Dungeonscape is not being created by wizards. It's being created by a separate company. No one has seen forge at all, and maybe they'll take advice like having the option for rolling in it, but honestly, from what I've seen, this isn't a replacement for maptools. They're specifically talking about the tabletop experience during the interviews.
all that being said, I really thought this was the thread to talk about 5e and I guess I was just wrong. to enworld!
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Are Wizards supporting it and using it for DnD? Not to mention, unless you are terrible at using your IP you tend to tell people you pay to do things how you want programs you're supporting to do. So no "Dungeonscape is not being created by wizards" is not an excuse.
So I am not sure what this nonsensical point is supposed to be.
all that being said, I really thought this was the thread to talk about 5e and I guess I was just wrong. to enworld!
Isn't it terrible that you have to listen to contrary opinions here?
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
edited August 2014
I'm guessing a lot of people don't have the book yet, since it's not tomorrow. I know you could get it early like me in a LGS by paying full price, but I'm guessing the vast majority of people paid $30 on Amazon.
That said, I'd love to talk about 5E!
Like, for example, is Bear a viable mount for the Paladin Spell Find Steed! I submit yes, because rule of cool.
Like, for example, is Bear a viable mount for the Paladin Spell Find Steed! I submit yes, because rule of cool.
I absolutely support this, regardless of edition.
In my buddy's Saga Edition conversion to fantasy, I played a dwarf riding a bear that was perpetually on fire. Don't ask me how, it was in the rules.
Brown Bear is slightly stronger than a Warhorse, so balance issues or whatever, but on the other hand, you're riding a Bear, so I feel a DM could allow it, especially if your character's background supports it (raised as an outlander, having a Bear on your coat of arms, etc.).
Honestly, I'm to the point where I would rather just have mounts be basically the same statistically and differentiated purely by keywords or something. Same with animal companions, spirit companions, summoned elementals or whatever.
There's a level of detail there that usually feels pointless to me, except when it feels cumbersome and unfun.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
+3
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Also, I've been messing around with the Character Sheet PDFs from the Wizards site, and I'm wondering what the point of having form-fillable PDFs, if you can't save them with the data in it? Having to re-input data every level seems like it would get real old real fast. Better to just print a blank one and use pencil.
The screenshots of Dungeonscape look nice. I just don't understand why a team would create a digital library, program in all the rules for character creation and management, include messaging functions and campaign management, and then stop at being able to tap on Attack (Longsword) and get a number because that is too ... what? Too what? Too distracting? Too time-consuming? Too immersion-breaking? What is this magical essence that not having to do math takes away?
It just seems like such a stupid, arbitrary line to me. Not having to use a pencil and paper is fine, but including a calculator in the program? Whoa, take that video game crap back to your Xbox.
Of course, some functionality would be lost without internet access, such as the ability for the players’ and the DM’s devices to communicate...
What? Why? There's no reason why inter-device communication needs to be mediated by a server, and plenty of reasons (speed, scalability, additional equipment costs, etc.) for it not to.
0
Options
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
personally, it depends on where my content is easily accessed and if I'm GMing/playing.
If I'm GMing and my content is on my laptop; tagged, tabbed and labeled, then yes. I'm already there so "Move mouse > click" is the most convenient method of doing so.
If I'm GMing and all my stuff is kept in books & printouts, then it's most likely that my laptop is not at the table since it'll take up even more space among the clutter of books and whatnot, so no.
If I'm a player, I will use dice for rolls, not because of convenience or ease of use, but because most of the GMs I play with want to see our rolls and passing a laptop around isn't the easiest thing to do.
Do note, however, I haven't brought a physical book to a table in years.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
personally, it depends on where my content is easily accessed and if I'm GMing/playing.
If I'm GMing and my content is on my laptop; tagged, tabbed and labeled, then yes. I'm already there so "Move mouse > click" is the most convenient method of doing so.
If I'm GMing and all my stuff is kept in books & printouts, then it's most likely that my laptop is not at the table since it'll take up even more space among the clutter of books and whatnot, so no.
If I'm a player, I will use dice for rolls, not because of convenience or ease of use, but because most of the GMs I play with want to see our rolls and passing a laptop around isn't the easiest thing to do.
Do note, however, I haven't brought a physical book to a table in years.
This is basically my long-form answer, except that I always bring a stack of books to the table.
1. Exercise!
2. I bought the darn things!
3. They're really easy to pass around.
I understand the goal. But keeping the dumb math that everyone hates doing as part of the "essential" experience is almost drow-glasses level weirdness to me.
Well, if they're going to apply damage and status effects from attacks, then they have to have parsed and encoded all the "natural language" descriptions of both player and monster powers. And if us humans can't agree on how different aspects of the system interact, there's no way they'll be able to code something coherent.
Much simpler to just keep track of the map and the grid, and pretend that making you roll your own dice is a feature.
I found out the warlock is a core class now. How similar did he wind up to the 3.5 warlock?
Pretty damn similar. Eldritch blast is still going to be your go-to attack, and the warlock's role is very much in being the arcane class that's consistent in terms of output, rather than peaks of damage followed by nothing but cantrips, especially since he regains his invocations on short rests, rather than long ones. They brought back most of the fun special abilities like permanent 120' darkvision and at-will jump, too.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
There's also several abilities that could make a Warlock into a melee mage, if that sort of thing is your cup of tea.
Human Battle Master Fighter with the Martial Adept feat at level 1 sounds like a fun pile of versatility.
The one I plan to roll will actually have Skillful at level 1, then probably Martial Adept around level 6 or 8, after I've gotten a few semi-esssential stat bumps (when you use Dex to attack, Dex bumps are kinda essential).
Well, it's three weeks late, and I don't think it tesselates either, but have a look at this.
....Yeah, I did.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Question mostly relevant to the Eldritch Knight: If you make a Ranged Spell Attack on an adjacent enemy (within 5 ft), do you still suffer Disadvantage? If yes, Melee Spell Attacks and/or Saving Throw spells would probably be better, no?
I'm interested to look 5th edition over... but I've no interest in buying into it now.
One thing I already dislike about the previews I've seen of class progression is the return of "dead levels" (unless that never went away with 4th edition, I didn't bother to look.)
Pathfinder was such a great fix of 3.5 and while I've only had time to play in one (currently running) campaign using it, thus far I prefer it to any edition of D&D I've played.
For now I'll stick to PF... at least until a decent superhero RPG gets designed.
Fan of roleplaying, fantasy, and sci-fi? Read The Myth Prosaic by Georgia Z.
The story revolves around a character who plays an RPG and how that experience becomes useful to him in a dystopian future.
It's free online, presented as a web-serial, with updates 3 times a week. No Ads. Nothing to buy. The Myth Prosaic - Book I of The Mythic Chess Set by Georgia Z Follow on Twitter - Follow on Facebook
I think the essentials classes may have a dead level or two, but that's about it. There are levels where the adjustment is fairly trivial, but, like, 30 levels, so.
Question mostly relevant to the Eldritch Knight: If you make a Ranged Spell Attack on an adjacent enemy (within 5 ft), do you still suffer Disadvantage? If yes, Melee Spell Attacks and/or Saving Throw spells would probably be better, no?
Yes. Ranged spell attacks with adjacent enemies cause disadvantage. Yes melee spell attacks and saving throw spells do not cause disadvantage.
Reading through this book makes me very sad. There's no reason to choose one weapon over another apart from the type of damage it does. Because of this, there are too many weapons that are functionally identical and too many gaps in coverage. There are very few light weapons and those that exist are disappointingly similar. There are no feats that deal with different weapon types, and in fact the weapons are not categorized by type (Axe, Sword, etc.)
My 4e campaign's players are at level 2 and include a Barbarian and a Fighter. They both have far more depth and complexity to them at level 2 than I can ever see a 5e of the same class as being. How disappointing.
a) any weapon they want, any time they want (damage types now irrelevant)
b) always proficient for use
c) counts as magical (enemy resistances now irrelevant)
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
I do feel the need to be at least partially a wet blanket in one and only one respect; many of the high quality ideas for 4th, the complexities and so forth of character design came from years of supplements. Let's not fall into the same trap that many intrenched players fell into when declaring that 4th didn't have enough depth on its release.
That is to say, it might not have depth now, but to say it's never going to be as deep as 4th is the same as saying no 4th ed character can be as deep as a 3.5 character when you were able to use every book ever published for 3rd at the time of 4th's release.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
Be that as it may, a straight up comparison of 4e PHB1 and 5e PHB still leaves melee classes woefully lacking in depth in the latter. There's no contest here at all.
I do feel the need to be at least partially a wet blanket in one and only one respect; many of the high quality ideas for 4th, the complexities and so forth of character design came from years of supplements. Let's not fall into the same trap that many intrenched players fell into when declaring that 4th didn't have enough depth on its release.
That is to say, it might not have depth now, but to say it's never going to be as deep as 4th is the same as saying no 4th ed character can be as deep as a 3.5 character when you were able to use every book ever published for 3rd at the time of 4th's release.
My counterpoint is that they had all that depth to build from and refine, but instead they went "Naaaaah" and just brought back bludgeoning/piercing/slashing.
Be that as it may, a straight up comparison of 4e PHB1 and 5e PHB still leaves melee classes woefully lacking in depth in the latter. There's no contest here at all.
I do feel the need to be at least partially a wet blanket in one and only one respect; many of the high quality ideas for 4th, the complexities and so forth of character design came from years of supplements. Let's not fall into the same trap that many intrenched players fell into when declaring that 4th didn't have enough depth on its release.
That is to say, it might not have depth now, but to say it's never going to be as deep as 4th is the same as saying no 4th ed character can be as deep as a 3.5 character when you were able to use every book ever published for 3rd at the time of 4th's release.
My counterpoint is that they had all that depth to build from and refine, but instead they went "Naaaaah" and just brought back bludgeoning/piercing/slashing.
I accept both of those as fine counterpoints, provided it's a one-to-one of 4th PHB to 5th PHB and nothing else. Just remember that depending on the life of the game, it could be added later.
I'm not counting on it, but it could . . .
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
It's interesting to look at the interviews that the developers did, especially Mike Mearls. They fought back and forth over how much detail they wanted to do with weapons, and leaned towards making most of them mechanically similar to allow people to roleplay closer to their envisioned character. That being said, there are some weapons with mechanical advantages (i.e. greatsword is still mechanically better if you have the great weapon fighting style as a paladin or warrior). There used to be more variety with light weapons, specifically a scimitar was considered a light weapon early in the playtest, but anything over a d6 was removed for balance reasons.
I'm not saying that this is better or worse than 4e. For every post on a forum about how much more crunchy 4e is than 5e and that 5e is a step back, I see just as many posts saying 4e was a failure or "too videogamey."
it just seems like DnD means different things to different people, and mostly those meanings stem from the time that person became most involved with the genre.
That being said, with multiclassing, and class features, there's an incredible amount of versatility in what amounts to just the first core rulebook. I enjoy how nuanced all of the classes can be.
going back to weapons, I personall appreciate that I can pick a weapon that fits my headcannon and not have to worry about it being an inferior choice.
Posts
all that being said, I really thought this was the thread to talk about 5e and I guess I was just wrong. to enworld!
So I am not sure what this nonsensical point is supposed to be.
Isn't it terrible that you have to listen to contrary opinions here?
That said, I'd love to talk about 5E!
Like, for example, is Bear a viable mount for the Paladin Spell Find Steed! I submit yes, because rule of cool.
In my buddy's Saga Edition conversion to fantasy, I played a dwarf riding a bear that was perpetually on fire. Don't ask me how, it was in the rules.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Brown Bear is slightly stronger than a Warhorse, so balance issues or whatever, but on the other hand, you're riding a Bear, so I feel a DM could allow it, especially if your character's background supports it (raised as an outlander, having a Bear on your coat of arms, etc.).
There's a level of detail there that usually feels pointless to me, except when it feels cumbersome and unfun.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
It just seems like such a stupid, arbitrary line to me. Not having to use a pencil and paper is fine, but including a calculator in the program? Whoa, take that video game crap back to your Xbox.
What? Why? There's no reason why inter-device communication needs to be mediated by a server, and plenty of reasons (speed, scalability, additional equipment costs, etc.) for it not to.
If I'm GMing and my content is on my laptop; tagged, tabbed and labeled, then yes. I'm already there so "Move mouse > click" is the most convenient method of doing so.
If I'm GMing and all my stuff is kept in books & printouts, then it's most likely that my laptop is not at the table since it'll take up even more space among the clutter of books and whatnot, so no.
If I'm a player, I will use dice for rolls, not because of convenience or ease of use, but because most of the GMs I play with want to see our rolls and passing a laptop around isn't the easiest thing to do.
Do note, however, I haven't brought a physical book to a table in years.
This is basically my long-form answer, except that I always bring a stack of books to the table.
1. Exercise!
2. I bought the darn things!
3. They're really easy to pass around.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Well, if they're going to apply damage and status effects from attacks, then they have to have parsed and encoded all the "natural language" descriptions of both player and monster powers. And if us humans can't agree on how different aspects of the system interact, there's no way they'll be able to code something coherent.
Much simpler to just keep track of the map and the grid, and pretend that making you roll your own dice is a feature.
I wish we had had this team for 4E. Dungeonscape really does look slick and I'll bet they could do awesome things with a codified rules set.
Well, it's three weeks late, and I don't think it tesselates either, but have a look at this.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I don't know, burning hands tends to clear rooms pretty fast.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's what I mean; once the wizard has his turn no-one else gets to play.
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Pretty damn similar. Eldritch blast is still going to be your go-to attack, and the warlock's role is very much in being the arcane class that's consistent in terms of output, rather than peaks of damage followed by nothing but cantrips, especially since he regains his invocations on short rests, rather than long ones. They brought back most of the fun special abilities like permanent 120' darkvision and at-will jump, too.
Reading through the 5E rules, they do very clearly say that anything that is trained and/or willing can be used as a mount.
HODOR!
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
The one I plan to roll will actually have Skillful at level 1, then probably Martial Adept around level 6 or 8, after I've gotten a few semi-esssential stat bumps (when you use Dex to attack, Dex bumps are kinda essential).
....Yeah, I did.
One thing I already dislike about the previews I've seen of class progression is the return of "dead levels" (unless that never went away with 4th edition, I didn't bother to look.)
Pathfinder was such a great fix of 3.5 and while I've only had time to play in one (currently running) campaign using it, thus far I prefer it to any edition of D&D I've played.
For now I'll stick to PF... at least until a decent superhero RPG gets designed.
The story revolves around a character who plays an RPG and how that experience becomes useful to him in a dystopian future.
It's free online, presented as a web-serial, with updates 3 times a week. No Ads. Nothing to buy.
The Myth Prosaic - Book I of The Mythic Chess Set by Georgia Z
Follow on Twitter - Follow on Facebook
Yes. Ranged spell attacks with adjacent enemies cause disadvantage. Yes melee spell attacks and saving throw spells do not cause disadvantage.
My 4e campaign's players are at level 2 and include a Barbarian and a Fighter. They both have far more depth and complexity to them at level 2 than I can ever see a 5e of the same class as being. How disappointing.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
a) any weapon they want, any time they want (damage types now irrelevant)
b) always proficient for use
c) counts as magical (enemy resistances now irrelevant)
Herp derp derp derp
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
That is to say, it might not have depth now, but to say it's never going to be as deep as 4th is the same as saying no 4th ed character can be as deep as a 3.5 character when you were able to use every book ever published for 3rd at the time of 4th's release.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
My counterpoint is that they had all that depth to build from and refine, but instead they went "Naaaaah" and just brought back bludgeoning/piercing/slashing.
I accept both of those as fine counterpoints, provided it's a one-to-one of 4th PHB to 5th PHB and nothing else. Just remember that depending on the life of the game, it could be added later.
I'm not counting on it, but it could . . .
I'm not saying that this is better or worse than 4e. For every post on a forum about how much more crunchy 4e is than 5e and that 5e is a step back, I see just as many posts saying 4e was a failure or "too videogamey."
it just seems like DnD means different things to different people, and mostly those meanings stem from the time that person became most involved with the genre.
That being said, with multiclassing, and class features, there's an incredible amount of versatility in what amounts to just the first core rulebook. I enjoy how nuanced all of the classes can be.
going back to weapons, I personall appreciate that I can pick a weapon that fits my headcannon and not have to worry about it being an inferior choice.