which ones are concentration spells.
I just want to be able to look up spells more easily. The spell organization in the PHB is terrible (why doesn't it say under the spell which classes get it and when?)It's not horrible as it is, you just have to realize that you have to reference the class list and then look up the spell rather than page through the spell descriptions.
That's pretty much my definition of horrible, perhaps because it's the worst method Wizards has used yet (I started in 3.0, dunno about previous sorting).