|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Copies from a thread on another forum:
-Aasimar (the "how to create a new race" example) get Light as a cantrip at 1st level, Lesser Restoration once per long rest at 3rd level, and Daylight at 5th level.
-There's a optional rule to make short rests 5 mins and long rests 1 hour if you prefer a faster moving game.
-There's an optional spell point system to use instead of spell slots, but you can still only cast one spell each of 6th-9th level per day.
-There are optional "villainous" character sub-classes: the Death domain for clerics and the Oathbreaker paladin type (which is kind of an antipaladin/blackguard).
-There are optional rules for recurring expenses, building a stronghold, running a business, carousing, selling magic items, gaining renown, performing sacred rites, sowing rumors and training to gain levels; but no explicit rules on running a dominion. There are some suggestions on how to create further downtime activities.
-There are optional rules for using square and hex grids; including flanking (which grants advantage) and facing.
-There are optional combat rules for climbing on a bigger creature, disarming, marking (which grants advantage on opportunity attacks against the marked creature), overrunning, shoving aside and tumbling. There's also an option for hitting cover (basically the 3e rule).
-There are optional rules for lingering wounds, massive damage and morale (a wisdom save in appropriate situations).
-There are random treasure tables, based on the CR of the monster.
-There are optional rules for making magic items. The cost is based on the rarity category of the item, and may or may not require special components at the DM's discretion.
-There is an option for buying magic items, but no price list for individual items (although a simple one based on rarity could easily be extrapolated from the crafting costs and a mark-up).
-There's a table for CR and expected abilities for monsters. The info on this isn't clear, but I think that it works by having a CR for offensive abilities and one for defensive abilities, and then the two are averaged to find the final CR of the creature and the creature's proficiency bonuses are then worked out from this average CR. It apparently looks reasonably easy to use in reverse starting with a desired CR and working out what the abilities might be.
-There are optional rules for fear and horror checks. The fear checks are wisdom based. The horror checks are charisma based and work a lot like those in Call of Cthulhu with short term and long term insanities.
-The maximum bonus on magic items is +3.
-There are magical shields as well as armour.
-There are a few pages devoted to traps, with some examples.
-There's an optional rule for ditching skills and simply giving proficiency with ability checks based on one or more ability scores.
There's Elven Chain, which is +1 chain that you don't need proficiency to wear.
I like the idea of all these optional rules being included in the DMG.
I have a question related to this but I don't want to make my own thread about it:
Initially in development of 5e some articles were posted on some official WotC website about weapons. I seem to remember the idea was that weapons were supposed to be designed using some kind of flexible system that would allow the game master to easily introduce new original weapons which would be balanced as long as they had been built using that system.
What happened to that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all the people that complained about modularity not being present, does this help quell your concerns?
Just got Internet access, I see? ;-)
|
For all the people that complained about modularity not being present, does this help quell your concerns?Just got Internet access, I see? ;-)
Not following. Yesterday, using the internet, I read comments that expressed anger at 5E not being as modular as promised. But if the OP's comments above are true it seems reasonably modular to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think bugleyman was insinuating that no matter what actually happens there will always be someone complaining on the internet about it and that you, arguing that this information should quell concerns of potential complainers, did not seem, in his/her eyes, to be aware of this fact.
Also you look like acube, not asphere :O
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think bugleyman was insinuating that no matter what actually happens there will always be someone complaining on the internet about it and that you, arguing that this information should quell concerns of potential complainers, did not seem, in his/her eyes, to be aware of this fact.
Also you look like acube, not asphere :O
Oh. Yeah. I didn't pick up on it. I see that now. It is late and I only had 1 cup of coffee today.
Also, there is a sphere inside the cube. He is shy.
Sounds great. I preordered it so I can't wait to get it. For all the people that complained about modularity not being present, does this help quell your concerns?
No, it's not actually the modularity they promised that was being looked for.
I would post the specific links to the things they stated, but I'm going to avoid being seen as edition warring, as that's not what I'm doing at all. More upset at being lied to, and that's the reaction.
You can look at some of the 4e forums for more information on what people are upset about.
Me, I wasn't necessarily as upset about there being or not being modularity, but considering previous comments of theirs, the feeling of being lied to.
Blatant lying is one way to turn me off to something REAL QUICK.
BUT, I've cooled down since then, I'll wait to see if they release anything with their online DMG update before accepting that they were blatantly dishonest.
Most of the 4e players who were looking for the promised modularity however, have not been that patient (most went off on WotC around the end of October).
I don't know how the other editions players feel about it, so no idea how the AD&D players or others feel about the modularity.
Please note, the only reason I answered this was to answer your question, NOT to start anything in regards to being anti-edition or edition warring, and hopefully my response is not taken as such.
The ENworld thread is interesting. The most interesting debate I saw outside of my griefs was as follows. They comment on how high AC can get, but thus far I've seen people get higher AC than they state AC 28(I think I saw one as high as 35 AC in 5e?), so some of the options should turn out to be uniquely interesting in regards to how high AC can get in relation to how high the chances to hit get (I think I saw something with a +17 or 18 or 19 to hit or something?).
I also saw something in regards to magic item creation and economy of scale. It appears to make magic items there has to be a search for rare items and such to prevent simply making them like 3e...but at the same time you may be able to spend days (at 25gp/day) instead of the actual GP on an item? It was a little confusing on that.
|
|
Sounds great. I preordered it so I can't wait to get it. For all the people that complained about modularity not being present, does this help quell your concerns?No, it's not actually the modularity they promised that was being looked for.
I would post the specific links to the things they stated, but I'm going to avoid being seen as edition warring, as that's not what I'm doing at all. More upset at being lied to, and that's the reaction.
You can look at some of the 4e forums for more information on what people are upset about.
Me, I wasn't necessarily as upset about there being or not being modularity, but considering previous comments of theirs, the feeling of being lied to.
Blatant lying is one way to turn me off to something REAL QUICK.
BUT, I've cooled down since then, I'll wait to see if they release anything with their online DMG update before accepting that they were blatantly dishonest.
Most of the 4e players who were looking for the promised modularity however, have not been that patient (most went off on WotC around the end of October).
I don't know how the other editions players feel about it, so no idea how the AD&D players or others feel about the modularity.
Please note, the only reason I answered this was to answer your question, NOT to start anything in regards to being anti-edition or edition warring, and hopefully my response is not taken as such.
The ENworld thread is interesting. The most interesting debate I saw outside of my griefs was as follows. They comment on how high AC can get, but thus far I've seen people get higher AC than they state AC 28(I think I saw one as high as 35 AC in 5e?), so some of the options should turn out to be uniquely interesting in regards to how high AC can get in relation to how high the chances to hit get (I think I saw something with a +17 or 18 or 19 to hit or something?).
I also saw something in regards to magic item creation and economy of scale. It appears to make magic items there...
I would like to see the links were they promised to do anything and what these promises were. Maybe they tried and couldn't get it to work without breaking the game? Could you provide specific examples? I know that you are trying to avoid an edition war, but posts which aren't specific tend to come off as a soap box and tend to push rational conversation away and promote the very thing you wish to avoid.
From what I can tell, the DMG makes it so you can take a relatively simple game and add optional rules to it to get more of a tactical game that is grid dependent. I think that is really great because I want to bring some of those rules into the game but not all of them.
As far as ACs of 32 and hits of +17...how? I have been playing pretty hardcore and the highest I can get on AC without magic armor is 20 (magic armor isn't going to get you +12 to AC though). To hit would be +9 if both Ability score increases are taken over feats. I would be interested to see this math.
I am sure the AD&D players are probably playing AD&D (1st or 2nd editions) or one of the OSR clones. I am sad that I didn't see mention of the ability to insert THAC0 into 5th edition like I heard they were going to.
I will wait until I can see the book with my own eyes before I trust the word of someone over the internet (sorry internet people). I also really hope that they do have that website column they said they might do in place of Legends and Lore. So long as they are available for free and not behind a paywall, because then I would rather have that in a book (physical preferred, but pdf is fine).
I would like to see the links were they promised to do anything and what these promises were. Maybe they tried and couldn't get it to work without breaking the game? Could you provide specific examples? I know that you are trying to avoid an edition war, but posts which aren't specific tend to come off as a soap box and tend to push rational conversation away and promote the very thing you wish to avoid.
From what I can tell, the DMG makes it so you can take a relatively simple game and add optional rules to it to get more of a tactical game that is grid dependent. I think that is really great because I want to bring some of those rules into the game but not all of them.
As far as ACs of 32 and hits of +17...how? I have been playing pretty hardcore and the highest I can get on AC without magic armor is 20 (magic armor isn't going to get you +12 to AC though). To hit would be +9 if both Ability score increases are taken over feats. I would be interested to see this math.
I was more distraught last time, nevertheless, the point wasn't taken well, and was seen as edition warring. I didn't even post links last time, or pointedly make the point (probably too raging at the time) and it was still shut down. it was considered edition warring. In that light, no, I cannot post the links here or really discuss it more in depth. There ARE multiple other forums where there are even more distraught 4e players that are commenting on these things. Even the Enworld thread has a little bit of it, and a few links of some of the start of it. I am trying to keep the rules of the forums and their interpretations of stuff.
On a better note.
Let me see if I can remember this stuff on the AC and to hit. I wasn't the one who came up with it...but I did read it and know the person.
This is someone I know, so I'm trying to remember what they basically said. To Hit, it would be 5(20STR) +6 (lvl20) +3 (mgc wpn), +4 (max bless result) = +18 to hit. I think they had someone mention something else that might give an additional +2 for a total of 20, but can't recall what it was. I think if you used a ranged weapon you could have an additional +2 in fighting styles for +20 to +22
AC
18 (Plate) +3 (mgc armr) +2 (shield) +3 (mgc shld) +1 (fighing style defense) +2 (Haste) +1 (ring of protection) = 30
If you actually can caste Shield on you and have someone else caste haste and concentrate you get after you have a reaction, for one round
+5 AC = 35 AC for one round.
If I recall correctly what they told me and what someone wrote up on another forum.
Yes...I know some people who do some outlandish stuff, as this is just the start of 5e, I'm pretty certain this is just the beginning (I along with some of them had a Rogue doing up to 700 dmg per round in 3.5 if that gives you any hints on how badly we could mess with things, which I still think work with PF...but then...most are more worried about saying how weak a Rogue is rather than the overkill you could do in the right situation at the right time).
Don't know if it would work or not exactly, but that's the write up from what I can recall.
Yep, if a player gets the best protective magical items in the game, and take the right class options and spells, they have a really high Armour Class and are hard to hit - same as it ever was.
(Off topic 1: I recall from one edition the write up of Grazzt was that he could hit any Armour Class on a natural roll of 13 or higher, I thought it was a cool ability to get past the uber munchkin AC fiends)
( off topic 2: GWL - what do you consider are the most crucial elements of 4e style play ( or any other edition) that are not replicated, or able to be replicated in 5e? - I don't know 4e well but for mine:
1. unlike in in 1-3e a high level character is not able to wade through an army of goblins or orcs with impunity ( I guess unless you are that uber high AC guy?) and;
2. that unlike 3e the best way to defeat the BBG threatening your city is not necessarily to wander off into the nearby caves, kill a bunch of stuff, level up 5 times gain a heap of enhancement stuff, then come back a fortnight later and crush it.
.....but I think that these are good things)
As for the list of info from the DMG it is too scarce to influence me one way or the other - but the PHB and MM have been enough to make me look forward to the DMG.
Yep, if a player gets the best protective magical items in the game, and take the right class options and spells, they have a really high Armour Class and are hard to hit - same as it ever was.
(Off topic 1: I recall from one edition the write up of Grazzt was that he could hit any Armour Class on a natural roll of 13 or higher, I thought it was a cool ability to get past the uber munchkin AC fiends)
( off topic 2: GWL - what do you consider are the most crucial elements of 4e style play ( or any other edition) that are not replicated, or able to be replicated in 5e? - I don't know 4e well but for mine:
1. unlike in in 1-3e a high level character is not able to wade through an army of goblins or orcs with impunity ( I guess unless you are that uber high AC guy?) and;
2. that unlike 3e the best way to defeat the BBG threatening your city is not necessarily to wander off into the nearby caves, kill a bunch of stuff, level up 5 times gain a heap of enhancement stuff, then come back a fortnight later and crush it.
.....but I think that these are good things)As for the list of info from the DMG it is too scarce to influence me one way or the other - but the PHB and MM have been enough to make me look forward to the DMG.
I can't get too deep into this again, as after the other thread was closed, I'm trying my best not to get into anything that hints towards edition warring.
I'd say a LOT of it has to do with the table tactics of 4e. That's top of the list most likely. Tactics and options are the biggest thing...
It would be nice to have the ability for unique abilities ala 4e, BUT, with good tactical options, maybe not necessary as long as you get the actual feel of the tactics (We don't NEED to have another 4e, we already have 4e, it's more about the FEEL of 4e while still able to play with those who want to play 5e).
Lower would be having combat more specific with abilities, like bonded accuracy, but being more class specific like 4e with Saves/Defenses and a kicker with the HP at the start. Another aspect I really enjoyed with 4e was that you were a hero to start out, and you could slice through minions like a knife through pie, whilst their bosses...not so easy.
They have several things that are somewhat akin to 4e already. Bonded accuracy is very similar to 4e's approach, but instead of it being based on a stat for the class, it's a proficiency bonus for everyone. Hence in 4e a Wizard might not be able to swing a sword and hit as well as a fighter or Barbarian (as basic attacks were normally STR based, or DEX based), but at the same time, they could wield wands and have killer spells. In 5e, as long as the wizard has the prof, it's equal to anyone else with the prof.
You also have something that came into being with the Dark Sun Campaign Guide called Themes. I see the Backgrounds of 4e basically having their start with themes. Very different in a way, but also very similar in their approach.
In fact, I'd call the Backgrounds something that is what I'd expect more than a recreation of powers or anything else for a 5e modularity of feel of 4e. That would be where you have the idea (Themes add another archtype or idea to the class...similar to backgrounds which also add another archtype or theme to a class) that was generated in 4e, but translated into a similar idea for 5e.
The same would go for some of the powers/abilities related to fighters and 4e.
I'm not looking for 4e all over again (I already have 4e if I want to play that), I just looking for ways which a game with the 4e feel could be played in a 5e game.
Anyways, starting to get to wordy on the subject, hopefully I've not gotten too wordy. I'm trying to be good here people, stop trying to tempt me off the good path. Seriously, the thread is about what is in the 5e DMG, not about what my desires of a 4e game in 5e.
For example, the short rests being 5 minutes, is something that could be an interesting aspect of a game, and something that could be what I'd like for a short rest. That is supposedly in the DMG already...
I'd say a LOT of it has to do with the table tactics of 4e. That's top of the list most likely. Tactics and options are the biggest thing...
It would be nice to have the ability for unique abilities ala 4e, BUT, with good tactical options, maybe not necessary as long as you get the actual feel of the tactics (We don't NEED to have another 4e, we already have 4e, it's more about the FEEL of 4e while still able to play with those who want to play 5e).
Now I'm biased against 5E to a certain extent so my post should probably be taken with that in mind.
However I expect that WOTC will go down this path but not very much in the core books. I expect them to copy something that was done in 2nd edition and essentially release a 'combat tactics' supplement at some point that will intentionally up the amount of grid based tactical game play. In fact from the readings on modularity that I did on 5E that was always the impression I had for what they meant by modularity. Simple base system and then we sell you 'advanced' books and you can pick whichever advanced book interests you.
OK on to the part where I pooh pooh this idea...While I think one can do this it strikes me as likely having some of the same problems as occurred in 2nd edition and which one sometimes still sees glimmers of in 3rd edition. That is the system, fundamentally, is not made to take grid play into account. Its been designed with other goals, in 5E simplicity and speed are paramount, and now one is tacking on this subsystem. tacked on subsystems are pretty much never as good as a system that is built into the core fundamentals of the game.
In particular the difficulty in this case is 5E is emphasizing simple fast exciting combats. Move, roll to hit, do damage, next players turn. From start to finish a standard combat in done in 20 or 30 minutes and its on to the next. If you have experience with 1st edition or BECMI this is how the combats tend to play out and the result is adventures with a lot of small combats. That is crazy talk for 4E or even higher level 3E. Twenty Combats in an adventure just bring the game to a grinding halt if your plowing through these combats and they take several hours to run as opposed to 20 minutes.
Furthermore combats in 5E will tend to be simpler in nature. There might be some interesting feature on the battlefield that effects the combat, say 50% of the time, but by and large they are focused on a quick fight and then moving on with the adventure. Often the interesting feature, as was the case in 1st edition, is the monsters themselves. Most of us are familiar with Keep on the Borderland and this is the kind of adventure 5E is designed to handle really well. Ever counted how many fights are in Keep on the Borderland? Yeah me neither but it was a lot. I converted it to 3rd and it took us a long time to run that adventure and we gained 4 levels or some such. In 1E, and 5E with 20 minute combats it'll run reasonably quick. In 4E, if I was going to convert it, I'd have every cave complex be 1-2 fights for the entire cave instead of 5-8 individual combats...and it'd still take me longer to run the whole thing in 4E. OK well maybe not because very low level 4E is kind of simple - but if it where an 8th level module then it would take longer. Furthermore the real problem will be that the combats don't have enough moving parts built into them to really show off 4Es highly mobile power system.
Hence the two systems are trying to do different things, both those things are perfectly valid and can be fun but they are not particularly compatible. Hence something like a Skills & Powers supplement for 5E will be practically incompatible with the types of adventures being made for 5E. You'll be able to run them in theory but after 6 months of grinding ones way through long, but kind of bare bones combat one is likely to come away realizing that one is really getting the worst of both worlds. All the length of a 4E combat but stripped of most of the interesting elements that make it a kind of Fantasy Summer Blockbuster simulator.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To Hit, it would be 5(20STR) +6 (lvl20) +3 (mgc wpn), +4 (max bless result) = +18 to hit. I think they had someone mention something else that might give an additional +2 for a total of 20, but can't recall what it was. I think if you used a ranged weapon you could have an additional +2 in fighting styles for +20 to +22AC
18 (Plate) +3 (mgc armr) +2 (shield) +3 (mgc shld) +1 (fighing style defense) +2 (Haste) +1 (ring of protection) = 30
If you actually can caste Shield on you and have someone else caste haste and concentrate you get after you have a reaction, for one round
+5 AC = 35 AC for one round.
So with magic items and spells this is no big deal. Without magic items and spells and a 100% defensive position the highest you are going to reach would be 18(plate) +2 (shield) = 20. The magic items you listed are essentially the best available and whenever another player uses a spell on you they are losing that option for themselves (checks and balances). Likewise, choosing to go 100% defensive means that you can't do any damage (again checks and balances). This is a non-issue.
The same is true of your hit calculation. Without the very best magic items and without spells cast on you, +5 (20 str) +6 (proficiency bonus) is +11 to hit. Again, this is a non-issue.
I hope it has something to deliver class ability for martial characters, similar to spells, where each class may create a toolbox of abilities to help define the character and/or specialization. Then feats can be added as an additional layer to add more specialization, or ability any class may use.
|
|
More information from another forum:
Page number and name of optional or variant rule:
If you have any I missed, please let me know and I'll add it.
EDIT: Added 2 variants on p140 regarding potions and scrolls
22 Renown
50 Feywild Magic
52 Shadowfell Despair
59 Psychic Dissonance
59 Blessed Beneficence
59 Pervasive Goodwill
60 Overwhelming Joy
60 Hunter's Paradise
60 Beast Transformation
61 Intense Yearning
61 Immortal Wrath
61 Power of the Mind
62 Mad Winds
62 Abyssal Corruption
63 Prison Plane
63 Vile Transformation
63 Cruel Hindrance
64 Pervasive Evil
66 Bloodlust
66 Law of Averages
66 Imposing Order
67 Planar Vitality
93 Loyalty
96 Cleric: Death Domain
97 Paladin: Oathbreaker
131 Training to Gain Levels
140 Potion Miscibility
140 Scroll Mishap
141 Wands That Don't Recharge
230 Alternatives to Epic Boons
241 Only Players Award Inspiration
251 Flanking
252 Diagonals
253 Facing
263 Proficiency Dice
263 Ability Check Proficiency
264 Background Proficiency
264 Personality Trait Proficiency
264 Hero Points
264 New Ability Scores: Honor and Sanity
266 Fear and Horror
266 Healing: Healer's Kit Dependency
266 Healing: Healing Surges
267 Healing: Slow Natural Healing
267 Rest: Epic Heroism
267 Rest: Gritty Realism
267 Firearms
267 Explosives
268 Alien Technology
269 Plot Points
270 Initiative: Initiative Score
270 Initiative: Side Initiative
270 Initiative: Speed Factor
271 Action Options
272 Hitting Cover
272 Cleaving Through Creatures
272 Injuries
273 Massive Damage
273 Morale
285 Creating a Race or Subrace
287 Modifying a Class
288 Spell Points
289 Creating a Background
Watched a video of a review for the DMG, where a guy takes 25 minutes paging through the DMG. I would like to know more about these other than the names. Will probably have to wait until I get one in my hands.
Was looking through the 1st edition DMG earlier today, and wonder how often people would cast Haste if it still advanced your life 1 year. I doubt there's anything similar in this DMG, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do really enjoy the build of the DMG with the exception of a few bits about the magic items section. One the first things that made my quite happy was the brief bit on firearms and alien technology.
This book isn't a Manual of the Planes, but a good solid chunk of the book gives a decent amount of detail about the multiverse that I enjoy.
There are a few optional rules I really like. There are a few like flanking that I like, but I'm not sure how dramatically it would change my game to implement.
I'm still going though it and I don't regret my purchase.
I think the book looks fantastic, and I'd like to own it. However, WotC has gotten their last dollar from me until they actually deliver digital books (in a non-proprietary format, to boot).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the book looks fantastic, and I'd like to own it. However, WotC has gotten their last dollar from me until they actually deliver digital books (in a non-proprietary format, to boot).
That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Which is your right, of course, but what are you gaining by not buying a book you want to own?
|
I like the following entries - they hold some promise...
131 Training to Gain Levels
140 Potion Miscibility
140 Scroll Mishap
141 Wands That Don't Recharge
253 Facing
267 Healing: Slow Natural Healing
267 Rest: Gritty Realism
270 Initiative: Speed Factor
271 Action Options
272 Injuries
I will wait and see when it shows up at my FLGS.
Given the page count for some of these entries (ex: speed factor) - it makes me think that some of these variants will be glossed over and not implemented in a fully functional fashion. If that's the case I'm sticking with 2nd ed (which already has pretty much all of this already).|
|
I think the book looks fantastic, and I'd like to own it. However, WotC has gotten their last dollar from me until they actually deliver digital books (in a non-proprietary format, to boot).That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Which is your right, of course, but what are you gaining by not buying a book you want to own?
He's sending a message - one I happen to agree with.
Not at boycott levels but more of a practical use issue. I'm old (and tired), I shouldn't have to carry several hardbacks to a game site in addition to my own notebooks, minis, etc just to play. Or require an internet connection to use a proprietary toolset. That's just annoying, not a deal breaker - but incredibly annoying.So I agree with bugley - this is not an ideal way to launch a product in 2014. Unless of course, Wotc thinks they are Apple and can get away with that attitude - which would be terrible if that was the case.
I agree with him too. But not if he's the one losing out.
Maybe I'm reading too much into "I'd like to own it"...
Well, so far you only need 1 book to play. 2 books to DM (and procuring one of the players' PHB when you need to look something up in there). That's not a lot of weight to carry (not including notebooks or minis). But that's so far. Of course, you can just play with the 2 free Basic pdfs of you don't mind not having all the other things in the print books.
I can understand doing the print books for the big 3 first. Get those out there, then release them in digital format (epub or pdf would be ideal).
That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Which is your right, of course, but what are you gaining by not buying a book you want to own?
*shrug*
It's like any other purchasing decision -- I observed the product on offer and found it wanting. That doesn't mean there aren't things about it that I like.
I like the following entries - they hold some promise...
131 Training to Gain Levels
140 Potion Miscibility
140 Scroll Mishap
141 Wands That Don't Recharge
253 Facing
267 Healing: Slow Natural Healing
267 Rest: Gritty Realism
270 Initiative: Speed Factor
271 Action Options
272 InjuriesI will wait and see when it shows up at my FLGS.
Given the page count for some of these entries (ex: speed factor) - it makes me think that some of these variants will be glossed over and not implemented in a fully functional fashion. If that's the case I'm sticking with 2nd ed (which already has pretty much all of this already).
Once again, Aux, you and I are in almost perfect agreement re: the variants we want to see to make the game more "old skool".
However, I can't help but wonder why people (I don't mean you specifically) feel that they need WotC to tell them the "official" rules variants when they can just make up whatever they want. I have seen people "rage-quitting" because the specific variant(s) they wanted were not included in the DMG. As far as I know, no one from WotC will come to your home, wrestle you to the ground and take all your gaming stuff if you decide to implement rules variants that you come up with one your own.
I can understand doing the print books for the big 3 first. Get those out there, then release them in digital format (epub or pdf would be ideal).
I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. WotC pulled PDFs in '09 over piracy concerns, and hasn't offered a contemporary edition in PDF since. Until they do, they have lost me as a customer.
/threadjack
|
|
I like the following entries - they hold some promise...
131 Training to Gain Levels
140 Potion Miscibility
140 Scroll Mishap
141 Wands That Don't Recharge
253 Facing
267 Healing: Slow Natural Healing
267 Rest: Gritty Realism
270 Initiative: Speed Factor
271 Action Options
272 InjuriesI will wait and see when it shows up at my FLGS.
Given the page count for some of these entries (ex: speed factor) - it makes me think that some of these variants will be glossed over and not implemented in a fully functional fashion. If that's the case I'm sticking with 2nd ed (which already has pretty much all of this already).Once again, Aux, you and I are in almost perfect agreement re: the variants we want to see to make the game more "old skool".
However, I can't help but wonder why people (I don't mean you specifically) feel that they need WotC to tell them the "official" rules variants when they can just make up whatever they want. I have seen people "rage-quitting" because the specific variant(s) they wanted were not included in the DMG. As far as I know, no one from WotC will come to your home, wrestle you to the ground and take all your gaming stuff if you decide to implement rules variants that you come up with one your own.
I can only answer this one for myself - for me it would be nice to play a "living" game vs. a dead one. That means having "official support" for the variants or rules I would like in place. A "living game" brings with it: product support, creative projects and materials, player availability due to current nature of system, etc. A whole range of things really.
Also with the advent of "players rights", having a codified variant is easier to sell because you are working with a developer-established set of variant rules - which eliminates the perception of DM shenanigans (if there were any in the first place).
So really it comes down to selling the game you want to play (with additions and subtractions) to other players and having a printed shiny book to back it up (sad).
And hey - standardization is also a factor. You tell player A and B - "I am using the facing and weapon speed rules in the DMG, if you guys have a copy make yourself familiar with it - otherwise I will print out the sections for you to... oh wait, no electronic format - I will go over the sections when we next meet." So the language becomes universal because it's spoken in sacred text: Developer Rules printed in rulebooks.
I personally don't really care because I am crazy enough to write a game just for my friends to play (we are playtesting right now actually) but I can see how DMs "out in the world of gaming" could use a structured variant set of rules vs. writing something up themselves (possibly better) and trying to sell his own work to players he hasn't really gamed with.
That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Which is your right, of course, but what are you gaining by not buying a book you want to own?*shrug*
It's like any other purchasing decision -- I observed the product on offer and found it wanting. That doesn't mean there aren't things about it that I like.
sounds like i did read too much into it.
sounds like i did read too much into it.That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Which is your right, of course, but what are you gaining by not buying a book you want to own?*shrug*
It's like any other purchasing decision -- I observed the product on offer and found it wanting. That doesn't mean there aren't things about it that I like.
I dunno...you may have it right. If it were available as a PDF or eBook, I would buy it. Since it isn't, I won't.
In any event, by the accounts I've seen it's a well-done book.
If I had to describe the book in the single sentence, I would describe the 5th Edition DMG as an updated version of the 3.5 DMG.
I came into the game around 3.5 so I'm not sure how much of these goes back to previous editions, but many of the sections remind me a lot of how the 3.5 DMG was set up.
A lot of the content remind me of elements I recall from the 3.5 DMG especially elements like the firearms section which is the same section in both books (with slightly different mechanics, but same general equipment and pricing).
The text in the 5th edition DMG feels less dense, but it doesn't feel like it has any less content although I feel there is a lot more art in the 5th edition DMG as well. A couple major factors in this are that the 3.5 DMG contained statistics for various NPCs that found their way to the MM in 5th edition and the lack of prestige classes in 5th edition. The 5th edition book spends a bit more time on the magic item section, likely at least in part due to the larger amount of art depicting a lot more of the items than the 3.5 DMG.
Overall, I would say that if you liked the 3.5 DMG for the most part, then you will feel the about the same for the 5th edition DMG. Same if you absolutely hated it. Looking through it though I would say it is an improvement over the 3.5 DMG overall. I think there are better books out there for less system specific guidelines run running games, but I this feels like a useful tool for the 5th edition games.
There are a few problems I have with the book, but of all the various edition hate in many directions that run around here, I'll just hold my tongue on them since they don't change the fact that I like the book.
I hope it has something to deliver class ability for martial characters, similar to spells, where each class may create a toolbox of abilities to help define the character and/or specialization. Then feats can be added as an additional layer to add more specialization, or ability any class may use.Woot? Have you looked at the PHBS.
Warder
Woot? If you are referencing the Players Handbook, then I would want something similar to battlemaster maneuvers added to every martial class. It was presented in the early playtest, so it would be a shame to abandon it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sure the AD&D players are probably playing AD&D (1st or 2nd editions) or one of the OSR clones. I am sad that I didn't see mention of the ability to insert THAC0 into 5th edition like I heard they were going to.
I will wait until I can see the book with my own eyes before I trust the word of someone over the internet (sorry internet people). I also really hope that they do have that website column they said they might do in place of Legends and Lore. So long as they are available for free and not behind a paywall, because then I would rather have that in a book (physical preferred, but pdf is fine).
You mean THAC20?
-There are optional combat rules for climbing on a bigger creature,
That sounds interesting. I tried making something like that for PF once. Became a little convoluted, I'm curious how it's handled in the DMG.
I use a THAC10 calculation in my games because then everyone else at th. table can still use the 5e RAW system and we get the same results. For example, say I'm DMing some goblins they have a +4 to hit. That's a THAC10 of 6, which I've noted. If they're fighting a character with AC 13, I need to roll a nine or greater because 6+3=9. Since 13 - +4 also equal 9, it's the same results as everyone else.
Derek, that's the point: other people at the table can still do it just like you just described without even knowing about how I do it.
That's great! And that's how I teach anyone new to our table (for one reason and one reason only -- so they wont be confused if they ever play with someone else).
But for myself, instead of adding +4 after every single roll, I can just add 6 + 3 once and then see if my rolls are nine or higher from then on. Much faster. It's not a regression, it's easier and much faster.
is there any advantage over just subtracting your to-hit bonus from the enemies AC (ie performing 13-4=9, once)? You'll always get the same answer and using THAC0 (or THACX) just seems like an unnecessary step, to me.
is there any advantage over just subtracting your to-hit bonus from the enemies AC (ie performing 13-4=9, once)?
Nope, except smaller numbers and addition instead of subtraction, both of which are more fun to me. If you're doing 13-4=9 you already get most of the benefit and that was what I was doing for a while.
When I DM I can just roll a bunch of d20s at once and quickly sort out all that are 9 or higher.