I've been blown away at how much I've enjoyed it. I've called it my favorite version of D&D ever, with no hesitation. We're playing through the Tyranny of Dragons campaign, and everyone's digging it. Lost one PC but the group is trucking on. Super easy to houserule and do conversions.

Quote from: Will;816766As 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?

There are a lot of spells in the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit; but maybe more magic items than explicit spells, and plenty of implicit magic. I think restricting long rests and therefore spell recovery to be suitably infrequent (the characters in those books repeatedly seek refuge, rather than just camping in the middle of nowhere, to recover, although more due to lack of supplies, injuries and regular exhaustion than recovering spells), and you could do a lot with spell components to change the reliance on spell casting. (Also, OD&D had a lot fewer direct combat spells than modern versions, so it's not an intrinsic D&D issue.)

Does a warlock who uses eldritch blast a lot count? It's not much different in game mechanics than significant archery skill. If you don't mind that, then my current 5e experience is low magic: only two mages (the other a sorcerer who acts more like an Arcane Trickster) and low level, and therefore not a lot of use of their very few spell slots--there's a lot more dragonborn breath weapon use, since it's only a short rest. And the opponents we've met have rarely used any spells. We do have a fair bit of healing--ranger, bard, paladin--but they tend to use Healing Word as a bonus action more than Cure Wounds.

Quote from: S'mon;816698I'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...

You know your right because it does look bland and too safe.  Thankfully I am just using the system and none of the other stuff.

Quote from: rawma;816757But 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?)

The "Breaking off from Melee" rule says: "To do so [...] allows the opponent a free [attack] [...] calculated as if it were a rear attack1 upon a stunned opponent 2..."

1 - +2
2 - +4

...so it's actually worse; I misread that.  It's a total of a +6 bonus to attack on fleeing opponents.

Also the onus to resume combat is on the fleeing party if the pursuing party can't move or can't keep up.  If those fleeing reposition and fire missile weapons and so on then another combat round (for them) begins...

Quote from: thedungeondelver;816797The "Breaking off from Melee" rule says: "To do so [...] allows the opponent a free [attack] [...] calculated as if it were a rear attack1 upon a stunned opponent 2..."

1 - +2
2 - +4

...so it's actually worse; I misread that.  It's a total of a +6 bonus to attack on fleeing opponents.

Also the onus to resume combat is on the fleeing party if the pursuing party can't move or can't keep up.  If those fleeing reposition and fire missile weapons and so on then another combat round (for them) begins...

In AD&D you most certainly either wanted to do a fighting withdrawal or have someone cover your retreat. Just turning and running was bad news.

A notable exception was when you gained surprise. You could use your surprise segments to alert a monster then run prior to engagement, to lure the monster to a more favorable battle ground.

Good times.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;816797Also the onus to resume combat is on the fleeing party if the pursuing party can't move or can't keep up.  If those fleeing reposition and fire missile weapons and so on then another combat round (for them) begins...

So an archer or mage once engaged could never create any space without taking a +6 attack? And a fighter could never switch targets without taking a +6 attack? The cleric once engaged couldn't run over to heal someone with a touch range spell without taking a +6 attack? Ouch.

Quote from: rawma;816879So an archer or mage once engaged could never create any space without taking a +6 attack? And a fighter could never switch targets without taking a +6 attack? The cleric once engaged couldn't run over to heal someone with a touch range spell without taking a +6 attack? Ouch.

Turning and fleeing from your opponent in combat is dangerous.  You're putting your back to them and running away.

Quote from: rawma;816879So an archer or mage once engaged could never create any space without taking a +6 attack? And a fighter could never switch targets without taking a +6 attack? The cleric once engaged couldn't run over to heal someone with a touch range spell without taking a +6 attack? Ouch.

Pretty much. That's why they have such nifty spells like Healing Word now and that as a Wizard you never wanted to be alone unless you could in some fashion eliminate archers and the like from engaging you (like certain abjuration spells or just being behind all the fighters while letting them engage said archers).

Quote from: Will;816766As 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?

Theres a few. But I was told one reason writers dont often write about wizards is the same reason writing for Superman is hard. The characters tend to be able to do about anything, and anything that can beat them is usually so far out of their league as to likely be gods. Its hard to challenge these sorts of characters unless they have a Vancian sort of weakness. Which some writers have a hard time wrapping their heads around. Obviously its do-able. But most find Fighting men and Rogues easier to relate to and easier to challenge without as many hoops to jump through.

But then you have to jump through a few hoops to not obliterate the swordsman. Wizards are few and far between or their spells take time to cast. Time that a fighting man can close the distance and slay them in.

Which is something I miss in 5e.
DM: "The evil sorcerer is starting to cast something... hes still revving it up..."
Warrior: "That cant be good. I rush in to try and wack him before he finishes!"
Sorcerer: "Oh hell! Hes still got an attack left? castcastcastcast!"

Quote from: PencilBoy99;816655I've got to say that I don't really like it very much. It just feels very bland to me. Might just be me.

Nope, not just you.

Nobody in my gaming circle cares for it and instead, we're playing DCC RPG, OD&D or 13th Age for fantasy. The RPGA crew I know say the new Greyhawk campaign is pretty good, but the gameplay is drab and its all about returning to Greyhawk again.

My old 4e crew is playing 13th Age and/or 4e.

Quote from: S'mon;816698I'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...

I found 2e bland, but the settings got my money. If 5e cranks some great settings, I can see tolerating the blandness for a cool setting, but until then, I can't justify playing 5e when there are just so many other more engaging fantasy options.

It's interesting that some see it as bland.

I DO see it as completely setting free and it appears to me to be a very large selection of classes, spells, races that has no particular setting or gamestyle attached to it.

For me this has been great, as I already have various settings I have and could use which 5E fits into very nicely.
If I have a setting where for example Tielfings don't fit in... no problems, it breaks nothing to remove them as there's no setting with the rules anyway.

What with the DMG, if you don't like how the rules work, it offers LOTS of options to change the mechanics, playstyle etc to tune it however you like.

In short, the 3 core books are an RPG framework of rules. The actual flavor, world, setting is up to you and there's lots out there that you can use it with, as it's VERY moddable to your tastes.

Quote from: Spinachcat;817087Nope, not just you.

Nobody in my gaming circle cares for it and instead, we're playing DCC RPG, OD&D or 13th Age for fantasy. The RPGA crew I know say the new Greyhawk campaign is pretty good, but the gameplay is drab and its all about returning to Greyhawk again.

My old 4e crew is playing 13th Age and/or 4e.




I found 2e bland, but the settings got my money. If 5e cranks some great settings, I can see tolerating the blandness for a cool setting, but until then, I can't justify playing 5e when there are just so many other more engaging fantasy options.

settings are fluff, not mechanics.  So why would you want 5e to come out with the same settings that are already there for you to use?  I mean, my greyhawk stuff from 1e works perfectly fine.  Why would I pay for a 5e setting that doesn't add anything new?

I'm much more likely to play a Dragonlance game following the War of the Lance (2e), than the current game world of mortal Paladine and Takhisis, and no Lord Soth (5e).

Much as I like the Legion of Steel and Armies of Takhisis, they're easy enough to add, without the rest of the Mythos. And I've never felt beholden to have the Companions 'show up/be the central characters' in my game.

My largest concern, is if the game is going to feel static as we level up. Most versions have a constant or even exponential feel of power as you level up, and this version feels like it's baseline is logarithmic (though arguably, things like extra attacks and new spells might cause jumps in that).

tl;dr version: other than slight increases to bonuses, the only thing leveling up seems to do is give you a handful of HP's.

Quote from: danskmacabre;817123It's interesting that some see it as bland.

I DO see it as completely setting free and it appears to me to be a very large selection of classes, spells, races that has no particular setting or gamestyle attached to it.

For me this has been great, as I already have various settings I have and could use which 5E fits into very nicely.
If I have a setting where for example Tielfings don't fit in... no problems, it breaks nothing to remove them as there's no setting with the rules anyway.

What with the DMG, if you don't like how the rules work, it offers LOTS of options to change the mechanics, playstyle etc to tune it however you like.

In short, the 3 core books are an RPG framework of rules. The actual flavor, world, setting is up to you and there's lots out there that you can use it with, as it's VERY moddable to your tastes.

Yes, thinking about running eg The Wilderlands, I certainly could do it in 5e. It should work fine. I just don't get the kind of buzz I do when I think about running it with Pathfinder, or running a Dark Albion type setting with Dragon Warriors. Or I've just printed & read Mini Six the simplified version of the WEG d6 System - that's an awesome hack that makes me want to run all kinds of pulp, sf & fantasy games. And I'm still enjoying 4e a lot, it's a beast to handle (for different reasons from Pathfinder) but does some things better than any other game. I'm not sure what 5e does better; an easy-running D&D variant with more choice than Pathfinder Beginner Box or old-school D&D, perhaps - but it doesn't have the proper encounter tables & such tools which make those so easy to run.

Quote from: Novastar;817170I'm much more likely to play a Dragonlance game following the War of the Lance (2e), than the current game world of mortal Paladine and Takhisis, and no Lord Soth (5e).

They aren't really mortal.  More like avatars.  Which is very similar to AD&D gods.  And Lord Soth is in 5e.  He's called the death knight in the MM.  Even has his picture right next to it.

QuoteMy largest concern, is if the game is going to feel static as we level up. Most versions have a constant or even exponential feel of power as you level up, and this version feels like it's baseline is logarithmic (though arguably, things like extra attacks and new spells might cause jumps in that).

tl;dr version: other than slight increases to bonuses, the only thing leveling up seems to do is give you a handful of HP's.

AD&D certainly can be accused of this in big ways.  Often, all you DO get is extra HP, and literally nothing else.  But 5e?  Not so much.  You always get something as you level, with big jumps roughly every 5 levels.  Want proof?  Have one of your players be level 4 in a party of level 5 PCs.  We have one multi-class PC in our group, and he feels way behind because he took 2 levels of fighter.  Personally?  I view that as a feature, not a bug.  The trade off you get from MCing in 5e.