Note: I haven't finished the book, yet. I've skipped ahead a few times (multiclassing, feats and a few spells), but I'm only at the beginning of the Sorcerer, in terms of sections that I've read word for word and internalized. Still, so far, the game's incredible, IMO.

I know I should feel bad about this, but I've been positively giddy as I've read the Player's Handbook; and saw how just as with 4th edition firing part of its audience, this edition seems, in subtle and unsubtle ways to be firing the worst of the min-maxers and optimizers.

Who knows if that's the intent, but it seems to be the case. Here are a few examples:

-The 4d6, drop lowest method of attribute generation is mechanically superior to point buy or the array. You're likely to get a 16 as your highest value and a 9 on your lowest, opposed to 15 as the highest, and 8 as the lowest via point buy or array. You also have a shot at 16-18, which you can't otherwise get.

-Things don't really stack anymore.

-Multiclassing will likely be rare. The rules place prerequisites of 13 in your primary stats, and with the stat "economy" being what it is, and the truly great class abilities pushed off to 3rd level, it will be harder to create a min-maxed monstrosity that dips into every class imaginable.

-Pokemounts and other stupidity are gone. There's a hell of a lot less summoning and pet-class stuff too. The Ranger, with his animal has to choose between attacking, or having his animal attack.

-Feats are where the Bullshit goes. Compartmentalizing the hyper-tactical aspect of the game and making it optional is a very good thing.  

That's all I have for now.

Don't get me wrong; I don't hate people who want optimization; I just don't want them at my table, and I'm glad that D&D is back to being more like what got me into gaming. My style of play seems very much reinforced here. For the longest time I've felt like I was being left behind, but I'm back in the game.

This does mean that I likely won't be gaming with some of my friends for a good, long while. I'm OK with that. It had become tedious over the years to have the game devolve into "You can't do that, because my Agency" with character optimization that made every fight a cakewalk unless I delved into the mechanical side for a day or more and endured the headaches and rage that that caused me. The past few editions made me adversarial, because the players were often adversarial.

I don't have to do that anymore, it seems. I can go back to being the neutral arbiter that I want to be, and still provide a good game- and likely one that is much better than I have been providing for the past few years.  

The munchkins can go play Pathfinder. I've got D&D again.

I laaaaauughed and laaaaughed when on rpg.net 4e folks started complaining 'hey, why didn't they just make an upgraded game drawing from 4e? This sucks. They're shutting down all the support for us and leaving us behind!'

And I'm like 'don't you fucking hypocrites remember when you were rolling your eyes and dropping trouser at 3e folks saying the exact same fucking thing?'


(I have nothing against 4e, nor the people who enjoy it, just those loud fuckers)

Yeah, I'm reveling at D&D going 'wait, why are we catering to OCD twitchkiddies?'

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171Who knows if that's the intent, but it seems to be the case.

If definitely is the intent - at least for the standard game presented so far. WotC have couched the change in terms of appealing to the majority of fans who want a simpler game rather than the hardcore minority. And commenting that most players remember the stories generated from play, not what's written on character sheets. But there's no doubt about which direction they've steered the game. And since they based their approach largely on the playtest feedback, they seem confident 5E is hitting the broadest audience.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171The munchkins can go play Pathfinder. I've got D&D again.

I wonder if in that way 5e is going to be good for Pathfinder. The folks I know playing it certainly show no signs of switching over.
The move away from that 'system mastery' requisite was what had me tentatively interested... though I think optimizers can optimize with just about any system. I question if just running Basic with Feats turned off will be a lonely pursuit once all the books come out.

QuoteMulticlassing will likely be rare.

I hope so... I never did quite get the big draw of multiclassing... vs. just playing a non-class based game where I could pick and choose. The fun of having Classes seems to me to be in riffing off the limitations... not looking for ways around them.

QuotePokemounts and other stupidity are gone. There's a hell of a lot less summoning and pet-class stuff too. The Ranger, with his animal has to choose between attacking, or having his animal attack.

Were pets a huge problem with previous editions? They haven't come up much at all in our Pathfinder games... nor has summoning.

To me, 5e feels like D&D again, which I haven't felt since 2e.  I agree with the subtle message to charoppers that that style isn't going to be a focus in 5e.  Sure, there will be some, like there have always been some, but nothing like a game that was specifically designed towards them.  Heck, Mearls even came right out and said that if people want to get caught up in the loopholes and play boring, more power to them; D&D isn't going to stop them.  But the game won't be built for them either.  And I think that's directed at the 4e uber balance crowd.  No, not every class or spell has to be perfectly balanced with everything else.  Most people don't give a shit, and 5e isn't spending the time or manpower to cater to a small percentage of people.


Interesting anecdote re: pets.  In AD&D (a game I played continuous from 1981 to 2013), it wasn't uncommon for a paladin to get a warhorse, or a ranger to get a griffon at higher levels, or whatever.  Not one single time did any other player feel left out and worthless when that happened (due to increased attacks of said player's pet).

Yeah, these guys did a really, really good job. It is exciting, interesting, a touch nostalgic if you are old enough to feel that way, accessible — I could go on.

I like 5e, it has been fun so far.

I loved 3e because I love unified, simple mechanics.

I grew to hate 3e because I love unified, simple mechanics.

I'm very happy with 5e so far.

"3d6 in order, six times.  Optimize that, Cupcake."

I immediately jacked Pundit's suggestion in his review of 5E that backgrounds can be used to create a kind of 0-level start to campaigns. If you combine this idea with straight up 3d6 in order stat generation, you create a game-within-a-game in which players must react to the characters they have, mold them with little other than traits and a few social connections, and then see where it all leads when these poor saps try to survive an adventure. That experience, even if it only lasts 1-2 sessions, leads to characters that deserve the word character — people who have harrowing stories and who have earned what they have. That is the brilliance of DCC and can easily be applied to 5E.

Quote from: Larsdangly;783190I immediately jacked Pundit's suggestion in his review of 5E that backgrounds can be used to create a kind of 0-level start to campaigns. If you combine this idea with straight up 3d6 in order stat generation, you create a game-within-a-game in which players must react to the characters they have, mold them with little other than traits and a few social connections, and then see where it all leads when these poor saps try to survive an adventure. That experience, even if it only lasts 1-2 sessions, leads to characters that deserve the word character — people who have harrowing stories and who have earned what they have. That is the brilliance of DCC and can easily be applied to 5E.

Something like:

0 Level Generation Rules:
* roll 3d6 for ability scores, noting each die roll result
* choose background
* start with 4 (1d6) hit points

When you've advanced to 1st level:
* roll 1d6 for each ability, assign how you want, replacing a lower result with the higher result if applicable
* choose class and add hp if applicable

Example:
Background: urchin
Str: 4+3+2=9
Dex: 4+4+3=11
Con: 5+5+2=12
Int: 2+3+3=8
Wis: 1+4+2=7
Cha: 1+2+6=9
HP: 4

Advanced to 1st level, PC chooses fighter
Rolled 6, 5, 3, 3, 1, 1
Str: 4+6+3 (replaced the '2') = 13
Dex: used one of the '1s', no change
Con: used the '5' to replace the '2', 5+5+5 = 15
Int: used the other '1', no change
Wis: used a '3' to replace the '1', so 3+4+2=9
Cha: used the other 3 to replace the 1, so 3+2+6=11
+2 HP (for fighter to go to base 6 HP) or roll additional d4 and add


This essentially grants 4d6 drop lowest in order as a 1st level PC

Quote from: Simlasa;783178Were pets a huge problem with previous editions? They haven't come up much at all in our Pathfinder games... nor has summoning.

Maybe its just a result of the players I've had, but mounts, summoning, and henchmen have been a huge pain in the ass for me over the years. They effectively give the player more actions, get ignored until they're needed in combat, and detract from the PCs being the stars of the game.

Last Pathfinder game I ran (which I decided was to be my last ever), we had a feebleminded priest with a giant constrictor snake that dominated that player's side of combat.

Unrelated to this point, but relevant to the thread as a whole, we had a dervish who had an unbeatable initiative, who couldn't be surprised and was never flat-footed, and was able to hit just any fair AC, while shoring up his own defenses and saves to obscene levels. I believe he got a surprise round every combat. He was multiclassed into about four classes, and was really just a stack of modifiers and gear with a thin veneer of character. To his credit, the player did have an accent for the character.  

The priest character is an old friend and a munchkin, but even he hated the second player. Probably because the second player was better at it.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171-The 4d6, drop lowest method of attribute generation is mechanically superior to point buy or the array. You're likely to get a 16 as your highest value and a 9 on your lowest, opposed to 15 as the highest, and 8 as the lowest via point buy or array. You also have a shot at 16-18, which you can't otherwise get.

If I am reading the PHB right then with the roll R4H3 method will. if you take a human, generate stats ranging up to 19. Which seems off kilter since the point buy and array generate stats ranging 16.

I wonder if the roll 4 method was meant to not be used with the human stat boost or to cap at 18? Its not a problem really. Just a little odd that theres a minor disparity between.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;783199Unrelated to this point, but relevant to the thread as a whole, we had a dervish who had an unbeatable initiative, who couldn't be surprised and was never flat-footed, and was able to hit just any fair AC, while shoring up his own defenses and saves to obscene levels. I believe he got a surprise round every combat. He was multiclassed into about four classes, and was really just a stack of modifiers and gear with a thin veneer of character. To his credit, the player did have an accent for the character.  
.

In my campaigns that I DM, I do not allow multi-classing unless it fits with the player's actions in game.  I.e., you can't dip a level into monk if you've never seen one.  You can't dip into barbarian if you've played your PC as a scholarly rational fighter, etc.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;783181Interesting anecdote re: pets.  In AD&D (a game I played continuous from 1981 to 2013), it wasn't uncommon for a paladin to get a warhorse, or a ranger to get a griffon at higher levels, or whatever.  Not one single time did any other player feel left out and worthless when that happened (due to increased attacks of said player's pet).

I started with AD&D as well, but in AD&D pets were interesting. A Warhorse didn't vanish when you went into a dungeon, and a griffon would likely have a personality of some kind.

I don't hate them in principle, and don't even object to extra actions for the player- I just hate the mentality that says "I want to attack more...I need a pet."