TheRPGSite

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?

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. :D

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.

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

I can respect where you are coming from, Tuypo1. There was a time when I liked the way 3.0 and other systems with lots of modifiers worked. I enjoyed detail, more realism (even though these games have a fantasy premise to begin).

Now I am more of a fan of simple that mostly makes sense . . . To me at least. There is enough class and race variation to satisfy me.  

Of course your perspective is valid.

Quote from: tuypo1;818408i have seen 1 person who praised the lack of monster character rules but the mans a bit of an idiot anyway.

I bet he knows how to use a shift key...

When we playtested D&D 5e, we had a similarly positive experience: Pretty much all involved players liked the system quite well, and enjoyed it much more than the other versions we had played in that constelation of players (4e and Pathfinder). However, after playing it for roughly two months (weekly sessions), the overall feeling became, "okay, and what now?" and the system became less and less enthralling (I think we played to level 5). Basically, ther conclusion was that the system was a little bit too light-weight for our tastes and that the typical D&D-isms that are not to everyone's taste were still quite present (which is not a bad thing! After all, D&D should include D&D-isms more than any other RPG system), so we returned to Midgard and BRP.
So, at least for me and my typical players, it is great game for a brief campaign, but not so good for a longer one.

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 agree with you. I don't like any of those things either. Well, the way they do skills isn't bad so I'd swap that for Inspiration and Backgrounds in my list of things I dislike.

Quote from: Beagle;818451When we playtested D&D 5e, we had a similarly positive experience: Pretty much all involved players liked the system quite well, and enjoyed it much more than the other versions we had played in that constelation of players (4e and Pathfinder). However, after playing it for roughly two months (weekly sessions), the overall feeling became, "okay, and what now?" and the system became less and less enthralling (I think we played to level 5). Basically, ther conclusion was that the system was a little bit too light-weight for our tastes and that the typical D&D-isms that are not to everyone's taste were still quite present (which is not a bad thing! After all, D&D should include D&D-isms more than any other RPG system), so we returned to Midgard and BRP.
So, at least for me and my typical players, it is great game for a brief campaign, but not so good for a longer one.

I enjoy lighter weight rules systems so I am of the opposite opinion. I can deal with heavy crunchy rules systems for short campaigns but it is exhausting to run a long one.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;818561I enjoy lighter weight rules systems so I am of the opposite opinion. I can deal with heavy crunchy rules systems for short campaigns but it is exhausting to run a long one.

Yep.  Same here.  Especially if it's a game you only play a couple times a month.  The less to keep track of, the better.

Yeah, we try to play two or three times a month, but, due mostly to weather conditions that played havoc with our attendance, we were only able to play one session in the past 5 weeks. We got it going again on Saturday and it picked up just fine.