I'm asking because there are a lot of people on these forums that I'd trust based on years of reading their advice and opinions. I have only briefly skimmed the rulebooks in a F(not local)GS, and things seemed balanced, and fairly easy to adjudicate. Just wondering what people's experience with it is. One of the major reasons I ask, is that the fact that their is no digital character creation software is kind of a major barrier for me, and I'm wondering if it is as big of a barrier as I'm making it?
So, to any and all that have created a character and played some 5e, what's it like?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the major reasons I ask, is that the fact that their is no digital character creation software is kind of a major barrier for me, and I'm wondering if it is as big of a barrier as I'm making it?
So, to any and all that have created a character and played some 5e, what's it like?
It's easy as pie.
There's also a lot of good discussion in a currently-active thread in the 5E "D&D 4th edition (and beyond)" forum, which I recommend checking out.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a simple system and a lot of fun. Character creation is so simple that I wouldn't worry at all about the lack of a digital character generator. (The character sheets are only a single page, plus another page for spells if you have them.)
One of the major reasons I ask, is that the fact that their is no digital character creation software is kind of a major barrier for me, and I'm wondering if it is as big of a barrier as I'm making it?
So, to any and all that have created a character and played some 5e, what's it like?
It's easy as pie.
There's also a lot of good discussion in a currently-active thread in the
5E"D&D 4th edition (and beyond)" forum, which I recommend checking out.
Thanks Jiggy, both for the opinion and the flag for moving. I wasn't sure where to put this when I started it. I'm heading over to check out the thread you linked right now. :)
Really enjoy the system as well. My table top game is 3.5 but I run a 5E game here on the Boards and it runs fairly smoothly. A really nice mix of 2ed and 3ed especially if you use the optional Feats system.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To go into a little more detail on character creation:
There's really not much to do besides make your selections, which isn't something that's helped by electronic assistance (unless you fear having to read your own writing or something...?). I'd wager a guess that the primary reason you use electronic tools with Pathfinder is to do calculations, yes? Well, there's no need for such assistance with 5E's math.
You see, Pathfinder's math is like a brick wall: you have to take all these little pieces (stat, BAB/CL/ranks, class bonus, magic item, spell, feat, etc) and assemble them into the final number.
But 5E isn't like that.
In 5E, there's a binary yes/no on whether or not you're "proficient", and that's it.
Are you proficient in the skill/tool/weapon/spell/save you're using?
• If yes, then the math is just "ability modifier plus proficiency bonus".
• If no, then the math is just "ability modifier". Done!
Maybe your electronic tools would calculate the different save DCs for all your different levels and schools of spells? No need in 5E, your spellcasting has a single DC.
Maybe your electronic tools would calculate your various weapon damage bonuses based on feats and items and spells and even how many hands you're using? No need in 5E, it's just the weapon dice plus a stat.
Maybe your electronic tools help you make sure that your math doesn't accidentally stack like-typed bonuses or something like that? No need in 5E, as "bonus types" aren't really a thing because 5E isn't about building a mathwall.
So if I'm guessing correctly that your desire for electronic aid has to do with getting all the math homework done, then the answer is that you don't need any such tool.
If I'm guessing incorrectly, then... well, I suppose you'll need to elaborate on what you want that software for. :)
Totally positive.
I use pencil & paper for my character sheets anyways, but for most levels, leveling up takes maybe 5 minutes. Maybe 10 minutes at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17 when your proficiency bonus goes up, so you need to adjust your attack bonus, saving throws, skills, and spellcasting DCs and attack rolls.
5E leveling up is more about gaining new abilities, as opposed to PF where you get little numerical increases every level or so. It makes the bookkeeping a lit easier, not to mention the math.
There ARE a FEW situational modifiers, like barbarian rage damage, the bless spell (which is AWESOME!!!), some magical items, the Charger (?) and Sharp Shooter feat, but not much more than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with everyone else. There is alot less math involved so it is a much easier game to play and run. Adjudicating things are much simpler (forget "does this conditional bonus apply or not", its just advantage or disadvantage). The flatter math of the whole game means monsters stick around longer and a CR 3 encounter is still good when the the players are level 6 without it being a cakewalk encounter.
A friend of mine uses a digital character generator (no idea where from, I'm afraid - I just know that it exists). Spells, feats, class abilities and stuff get pasted in to the PDF. He's a monk and when his unarmed strikes damage die increased, it was clever enough to go through and also increase his damage die with a dagger.
I ran a campaign where I gave the PCs extra skill proficiencies and a third save and it could deal with adjustments like that too.
So if I'm guessing correctly that your desire for electronic aid has to do with getting all the math homework done, then the answer is that you don't need any such tool.
You guess correctly. Thanks for the info. I'm getting, from all the various threads I've read, that it is just flat out easier to run in all phases. Would that be a good assumption?
Pretty much. Frankly, the most difficult part of learning 5E seems to be simply recalibrating your own expectations and behavior paradigms.
That could absolutely take some time. :P ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The biggest thing I personally got hung up on was the flattened math: if a 1st-level fighter and a 20th level fighter both fire the same bow at the same target 20 times each, the 20th-level fighter is only going to hit a few more times than the 1st-level fighter, and that bugged me to think about. But I eventually accepted that such a "discrepancy" as that isn't something that comes out in actual gameplay, so it's not really an issue as long as you can keep yourself from daydreaming about it.
One of the most common issues I see with other people is failing to switch from "lists" to "umbrellas". That is, Pathfinder tends to list out multiple specific uses of a given mechanic specifically (like listing the exact DC to notice somebody standing in front of your face), while 5E just tells you what that mechanic governs (like "Perception is for noticing details in the environment"). Folks who are looking for a list end up complaining that the rules are unusable, or even that they "don't exist".
If you can deal with those (on top of the standard trans-edition pitfall of assuming that similarly-named things work the same between editions), then you'll be in good shape. :)
Yep
Very different games.........well for a d20 game.
I think the spellcasting is excellent. Really intuitive. The cantrips, the spells known and the powering up with higher slots I think works really well. Also for the first time there is an arcane trickster that doesn't make you feel as if you're playing with one arm tied behind your back for the first 8 levels.
The biggest thing I personally got hung up on was the flattened math: if a 1st-level fighter and a 20th level fighter both fire the same bow at the same target 20 times each, the 20th-level fighter is only going to hit a few more times than the 1st-level fighter, and that bugged me to think about. But I eventually accepted that such a "discrepancy" as that isn't something that comes out in actual gameplay, so it's not really an issue as long as you can keep yourself from daydreaming about it.
I think it's also useful to adopt the view that each 'attack' is actually multiple swings (it was necessary to accept this back when rounds were one minute and you only got one attack roll, I think it lost popularity as combat rounds got shorter and higher level characters got multiple attacks). When the first level fighter uses the attack action, he tries several times to hit the bad guy - and gets to make one roll at +8 to do 1d10+4 damage. The 20th level guy makes basically the same number of swings and gets to make four rolls at +14 or something to do 1d10+7 damage. The numbers aren't much different (and the novice at least gets to do something mildly effective - there's no contest in terms of effectiveness though.
I think the simulationist mindset that 'each roll represents one swing of a sword' can hinder here. If each attack is, in fact many different thrusts, swings, parries, etcetera then the 20th level fighter is much, much better than the low level guy.
Certainly, as you say, in the gameplay this doesn't show up as a 'thing' - there is no contest between a low level martial and a high level one at the table. I think the slow increase in proficiency leads people to draw the wrong conclusion since it feels like a BAB analog - but it's actually something quite different when viewed within the context of the whole system.
The biggest thing I personally got hung up on was the flattened math: if a 1st-level fighter and a 20th level fighter both fire the same bow at the same target 20 times each, the 20th-level fighter is only going to hit a few more times than the 1st-level fighter, and that bugged me to think about.
That's... Not even close really.
Barring the fact that the 20th level fighter is going to shoot those 20 arrows in 3-5 rounds, and the fact that they had like 7 ability bumps and probably have a 20 Dex...
I can tell you from direct experience that a 1st level 5e archer is dealing out about 5-8points of damage every other round, whereas by 11th they'll be doing 30-100pts a round!
I mean I guess when looked at as static math it might look like that, but very little of a 5E characters combat potential is to be found in the basic numbers. There's a whole lot more going on than that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The biggest thing I personally got hung up on was the flattened math: if a 1st-level fighter and a 20th level fighter both fire the same bow at the same target 20 times each, the 20th-level fighter is only going to hit a few more times than the 1st-level fighter, and that bugged me to think about.That's... Not even close really.
Barring the fact that the 20th level fighter is going to shoot those 20 arrows in 3-5 rounds, and the fact that they had like 7 ability bumps and probably have a 20 Dex...
I can tell you from direct experience that a 1st level 5e archer is dealing out about 5-8points of damage every other round, whereas by 11th they'll be doing 30-100pts a round!
I mean I guess when looked at as static math it might look like that, but very little of a 5E characters combat potential is to be found in the basic numbers. There's a whole lot more going on than that.
I was imagining a shooting range, with someone hosting a contest where they each get the same number of shots (wouldn't have to be 20; I just picked that number because d20) from the same bow and see who hits the target more. The consistency with which the 20th-level archer would actually win that contest is... less than I would desire.
But when I push from my mind all these contrived archery tests and play the game, I can focus on how the high-level fighter is kicking ass ten ways from Tuesday. :)
TheRavyn is my DM. Our 2-weapon fighting eldritch knight just got a Flame Tongue sword and can "nova" and do 1d8+2d6+5 on 7 attacks per round when using haste and Action Surge, plus 1d8+6 with his magic battle axe.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think it's also useful to adopt the view that each 'attack' is actually multiple swings (it was necessary to accept this back when rounds were one minute and you only got one attack roll, I think it lost popularity as combat rounds got shorter and higher level characters got multiple attacks). When the first level fighter uses the attack action, he tries several times to hit the bad guy - and gets to make one roll at +8 to do 1d10+4 damage. The 20th level guy makes basically the same number of swings and gets to make four rolls at +14 or something to do 1d10+7 damage. The numbers aren't much different (and the novice at least gets to do something mildly effective - there's no contest in terms of effectiveness though.
I think the simulationist mindset that 'each roll represents one swing of a sword' can hinder here. If each attack is, in fact many different thrusts, swings, parries, etcetera then the 20th level fighter is much, much better than the low level guy.
*coughcougharcherstrackingammocough*
;)
One of our archers has one of those magic quivers with lots of storage space.
And there's not a TON of stuff you can by with gold, and with the loosey goosey encumbrance rules, the archers could carry 200 or 500 arrows with ease.
:-D
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was just referring to the issue of "How many arrows do you mark off if a single Attack action is an undefined number of actual attempts to strike the target?"
It's easy to visualize such an abstraction in melee. At range? That's a little harder for me.
It's not an undefined number of arrow loosings, it's an undefined number of arrow aimings. And only when really sure, is an arrow fired.
I'm spitballing here...
:-P
I think it's also useful to adopt the view that each 'attack' is actually multiple swings (it was necessary to accept this back when rounds were one minute and you only got one attack roll, I think it lost popularity as combat rounds got shorter and higher level characters got multiple attacks). When the first level fighter uses the attack action, he tries several times to hit the bad guy - and gets to make one roll at +8 to do 1d10+4 damage. The 20th level guy makes basically the same number of swings and gets to make four rolls at +14 or something to do 1d10+7 damage. The numbers aren't much different (and the novice at least gets to do something mildly effective - there's no contest in terms of effectiveness though.
I think the simulationist mindset that 'each roll represents one swing of a sword' can hinder here. If each attack is, in fact many different thrusts, swings, parries, etcetera then the 20th level fighter is much, much better than the low level guy.
*coughcougharcherstrackingammocough*
;)
It's also useful if you don't think about it too hard.
I believe a wise man said that earlier...
I can't believe my group never made that comment in all our years talking about this stuff. We just never considered arrows. :/
Curse you, Jiggy! I was happy with my blinkers on!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ammo count and weight could also an abstraction, I guess? Like, you find a quiver containing 'a few' magic arrows, and we'll call it 10 for gameplay purposes.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In the case of the archery contest of a high-level vs. low-level fighter I'd probably abstract it to the high-level fighter gets to roll all of his attacks each round, and then take the best one vs. the low-level getting his lone shot per round. Rather than firing shots off as quick as he can, he's taking time to aim, granting himself better accuracy. (I also wouldn't mind doing that as a house rule in combat if someone wanted to conserve ammunition. They get the best shot out of the number they're allowed as the one they actually fire as they're giving up the potential damage of any additional hits they may have rolled.)
The fact that you had to invent a houserule/abstraction to make it work proves that there is an issue, not that there isn't.
I'm confused here. What's the issue? Are we taking old school D&D or 5e?
I haven't played 5e with progressing characters or analysed the system with low vs high level characters. What's the difference between low and high here?
Broadly, high level characters don't get big to-hit bonuses in 5E, meaning that while they can fire faster and do more damage per hit, it's hard to make a Robin Hood character who can reliably hit the bullseye of a target, even at level 20.
It's not much of a problem in regular gameplay.
Isn't that counter balanced by the lower AC in this system?
The comparison was between a level 1 archer and a level 20 archer shooting at the same fixed target. If the target is set up so that level 1 archer hits 50% of the time, the level 20 archer is also going to miss a lot, instead of being 95% accurate like a level 20 Pathfinder archer would be.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I gave that example as something that had occurred to me early on in 5E but that I eventually decided to get over it, then everybody decided I needed some rationalizations of how I could go about getting over it.
;)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But honestly, do you want to play archery contest or do you want to tell stories that simply were not possible in other editions?
That's the thing, though: it's not the "theory versus story" dichotomy you're painting it as.
Yes, 5E lets you tell certain kinds of stories that can't be told effectively in other systems.
It is simultaneously true that there are other kinds of stories which can't be told effectively in 5E, for the exact same reason that the first subset of story types can be told.
And that's what let me get over it: the realization that "flat" math enables some kinds of stories while "tall" math enables other kinds of stories, and it's okay that neither is capable of telling all kinds of stories.
So I calibrated my expectations of what types of stories I will and won't be a part of in 5E, it's been smooth sailing ever since. :)
I'm ok with the concept that 1 attempt to injure you enemy in melee = a few swings but 1 attempt to injure an enemy at range = 1 arrow/bolt/thrown dagger.
|
|
The comparison was between a level 1 archer and a level 20 archer shooting at the same fixed target. If the target is set up so that level 1 archer hits 50% of the time, the level 20 archer is also going to miss a lot, instead of being 95% accurate like a level 20 Pathfinder archer would be.
5e Math is flater but not flat.
At L1 a typical moderately optimized character will probably have a +5 to hit in whatever they specialize. (This assumes they increase their main stat to 16 or 17: ranged, melee or casting, it requires a race with a bonus in that stat, and not some MAD build)
At L20 (barring any magic stuff, buffing or special abilities) it will be a +11 to hit. (This assumes they max their main stat to 20 somewhere along they way)
So a target that an L1 will hit 50% of the time (a DC 16) will be hit by the L20 80% of the time. To look at it another way he only needs a 5.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I don't see it as that big of a deal. 99.9% of the time the 20th level fighter is going to be significantly more powerful than the 1st level one. For the .1% of the time that he's not, I'm perfectly fine with making a house rule to deal with that circumstance.In the case of the archery contest of a high-level vs. low-level fighter I'd probably abstract it to the high-level fighter gets to roll all of his attacks each round, and then take the best one vs. the low-level getting his lone shot per round. Rather than firing shots off as quick as he can, he's taking time to aim, granting himself better accuracy. (I also wouldn't mind doing that as a house rule in combat if someone wanted to conserve ammunition. They get the best shot out of the number they're allowed as the one they actually fire as they're giving up the potential damage of any additional hits they may have rolled.)The fact that you had to invent a houserule/abstraction to make it work proves that there is an issue, not that there isn't.
I gave that example as something that had occurred to me early on in 5E but that I eventually decided to get over it, then everybody decided I needed some rationalizations of how I could go about getting over it.
I must say, in previous game systems when I've wanted to do an archery contest, I'd have the characters roll three times and add their total scores together. Because you aren't seeing "can the hit the target", but how close to the center they hit. So while the numbers will be closer in 5e, the higher level character will still have a significant advantage.
First level (+5):
Twentieth level (+11):
So closer than expected, but even with bad rolls the higher level character wins. (Not to mention any feats that might give advantage.)
Average would have been: 45 vs 64.
Edit: According to anydice, the lower level character will win 11% of the time.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Edit: According to anydice, the lower level character will win 11% of the time.
So, one in ten archery contests ends with a 20th-level fighter flipping tables, smashing beer-pitchers, and punching shooting random commoners in the face to prove his abilities, before storming off in a raging hissyfit?
Wait wait wait, this could be the hook for a new homebrew campaign: the PCs have to track down the pissed L20 fighter and bring him to justice. Perfect! ;)
Edit: According to anydice, the lower level character will win 11% of the time.So, one in ten archery contests ends with a 20th-level fighter flipping tables, smashing beer-pitchers, and
punchingshooting random commoners in the face to prove his abilities, before storming off in a raging hissyfit?Wait wait wait, this could be the hook for a new homebrew campaign: the PCs have to track down the pissed L20 fighter and bring him to justice. Perfect! ;)
Well, the 1st level fighter's odds drop significantly if there is more than one other person in the contest.
But yes, we'll go with that.
Ammo count and weight could also an abstraction, I guess? Like, you find a quiver containing 'a few' magic arrows, and we'll call it 10 for gameplay purposes.
I actually prefer abstract methods of tracking ammunition. There's not a natural way to slot it into PF or 5E that I can think of though.
One method from a different game that I like is that ammunition is assigned a rating, which is a die size, like d8. Then, whenever you fire off some ammo, you also roll a d8, if it comes up a 1, you reduce the die size to the next smaller die. In this case: d6. If your die size is a 1d4, rolling a 1 means you've run out.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ammo count and weight could also an abstraction, I guess? Like, you find a quiver containing 'a few' magic arrows, and we'll call it 10 for gameplay purposes.I actually prefer abstract methods of tracking ammunition. There's not a natural way to slot it into PF or 5E that I can think of though.
One method from a different game that I like is that ammunition is assigned a rating, which is a die size, like d8. Then, whenever you fire off some ammo, you also roll a d8, if it comes up a 1, you reduce the die size to the next smaller die. In this case: d6. If your die size is a 1d4, rolling a 1 means you've run out.
That's intriguing.
...But what if I have poison on some of my arrows?
And that's what let me get over it: the realization that "flat" math enables some kinds of stories while "tall" math enables other kinds of stories, and it's okay that neither is capable of telling all kinds of stories.
So I calibrated my expectations of what types of stories I will and won't be a part of in 5E, it's been smooth sailing ever since. :)
Fair points all around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flaws: bugs, you can bug a tarrasque at lvl 1 with two feats.
You really can't. You're going to die at round one - just like you should (leaving aside the fact that you can't have two feats at level one).
Ammo count and weight could also an abstraction, I guess? Like, you find a quiver containing 'a few' magic arrows, and we'll call it 10 for gameplay purposes.I actually prefer abstract methods of tracking ammunition. There's not a natural way to slot it into PF or 5E that I can think of though.
One method from a different game that I like is that ammunition is assigned a rating, which is a die size, like d8. Then, whenever you fire off some ammo, you also roll a d8, if it comes up a 1, you reduce the die size to the next smaller die. In this case: d6. If your die size is a 1d4, rolling a 1 means you've run out.
That's intriguing.
...But what if I have poison on some of my arrows?
I had a player who used lots of exotic poisons and it always kind of bugged me that, no matter what RPG you play, poisons are rarely economical for the PC. There's always rules about them "expiring", the costs are generally exorbitant to justify their rarity, etcetera.
I ended up essentially abstracting it so that he could 'retcon' his usage: He was just allowed to declare when he hit that the arrow he'd used was poisoned without having to do all the bookwork of tracking it. Ultimately it's a significant boost (and hard to justify in a simulationist sense, but we never really got into that mindset anyhow) however it did mean he actually felt investing money in poisons was worth it.
I think the same thing could work here with Matthew's suggested interpretation.