Quote from: Necrozius;774095Dungeon Delver is hella awesome. That's all that I have to say.

I really like it, because it now means that you don't have to have a rogue (or ranger in a pinch) in your party if you don't want to.

In general, the backgrounds and feats look like they are doing a FANTASTIC job at meeting the needs that lead to stuff like multiclassing and whatnot.

I am pleased.

Quote from: Will;774121In general, the backgrounds and feats look like they are doing a FANTASTIC job at meeting the needs that lead to stuff like multiclassing and whatnot.

I am pleased.

I concur.


3....2....1 before people start bitching how durable is broken because a Wizard with 20 Con will get at least 10 hp back every time they use their d6 HD during short rests to heal.


My take?  If someone wants to give their wizard a 20 CON and take that feat, more power to them.  My wizard will actually have a high INT instead.

Yeah, I've been on a bit of a bitch fest about fluff text on some of the threads, and I'm more psyched to run my next 1E campaign than anything else, but overall these guys are hitting this thing out of the park. It will be difficult to resist running my planned 1E sandbox using 5E rules.

Quote from: Larsdangly;774126Yeah, I've been on a bit of a bitch fest about fluff text on some of the threads, and I'm more psyched to run my next 1E campaign than anything else, but overall these guys are hitting this thing out of the park. It will be difficult to resist running my planned 1E sandbox using 5E rules.

Funny enough, that's EXACTLY what I've been doing.  When the playtest first came out, I used my 1e campaign world and a bunch of 1e modules to play with.

I know a lot of AD&D players don't like 5e for a lot of reasons, and that's OK.  For me, there are 2 main reasons why I've switched.

1. customization with backgrounds and broad feats.  Nothing like the crap in 3e where you had multiple classes and feat trees.  And not like AD&D where you had to be a demi human to multi-class and deal with the bookkeeping.  5e is much more broad.  Instead of my F/T, I now just have a fighter with the criminal background.  Done.  Easy peasy

2. Unified resolution mechanic.  D20+modifier vs. DC value.  AD&D is fine if everyone there has everything memorized, but using a unified mechanic to handle combat, spells, skills, saves, etc makes things sooooo much easier and faster to come up with stuff on the fly.

Again, just my opinion of course.

I'm a huge fan of a lot of what 3e _tried_. Just, with time, not such a huge fan of how they did most things. (I'm generally thrilled at their shift to a more unified approach, and that has progressed through the systems afterwards and many OSR things)

I contend one could take M&M or something to build a fully modular character creation system where you can easily slap a bunch of balanced units together to create characters without having to actually dig into point buy system.

But meh, I'm tired, 5e looks good.

I'm really looking forward to the PHB, MM and DMG ever since they started previewing the PHB. I still think 5e is 3e Lite, but it may be a great take on 3e Lite.

I figure ACKS is safe in my preferences (at least as long as WotC doesn't publish and absolutely kick-ass domain management subsystem that can compete with ACKS — which I find an unlikely proposition), as is AS&SH (unless they're also planning a kick-ass horrific dying earth S&S setting complete with ray guns and Cthulhuesque bestiary).

But I find it increasingly likely that I might run (not just play) 5e at some point in the future.

Dungeon Delver looks absolutely awesome, and also very promising - oldschool "traps and secret doors everywhere" dungeons? Yes!!!

Quote from: Larsdangly;774126Yeah, I've been on a bit of a bitch fest about fluff text on some of the threads, and I'm more psyched to run my next 1E campaign than anything else, but overall these guys are hitting this thing out of the park. It will be difficult to resist running my planned 1E sandbox using 5E rules.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;774127Funny enough, that's EXACTLY what I've been doing.  When the playtest first came out, I used my 1e campaign world and a bunch of 1e modules to play with.

I'm currently running the whole T1-4/A1-4/GDQ1-7 mega-campaign using the playtest rules. The party are currently 4th level and they've finished the moathouse and have just made an experimental foray into the temple itself...

Everyone's having a blast and loving 5e.

At the end of the month, we'll upgrade from the playtest rules to the PHB rules.

I can't read it on my phone so what does it say? Also Elemental Adept looks promising. From how I'm reading Dungeon Delver you get advantage on traps and perception and something else and with Elemental Adept you pick a damage type that you can on the fly change your spells to that can't be or gains resistance?

Durable and Second Wind are not synergistic! Yay! Yay for Hit Die being keyworded.

Yeah, I love me some original 1E hardbacks, but it seems pretty obvious you could have a rocking game running your old pastel modules with 5E. Particularly if you don't let the whole thing run away from you with magic item give aways and massive level creep.

But there are a couple of things that make me wonder whether I'll prefer that experiment. One simple one that is a game changer in play: Weapon vs armor type has all the charm of a tax return, but is actually an incredibly powerful discriminator between fighters and other classes. A 1st level ST 17 fighter in platemail with a two handed sword and a 1st level DX 17 thief with leather armor and a shortsword are barely distinguished in AC, to-hit chance and damage in 5E. The rules in 5E very much re-enforce the attitude that every character concept is equally valid, beautiful, deadly, etc.

In 1E with weapon vs. armor adjustments turned on, this isn't even a fight. The fighter hits on an 11 and does 1d10+1 damage; the thief hits on a never (to-hit adjusted to 21, so hits only on a natural 20) and does 1d6+nothing. If you are into super number nerd-gasms, the expected value for the fighter's damage output is 0.5x6.5 = 3.25 points per round while the thief's is 0.05x3.5 = 0.175 — nearly a factor of 18.6 difference. And that is how it should be. If you want to be a badass in melee combat you should eat your fucking wheaties, put on some real fucking armor, and bring a real fucking weapon. I do not hold at all with rationalizations people raise as to why twee, fay little slips of characters should be as good at kicking ass as a proper fighter with proper equipment.

The other thing that I worry about with 5E is that it maintains the 3E and 4E focus on making sure everyone has a list of specific stuff to do every turn. In 1E it often wasn't clear what you should do, either in a given round of combat or, more importantly, out of combat. That dynamic might be frustrating if you are shitty at playing table top roleplaying games, but if you work on your skills a little you realize it empowers you to dream up a lot of very clever, interesting, idiosyncratic stuff. 1E has a lot of rules details that encourage and enable clever, interesting play. From the quirky spells to the importance of henchmen, to the really challenging resource management of few spells and few HP. It all drives you to think your way out of problems.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;7741233....2....1 before people start bitching how durable is broken because a Wizard with 20 Con will get at least 10 hp back every time they use their d6 HD during short rests to heal.


My take?  If someone wants to give their wizard a 20 CON and take that feat, more power to them.  My wizard will actually have a high INT instead.

Yeah, that's just dumb. Especially since Durable merely sets the minimum baseline of the roll equal to 2x CON mod, and d6 is a wizards Hit Die. The only CON mod needed is +3 to max out a d6. CON 16 is all you need, then you get 9 HP per HD heal. Anything beyond that sloughs off; 20 CON?, that's a waste of 4 points that could've sat on INT.

They are bad at English and Math apparently.

Or how about DEX? Isn't better not to get hit in the first place?

There may indeed be a time and place (or even fun to be had) with number crunching and statistical analysis of probability of game rules, but to me that's "unweaving the rainbow" and sucking all the fun out of the game.

To each their own, etc, but when someone tells me "no, don't pick THAT ability, it only gives you an average of 1.2 more HP/dps/brownie points per level" I want to throw dice at them.