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 fighterRolled 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."
I've enjoyed games where having hirelings/companions/etc. is just folded into a basic bonus.
In 5e terms, something like 'when your companion/hireling is helpful, you have advantage.'
Ah well. I can house rule it if need be. ;)
I like the array. It guarantees you a nice, competent character... at the cost of being shitty in one thing (And you probably will never raise that one stat up to average because that would take away points you could be using to make your good great or your great awesome). Plus it makes 18s special again.
Quote from: Omega;783201If 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 remember noticing that, but it slipped my mind. 19 seems like the new 18/00. I can accept it as a human starting maximum.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;783202In 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.
Ditto, except study and downtime. So if your fighter had a mage's spellbook and spent his free time fiddling with it during RP time for a level or so, that's close enough.
Quote from: mcbobbo;783217Ditto, except study and downtime. So if your fighter had a mage's spellbook and spent his free time fiddling with it during RP time for a level or so, that's close enough.
Yeah, I'm cool with that, as long as your fighter isn't an idiot (and 5e addresses this with min stats).
But I'm not cool with someone dipping one level into cleric when their PC hasn't done anything that would even remotely be considered an interest in whatever deity they want to be a cleric of. Or someone dipping into rogue without having anyone around to teach them how to do rogue things.
Quote from: Will;783204In 5e terms, something like 'when your companion/hireling is helpful, you have advantage.'
I don't think I'd want it THAT abstract. The actions of the hirelings and pets are elements I'd want to roll for, just like other NPCs.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;783224But I'm not cool with someone dipping one level into cleric when their PC hasn't done anything that would even remotely be considered an interest in whatever deity they want to be a cleric of. Or someone dipping into rogue without having anyone around to teach them how to do rogue things.
Yeah, that's really annoying. Even more annoying was the notion that prestige classes existed "out there" and you could just take them as desired without even considering the DM might decide it wouldn't make a lick of sense. And even more annoying were assholes who would tell you your character "build" was idiotic because it wasn't highly optimized, even though it was created during actual play.
Example: first long 3rd edition game I was in, played a Bard. Saw a need for quickdraw and took it. Several levels later, became a Holy Liberator. Took Leadership and married an Arcane Archer follower because it made perfect sense in the context of the game. When someone saw my character sheet, I was called a moron because I didn't understand how to make the character more powerful (especially spells...I had "stupid spells" like Glitterdust and Comprehend Languages). It was about this time I decided I did not care to play 3.X anymore.
Quote from: Brad;783275Yeah, that's really annoying. Even more annoying was the notion that prestige classes existed "out there" and you could just take them as desired without even considering the DM might decide it wouldn't make a lick of sense. And even more annoying were assholes who would tell you your character "build" was idiotic because it wasn't highly optimized, even though it was created during actual play.
Example: first long 3rd edition game I was in, played a Bard. Saw a need for quickdraw and took it. Several levels later, became a Holy Liberator. Took Leadership and married an Arcane Archer follower because it made perfect sense in the context of the game. When someone saw my character sheet, I was called a moron because I didn't understand how to make the character more powerful (especially spells...I had "stupid spells" like Glitterdust and Comprehend Languages). It was about this time I decided I did not care to play 3.X anymore.
when I first started playing 3e, I wanted to play an arcane archer. After having everyone and their grandma's dog tell me how awful of a build it was, I was left with a bad taste of the game, even though it wasn't really a game problem, but a gamer problem. I'll stick with AD&D thank you
The current draft of my 0-level rules (which were written before the notion of a modified stat roll was being discussed):
'0-LEVEL' CHARACTERS
Player characters may begin play at level 0. Such characters are created by determining attribute scores and gaining all racial traits and abilities, all personality traits, and all abilities equipment and other benefits associated with their chosen background, but are not members of a class and gain no class abilities or other class-related benefits or traits. Initial hit points for 0-level characters equal 1d6 plus Constitution modifier (minimum 1; determine by a random die roll — do not set equal to the maximum value).
0-level characters conform to all game rules and procedures, with the following exception: the 1d6 hit points they obtain at level 0 are not considered to be a 'hit die' for the purposes of hit point recovery. Thus, such characters do not gain any hit points after a short rest, and do not re-gain an expended hit die after a long rest. Instead, such characters recover 1d6 hit points at the end of any long rest, provided they are not suffering the effects of a current Major Wound (another house rule).
0-level characters are assumed to start play having -50 Experience Points. They advance to 1st level once they have raised their Experience Point total to 0; at the DM's discretion, they may advance to 1st level at the end of any adventure that exposes them to significant danger or that achieves some noteworthy goal. When a 0-level character advances to 1st level, he or she selects a class and gains all normal class abilities and other class-associated traits and benefits. Hit points are increased by a number equal to a random roll of that class' hit die, plus the character's Constitution modifier (minimum of 1 — note hit points gained on advancing to 1st level should not be set equal to the maximum possible). Thus, a 1st level Fighter who started play as a 0th level character will have Hit Points equal to 1d6+1d10+2xCon modifier (minimum of 2).
Characters who start play at 0th level and subsequently advance to 1st level possess 1 hit die of a type determined by their class and recover hit points following standard rules or the house rules detailed below; in no case to they use the 1d6 they used to determine 0th level hit points as a 'hit die' for the purposes of hit point recovery. Other than their modified method for determining 1st level hit points, such characters conform to all normal rules governing character abilities and further level advancement.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171I 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.
I don't feel bad at all. I'm just happy to have D&D back. That the usual whiners are upset over it is just a sweet, sweet bonus.
From a recent interview (http://www.examiner.com/article/gen-con-2014-report-interview-with-d-d-5e-designer-jeremy-crawford-part-3) w/Jeremy Crawford. Seems relevant to the op's examples.
QuoteWe do not expect every time that adventurers come face to face with a monster that it is what we would consider to be a balanced encounter. Sometimes it's happening because it's right for the story and what that means is sometimes the smartest thing to do is to negotiate or run for your life. And that's a bit of a cultural shift from the past ten years where often the sense was that if we run into a monster in this room we are meant to fight them and it is going to be a balanced encounter. Now, often if you run into a dragon, especially at lower levels the best thing to do is to try to talk to it or run for your life.
Quote from: Raven;783300From a recent interview (http://www.examiner.com/article/gen-con-2014-report-interview-with-d-d-5e-designer-jeremy-crawford-part-3) w/Jeremy Crawford. Seems relevant to the op's examples.
Why can't the computer, I mean DM, properly weigh encounters for my level so I gain experience at the proper rate I've calculated with my spreadsheet?
Again, I think it came from a cool idea that had unintended consequences.
'Hey, let's have some good logic where each monster is worth xp on an intelligent scale'
turned into
'we need to farm mobs for xp 101'
Quote from: Raven;783300I don't feel bad at all. I'm just happy to have D&D back. That the usual whiners are upset over it is just a sweet, sweet bonus.
From a recent interview (http://www.examiner.com/article/gen-con-2014-report-interview-with-d-d-5e-designer-jeremy-crawford-part-3) w/Jeremy Crawford. Seems relevant to the op's examples.
I'm getting more and more convinced that the 5E team didn't read the 4E books. :)
"If every encounter gives the players a perfectly balanced challenge, the game can get stale. Once in a while, characters need an encounter that doesn't significantly tax their resources, or an encounter that makes them seriously scared for their characters' survival--or even makes them flee."
and
"Monsters that are more than eight levels higher than the characters can pretty easily kill a character, and in a group they have a chance of taking out the whole party. Use such overpowering encounters with great care. Players should enter the encounter with a clear sense of the danger they're facing, and have at least one good option for escaping with their lives--whether that's headlong flight or clever negotiation."
(All quotes from 4E DMG, p. 104)
Meanwhile, the schadenfruede of this thread is an example of one of the key things keeping me away from 5E. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;783310"If every encounter gives the players a perfectly balanced challenge, the game can get stale. Once in a while, characters need an encounter that doesn't significantly tax their resources, or an encounter that makes them seriously scared for their characters' survival--or even makes them flee."
That does indeed seem like an accurate description of the 4e ethos. Like cookies, encounters that might be beyond the party's combat capabilities are a special occasion, every once in a while "sometimes food".
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.
You woudl to roll randomly for background though. No one gets to pick their background after all.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;783202In 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.
well obviously barbarian should be a background not a class cos you can't dip into a culture....
But an excellent plan.
No one minds Graal the Beserker taking refuge in a high mountain monestry and using his time to learn to master his inner Chi and the Way of the Drunken Snail. They object to Graal the Beserker deciding that a couple of levels of monk woudl be useful to boost his unarmoured AC on Tuesday morning and being a 3rd level monk in a fortnight (havign never met a monk, never heard of the way of the drunken Snail and having he Inner enlightment of a donkey).
Quote from: jibbajibba;783331well obviously barbarian should be a background not a class cos you can't dip into a culture....
Except barbarian in D&Ds case isnt a culture, its a fighting style as it were.
Light armour, go nuts, very little finess. Mostly brute force style.
Personally I'd have made the Barbarian for the Fighter the same as the Assassin is for the Rogue. Sure youd lose some tricks. But some players play their fighters as barbarians anyhoo...
Quote from: Omega;783366Except barbarian in D&Ds case isnt a culture, its a fighting style as it were.
Light armour, go nuts, very little finess. Mostly brute force style.
Personally I'd have made the Barbarian for the Fighter the same as the Assassin is for the Rogue. Sure youd lose some tricks. But some players play their fighters as barbarians anyhoo...
Have to agree with previous poster in that Barbarian should be a background, rather than a class. Emulation of all of the above -- light armor, rage, etc. -- could have been accomplished with a Feat, since, as you correctly state, that is a fighting style.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;783310Meanwhile, the schadenfruede of this thread is an example of one of the key things keeping me away from 5E. :)
This makes me laugh insanely.
Yea, verily, what half a dozen peeps say on a message board shall stop me from getting into a game i was never going to get into anyway.
It's BNG 101.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171-Feats are where the Bullshit goes. Compartmentalizing the hyper-tactical aspect of the game and making it optional is a very good thing.
Dude! I almost snorted my coffee all over the keyboard. Well done sir. ;)
Quote from: One Horse Town;783379This makes me laugh insanely.
Yea, verily, what half a dozen peeps say on a message board shall stop me from getting into a game i was never going to get into anyway.
It's BNG 101.
Since, of course, we all game in a vacuum and have no connection to the broader online culture, so that one would never have any hesitation about investing limited resources in a game where the culture seems steeped in snobbery, derision, and a growing search for ideological purity of varying sorts. It is, of course, impossible that this fact combined with concerns about the system's resilience, and skepticism about whether it's a substantial improvement over the other editions I already own without a $90-150 investment, would offset the interest in a gorgeous artifact that has some improvements over the editions it seems to be evoking, and where purchase and involvement would allow for more active participation in the largest portion of the hobby.
[/sarcasm]
Besides, the one player who's expressed a system preference for my run of I6 next month (once our Star Wars d6 game hits a stopping point) wants to finally play a version of D&D with THAC0, so we'll be using 2E for that. After that, it looks like Shadowrun's next on the docket.
Pundit's and Lars' takes on 0-level characters are really good.
Either or both of you should look into writing an official article for the WotC website.
I'd rationalise the barbarian thing this way: barbarians are warriors who practice fighting techniques from way back in the days before disciplined formations became quite so important in combat, and warfare tended to involve duels between individual champions, whereas fighters are trained in more modern martial styles. This explains why the barbarian has stuff like rage (driving himself into a frenzy to make sure he's the last man standing in the duel) and the totem warrior (invoking the spirits of the clan to help in the duel), whereas the fighter has stuff like the battle master (whose Warlord-y abilities make him officer material) and the Eldritch Knight (the sort of thing which could only arise in armies sophisticated enough to include a wizardry corps).
Cultures who live in places like the frozen wastes or the inner jungle and other wilderness areas tend to have more barbarians because they have preserved the older ways of war better; conversely, great kingdoms and empires fill their armies with fighters and don't have so much formal training in the old ways. At the same time, a city slicker who was accepted by the ancestor spirits could learn the old ways, and a patient drill sergeant could teach Conan to fight in a testudo if necessary.
Quote from: Warthur;783395I'd rationalise the barbarian thing this way: barbarians are warriors who practice fighting techniques from way back in the days before disciplined formations became quite so important in combat, and warfare tended to involve duels between individual champions, whereas fighters are trained in more modern martial styles. This explains why the barbarian has stuff like rage (driving himself into a frenzy to make sure he's the last man standing in the duel) and the totem warrior (invoking the spirits of the clan to help in the duel), whereas the fighter has stuff like the battle master (whose Warlord-y abilities make him officer material) and the Eldritch Knight (the sort of thing which could only arise in armies sophisticated enough to include a wizardry corps).
Cultures who live in places like the frozen wastes or the inner jungle and other wilderness areas tend to have more barbarians because they have preserved the older ways of war better; conversely, great kingdoms and empires fill their armies with fighters and don't have so much formal training in the old ways. At the same time, a city slicker who was accepted by the ancestor spirits could learn the old ways, and a patient drill sergeant could teach Conan to fight in a testudo if necessary.
What about a Pit fighter from the urban sprawl or a Mongol horseman with sophisticated combat tactics but totem animals and all sorts?
What about a barbarian shaman?
The barbarian is just a fighter from a different culture. They might have different tactics etc but these should be expressed with feats as should being able to fight in a testudo without taking a rank of fighter
Quote from: Exploderwizard;783385Dude! I almost snorted my coffee all over the keyboard. Well done sir. ;)
Thanks. I knew I was onto something when it came to me.
I'll cop to moderate schadenfruede with respect to the loudest of the "D&D always sucked until 4e finally got it right!" haters.
But mostly, I was pleased to open the PHB and immediately think "Yep...this looks like D&D". And I'm someone who enthusiastically adopted 3e when it was first released.
Quote from: One Horse Town;783379This makes me laugh insanely.
Yea, verily, what half a dozen peeps say on a message board shall stop me from getting into a game i was never going to get into anyway.
It's BNG 101.
Personally it reminds me of neonchameleon. Just the other day something came out about 5e (can't recall what it was, but it was pretty minor), and his response was, "Well, this is the deciding factor. I won't be playing 5e."
Yeah, like your comments for the past 2 years didn't already imply that but
now this is the deciding factor. :rolleyes:
Statements like that and AG's aren't a declaration that the game isn't for them, it's an opportunity for a backhanded swipe at people who have different opinions.
Quote from: jibbajibba;783396What about a Pit fighter from the urban sprawl or a Mongol horseman with sophisticated combat tactics but totem animals and all sorts?
What about a barbarian shaman?
The barbarian is just a fighter from a different culture. They might have different tactics etc but these should be expressed with feats as should being able to fight in a testudo without taking a rank of fighter
In your reading, not in mine. I'm just trying to provide an IC explanation for why the different classes can all conceivably combine with the different backgrounds, or why partway into their career a fighter might multiclass into barbarian or vice versa.
It sounds to me like what you really want is to just use the basic classes and collapse all the fighty types down into the classic fighter, which is fine by me but not how I'd be likely to run 5E.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;783410Personally it reminds me of neonchameleon. Just the other day something came out about 5e (can't recall what it was, but it was pretty minor), and his response was, "Well, this is the deciding factor. I won't be playing 5e."
Yeah, like your comments for the past 2 years didn't already imply that but now this is the deciding factor. :rolleyes:
Statements like that and AG's aren't a declaration that the game isn't for them, it's an opportunity for a backhanded swipe at people who have different opinions.
I find this so so so fucking hilarious! Exactly.
Quote from: Dimitrios;783409I'll cop to moderate schadenfruede with respect to the loudest of the "D&D always sucked until 4e finally got it right!" haters.
But mostly, I was pleased to open the PHB and immediately think "Yep...this looks like D&D". And I'm someone who enthusiastically adopted 3e when it was first released.
This is, of course, all that anyone is really saying. Funny how uptight people get.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;783410Personally it reminds me of neonchameleon. Just the other day something came out about 5e (can't recall what it was, but it was pretty minor), and his response was, "Well, this is the deciding factor. I won't be playing 5e."
Yeah, like your comments for the past 2 years didn't already imply that but now this is the deciding factor. :rolleyes:
Statements like that and AG's aren't a declaration that the game isn't for them, it's an opportunity for a backhanded swipe at people who have different opinions.
Yup.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171-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.
Summoning could make a strong comeback in the mid- to late-level tiers when the various Conjure spells come online.
In the early- to mid-level summoning is widely absent though, and what little crops up in the early stages it is very weak.
Quote from: Monster Manuel;783171-Feats are where the Bullshit goes. Compartmentalizing the hyper-tactical aspect of the game and making it optional is a very good thing.
I like the way feats are handled in 5e.
In 3.x, feats were mostly negligible stepping stones, and you often had to acquire first a chain of feats before you were able to get the character you want. A weak but nimble swashbuckler with rapier and dagger was useless unless he bought Weapon Finesse and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting first.
In 5e, the very same character can begin rocking right from the beginning thanks to the fact that using Dex instead of Str for finesse weapons is now a default rule (not something that needs to be unlocked), and thanks to the fact that two-weapon fighting is a perfectly valid default configuration just as two-handed weapons and one-handed weapon&shield are.
A lot can be done in 5e without feats, but when they come into play they actually feel like a major addition of instant awesome to the character, rather than like a small puzzle piece on the way of getting an awesome character 4 or 6 levels further down the "build". Such stuff as Ritual Caster, Spell Sniper or Dual Wielder is _huge_ stuff that will be immediately noticeable in play.
Quote from: Skyrock;783449I like the way feats are handled in 5e.
In 3.x, feats were mostly negligible stepping stones, and you often had to acquire first a chain of feats before you were able to get the character you want. A weak but nimble swashbuckler with rapier and dagger was useless unless he bought Weapon Finesse and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting first.
In 5e, the very same character can begin rocking right from the beginning thanks to the fact that using Dex instead of Str for finesse weapons is now a default rule (not something that needs to be unlocked), and thanks to the fact that two-weapon fighting is a perfectly valid default configuration just as two-handed weapons and one-handed weapon&shield are.
A lot can be done in 5e without feats, but when they come into play they actually feel like a major addition of instant awesome to the character, rather than like a small puzzle piece on the way of getting an awesome character 4 or 6 levels further down the "build". Such stuff as Ritual Caster, Spell Sniper or Dual Wielder is _huge_ stuff that will be immediately noticeable in play.
I agree with all of this.
Yes; feats gained a bad reputation because of they way they evolved, but the concept of abilities that broadly resemble established class abilities but are outside the class structure is great. You just need them to be small in number, interesting, and optional.
Quote from: The Butcher;783393Pundit's and Lars' takes on 0-level characters are really good.
Either or both of you should look into writing an official article for the WotC website.
Not a bad idea! I would do it but it was Pundit's suggestion so I'll defer to him unless he can't be bothered.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;783388Since, of course, we all game in a vacuum and have no connection to the broader online culture, so that one would never have any hesitation about investing limited resources in a game where the culture seems steeped in snobbery, derision, and a growing search for ideological purity of varying sorts. It is, of course, impossible that this fact combined with concerns about the system's resilience, and skepticism about whether it's a substantial improvement over the other editions I already own without a $90-150 investment, would offset the interest in a gorgeous artifact that has some improvements over the editions it seems to be evoking, and where purchase and involvement would allow for more active participation in the largest portion of the hobby.
[/sarcasm]
:confused: Why are you getting all sarcastic about 4E in a 5E thread?
Quote from: Bren;783519:confused: Why are you getting all sarcastic about 4E in a 5E thread?
Speaking of.
Came across this recently.
A 4e commercial from WOTC.
Is this thing legit or is it someones personal jab?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4)
Quote from: Omega;783546Speaking of.
Came across this recently.
A 4e commercial from WOTC.
Is this thing legit or is it someones personal jab?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4)
Zee game remains Zee same. Yep WotC paid for that to be made I think.
Quote from: Omega;783546Is this thing legit or is it someones personal jab?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4)
It was an official commercial.
The DM is Chris Perkins. Here are some other videos of him DMing:
A4e Starter Set (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FeiNEsLEl)
D&D Next (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzmpkaZEe6I)
Quote from: Omega;783546Speaking of.
Came across this recently.
A 4e commercial from WOTC.
Is this thing legit or is it someones personal jab?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyR2L-t87b4)
The fact that they're biggest dig on 2e was that everyone was waiting for their turn and combat dragged on, when their commercial was for 4e, is probably one of the most ironic things they could have done.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;783310I'm getting more and more convinced that the 5E team didn't read the 4E books. :)
They wrote them. I hate this dumb attitude of "the 5E designers don't know anything about 4E!" when they were on the 4E creation team. A sentence in the 4E book does not undo what 4E is. Declaring "Feel free to make this game yours by changing it as you desire!" doesn't change the fact that if you do change it, it falls apart into a mosh of overcomplicated rules that no longer give you any semblance of fun.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;783664The fact that they're biggest dig on 2e was that everyone was waiting for their turn and combat dragged on, when their commercial was for 4e, is probably one of the most ironic things they could have done.
I like that the lead up to this edition didn't shit all over every previous edition. That's not what the company is supposed to do, it's what forums are for. :D
I thought the GM's 'fro was cool, baby.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;783310"If every encounter gives the players a perfectly balanced challenge, the game can get stale. Once in a while, characters need an encounter that doesn't significantly tax their resources, or an encounter that makes them seriously scared for their characters' survival--or even makes them flee."
and
"Monsters that are more than eight levels higher than the characters can pretty easily kill a character, and in a group they have a chance of taking out the whole party. Use such overpowering encounters with great care. Players should enter the encounter with a clear sense of the danger they're facing, and have at least one good option for escaping with their lives--whether that's headlong flight or clever negotiation."
(All quotes from 4E DMG, p. 104)
Both 4e DMGs are excellent, particularly DMG2, which represents the most thoughtful effort yet to port 'storygame' innovations into D&D. It doesn't look anything like pre-WotC DMGs, but that's not really a criticism; few professional copywriters would willingly put their name to the 1e DMG now, and WotC is all about professionalism.
Anyhow, AG, you know the 4e DMGs were all about tailoring encounters within the 4e paradigm -- 'encounter = cinematic ("level-appropriate") fight sequence' and all that. Even if the books made mention of simple techniques to break away from the tactical-minis-subgame slog that seems to've poisoned so many 4e games (e.g. running smaller 'Theatre of the Mind' combats between setpieces), that slog was still the assumption, as was the 'balanced encounter.' As I recall, the XP budget system (one of the best things about 4e) was framed as a machine for turning out balanced, winnable encounters w/implicit narrative curvature. That definitely created certain expectations, not least at my own table, which 5e is explicitly overturning.
In that sense, AG, I don't think the 5e guys are misrepresenting 4e -- anyone running, say, a canned 4e adventure from WotC early on would've run smack into the lamest, most repetitive horseshit, handily confirming the line followed by some folks in this thread.
And the busiest 4e threads at WotC's forum when I used to read it certainly seemed to be charop shit.
Quote from: jibbajibba;783328You woudl to roll randomly for background though. No one gets to pick their background after all.
Absolutely agreed, of course!
Even assuming I didn't have background act as your 0-level class, I'd probably have people roll background FIRST, after rolling attributes but before choosing a class.
Quote from: CRKrueger;783550Zee game remains Zee same. Yep WotC paid for that to be made I think.
I saw that years ago, but just realised how revealing it was of the 4e designers' mentality. The big problem with 1e, despite the "passion" of those loveable losers, was apparently a lack of spatial clarity, and 2e's essence was the use of plastic battlemats. Sheesh.
Quote from: RPGPundit;785565Absolutely agreed, of course!
Even assuming I didn't have background act as your 0-level class, I'd probably have people roll background FIRST, after rolling attributes but before choosing a class.
That's how Opa did it for his PbP and how I'd do it. Backgrounds are awesome concept makers. My favorite so far is the Outlander it can be used with every race/class to powerful effect in my opinion.