Thoughts on 5E

[Jiggy]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

To look at it from yet another angle, imagine that a 20th-level fighter is training alongside a 1st-level fighter. They're each attacking a target dummy 20 times.

In a series of 20 attacks, the 20th-level fighter only hits his target 4 more times than the 1st-level fighter. What the crap.

Keep in mind that your proficiency bonus isn't the only way you're improving. That 20th level fighter has probably got his strength maxed out now while the 1st level fighter probably doesn't. That'll account for another 1-2 successes. He may have a +1-+3 magic weapon. That's another 1-3 successes. He can attack that dummy 80 times in the time it takes that 1st level fighter to hit it 20 times, alternatively, he gets done in 5 rounds what the 1st level fighter takes 20 to accomplish. And that's without even touching the archetype features he might have or the fact that he's a heck of a lot more durable.

If you ignore every other probable advancement, sure, that 20th level fighter only hits a little more often than that 1st level fighter. But then, he also doesn't have to since most opponents have an AC within the 1st level fighter's ability.

Hey, my description of the small proficiency gap didn't include any kind of "and therefore there's barely a difference in the overall abilities of the two fighters", so please don't append such a thing to my post and ask me to defend it.

As it happens, I currently have a fighter at 3rd level and I see all these cool abilities coming down the pipe at each level, and it's really cool. Overall, the fighter got a great makeover and, at least with class features, it definitely feels like he's improving. I'm not questioning that. And "he'll have better gear" is not something that indicates character improvement, thankyouverymuch.

I was just talking about one aspect that irks me. How many movies have you seen where an apprentice-type character shoots the target, then the master hits the bullseye? Or the apprentice swooshes his hand at the annoying fly, and the master grabs it out of the air in one go? That difference in aptitude at a single task (accuracy) isn't reflected as much as I would personally prefer over the course of 20 levels.

The 5E fighter improves his fighting ability by picking up more abilities, rather than becoming more adept at the abilities he already has. That bothers me, on a purely aesthetic level. If I put RedShirt up against LegendaryGeneral in a marksmanship contest as a display of my kingdom's power, and I hand them each a bow and 20 arrows, the people aren't going to be very inspired, no matter how much the fighter points out that he has all these other cool abilities besides being able to strike a target with a weapon.

Now, in actual gameplay against level-appropriate challenges, you won't actually see this all that much. But the fridge-logic bugs me. :)

[Terquem]

I like 5e, it does everything a D&D game needs to do for me.

[chbgraphicarts]

Kthulhu wrote:

I think one of the main reasons that I prefer the earlier eras of D&D is because of their reflective focuses:

AD&D 1e, was, in my opinion, characterized by the adventures. There were far more adventures offered than any other type of product.

AD&D 2e was unquestionably characterized by the campaign settings. While the three setting that had originated in 1E (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance) stayed as the most popular, 2e was the edition that had an absolute EXPLOSION of settings created for it.

D&D 3.x and 4E were characterized by rule supplements. While there were some adventures and new settings published for these editions, it was blatantly clear that these were secondary to the rules supplements. Even many of the products published as campaign setting specific were less setting/adventure material and more giving rules supplements to play in those settings. For me, this was less interesting than the settings and adventures of the previous eras.

2nd Edition had tons and tons of supplements, too, though.

This Forum Post lists all the 2nd Edition books printed

Again, 90% of arguments of 2nd Ed being "simpler" than 3rd/3.5/PF are pretty much baseless and so rose-tinted that people are basically staring at an opaque blob of red.

2nd Edition had arse-tons of rules, it had hilarious numbers of supplemental books, and a vast majority of these were poorly edited and not playtested (which wasn't the fault of the writers - it was the head of TSR at the time, who demanded more and more products be shoved out the door & believed that playtesting was just an excuse to fool around on company time; she almost single-handedly destroyed the original TSR, and is generally cited as the main reason the company had to fold and sell its IP to Wizards of the Coast).

You ARE right that WOTC put almost no emphasis on Modules at all. They DID support both Ebberon and Forgotten Realms with rulebooks & supplements, but they didn't bother to create new adventures for it.

Pathfinder has been better about following 1st and 2nd Ed's example in that they put out small things like Player's Companions and Campaign Setting Sourcebooks at fairly regular intervals, while also putting out Modules and Adventure Path booklets, as well.

There're a lot of individual products between the PRD books, other PFS Big Books, Campaign Setting Sourcebooks, & Player's Companions, but as has been explored in other forums, the pagecount of all these books together add up to less than the total pagecount of what WOTC put out in 3.5.

cont. wrote:

Plus I just like the rules better. :D

See, that I can't/wouldn't refute - if you just like the style better, you like the style better; I totally get that, and all power to ya.

I just get annoyed when people go "oh, it was simpler back then/there was less back then" and cite that as an objective reason to like early versions, because that's just a blatant lie.

It may have SEEMED that way, because we always think of things in the past as "simpler, nicer, easier", but objectively, no, the rules, even at a basic level, were just as monolithic, though with plenty of glaring holes (thus requiring lots of DMs to need to houserule things that rightly should have had rules in place), and the level of product output in 2nd Ed was just as intensive as in later editions.

It's like saying Transformers Gen 1 was a good show.

It was fun, and yes, I do love it; but, objectively, it was just a bad, bad, awful, terrible show that was chock full of campy charm and really cool ideas that are just as awesome now as they were back in the 80s.

[Kthulhu]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

To look at it from yet another angle, imagine that a 20th-level fighter is training alongside a 1st-level fighter. They're each attacking a target dummy 20 times.

In a series of 20 attacks, the 20th-level fighter only hits his target 4 more times than the 1st-level fighter. What the crap.

Keep in mind that your proficiency bonus isn't the only way you're improving. That 20th level fighter has probably got his strength maxed out now while the 1st level fighter probably doesn't. That'll account for another 1-2 successes. He may have a +1-+3 magic weapon. That's another 1-3 successes. He can attack that dummy 80 times in the time it takes that 1st level fighter to hit it 20 times, alternatively, he gets done in 5 rounds what the 1st level fighter takes 20 to accomplish. And that's without even touching the archetype features he might have or the fact that he's a heck of a lot more durable.

If you ignore every other probable advancement, sure, that 20th level fighter only hits a little more often than that 1st level fighter. But then, he also doesn't have to since most opponents have an AC within the 1st level fighter's ability.

That's what I've found many of the detractors of 5e here like to do. They isolate one particular bit, and compare it, without taking into account the other differences in the system.

[Terquem]

I like 5e, like I said, and maybe it is for nostalgic reasons, but meh, I don't think so. I just like the way it plays.

[thejeff]

Kthulhu wrote:

For the record, I don't think chbgraphicarts meant the only reason someone could like 2E was nostalgia, just that claiming it was simpler and not bloated requires some nostalgia.

My takes a bit more complicated. We never really dove full strength into the 2E splatbooks, so I don't remember it being that complicated, though the base rules weren't anything like "light". Character building stayed simple though. I also remember being burned out and frustrated with 2E long before 3.0 came out. We'd mostly moved on to other games and 3.0 brought us back for awhile. I liked 3.x at the start. It fixed a lot of the things that bothered me about AD&D (1st and 2nd).

Over time, and with moving to PF, I've found new and frustrating things with 3.x and now look back on 2E with fondness, since it didn't have some of the things that bother me now and it's been long enough that I don't even really remember what I'd disliked about it back in the day.

[Kthulhu]

thejeff wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

For the record, I don't think chbgraphicarts meant the only reason someone could like 2E was nostalgia, just that claiming it was simpler and not bloated requires some nostalgia.

It's not just chbgraphicarts. If it were just him/her, it wouldn't have become my major pet peeve on these boards. The "it's only because of nostalgia" crap comes up in every single g+$*$!n thread where editions prior to 3.0 are mentioned, and even half the 5e threads that DON'T mention those previous editions.

Like I said, I doubt many of them would like it if I insisted on inserting the assertion that the only reason to enjoy Pathfinder is because someone is too simple-minded to deal with a more fluid system into EVERY thread on these forums.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a heated post. Okay, I don't like quoting policy directly as a method for moderating, but this is important to remember from our Community Guidelines "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play." Everyone plays the game differently, and one size doesn't fit all when it comes to various systems. So disparaging remarks on other companies/systems or styles of play should be left out of the conversation. Be cool to each other and let's turn this thread around.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Re: flattening of numbers on the attack roll:-

My fighter had +5 to attack at 1st, +6 at 4th, +7 at 5th, will have +8 at 6th and will have +9 at 9th, all without a magic weapon.

This is from proficiency bonus and Dex bonus.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

The lack of big changes in the attack roll is matched by the lack of big changes in AC.

In PF, the BAB might increase by 19 by 20th level, but the target ACs are expected to go up even more.

In both games, the ratio of attacks to hits will be about the same.

[Krunchyfrogg]

Shimmerburn wrote:

The one thing I can say about 5E is that if you are trying to teach kids (I have two 13/9) the game, it works better. Less rules, less to remember and a lot less reading.

Don't forget the math. There's a looooooot less math.

[Krunchyfrogg]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

My thoughts: I like it.

Now where's some kind of license, any kind of license to produce compatible material. Because Wizards is not coming anywhere close to meeting the demand for adventures, additional crunch, settings, etc.

After Pathfinder became a more successful game than D&D 3.5, do you think WotC is going to let that happen again?

[Zadocfish2]

For me, the difference between 5e and Pathfinder is simple:

In 5e, enemies don't get an attack of opportunity if you look slightly to the right for two seconds. You can just... do MORE in 5e. I understand the need for rules in an RPG, but Pathfinder has, in my opinion, more than are necessary...

[glass]

thejeff wrote:

Petty Alchemy wrote:

It's not a successor to 4e anymore than it is to 3.5.

It is a successor to 4E in the sense that 4E is the system that WotC was selling beforehand.

Exactly. What other senses are there?

chbgraphicarts wrote:

I mean, 4E was "balanced" in that it's not hard to achieve "Balance" everyone is playing the same class but wearing a different color.

Actually it is impossible to achieve "balance" (between classes) when everybody is the same class IMO. By definition, you need multiple different things for there to be balance between. Luckily that is not remotely close to the situation in 4e.

You could take a wizard power, swap Int to Strength and call it a Fighter power...but they didn't. It is telling that someone managed to find three at wills that were functionally the same but not in the way you imply - it is telling that someone with an agenda and complete freedom to cherry pick could only scare up three from the 684 At Will powers across 30ish classes.

You say it would be better if they had multiple class abilities on top of their powers. Good news, they do! Under the Class/Other Features section of my 4e Bard's character sheet, there are 19 entries. Now TBF some of them come from Theme and Paragon Path, and the actual class one are slightly double counted because it lists choices and then the choices you have made.

Signs of Influence:

For example Signs of Influence says "Gain two signs of Influence at 1st level and additional options at 13th & 17th levels". The actual Signs I picked (so far Ritual Beneficiary, Travel In Style, and Welcome Guest, with another one next level) are also listed separately.

You say "Rogues can Sneak Attack while Paladins can Smite...sooo different". Sneak attack is a fairly simple class feature that allows Rogues to do their extra damage on their attacks. Smite is any one of a number of powers. The Paladin in my Thursday night game has no smites, but he does have Channel Divinity, Divine Challenge, Lay On Hands, Just Action, Just Spirit, and Just Shelter. So yes, actually very different.

Petty Alchemy wrote:

I don't get why some people think 4e was so homogenous, classes were distinct from one another with the themes their powers supported. I'd say a Fighter and Barbarian were more different than they are in 3.x.

Because one person who by his own admission has only flicked through 4e, and another who quite clearly has not even done that much, think they can tell someone who plays in a weekly 4e game what 4e is like.

As a 4e fan (as well as a Pathfinder fan) who has spent some time on the Internet, I'm used to nonsense being made up about 4e by some edition warrior and repeated by other as if it were fact. Although interestingly this thread is the first time I've seen the same thing happening to 5e (the nonsense about all saves on one stat, when in fact 5e's biggest problem is that it does the opposite).

Bill Dunn wrote:

glass wrote:

And compared with 4e, the core mechanics have been made more complicated and the balance made worse.

See, from my perspective, those would be "more interesting" and "better" rather than "more complicated" and "worse".

Well, 5e's core mechanics being more interesting than 4e's is a matter of opinion. I don't find them more interesting, but if you do that's fine. The notion that 5e is better balanced than 4e is ridiculous on its face, though.

_
glass.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

4E's balance does not come from the fact that all characters use powers. In fact it is possible to design any RPG in the power system. I could create just about every Pathfinder characters abilities using the power system with triggers and special text to handle any of the vagaries.

4Es balance comes from two elements - a laser like focus on balance as a core principle of the edition AND massive amounts of errata. The reality was, especially early on, WotC was re-balancing powers practically weekly and seemed to be paying a fair bit of attention to the Character Op Boards when doing so.

In reality 4E characters play at the table very differently for the most part. A Defender is not a Controller - they don't feel the same at all and even two Defenders, say a Paladin and a Sword Mage both execute their Defender role quite differently. Paladins tend to divine strike those that defy the Defenders mark - literally bolting them from the blue. A Sword Mage will usually use some form of an interrupt and do something to screw up the attacker if they ignore the Sword Mages mark - my groups Sword Mage usually teleports the monster beside one of its friends and then has the attack proceed - but now Monster A is hitting Monster B with whatever the attack was.

[Otherwhere]

I like the 5e of D&D. I like the simplicity, though it does have abuse issues and oversights just like any system.

Here's what I expect to see happen:
5e comes out, people start playing it, finding synergies and conflicts in the mechanics/rules.
WotC releases a new supplement, adding new classes, races, feats, etc., some of which address the above issues.
Errata are issued to address the really blatant abuses and conflicts.
WotC comes out with yet another supplement with new options.
Eventually, D&D 5e becomes as complex and rules-bloated as Pathfinder, and someone develops a "new" rpg system that is "simpler".

It's how 3.xx developed, and therefore Pathfinder and 4.0, and is a natural evolutionary process.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying 5e as a break from rules-heavy Pathfinder.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

My take is that a lot of the 'old school feel' in 5E comes from what is in essence an emphasis on fast not particularly complex combats. However crazy complex 2nd edition was much of the time in actual combat it pretty much came down to roll a d20 and if you hit then you did damage and it was the next guys turn. 5E seems to be making a concerted effort to return to that. I'll concede that when I was playing 2nd edition combats often actually got a lot more complex then that but if you stripped 1st or 2nd edition down to its core it pretty much worked like that and this seems to be what 5E is going for - roll your d20 and then its the next guys turn.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Otherwhere wrote:

I like the 5e of D&D. I like the simplicity, though it does have abuse issues and oversights just like any system.

Here's what I expect to see happen:
5e comes out, people start playing it, finding synergies and conflicts in the mechanics/rules.
WotC releases a new supplement, adding new classes, races, feats, etc., some of which address the above issues.
Errata are issued to address the really blatant abuses and conflicts.
WotC comes out with yet another supplement with new options.
Eventually, D&D 5e becomes as complex and rules-bloated as Pathfinder, and someone develops a "new" rpg system that is "simpler".

It's how 3.xx developed, and therefore Pathfinder and 4.0, and is a natural evolutionary process.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying 5e as a break from rules-heavy Pathfinder.

Possibly that said I'm not sure if that is actually a certainty. For one there does not seem to be much sign of the deluge of splat books that one kind of expects with the release of an edition. Beyond that systems can have core principles and if it is a core principle of 5E that combats are simple to adjudicate and run very fast then its possible for the game to adhere to that.

In particular though I could see it being the case that WotC just keeps new releases to a minimum and only keeps on a fairly small stable of paid employees in their D&D department. In effect the game remains simple mainly because the rate of book release is low and WotC expects high returns on every book (because so few are released everyone buys all of them) while they save money because they don't pay for many employees. The idea here high return on investment for fairly low outlay of investment and of course the rest of the excess money gets funneled to the much more profitable Magic the Gathering Department.

Sort of like early 1st edition where every group tended to have just about every product released and multiple copies of some of them.

[Lorathorn]

Zhangar wrote:

4E took a while to hit it's stride, though it was pretty good once it finally did and WotC started exercising some creativity in the power design.

By the time PH2 came about, classes started feeling (and playing) very different from each other, and that trend continued for a while.

And then Essentials happened, and WotC backpedaled like mad to do away with their progress. Essentials (and various shenanigans relating to the D&D Insider Subscription) killed 4E for my entire gaming group.

What were these shenanigans?

[Charlie D.]

Lorathorn wrote:

Zhangar wrote:

And then Essentials happened, and WotC backpedaled like mad to do away with their progress. Essentials (and various shenanigans relating to the D&D Insider Subscription) killed 4E for my entire gaming group.

What were these shenanigans?

The character builder went from download to web site only and I think it was changed to require Silverlight to work. Also, it stopped getting updated in a timely fashion.

Essentials is when I gave up on 4E as well. I just didn't want new versions of races and classes I already had.

[Zhangar]

Lorathorn wrote:

Zhangar wrote:

4E took a while to hit it's stride, though it was pretty good once it finally did and WotC started exercising some creativity in the power design.

By the time PH2 came about, classes started feeling (and playing) very different from each other, and that trend continued for a while.

And then Essentials happened, and WotC backpedaled like mad to do away with their progress. Essentials (and various shenanigans relating to the D&D Insider Subscription) killed 4E for my entire gaming group.

What were these shenanigans?

Edit: I've sent you a PM with a substantial amount of detail.

To expand slightly here on what CHarlie said: the D&D Insider subscriptions came with a couple tools that in of themselves were more than worth the price of the subscription.

And around the time of essentials, WotC deliberately scrapped those tools and tried to shift subscribers to utterly inferior replacements.

I'm guessing it's something Hasbro forced on them, but as a direct result my D&D Inscriber account went from "worth every penny" to "no longer worth it at all." I cancelled my account the very day I finished my last 4E campaign and no longer needed access to the Compendium.

[Adjule]

Like Kthulhu said, I get tired of fans who like Pathfinder (and it is usually them, though I have seen fans of 4th, 5th, and even 3rd edition say this) say that the only reason anyone could like a pre-d20 system more than a modern one is because nostalgia. It's the same as going to a World of Warcraft forum and saying you preferred any part of the game pre-Cataclysm expansion pack (where they greatly changed the game). "You only like it because of rose-tinted nostalgia goggles/glasses!" Yeah, that's the absolute only reason for it. *rolleyes* As I tell everyone who says this BS: New does not equate to good, just like old does not equate to bad (and the opposite is also true).

As for my thoughts on 5th edition D&D: I absolutely love it. It is a nice change from the 3rd edition formula, despite the 3rd edition formula (this includes Pathfinder) not being bad itself. I just started a 5th edition campaign back on April 1st, and I am enjoying being the DM again. My players are new to 5th edition, though they all have experience with Pathfinder and other editions of D&D. They are also enjoying it.

There are many things I enjoy about the new edition. There are things I enjoy about Pathfinder as well. The biggest difference for me is just how easy it is to create something completely new for the 3rd edition framework than it is to do the same with 5th edition, without making whatever it is be too absurdly powerful. I found it easier to make things for Pathfinder compared to 5th edition. It may just be having 15 years of familiarity with 3rd edition, compared to 9 months with 5th edition. I have seen people say "It's so easy to convert things to 5th edition!" and I am over here with a distrusting look on my face and thinking "Are you kidding?" It's super easy to make something too strong in 5th edition, to me.

I am running a converted 4th edition adventure, as a lead in to the new Elemental Evil adventure that comes out on the 7th. Nearly had 2 deaths thanks to the creatures in the first encounter of that adventure that I converted. I even took out many of its abilities, and it still was too strong. Of course, I have to eyeball everything as there is no official conversion guide out (and won't be thanks to the single person who is in charge of saying "yes" to what seems like a finished product is stuck in jury duty until mid-summer).

While I have mentioned a few times that I have given up on Pathfinder, and have been turned off from the system for the most part, it is not the system itself but the players that I have been exposed to. I like Pathfinder and enjoy the system itself, but the players I have been exposed to have made me not want to play it ever again unless I can find the right type of people.

I have enjoyed 2nd edition (and I liked that one session of 1st edition that I played back in 1996), 3rd edition (both original and revised), Pathfinder, and now 5th edition. There have been times I wanted to try 4th edition, but each time I looked at the classes, any desire went away. It just wasn't for me. Glad others enjoyed it though, and won't tell them they were doing it wrong because they liked and preferred an edition that I didn't.

[Kekkres]

Rhedyn wrote:

Kalshane wrote:

the automatic full healing overnight is likely to be one of the first things I house rule away when I start running a game

No need for that. There are variate rules in the DMG to both accelerate or lower the healing based on the tone you want for your campaign. Something else to remember is that since 5e rules abstract what is going on and rather than simulate, HP is not meat. The books even go so far to say that a creature may only be visibly wounded at half HP or lower.

NOTE: Also currently playing in 2 PF campaigns. Neither are switching over. I'm starting a bi-weekly 5e campaign with some friends.

ive seen the "abstract hp" idea batted around a lot but to me it seems to basically be a way of hand waving later game HP totals, and actively seems to contradict the book itself. Down to the terminology itself where a hit is a hit and damage is damage the game implies that HP is meat. whats more the AC mechanics make grazes and near misses seem strange since you already represent a near miss with your Dex bonus to ac. Spells and abilities are written as though every "hit" lands and all the "damage" is real injury, case in point, acid arrow, if the spell where to graze or "miss closely wearing down the hero" than the follow up damage makes no sense, the same with poison, and then you have things like fireball where its very difficult to rationalize NOT getting hit in that situation. I get the idea of abstract HP and donet mind it in a game, 4e had it built in pretty heavily there and it worked fine, but in 5e it seems like an afterthought and doesnt really make sense in a lot of places.

[glass]

Kekkres wrote:

ive seen the "abstract hp" idea batted around a lot but

By "batted around", do you mean explicitly printed in every single edition of D&D going back to 1974?

_
glass.

[thejeff]

Kekkres wrote:

Rhedyn wrote:

Kalshane wrote:

the automatic full healing overnight is likely to be one of the first things I house rule away when I start running a game

No need for that. There are variate rules in the DMG to both accelerate or lower the healing based on the tone you want for your campaign. Something else to remember is that since 5e rules abstract what is going on and rather than simulate, HP is not meat. The books even go so far to say that a creature may only be visibly wounded at half HP or lower.

NOTE: Also currently playing in 2 PF campaigns. Neither are switching over. I'm starting a bi-weekly 5e campaign with some friends.

ive seen the "abstract hp" idea batted around a lot but to me it seems to basically be a way of hand waving later game HP totals, and actively seems to contradict the book itself. Down to the terminology itself where a hit is a hit and damage is damage the game implies that HP is meat. whats more the AC mechanics make grazes and near misses seem strange since you already represent a near miss with your Dex bonus to ac. Spells and abilities are written as though every "hit" lands and all the "damage" is real injury, case in point, acid arrow, if the spell where to graze or "miss closely wearing down the hero" than the follow up damage makes no sense, the same with poison, and then you have things like fireball where its very difficult to rationalize NOT getting hit in that situation. I get the idea of abstract HP and donet mind it in a game, 4e had it built in pretty heavily there and it worked fine, but in 5e it seems like an afterthought and doesnt really make sense in a lot of places.

It hasn't really made sense since it was introduced in AD&D, but then a tough fighter taking as much actual physical punishment as a giant doesn't really make much sense either. It's an abstraction, one way or another.

[Bill Dunn]

glass wrote:

Well, 5e's core mechanics being more interesting than 4e's is a matter of opinion. I don't find them more interesting, but if you do that's fine. The notion that 5e is better balanced than 4e is ridiculous on its face, though.

Well, now that depends on how you define balance or what form of balance you actually find important, doesn't it? 4e is a game wildly out of balance compared to other editions of D&D. Can you figure out how?

[Terquem]

To everyone on the Paizo Boards

Ahem, "Balance"

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it does." - I. M.

[Jiggy]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

The lack of big changes in the attack roll is matched by the lack of big changes in AC.

In PF, the BAB might increase by 19 by 20th level, but the target ACs are expected to go up even more.

In both games, the ratio of attacks to hits will be about the same.

Yep, like I said, the stuff plays out pretty well. It's just when you ponder some of the in-universe implications of the mechanics that you go "Hey, wait a second..."

Sort of like the world economy in Pathfinder: if you just play the game and don't look too hard at the world as a whole, then it works just fine. But if you put two things next to each other that normally wouldn't be "on-screen" together at the same time, then eyebrows will raise. ;)

[Charlie D.]

Jiggy wrote:

was just talking about one aspect that irks me. How many movies have you seen where an apprentice-type character shoots the target, then the master hits the bullseye? Or the apprentice swooshes his hand at the annoying fly, and the master grabs it out of the air in one go? That difference in aptitude at a single task (accuracy) isn't reflected as much as I would personally prefer over the course of 20 levels.

The 5E fighter improves his fighting ability by picking up more abilities, rather than becoming more adept at the abilities he already has. That bothers me, on a purely aesthetic level. If I put RedShirt up against LegendaryGeneral in a marksmanship contest as a display of my kingdom's power, and I hand them each a bow and 20 arrows, the people aren't going to be very inspired, no matter how much the fighter points out that he has all these other cool abilities besides being able to strike a target with a weapon.

Now, in actual gameplay against level-appropriate challenges, you won't actually see this all that much. But the fridge-logic bugs me. :)

I think the difference would be profound. The RS would +2 to hit based on level alone if proficient in bows while the general would be higher, likely +4 to +6. That is already a good gap even if the general has no extra skill in archery.

However, the general may also have superiority dice and add up to +d12 to the roll. He may have invested in Dex for an extra +2 to hit. He might have the Sharpshooter feat and challenge the RS to a long distance shot. The LG should be able to do quite well in a contest if he has learned abilities that apply.

[glass]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Well, now that depends on how you define balance or what form of balance you actually find important, doesn't it?

Well of course. I define it as "all classes within the game will, mechanically speaking, be of approximately equal value in contributing to the success of gameplay activities, and will have approximately equal amounts of impact on the narrative". How do you define it?

Bill Dunn wrote:

4e is a game wildly out of balance compared to other editions of D&D. Can you figure out how?

No. Not until you give me your definition of balance, because by my definition it is quite the opposite.

_
glass.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

In my earlier days I leaned toward systems that were more 'realistic' and detailed. More recently I've come to appreciate that some things need to be detailed while others do not, and if you choose the right things to de-emphasise then the game in play does not suffer at all while the removal of unneeded complexity makes the game run much more smoothly.

Games like Numenera and Marvel Heroic Role-Playing have stripped back mechanics, but it doesn't feel that way when you actually play. In Numenera the PCs have detail but the NPCs might be a couple of numbers (or even a single number), but since it's the only value needed then the PCs can use the whole range of their abilities without feeling constrained.

In MHRP, superpowers and skills are vague and have nothing but a die rating. But the way it plays is that you use your detailed knowledge of what that comic character can do to describe what you want to do, then support that action with dice from abilities that logically support that action, superpowered or not. In play, you get a very detailed experience from character sheets that are not.

One of the things I loved about 3rd ed when it came out at the turn of the millennium is that the monsters used the same rules as PCs, finally! For example, up to 2nd ed monsters didn't have a Str score, therefore no Str bonus to damage. This led to beasts the size of a house (like the biggest dragons!) doing less damage with its bite than the PCs did with their weapons. IIRC, only giants, ogres and vampires had a Str score and used the attack and damage bonuses that the Str score generates.

However, as PF continues to bloat and mess up rules mechanics, 5th ed strips back rules to those essential for smooth gameplay combined with allowing the players to use their gamut of cool abilities, allows PCs to gain cool abilities at every level, addresses balance issues between martials and casters much more effectively than any edition of the game so far, without any game breaking combos (so far; they seem to have put a lot of thought into this), I now put less store in making the monster's stat blocks as detailed as the stat blocks of the PCs.

One thing I've realised recently is that when I think about characters I want to create and play, I no longer think about making PF PCs, but I'm thinking about making and playing 5th ed PCs.

[Petty Alchemy]

@glass

The spiritual successor. 3.0 is followed by 3.5 is followed by Pathfinder, but not by 4e.

It is fair to say that in terms of WOTC product succession, 3.5 IS followed by 4e. But it doesn't play like 3.5, while Pathfinder does.

[DaveMage]

I see 5E as a bridge between 2E and 3E.

For me, I like some of 5E, but after playing so much 3.x/Pathfinder, I find the lack of options in 5E are a major issue for me, and will keep me from playing it in any major way for the foreseeable future.

That said, I like:

The advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
The alignment system.
The damage resistance/immunity system.
The class structure whereby the "kit/prestige class" is built in to the base class (although it makes multiclassing weird - what if you want the features of 2 kits in the same class?)

I don't like:
Limit of "+" magic items to +3.
Transmuters who can heal
Level 20 cap (yes, it has "Epic Feats" in the DMG, but what if I want to advance to be a level 15 Fighter/level 15 Wizard?) Pathfinder, of course, has the same issue.
Clerics with only one domain

Things I'm not sure if I like or not:
Bounded accuracy
Wild magic
Short rest mechanic

[Fake Healer]

I've been playing 5e for 6months now and I love it. It's quick and easy, has a lot of variety for classes so far (and more if you count the free Eberron download and the Elemental evil download) and if I want more of the stuff from other versions it is an absolute breeze to convert over.
Magic items are now special and interesting instead of "great, another 10th level dude...he should have a cloak of resistance, ring of prot, gloves of X, same old same old.
I will worry about the level 20 cap in about 2 years when we reach that level.

Seriously though everyone always b!%!&es about stuff like a level 20 cap, and that there are less options....How many dozens of games do you play in per week that 30 varieties of class options and a level 20 cap is gonna come into play anytime before 2017?

[TriOmegaZero]

Hell, I've yet to get to 20 in Pathfinder, or play with all the options in the Core Rulebook anyway.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Now where's some kind of license, any kind of license to produce compatible material. Because Wizards is not coming anywhere close to meeting the demand for adventures, additional crunch, settings, etc.

Krunchyfrogg wrote:

After Pathfinder became a more successful game than D&D 3.5, do you think WotC is going to let that happen again?

It doesn't have to be the OGL. Even if it was the revised GSL, that would work fine.

Had you asked me that question when it was first released, my answer was "I'm cautiously optimistic." I believed it was possible, but I recognized the doubt in the back of my mind for what it was.

Had you asked me when they released the DMG, I would have been frustrated, but I would have held out hope.

Today, no.

We are 9 months out since the release of the PHB. That is 8 months longer than the first version of the 4e GSL's release after it's respective PHB. We are 3 months out from the revised version of the GSL (so yes, in the same time frame since the 4e PHB's release there have been 2 versions of the GSL). And a year and a half longer than the much publicized telephone conference that Wizards had with Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman, and Necromancer (and I think a few others) to get them on board with 4e when it launched. If Wizards was serious about fostering some kind of compatible market, they would have done something by now other than a few designers saying, "Yes, we really want to make it OGL."

And yes, Perkins did say something stronger back in November (6 months ago). But since then Mearls went on jury duty and things screeched to a halt with certain product developments. He said on twitter that the conversion documents for older modules should be coming in July. When asked about a license, he didn't respond. Which, I think at this point, is reasonable to assume that it is not going to happen.

If Wizards put out some kind of ... anything ... that hinted at some kind of license, I'd be the first to speak up in their defense. But we haven't seen anything other than, what is in my opinion, several developers that believe in the OGL trying to influence those that make decisions by speaking publicly about it. And have since not said anything else on the topic.

[bugleyman]

Krunchyfrogg wrote:

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

My thoughts: I like it.

Now where's some kind of license, any kind of license to produce compatible material. Because Wizards is not coming anywhere close to meeting the demand for adventures, additional crunch, settings, etc.

After Pathfinder became a more successful game than D&D 3.5, do you think WotC is going to let that happen again?

The OGL genie can never be put back in the bottle. At this point all they're doing is making it harder for others to support their game.

But hey, it's Hasbro, so what else would you expect?

[Jiggy]

Fake Healer wrote:

Seriously though everyone always b#!#+es about stuff like a level 20 cap, and that there are less options....How many dozens of games do you play in per week that 30 varieties of class options and a level 20 cap is gonna come into play anytime before 2017?

I'm with you on the level cap thing. As for options, though, complaining of a lack of options doesn't have to mean you've exhausted them all, just that there are concepts you want to play that aren't supported.

For instance, I'm a fan of caster/martial hybrid types of characters. When I went to make a character for 5E, that was the first thing I started looking at how to do. I wanted an intelligent fighter who was reasonably competent as a melee combatant and dabbled in magic to give him utility options and some variation in combat.

I looked at the fighter's Eldrtich Knight "kit", but saw that not only did I not get any cantrips and have extremely limited spells per day (much like Pathfinder's ranger progression), but nearly all my spells would have to be evocations or abjurations. Not what I was going for.

I looked at the bard, and the Valor College got a little bit of fighter-ish-ness, so it might work... but then there's all this CHA-oriented stuff, and apparently bards got upgraded to full-caster status, so really it'd be more like a musical wizard who dabbled in fighting. Kind of the mirror of what I was going for.

The ranger's and paladin's martial-to-magic ratio actually looked close to perfect... but then I'm either a holy warrior or a nature guy, instead of an arcane warrior.

I looked at the possibility of multiclassing fighter/wizard, but then realized that damn near everything is tied to class level, right down to the 4th-level stat boost. Combined with the fact that multiclass spellcasting progression would only be advancing on wizard levels, this means that if I want spell progression similar to a ranger, I'm gonna have like half or more of my levels be wizard. That means my first stat boost is probably at 7th or so, and I don't get my second attack until... 10th? Maybe even later?

I eventually had to just abandon the concept altogether, because the system just doesn't support it.

So when someone says "There's not enough options," it doesn't necessarily mean they anticipate playing through every option in a couple of years. It could just mean they thought, "Cool, I wanna play a... oh. Nevermind."

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Jiggy wrote:

For instance, I'm a fan of caster/martial hybrid types of characters. When I went to make a character for 5E, that was the first thing I started looking at how to do.

Have you checked out the battle variant of the warlock? I forget the name *stifles complaining about lack of PDFs* but you're proficient with a weapon and you get spells. The warlock is more of a secondary caster, IMO from having played one.

[Petty Alchemy]

Much like 3.x/PF, your casting stat doesn't really matter if you avoid offensive spells (those with saves, and in 5e those with attack roles as those use the casting stat). You don't miss out on bonus slots in 5e for having a worse casting stat either.

So the Valbard could still be a good option for you.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Jiggy, reading your post brought a few thoughts:-

Eldritch Knights do get cantrips. Not sure how you missed that; they're in the text and also on the spell progression table.

You're right about the focus on those two schools, but a careful choice of the unrestricted spells is your friend. The intent of the EK is to have combat magic, not more general magic.

You can multiclass, but don't have to keep the classes even. Ending up at Ftr5/Wiz4 by 9th level is good, but you have to think carefully about how you prioritise things like the extra attack and stat boosts/feats. On the way to 9th, you might be 5th/2nd, or 4th/4th. Because there is no BAB but instead a universal modifier increased by total level rather than class levels, you don't really become a worse fighter when you take a wizard level. But this means that you can customise your PC to emphasise the aspects that you want, martial or magic. This is good, not bad.

There are also a couple of feats (humans can have one at level one) that give you some casting. In fact, the swashbuckler Battle Master I mentioned chose Magic Initiate at 1st, giving me two cantrips and a 1st level spell. Very versatile, and you can combine that with either EK or the multiclass idea.

Also, the game is young. New stuff will come out, expanding your options. I've just got the latest book about Elemental Evil, and new PC races and spells are included.

I think 5E will continue to offer more options for a good while yet.

[Jiggy]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

For instance, I'm a fan of caster/martial hybrid types of characters. When I went to make a character for 5E, that was the first thing I started looking at how to do.

Have you checked out the battle variant of the warlock? I forget the name *stifles complaining about lack of PDFs* but you're proficient with a weapon and you get spells. The warlock is more of a secondary caster, IMO from having played one.

I admit, I never thought of looking at the warlock to try and find that option. But in any case, "proficient with a weapon" is not the level of martial capability I was aiming for. Gotta get that second attack at 5th level as a minimum, and preferably also get that "fighting style" that the fighter/ranger/paladin get if possible.

A battle domain cleric, if memory serves, eventually gets a second attack as a bonus action, which is almost there, but then there's still the issue of being a divine full caster with melee tacked on.

Maybe they'll release an arcane version of the ranger/paladin casting model later on. *pines*