Quote from: Sacrosanct;817209And Lord Soth is in 5e.  He's called the death knight in the MM.  Even has his picture right next to it.

They removed Lord Soth in the War of Souls novels; there exists death knights other than Soth, according to the MM (and I remember one in a module).

Quote from: Novastar;817251They removed Lord Soth in the War of Souls novels; there exists death knights other than Soth, according to the MM (and I remember one in a module).

The 5e Death Knight is totally Lord Soth.  It's most assuredly not the death knight from AD&D.  IIRC, that was a level 10 creature?  In 5e it's a CR17?  And with the picture?  Yeah, totally lord Soth.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;817255The 5e Death Knight is totally Lord Soth.  It's most assuredly not the death knight from AD&D.  IIRC, that was a level 10 creature?  In 5e it's a CR17?  And with the picture?  Yeah, totally lord Soth.

He is right, though. In Dragonlance canon, Weis and Hickman dropped a pretty big bridge on Soth, right after they got WotC to let them pull him out of Ravenloft and back into Dragonlance.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;817281He is right, though. In Dragonlance canon, Weis and Hickman dropped a pretty big bridge on Soth, right after they got WotC to let them pull him out of Ravenloft and back into Dragonlance.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that use whatever setting you want in 5e, since settings don't have a mechanical tie in with them.  I'm using the same Greyhawk setting in 5e that I used in 1e.  And if you want someone like Lord Soth in your setting, 5e has that in the death knight, because the death knight in 5e is for all practical purposes, Lord Soth himself.

Me'thinks we're arguing the same point, at that.
I just also wanted to point out that per current canon, Lord Soth no longer inhabits Krynn (or Ravenloft). Which I think is a massive loss of a truly great tragic villain.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;817209They aren't really mortal.  More like avatars.  Which is very similar to AD&D gods.

  No, in DL continuity, Paladine and Takhisis are mortal in the 5.5th Age/post-War of Souls era. Has nothing to do with the rules set.

Quote from: S'mon;817178Yes, 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.

I'm not really sure how to answer this as you're being very vague.
you don't like 5E as there's just SOMETHING you don't like about it but you're not sure what it is.
So really there's not much to discuss I'm afraid and there's no point of reference for discussion.

I guess 5E is not for you, which is fine, as you have lots of other options you're very happy with, so I'd suggest going with them.
5E is a big investment in money for something that seems somehow bland for you and would be a waste of money.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;817295I guess what I'm trying to get at is that use whatever setting you want in 5e, since settings don't have a mechanical tie in with them.  I'm using the same Greyhawk setting in 5e that I used in 1e.  And if you want someone like Lord Soth in your setting, 5e has that in the death knight, because the death knight in 5e is for all practical purposes, Lord Soth himself.

I agree with that, some folks are big on their canon.

I, on the other hand, am getting ready to absolutely level Waterdeep and leave large chunks of it sinking into Undermountain to establish that The Cult of the Dragon is absolutely terrifying.

The "Council of Waterdeep" in Rise of Tiamat is going to be so named not because they are meeting there, but because they are unified in the spirit of the once great city, now a dangerous ruin.

Quote from: danskmacabre;817299I'm not really sure how to answer this as you're being very vague.
you don't like 5E as there's just SOMETHING you don't like about it but you're not sure what it is.
So really there's not much to discuss I'm afraid and there's no point of reference for discussion.

I guess 5E is not for you, which is fine, as you have lots of other options you're very happy with, so I'd suggest going with them.
5E is a big investment in money for something that seems somehow bland for you and would be a waste of money.

I don't dislike it, I am enjoying the 5e campaign I'm playing in. I think maybe buying the DMG & MM might have been a mistake though. It's perfectly ok, just not very exciting. Partly the art I think, I found the 4e art mostly pretty evocative. 5e is very 2e, and I felt similarly about 2e.

Quote from: S'mon;817306I don't dislike it, I am enjoying the 5e campaign I'm playing in. I think maybe buying the DMG & MM might have been a mistake though. It's perfectly ok, just not very exciting. Partly the art I think, I found the 4e art mostly pretty evocative. 5e is very 2e, and I felt similarly about 2e.

OK, well I guess you can recoup some of the money from the DMG and MM by selling it on ebay or something.
I quite like the art, but even if I didn't that wouldn't bother me.
It seems the visual presentation is important to you and 4e floats you boat which is fine.

That you didn't like 2e says a lot though why you're not fussed on 5e.
to me, 5e feels like a streamlined, cleaned up 2e.
Also, I really disliked 4e in many ways, so it sounds like we have quite different tastes, which is of course fine. there's plenty of room in the world for different tastes in stuff.

Quote from: danskmacabre;817310That you didn't like 2e says a lot though why you're not fussed on 5e.
to me, 5e feels like a streamlined, cleaned up 2e.

Yes, I agree. Of course it isn't going to have a 2e-style release schedule!

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.

Yup, that's a huge improvement from 3.x

oddly enough most of the things that i dislike about 5e are what so many people say is whats great about it.

• advantage
• magic item restrictions
• skill system changes
• bounded accuracy

i dont think i have seen anybody that disagrees with me on the soul sucking changes to the lich being bad the whole point of a lich is they sit in there lairs and lose track of time

for some reason nobody seems to care about the cleric being refluffed as the favoured soul one way or another but that's something i can easily change if i end up running 5e.

i have seen 1 person who praised the lack of monster character rules but the mans a bit of an idiot anyway. thats another big one that really bothers me the incompleteness of npcs in 3.5 players and npcs worked on the same rules but not anymore.

i have not yet decided what i think of the attack of opportunity changes i like the way they worked before for the most part but allowing people to move through threatened squares may be a good change im not sure yet.

i dont really like most of the combat changes but im not going to go through it all but those things are the big ones

Quote from: tuypo1;818408oddly enough most of the things that i dislike about 5e are what so many people say is whats great about it.

• advantage
• magic item restrictions
• skill system changes
• bounded accuracy

i dont think i have seen anybody that disagrees with me on the soul sucking changes to the lich being bad the whole point of a lich is they sit in there lairs and lose track of time

for some reason nobody seems to care about the cleric being refluffed as the favoured soul one way or another but that's something i can easily change if i end up running 5e.

i have seen 1 person who praised the lack of monster character rules but the mans a bit of an idiot anyway. thats another big one that really bothers me the incompleteness of npcs in 3.5 players and npcs worked on the same rules but not anymore.

i have not yet decided what i think of the attack of opportunity changes i like the way they worked before for the most part but allowing people to move through threatened squares may be a good change im not sure yet.

i dont really like most of the combat changes but im not going to go through it all but those things are the big ones

Probably not a great fit for you.

Advantage/Disadvantage is soooooo much better than a bunch of obnoxious modifiers.

Magic Items feeling rare and, dare I say it, magical is very welcome.

Skills are no longer an exercise in bean counting.

Bounded accuracy is great, because I legitimately have no idea how any given fight is going to break down, given the tight armor classes and small power curve.

I haven't used a lich yet, so that hasn't come up. I'm not afraid to tweak one monster when everything else is awesome.

And I love the lack of monster/character rules and NPCs/PCs not being on the same track. Makes putting NPCs together a helluva lot faster.

This is my favorite edition of D&D ever. The only thing I really, REALLY did not like was Critical Hits, so I introduced a Critical Hit table that everyone loves.

well like i said there mostly things that everyone else loves