I'll say this- about halfway or so during my first read through I internally began to write off 5th as being a bit too complex for my tastes (I  enjoy simple games), but then for some reason, I started to read it again.  And I am liking what I see more and more.

I'd love to give it a go at some point.

I really like the artwork chosen throughout the phb(with 2 exceptions but neither is really bad).

After flicking through my phb idly the other day a friend of mine who has previously had zero interest in gaming asked "so when are you gonna start a game up next? can i join when you do?" so yeah i gained a new member to my next game based just on a short look through the book.

Not had much of a chance to read through the book yet so i'll more than likely post again once i've had  a chance to read it for a while.

Quote from: mcbobbo;784491Anyone can use wands.

I think this may turn out to be a case by case basis thing. In the magic items appendices provided so far, there don't appear to be any class restrictions on wands of detection or wands of magic missiles, but I'm waiting to see if more powerful wands (cold, fire, polymorphing, lightning, etc.) will require attunement with class restrictions.

There is a 13th-level thief ability that allows the character to ignore all class, level and race restrictions on the use of magic items, so that anticipates that at least some items are going to be so-restricted, and there is already at least one such restriction on the Staff of Fire in the HotDQ appendix.

On the requisite happy note, I like this approach more than the "use magic item" skill system in 3.5. In fact I like the whole way 5E approaches skills. Among other things, it makes it much easier to quickly generate a fairly high level character without spending an extra ten minutes assigning all the skill points and making sure that all the criss-cross rules are satisfied.

Now here's something I'm wondering about. There's a thief ability (at third level I think) that lets the character "use an object" as a bonus action. Seems to me that should extend to things like quaffing potions, but could it also extend to other magic items?

Quote from: RunningLaser;784506I'll say this- about halfway or so during my first read through I internally began to write off 5th as being a bit too complex for my tastes (I  enjoy simple games), but then for some reason, I started to read it again.  And I am liking what I see more and more.

I'd love to give it a go at some point.

This Saturday I'm running my first game of D&D in about a decade (the last time I ran it was Ravenloft, in 3.5, under duress), and the first time in fifteen years I am *excited* about it.

Character creation is done: http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/2014/09/d-hoard-of-dragon-queen-character.html

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;784562Character creation is done: http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/2014/09/d-hoard-of-dragon-queen-character.html

A lot of people are favorably mentioning these adventure-specific bonds that come with HotDQ. Seems like a cool & simple method for getting people invested right away.

Quote from: Raven;784586A lot of people are favorably mentioning these adventure-specific bonds that come with HotDQ. Seems like a cool & simple method for getting people invested right away.

Given that I've seen criticism (here, no less) for the "lazy" hook of "caravan guards" provided in the book (if you're not using these Bonds), I think they are worth trumpeting.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;784589Given that I've seen criticism (here, no less) for the "lazy" hook of "caravan guards" provided in the book (if you're not using these Bonds), I think they are worth trumpeting.

I am confused by the criticism on that count. As a module that needs to be re-purposed to any D&D party, the approach of "here are 10 cool detailed hooks, and if none of them are suitable then use caravan guard" seems like a particularly good way to go.

Quote from: Skywalker;784590I am confused by the criticism on that count. As a module that needs to be re-purposed to any D&D party, the approach of "here are 10 cool detailed hooks, and if none of them are suitable then use caravan guard" seems like a particularly good way to go.

I completely agree. For our group, all the PCs are using them, and they all seem excited about them...which bodes well for the new campaign, I think.

Quote from: Skywalker;784590I am confused by the criticism on that count. As a module that needs to be re-purposed to any D&D party, the approach of "here are 10 cool detailed hooks, and if none of them are suitable then use caravan guard" seems like a particularly good way to go.

Moreso because the much derided caravan guards track is, for the start at least, a throw-away sentence amidst various ideas. It also options the idea the PCs are just travelling through the area or whatever. Or using the hooks, were called to the town by a friend, etc.

At-will cantrips, I love them! I am playing a wizard that is well on her way to leveling up and I haven't had to use an actual spell yet, just a couple of cantrips and background stuff and ability/skill rolls...awesome.

Mostly I just get to play up her race and background to good effect. Nobody in her party has a clue as to what class she is really without straight asking her. She's just who she is no pressure, no expectations.

Being a Wood Elf armed and clothed like a typical Ranger just adds to the fun.Purely because I don't have to use a weapon she sucks at like 2e.

Quote from: Marleycat;784606At-will cantrips, I love them! I am playing a wizard that is well on her way to leveling up and I haven't had to use an actual spell yet, just a couple of cantrips and background stuff and ability/skill rolls...awesome.

YES.  At-will cantrips are great.

I love the art.

I love that character optimization isn't the be-all-end-all it was in 3/3.5/Pathfinder, 'cause I suck at that.  I just want to play my half-orc fighter questing to prove his worth to his noble lady love, and not have to worry about which feat I need to pick three levels from now to avoid being practically useless.

I love that combat is much more theatre of the mind and much less minis on maps.  I just never got into minis that much.

I love bounded accuracy, especially how it reduces the perceived need for every encounter to be 'level appropriate.'  Here's some goblins!  They might be a threat!  Here's a dragon!  You never know, you might get lucky!  (Well, that's a bit much, but...)

I loved 2E.  I tried 3E but didn't get far.  I couldn't even look at 4E.  It's like this edition was written just for me.  I am honestly and legitimately happy with it and really actually looking forward to playing and/or running it.

Yay!

I haven't had the uninterrupted time to finish reading and absorbing the whole book yet, but what I've read, I know.

I love how the spells are often flexible, and just when I finish a paragraph and say, "I wish they did it like this", I find out that my way or a better way is an alternate casting of the spell.

I can almost accept pokémounts as well, based on the flavor text.

Quote from: Raven;784586A lot of people are favorably mentioning these adventure-specific bonds that come with HotDQ. Seems like a cool & simple method for getting people invested right away.

Pathfinder has been using something similar in its adventure paths for years now. They actually have free player PDFs online for every AP (which WotC should copy). And WotC also used themes in some of their later 4E setting materials (for example, the Neverwinter Nights campaign setting).

So while themes and bonds are not original, I do like that 5E is incorporating fun bits of pieces from other games.

• Backgrounds: lovely lovely intermingling of culture into the core game
• Advantage/disadvantage: so cool one just wonders why all rpgs don't use it
• Feats optional, so OSR guys can ignore it
• Skills effectively optional so OSR guys can ignore it
• A whole metagame things written so openly so that OSR guys can ignore it
• Multiclassing optional so I can ignore it
• Sub classes and races, so that someone who is very suspicious of classes (me) doesn't feel restricted at all, especially with backgrounds
• If I get it, the bounded accuracy that means that the power escalation is not so bad and monster redundancy ends
• All the 4e stuff they have kept that make it all survivable and fun
• Genuinely trying to appeal to all D&D fans, and in doing so converting some of us who never liked any previous version very much..

Gosh I love this thread, there are so many things you're all saying and adding to my appreciation or reminding me of.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'm jonesing to play a PC based off of Garet Jax from the Shannara books (weapon master, no armor, attacks in a blur)

Not only does 5e allow me to easily emulate this, but there are several ways to do so.

* do I go straight monk and take the weapons master feat?
* do I go fighter 1, then monk the rest of the way?
* do I go straight fighter and focus on dual weapon fighting and mobile feats?


I decided to start as a human fighter (urchin background) with the dual weapons feat, with Dex and Wis as my highest scores.  I have a decent AC (due to DEX and Dual Weapons +1 AC feat), so when I move to monk and unarmored defense, I'll still get the benefit of the feat and have a really good AC.  Level 1 fighter also gives me prof in all weapons and second wind, which will come in handy at low levels.

From there I plan on going monk, then specializing in shadow monk.  With just a few choices (rather than a million in 3e), I will have a lightly armored yet highly mobile PC with good AC who is a total badass with all forms of attack, who can also sneak around and do rogueish things almost as good as a rogue--without having to dip into a rogue class.

I think backgrounds are one of the best things 5e did.