I love the simplicity of this system.  Running a game for two sessions now.  Admittedly, I have to look a bunch of stuff up.  Mostly for newer spells and sonme combat related issues, like does that provoke an attack of opportunity?

Started creating a  one page ( I  hope) cheat sheet for some of the rules.

Started at first level with elf wizard, human cleric, dwarf barbarian, and half elf bard.

Spell casters can really lay down the damage, but I like that it's not guaranteed because some spells require a roll to hit.  Guiding bolt, big payoff for a first level spell, but had two misses and one hit.  One of the shots was at a fleeing foe that had 3/4 cover, but still.

Quote from: Vic99;816565Spell casters can really lay down the damage, but I like that it's not guaranteed because some spells require a roll to hit.  Guiding bolt, big payoff for a first level spell, but had two misses and one hit.  One of the shots was at a fleeing foe that had 3/4 cover, but still.

Early on combat cantrips are potentially useful. But after a level or two you may see them getting used less and less. Unless someone focuses on buffing up their cantrip power. Which sometimes means they arent as great with something else.

Attacks of opportunity are easier than ever. You only have to remember ONE thing.

Is the character/monster leaving reach without taking the disengage action?

If yes the its an AOO.

Simple.

Our experience up to 4th level is that damage casters are 'peaky' as you might expect: they out perform their martial colleagues when they break out the 'spells' but do less damage when they just stick with the cantrips.

So far it has remained fun for all involved, with neither notably out-shining the other. The trick, as ever, is learning to husband your spells so you get the maximum value out of them.

The background system allows for a lot of personalisation so it is much easier to build a character who can participate in all three pillars of the game (combat, social, exploration) while allowing people to emphasise different areas as they like. So your class won't lock you down unless you want it to.

I was never really satisfied with 3.x and outright detested 4e.

of the WoTC editions of D&D, 5e is hands down my favorite.

Thanks for the 'actual play' experiences, and keep them coming.

Glad you're having fun.  It's not a game for everyone, naturally.  But it is the first D&D game I bought since 2e, and I'm enjoying it as well.

I think the OP's opinion is the predominant one. I've got to say that I don't really like it very much. It just feels very bland to me. Might just be me.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;816624Attacks of opportunity are easier than ever. You only have to remember ONE thing.

Is the character/monster leaving reach without taking the disengage action?

If yes the its an AOO.

Simple.

That's exactly like it works in AD&D: moving out of combat without a fighting retreat: get schwacked by your opponent for one attack at +4.

EDIT: here we go:

Quote from: Gary GygaxAt such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and
flee the melee. To do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or
attack routine. This attack is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a
stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing
party may move away at full movement rate, and unless the opponent
pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended
and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;816655I think the OP's opinion is the predominant one. I've got to say that I don't really like it very much. It just feels very bland to me. Might just be me.

We've been playing a handful of months and mostly it's feeling, to me, like 3.X lite... with some nice moves away from 'Vancian' magic.
It's still not something I'm interested in buying/running but I'm happy to play it, which more than I could say for previous versions... and Pathfinder (I recreated my PC from our Pathfinder group in 5e and the 5e version has been a lot more straightforward and fun to play).

For me it is just the right balance of customization and stream-lined simpler rules.

I cowrote for years (for personal use) a very complex system in my mid twenties with Shadowrun first edition as a starting point, but with a d12 as a die of choice.  A d12, after all, is the perfect die . . . . Now in my forties with two toddlers, I can't make the time to keep up with anything like that.  I liked complexity and "realism", but have moved away.

5e both struck the balance and renergized my desire to play D&D. The presentation is mostly plain speak and the written examples and the artwork are both dripping with flavor.

Now if life would only allow me to play once a week without cancellations . . . .

Man. I'm thinking about some of the games I wrote in college and soon after.

In one of them, calculating magic point cost involved volume equations. Sensible, right??

If you want a fireball of radius 50 feet, obviously it should be 524k (or so) x magic point value / cubic feet...


Everyone had a great deal of sympathy for the one mage in the group who put up with this.

(much later I came up with a log system that rather elegantly, IMO, used d8s. There was also much laughter)

I'm finding 5e bland & inoffensive. I'm happy to be playing it, but when I think about running it my mind swiftly wanders to Dragon Warriors, BRP (Runequest/Stormbringer/Pendragon), even Pathfinder...

Quote from: thedungeondelver;816660That's exactly like it works in AD&D: moving out of combat without a fighting retreat: get schwacked by your opponent for one attack at +4.

But I'm not sure that rule applies unless you are leaving the combat entirely, as a cost for ending the encounter; you could freely reposition away from an enemy and let loose a ranged attack. Although a lot of that hinged on interpretation of the rules (and even when the rules were clear, groups I played with just ignored some of them).

(Also, wasn't a rear attack only +2 if you weren't a thief?)

Quote from: Will;816684Man. I'm thinking about some of the games I wrote in college and soon after.

In one of them, calculating magic point cost involved volume equations. Sensible, right??

What could go wrong? :rolleyes:

QuoteIf you want a fireball of radius 50 feet, obviously it should be 524k (or so) x magic point value / cubic feet...

But of course you would more commonly want a cylinder with circular base of radius 50 feet and height of about six feet, saving a factor of about ten. I would have been so annoying in such a game ("It's a dense set with measure zero, so it hits everyone but doesn't cost any spell points!" "Why can't the wall of force be shaped like a Klein bottle?").

(Is this the trauma that explains why you want a no or low magic campaign?)

Quote from: rawma;816757But of course you would more commonly want a cylinder with circular base of radius 50 feet and height of about six feet, saving a factor of about ten. I would have been so annoying in such a game ("It's a dense set with measure zero, so it hits everyone but doesn't cost any spell points!" "Why can't the wall of force be shaped like a Klein bottle?").

(Is this the trauma that explains why you want a no or low magic campaign?)

Well, this was college in the 90s, so... yeah. There were a lot of terrible game design ideas floating around.

I do believe the mage in question did ask how much of the fire had to intersect targets to do decent damage (he was thinking of very shallow cubes), and so on. Then we debated how to calculate the volume of targets of shapechange spells.

And it wasn't a trauma, just a funny example of the excesses of some ideas of game design, and part of the learning process.

It IS what lead me to conclude that I didn't really like very high complexity systems.

As for the no/low magic thing, no, that's more a result of continually being frustrated that magic in D&D games doesn't resemble pretty much any other thing that isn't specifically based on D&D. And, in particular, Sword and Sorcery and other fantasy novels.

I mean, what, fantasy without spells is boring, like Lord of the Rings?