oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
The main problem with the weapon selection is that, for the most part, stylistic choice matters little.
The warpick, morningstar and rapier are all basically the same weapon in play, with the exception of the rapier which can be finessed if you're so inclined, but if you're not, you'll see little to no difference between the weapons.
If anything you're probably better off to pick the rapier simply because, like the warpick, it's 2 pounds lighter then the morning star but unlike the warpick, can be finessed. Though if you don't care for using your dex to hit things with, the warpick will save you 10 gold when compared to the MS and 20 when compared to the rapier.
On a similar note the battle axe and the longsword are both d8 weapons with the versatile property, but the former manages to shave off 2 pounds and five gold off the final price. Not as bad as the warpick, but still.
The worst offenders, though, are the Halberd and the glaive. 20 gold each. 1d10 slashing each. 6 pounds each. And both happen to have heavy, reach & the two-handed properties. They are, quite literally, the same weapon on paper.
It's not near as bad as the laundry list of polarms we've seen in previous editions, but the D&D 5th ed weapon list is just as boring as the ones that came before it.
While I abhor to use "real life" as a model for things in my elf games, this is one place where we should be taking the general concept and turning it up to "Gandalf", or whatever setting you find on fantasy speakers. Weapons, IRL, often informed you of your style of combat: some were made to hook into shields, armor, weapon and limbs, others were meant to batter enemies and cause them pain even on a block, some were meant to deform armor and make movement painful, etc...
While the end goal of virtually all weapons was "I am alive, he is not" the ones D&D has historically presented us with have never really made me excited to play a character using any given weapon. Really, if anything I would simply pick a style of combat and go over the weapon list, throw math at it until it gave me the "best" weapon.
If you're going to give me a list of weapons, make them interesting. Make want to roll up a PC that goes "this blade is cool" and builds his combat style around it. As it currently stands, 5th ed would, IMO, be best served by a weapon subsystem akin to the one found in Legend, where you pick your combat style and "build" the weapon you want to best mechanically fit that concept and flavoured to taste.
Seriously, check out that weapon system. While I can't say i'm the biggest fan of the system as a whole, that weapon subsystem is slick as all fuck.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
Other than a few stinkers, which really weren't much worse than the rest, all weapons in 4E were pretty much on par with every other weapon at their proficiency scale (simple, martial, superior). There was just a ton of granularity that made weapon choice more important on an attack-by-attack basis without really changing the math over the long term.
The real differences in weapons was usually who had access to what, or could use which weapons for their class abilities. Specifically, I'm thinking about the Rogue and the Swordmage here, as they were the most restricted weapons users. And even there, unless you're thinking about playing a Rogue that only uses clubs there were pluses and minuses for any given weapon choice, not inferior and superior options.
I don't understand what I'm supposed to be looking forward to, here. I keep mulling over a Fighter, a Druid, a Hunter... at least with the Druid I can shapeshift into bigger shit as time passes. All a Fighter or Hunter are going to to is make more basic attacks. This is what some people wanted to return to? How fuckin' boring is that.
Headcannon issues can be solved by grid-filling. D&D should always have simple, military, and superior scythes because come on.
0
Options
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
My favorite weapon scheme is still Legend's. All weapons are d6, ranged or melee, with three modifiers, call it whatever you want.
I've told this before but one of my players wanted a flamethrower, so it was a d6 melee with reach, magical fire keyword and scything (attack all adjacent enemies to primary with a -4) for his modifiers. Worked fucking great.
Here's the analogy that I came up with Traditional DnD:Final Fantasy :: 4e:Final Fantasy:Tactics
FF games give everyone the options of Fight and Use Item, and some people get Ability and/or Magic. Most combat is fast and inconsequential. Just like traditional DnD games.
Tactics gives everyone abilities and required spatial planning to use most of them. Combat is slow, and usually had a purpose. Just like 4e.
Here's the analogy that I came up with Traditional DnD:Final Fantasy :: 4e:Final Fantasy:Tactics
FF games give everyone the options of Fight and Use Item, and some people get Ability and/or Magic. Most combat is fast and inconsequential. Just like traditional DnD games.
Tactics gives everyone abilities and required spatial planning to use most of them. Combat is slow, and usually had a purpose. Just like 4e.
I don't think I've ever been in any edition D&D game* where combat didn't devour the majority of the time. Which raises the question to me, if it's inconsequential why the fuck are we spending time on it?
Now maybe 5e will have combats where in a 4 hour session they don't take up more than an hour....but that still is a big chunk of time on inconsequential stuff.
*On average. There have been sessions where little to no combat happened but they were atypical and had little to nothing driven by system mechanics.
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 don't actually agree with you here. For the example of the Fighter, the PHB1 4E fighter has much more interesting choices and more to do than his 5E equivalent easily. I feel this is the case in general, because once again from what I've read of the 5E PHB we're back to the idea the only classes with genuinely meaningful choices are casters.
And levels 1-2 are indeed utterly worthless random dice roll swingfests. Well, unless I wanted to roll behind the screen and fudge my dice constantly, but that's not something I've done for years now. So I am back to once again starting everyone at level 3 as the new 1st level. Yes, they explain that levels 1-2 are supposed to represent characters being kind of useless.
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.
I started playing DnD with OD&D. So did many others here. This has been a cop out to try and justify people who like 4E as newbies or "not real roleplayers" generally, but it isn't true. 4E was a great relief to many, even if I initially (ironically) hated it because it removed a ton of problems that I didn't recognize I had before. Why run a game at level 3 all the time (that 5E brings back) because level 1-2 characters are flimsier than plywood? Why bother with non-casters when spellcasters often picked up companions/summons that were as good (or better) than level 1 characters? Why have an action economy that punishes martial characters over casters that can summon monsters for basically an entire new set of actions? Why have martial characters at all at high level play?
And so on. I actually like systems where I don't need to sit down and make hundreds of individual tailored rulings so the game functions because the rules are written poorly. For example, after reading the 5E book for an hour I already had to make notes about "This is how I would rule this, I need to clarify this, no this making adamantine illusion coats doesn't work, this spells natural language is god awful so this is how it works" and eventually I thought "Nope, this is not an edition I want to bother with".
The only thing I sort of approve of is the monsters*, but I'm not sure if there are good encounter or DM guides yet for building encounters. So I haven't seen the full picture on how that part of the system works yet and as I primarily DM it's also the most important. And arguably, the last chance that 5E has of possibly getting me to even try the full thing at all.
But again, I started with OD&D almost 17 years ago now, but that doesn't mean I'm stuck in game design from 17 years ago.
*The Red Dragon being a good example of lessons learned from 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragon's game design. Up to the idea of how to give a creature more actions to challenge an entire party by itself. Except that it's not clear what it does if disabled by spells or similar (or if it has any clear resistances to these things, which may be buried in rules elsewhere).
Having finally come around on 5E, it's really interesting to me to see how much the vast majority of you guys hate it compared to say, r/DnD on reddit, which for the most part absolutely loves it. Like, I can't come up with a compelling argument against most of what you're saying, but having read through the PHB and thought about how my 4E game is going to look shifted in to 5E, I'm actually really excited about a lot things. Most notably, I'm glad to be able to shift away from having a table full of laptops and tablets just so people can have functional character sheets.
Also in 5E you need the actual books or a printout of all the spells in your spellbook....
Also also, having played 4e for its entire run, I never had a player sit down with a digital device explicitly for their character sheet. Wasn't needed. 1 sheet for general character sheet, one sheet for gear, feats, pp, etc all explained, and 1-3 pages for power stat blocks, pre-filled with all relevant numbers in parenthesis as called.
Compare to 5th edition, where wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and bards all need at least 2 pages by 3rd level for spells, and by 5th level most need 3-4. Hell even a warlock would need at least one extra page just for spells.
... this is one place where we should be taking the general concept and turning it up to "Gandalf", or whatever setting you find on fantasy speakers...
The main problem with the weapon selection is that, for the most part, stylistic choice matters little.
The warpick, morningstar and rapier are all basically the same weapon in play, with the exception of the rapier which can be finessed if you're so inclined, but if you're not, you'll see little to no difference between the weapons.
If anything you're probably better off to pick the rapier simply because, like the warpick, it's 2 pounds lighter then the morning star but unlike the warpick, can be finessed. Though if you don't care for using your dex to hit things with, the warpick will save you 10 gold when compared to the MS and 20 when compared to the rapier.
On a similar note the battle axe and the longsword are both d8 weapons with the versatile property, but the former manages to shave off 2 pounds and five gold off the final price. Not as bad as the warpick, but still.
The worst offenders, though, are the Halberd and the glaive. 20 gold each. 1d10 slashing each. 6 pounds each. And both happen to have heavy, reach & the two-handed properties. They are, quite literally, the same weapon on paper.
It's not near as bad as the laundry list of polarms we've seen in previous editions, but the D&D 5th ed weapon list is just as boring as the ones that came before it.
While I abhor to use "real life" as a model for things in my elf games, this is one place where we should be taking the general concept and turning it up to "Gandalf", or whatever setting you find on fantasy speakers. Weapons, IRL, often informed you of your style of combat: some were made to hook into shields, armor, weapon and limbs, others were meant to batter enemies and cause them pain even on a block, some were meant to deform armor and make movement painful, etc...
While the end goal of virtually all weapons was "I am alive, he is not" the ones D&D has historically presented us with have never really made me excited to play a character using any given weapon. Really, if anything I would simply pick a style of combat and go over the weapon list, throw math at it until it gave me the "best" weapon.
If you're going to give me a list of weapons, make them interesting. Make want to roll up a PC that goes "this blade is cool" and builds his combat style around it. As it currently stands, 5th ed would, IMO, be best served by a weapon subsystem akin to the one found in Legend, where you pick your combat style and "build" the weapon you want to best mechanically fit that concept and flavoured to taste.
Seriously, check out that weapon system. While I can't say i'm the biggest fan of the system as a whole, that weapon subsystem is slick as all fuck.
Well, if you can dedicate 20+ pages to spells, why can't there be 20+ pages dedicated to weapons and their advanced/extraordinary uses (say, call them exploits)?
what a happy day it is
+7
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
The main problem with the weapon selection is that, for the most part, stylistic choice matters little.
The warpick, morningstar and rapier are all basically the same weapon in play, with the exception of the rapier which can be finessed if you're so inclined, but if you're not, you'll see little to no difference between the weapons.
If anything you're probably better off to pick the rapier simply because, like the warpick, it's 2 pounds lighter then the morning star but unlike the warpick, can be finessed. Though if you don't care for using your dex to hit things with, the warpick will save you 10 gold when compared to the MS and 20 when compared to the rapier.
On a similar note the battle axe and the longsword are both d8 weapons with the versatile property, but the former manages to shave off 2 pounds and five gold off the final price. Not as bad as the warpick, but still.
The worst offenders, though, are the Halberd and the glaive. 20 gold each. 1d10 slashing each. 6 pounds each. And both happen to have heavy, reach & the two-handed properties. They are, quite literally, the same weapon on paper.
It's not near as bad as the laundry list of polarms we've seen in previous editions, but the D&D 5th ed weapon list is just as boring as the ones that came before it.
While I abhor to use "real life" as a model for things in my elf games, this is one place where we should be taking the general concept and turning it up to "Gandalf", or whatever setting you find on fantasy speakers. Weapons, IRL, often informed you of your style of combat: some were made to hook into shields, armor, weapon and limbs, others were meant to batter enemies and cause them pain even on a block, some were meant to deform armor and make movement painful, etc...
While the end goal of virtually all weapons was "I am alive, he is not" the ones D&D has historically presented us with have never really made me excited to play a character using any given weapon. Really, if anything I would simply pick a style of combat and go over the weapon list, throw math at it until it gave me the "best" weapon.
If you're going to give me a list of weapons, make them interesting. Make want to roll up a PC that goes "this blade is cool" and builds his combat style around it. As it currently stands, 5th ed would, IMO, be best served by a weapon subsystem akin to the one found in Legend, where you pick your combat style and "build" the weapon you want to best mechanically fit that concept and flavoured to taste.
Seriously, check out that weapon system. While I can't say i'm the biggest fan of the system as a whole, that weapon subsystem is slick as all fuck.
Well, if you can dedicate 20+ pages to spells, why can't there be 20+ pages dedicated to weapons and their advanced/extraordinary uses (say, call them exploits)?
That sounds like some kind of video game and we couldn't have that.
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 don't actually agree with you here. For the example of the Fighter, the PHB1 4E fighter has much more interesting choices and more to do than his 5E equivalent easily. I feel this is the case in general, because once again from what I've read of the 5E PHB we're back to the idea the only classes with genuinely meaningful choices are casters.
And levels 1-2 are indeed utterly worthless random dice roll swingfests. Well, unless I wanted to roll behind the screen and fudge my dice constantly, but that's not something I've done for years now. So I am back to once again starting everyone at level 3 as the new 1st level. Yes, they explain that levels 1-2 are supposed to represent characters being kind of useless.
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.
I started playing DnD with OD&D. So did many others here. This has been a cop out to try and justify people who like 4E as newbies or "not real roleplayers" generally, but it isn't true. 4E was a great relief to many, even if I initially (ironically) hated it because it removed a ton of problems that I didn't recognize I had before. Why run a game at level 3 all the time (that 5E brings back) because level 1-2 characters are flimsier than plywood? Why bother with non-casters when spellcasters often picked up companions/summons that were as good (or better) than level 1 characters? Why have an action economy that punishes martial characters over casters that can summon monsters for basically an entire new set of actions? Why have martial characters at all at high level play?
And so on. I actually like systems where I don't need to sit down and make hundreds of individual tailored rulings so the game functions because the rules are written poorly. For example, after reading the 5E book for an hour I already had to make notes about "This is how I would rule this, I need to clarify this, no this making adamantine illusion coats doesn't work, this spells natural language is god awful so this is how it works" and eventually I thought "Nope, this is not an edition I want to bother with".
The only thing I sort of approve of is the monsters*, but I'm not sure if there are good encounter or DM guides yet for building encounters. So I haven't seen the full picture on how that part of the system works yet and as I primarily DM it's also the most important. And arguably, the last chance that 5E has of possibly getting me to even try the full thing at all.
But again, I started with OD&D almost 17 years ago now, but that doesn't mean I'm stuck in game design from 17 years ago.
*The Red Dragon being a good example of lessons learned from 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragon's game design. Up to the idea of how to give a creature more actions to challenge an entire party by itself. Except that it's not clear what it does if disabled by spells or similar (or if it has any clear resistances to these things, which may be buried in rules elsewhere).
I didn't say started, I said became most involved. Maybe you enjoyed 4e because it involved you more. I don't really care. I have played every edition since 3rd came out (I was playing M:tg as our schoolgroup game of choice prior to that). I have enjoyed each of the editions, including 5th
I'm interested in what you think needs custom rulings. I was able to break down almost all of the rules into a one page cheat sheet. The only rule I still have trouble with is hiding in combat.
I have enjoyed combat immensely even at lower level. At higher level, fighters can get a minimum of 5 attacks per round.
There's a ton of other reductions in your post. I don't really care if you don't like 5e. Everyone has a system they like. But, I'm actually playing the game every week and it's fun. We have 6 characters, and one of the most effective so far is the champion fighter. My Cleric is super fun both in an out of combat. Paladin, fighter/rogue, bard. They're all in our party and the game is fun. We play about 4 hours a night and have about 2 combats per night. Combat is fun, and fast for 6 people. We also have fun with the RP.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, again, if you don't like 5e, np. But I'm having fun with it, and I'm not comparing it to any other edition.
Also in 5E you need the actual books or a printout of all the spells in your spellbook....
Having finally come around on 5E, it's really interesting to me to see how much the vast majority of you guys hate it compared to say, r/DnD on reddit, which for the most part absolutely loves it. Like, I can't come up with a compelling argument against most of what you're saying, but having read through the PHB and thought about how my 4E game is going to look shifted in to 5E, I'm actually really excited about a lot things. Most notably, I'm glad to be able to shift away from having a table full of laptops and tablets just so people can have functional character sheets.
I don't have any particular hate for 5th. I just don't have any particular like for it.
It simply fails to scratch any existing itch that other games I own already scratch, but in better ways.
To me, 5th ed sits in a weird 2nd ed-ish/3rd ed-ish spot: It tries to give us a 2nd ed type of game but with 3rd ed sensibilities.
Thing is though, I really don't care for 2nd ed's type of game. I stopped playing it over a decade ago and a cleaned up 2nd ed was never really on my list of "shit I need in my life right now". It's one of the reasons I never got into the retro TTRPG scene... It simply didn't scratch an existing itch.
As for 3rd ed, I've got loads of issues with the system and it's brethren mainly because it's the edition I'm most familiar with and I've seen it without it's makeup. Like, to the point it would become rant-y if I started... I've already seen a few gray strands in my beard and I'm only 28 dangit! But whatever... It's what people in my area play. Once a year for a few months, I bite the bullet, and my tongue, and I play with these people because I like them and honestly want to spend time with them. We're going to be ending our current mini-campaign thing we've been playing for the last two-ish months soon so I'll probably go on another 6-8 month gaming hiatus because I can only take so much of a game I don't care for.
But even if I don't care for it, I can see why others do. There are very real reasons that that group keeps playing 3rd/pathfinder and I accept it. I don't agree with those reasons, but whatever. You guys like Strawberry ice cream, I like Chocolate.
But 5th? What itch does it go for?
I'm not saying 5th is bad. I haven't seen the full game yet... but what itch is it supposed to scratch? I've got a bunch of 2nd ed stuff if I ever felt inclined to do so, i've got a bunch of 3rd ed stuff if I felt inclined to do so (as well as paizo's srd if, again, so inclined) and all my 4th ed stuff still works just great.
And if I don't want fantasy I have other systems to...
So where does 5th ed stand for me?
It's there, that's for sure. I just see no reason to pick it up.
As for the laptop thing: for me it's purely organizational. I'll see if I can find old character sheets and possibly scan one in... you'll see notes in the margins. LOTS of notes. And multiple versions of the same PC. for various things: game mechanics, NPCs, things I want to possibly do later in the campaign... I keep lots of notes. I sometimes also draw material from various sources but I really don't feel like dragging around a spell compendium for "that one spell" or keep a few dozen pages of printouts all stapled or paperclipped together.
So the lappy is good for that, like really good. Shit is tabbed and organized and easy to access. My notes are more then just three hastily scribbled words in a margin... I can have full Item/spell/ability descriptions in one spot without having to keep two or more books open. At our FLGS gaming table, the "Lappy Side" (IE the one closest to the power bar) is generally the least cluttered one at the table and probably the one referencing stuff for the rest of the group. On more then one occasion the GM and other players have asked me to look something up for them, even if they know another player has the book at the table, right now.
Convenience, man. It's convenient.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
-Weather Badge
+2
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered 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 don't actually agree with you here. For the example of the Fighter, the PHB1 4E fighter has much more interesting choices and more to do than his 5E equivalent easily. I feel this is the case in general, because once again from what I've read of the 5E PHB we're back to the idea the only classes with genuinely meaningful choices are casters.
And levels 1-2 are indeed utterly worthless random dice roll swingfests. Well, unless I wanted to roll behind the screen and fudge my dice constantly, but that's not something I've done for years now. So I am back to once again starting everyone at level 3 as the new 1st level. Yes, they explain that levels 1-2 are supposed to represent characters being kind of useless.
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.
I started playing DnD with OD&D. So did many others here. This has been a cop out to try and justify people who like 4E as newbies or "not real roleplayers" generally, but it isn't true. 4E was a great relief to many, even if I initially (ironically) hated it because it removed a ton of problems that I didn't recognize I had before. Why run a game at level 3 all the time (that 5E brings back) because level 1-2 characters are flimsier than plywood? Why bother with non-casters when spellcasters often picked up companions/summons that were as good (or better) than level 1 characters? Why have an action economy that punishes martial characters over casters that can summon monsters for basically an entire new set of actions? Why have martial characters at all at high level play?
And so on. I actually like systems where I don't need to sit down and make hundreds of individual tailored rulings so the game functions because the rules are written poorly. For example, after reading the 5E book for an hour I already had to make notes about "This is how I would rule this, I need to clarify this, no this making adamantine illusion coats doesn't work, this spells natural language is god awful so this is how it works" and eventually I thought "Nope, this is not an edition I want to bother with".
The only thing I sort of approve of is the monsters*, but I'm not sure if there are good encounter or DM guides yet for building encounters. So I haven't seen the full picture on how that part of the system works yet and as I primarily DM it's also the most important. And arguably, the last chance that 5E has of possibly getting me to even try the full thing at all.
But again, I started with OD&D almost 17 years ago now, but that doesn't mean I'm stuck in game design from 17 years ago.
*The Red Dragon being a good example of lessons learned from 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragon's game design. Up to the idea of how to give a creature more actions to challenge an entire party by itself. Except that it's not clear what it does if disabled by spells or similar (or if it has any clear resistances to these things, which may be buried in rules elsewhere).
I didn't say started, I said became most involved.
As I have been DMing since 2nd Edition and done so every since in a variety of editions, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. You have to be "involved" as a DM or you can't do it week in and week out for years. Your point isn't a novel one and again, it's ENWorld/RPG.net and similar speak for "You people new to DnD who like that MMO DnD, how silly are you" and I am more than aware of that. Heck, this was even the case back when OD&D/2E people were calling 3rd Edition a Video Game.
I'm interested in what you think needs custom rulings.
I gave several examples, such as the aforementioned "What abuses can people think of about the making illusions real" ability. This is because I tend to think very mechanically and the poorly written natural language of many rules just irks me greatly. Especially the lack of any consistency: Some will be completely simply mechanically defined, others are just pudding and there is no good reason for the lack of consistency. I also dislike a lot of the core mechanics and rules of 5E, advantage and disadvantage for example. The swingyness of the mechanic, combined with the core rule being that you lose advantage due to one disadvantage (even if you have 5 sources of advantage) is something I dislike.
Essentially, I find myself wanting to tweak things because they're either poorly written, not clear or just bad mechanics instead of just running the game. If I wanted to be doing this, I could pick up Pathfinder and 3.5: Both of which have infinitely more material already available and IMO, are just flat out better than what I am seeing from 5E.
I have enjoyed combat immensely even at lower level.
I don't, because when you accidentally kill a player with one random die roll it's a poor system straight out IMO. Of course, you could say "Well just start at level 3" and we're back to that problem where I feel levels 1-2 are a waste of space.
At higher level, fighters can get a minimum of 5 attacks per round.
And casters are doing a lot more powerful, more interesting and more relevant things just like every previous edition. 2E and 3E fighters attacked a lot at high levels as well: Didn't make them any less useless when the game changes from being about raw attacks and is more about being flexible for situations. Good luck if you come across something that makes your martial weapons utterly useless, glad to see they bought that back.
Edit: I will say one thing though, they've generally got a really good sense of the art style required for DnD this time around. It's pretty good to decent all of the time. Minding art seems to be even more of a controversial personal preference thing than even the actual edition is! But I like what they have done this time around.
Edit2: And a fighter that casts spells is not a fighter in the sense we're using, so don't be disingenuous. That's a spellcaster and patching up problems with a class by adding magic is merely proving my point.
I just don't understand why you continue to come into a thread about 5e just to tell people how much you don't like I. It's not even possible to have a discussion because you're basically in here to cause edition wars. I don't know how I can say this differently, but I'm not sure it matters in the 5e thread how much better you think 4e is.
I'm not in the 4e thread saying how much it sucks or is like a videogame, because
A I don't have that opinion and
2 that wouldn't be appropriate.
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I just don't understand why you continue to come into a thread about 5e just to tell people how much you don't like I.
Because these are my opinions on the final PHB, which I have only really been reading recently (I have extensive experience with the playtests though) and threads aren't here only for positive impressions. If you want an echo chamber that reaffirms your opinions on 5E, try elsewhere.
Your post here looks like you're just trying to avoid the points I make instead of engaging the actual argument and aren't worth responding to further. Also I think 5E is actually worse as an option for what it tries to do compared with 3.5 and Pathfinder, which was my point. 4E was actually quite different again, but is not something I could go back to with the fact I left my books in another country (then sold them) and the idea of running it without the digital tools... Just nope.
Edit: And in fairness, if the DMG is utterly brilliant and adds a whole bunch of new/interesting ideas (as in the modules concepts discussed way back in the playtest) then my opinion could change. But the core system as portayed in the PHB I find is pretty lacking in many ways.
Edit2: And it's well worth noting you might have to put up with my opinions for a while. I'm only giving up totally when I see the DMG, which thanks to Wizards blindingly silly decision to put the books out over 3 months means I have to actually wait to see how the system is supposed to be run (and whatever options it might have to make 5E more interesting/tactical).
Edit3: And also, just so you know, people having and posting negative opinions about 4E in the 4E thread was entirely allowed. It even actually happened when it came out!
OR, gets a full page of tactics at level 3, or can cast spells and summon a blade, but please, keep reducing.
They don't get the full page, they get to pick three of the maneuvers. And going with that archetype means that choice of three is the last significant thing you'll ever pick for that Fighter. Later levels don't give you more maneuvers, they just give you bigger superiority dice. And going with that archetype means you give up a second fighting style, give up expanded crit, etc etc. The archetype is supposed to be a master tactician and battle strategist. Where are these benefits reflected mechanically after level 3? How does this build compare to, say, a 4e Warlord?
By the by, a level 3 5e Fighter with three maneuvers still does not have as much variety in the things he can do in combat as a level 1 4e (insert any class here). Maneuvers are basically the equivalent of an Encounter power; splash an extra damage die and add a tactical effect, for the most part. It's nice that I get four superiority dice (and consequently can use a Maneuver 4x per encounter), and it's nice that those dice get bigger, but level 3 is still the last time I ever get to make a meaningful choice (or any choice) from a variety of options for character development. Attacking four times a round at level whatever instead of three times a round at level whatever minus one does not equal character development to me.
If I play 5e at all, I will be playing a Circle of the Moon Druid because by my calculations it will take very very few levels before said Druid has more options available to him than any Fighter ever will. I'll be able to shift into whichever creature best suits the current dilemma whilst still being able to do ranged and spell attacks in humanoid form. Why does the Druid get this versatility and breadth of options while the Fighter does not? What sort of sense does it make?
What engagement can I have with your opinions? I've played the game since the starter set has come out and we haven't had ANY concerns or issues that you bring up. The fighter with battle dice has been very effective in combat and does tons of damage.
I'm not looking for an echo chamber. I had no problems with you saying you didn't like the phb, but what kind of discussion are you actually expecting? Am I supposed to say you're wrong and break down your post with how I disagree that 5e melee combat for fighters specifically.
Why, I don't disagree with you on that point.
Literally the only thing I'm saying is that I find 5e fun and you don't seem to. Why do you feel like an argument about that needs to be engaged. Your posts just make it look like you want to start an edition war and win it.
OR, gets a full page of tactics at level 3, or can cast spells and summon a blade, but please, keep reducing.
They don't get the full page, they get to pick three of the maneuvers. And going with that archetype means that choice of three is the last significant thing you'll ever pick for that Fighter. Later levels don't give you more maneuvers, they just give you bigger superiority dice. And going with that archetype means you give up a second fighting style, give up expanded crit, etc etc. The archetype is supposed to be a master tactician and battle strategist. Where are these benefits reflected mechanically after level 3? How does this build compare to, say, a 4e Warlord?
By the by, a level 3 5e Fighter with three maneuvers still does not have as much variety in the things he can do in combat as a level 1 4e (insert any class here). Maneuvers are basically the equivalent of an Encounter power; splash an extra damage die and add a tactical effect, for the most part. It's nice that I get four superiority dice (and consequently can use a Maneuver 4x per encounter), and it's nice that those dice get bigger, but level 3 is still the last time I ever get to make a meaningful choice (or any choice) from a variety of options for character development. Attacking four times a round at level whatever instead of three times a round at level whatever minus one does not equal character development to me.
If I play 5e at all, I will be playing a Circle of the Moon Druid because by my calculations it will take very very few levels before said Druid has more options available to him than any Fighter ever will. I'll be able to shift into whichever creature best suits the current dilemma whilst still being able to do ranged and spell attacks in humanoid form. Why does the Druid get this versatility and breadth of options while the Fighter does not? What sort of sense does it make?
A first level 4E Fighter, coming out of just the PHB1, had a ton of options for their build, and then again for basically every round of combat.
5 At Wills means 20 potential combinations (5x4 remaining), then two build options (which would restrict the use of some of the At Wills, granted), and 4 options for Encounter powers.
That's 80 potential sets of differentiated abilities at level 1, without counting Race, Feats, Attributes or Gear. And that number increases linearly at all but a few levels going up.
Frankly, after playing a 4E Fighter, it's going to be really hard for me to get excited about a few extra damage dice or whatever. Note that this math also applies to every other class in the PHB, with some wiggle room for the number of Class Feature options available. Attacking a couple more times a turn is not a reasonable substitute for me, I'm afraid.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
Is "doing tons of damage" the fighter's job though?
What if he wants to get between the bad guys and the rest of the party and slow them down? Does he have any hindering options beyond carrying several bags of ball bearings and/or pots of grease around?
Is "doing tons of damage" the fighter's job though?
What if he wants to get between the bad guys and the rest of the party and slow them down? Does he have any hindering options beyond carrying several bags of ball bearings and/or pots of grease around?
Yes, at level 1 he can use his action to shove, which causes prone or push. he also can position himself to cause Opportunity attacks, but he only gets one per round. If we're talking level 3 or more, anything other than a champion has access to either evocation and abjuration spells or battle maneuvers which he can use to become "sticky" Also, if your dm allows the human variant, you can start out with sentinel, which basically causes your opportunity attacks to stop enemies in their tracks.
Sure, but in 4e Fighters got many options, even at low levels, to do damage in addition to pushing or knocking enemies prone. And they didn't have to wait until level 3 to become sticky.
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
See, that's on of the things I never liked about 3.x; the two levels where you weren't anywhere close to being good at your job. I noticed that many GMs skipped that bit as well. Are you guys saying they're back?
See, that's on of the things I never liked about 3.x; the two levels where you weren't anywhere close to being good at your job. I noticed that many GMs skipped that bit as well. Are you guys saying they're back?
Levels 1 and 2 of 5E are specifically stated to be the part where you suck at your job and might die horribly to a housecat.
See, that's on of the things I never liked about 3.x; the two levels where you weren't anywhere close to being good at your job. I noticed that many GMs skipped that bit as well. Are you guys saying they're back?
Levels 1 and 2 of 5E are specifically stated to be the part where you suck at your job and might die horribly to a housecat.
Which is vastly disappointing. I TPKed a party once with two bad initial rolls against them. Felt unfun for everyone.
But those levels go by quickly, guys. Only 300 and 600 experience, respectively. So only your first half a dozen sessions or so will be housecat-lethal situations.
But those levels go by quickly, guys. Only 300 and 600 experience, respectively. So only your first half a dozen sessions or so will be housecat-lethal situations.
Not mine. I'm playing a housecat. I intend to be housecat-lethal forever.
What engagement can I have with your opinions? I've played the game since the starter set has come out and we haven't had ANY concerns or issues that you bring up. The fighter with battle dice has been very effective in combat and does tons of damage.
I'm not looking for an echo chamber. I had no problems with you saying you didn't like the phb, but what kind of discussion are you actually expecting? Am I supposed to say you're wrong and break down your post with how I disagree that 5e melee combat for fighters specifically.
Why, I don't disagree with you on that point.
Literally the only thing I'm saying is that I find 5e fun and you don't seem to. Why do you feel like an argument about that needs to be engaged. Your posts just make it look like you want to start an edition war and win it.
Engagement you could have: describe in depth how you have had none of these problems. What has your party done to demonstrate that the effectiveness of the fighter has not been diminished.
Don't tell him he's wrong, simply give a solid, in-depth, exacting example of the mechanics working for you.
Many people here appreciated the exacting, simple and standardized formatting and mathematics of the 4th Edition D&D ruleset; they are going to use that same rubric to measure the 5th Edition D&D rules and decide if they are wanting or not. Any contribution you can make to explain why they are not as people assume or see them should be helpful, provided you do so in a respectful manner. Most previous posts have asked how, they pose a question, and they are looking for an honest answer, but also an in-depth answer. "Because I like it" isn't helpful in that it lacks any kind of substance to latch on to it; why do you like it, what itch does it scratch, etc?
That's the engagement that people are looking for. It's a compare/contrast discussion here, as should be expected at the beginning of a new edition.
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 don't actually agree with you here. For the example of the Fighter, the PHB1 4E fighter has much more interesting choices and more to do than his 5E equivalent easily. I feel this is the case in general, because once again from what I've read of the 5E PHB we're back to the idea the only classes with genuinely meaningful choices are casters.
And levels 1-2 are indeed utterly worthless random dice roll swingfests. Well, unless I wanted to roll behind the screen and fudge my dice constantly, but that's not something I've done for years now. So I am back to once again starting everyone at level 3 as the new 1st level. Yes, they explain that levels 1-2 are supposed to represent characters being kind of useless.
What I'm saying is that while the current PHB one-to-one possibly leaves 5th edition material lacking, future material could add in much more additional functionality, and while I don't expect it to happen, it would be hyperbolic to state that 5th will "just never measure up to X older edition", as it's only just started. Prognostication of this sort is, I feel, disingenuous to the discussion at hand.
Now, saying that in a one-to-one comparison with what we have right now, that 5th lacks what previous editions of any number had at their start is totally fair and reasonable. But the forecasting of an entire edition based on it's PHB is what opponents of 4th edition did to run it down, and opponents of 3rd did as well, and so on. It really makes us sound like horrible old grognards, instead of trying to fairly judge it on the basis of one-to-one. If it lacks in that measure, then by all means tear it apart for what it lacks now, but don't try and assign it properties it hasn't gotten in books that haven't been released yet. You have, for example, stated above what seems lacking in a one-to-one comparison, and that is helpful. The person I was responding to made the claim that they can't ever see 5th being as deep as 4th, and while that might be their opinion, it sounded more a statement of future events. I find your post helpful in a comparison; the other I did not, thus my response.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
See, that's on of the things I never liked about 3.x; the two levels where you weren't anywhere close to being good at your job. I noticed that many GMs skipped that bit as well. Are you guys saying they're back?
Levels 1 and 2 of 5E are specifically stated to be the part where you suck at your job and might die horribly to a housecat.
That… seems like a bad decision to me.
I mean I get that you might want to play a character that isn't quite a hero yet (didn't Tycho and/or Gabe come up with rules for that in 4e?) sometimes, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want it to be the default starting point. Saying "oh just start at third level then" doesn't help either because even as a 'veteran' player those late start rules would need to be looked up and if I were a newbie, would I even know to do that much?
I thought that the Elemental Fist Monk was going to be a really cool variant. Then I realized it's almost completely just "spend ki points to cast wizard spells ololol" and got even sadderpanda.
OR, gets a full page of tactics at level 3, or can cast spells and summon a blade, but please, keep reducing.
you needed a page for your abilities in 4e, even the at wills, because they did more than just damage most of the time.
Every class in 4e, at lower levels, can be played off a single standard sized note card, front and back, that contains -everything- you need to know about that character. That means all of your powers, all of your class features, any feats, skill bonuses, defenses, items, everything that makes it a full character. Not everything has to be expressed on a M:TG sized card for a single ability, people just do it that way because it looks good and makes it super easy for everyone at the table to see what they're capable of doing in any given situation at a glance.
Which is one of the main things that I disliked about 3.x and such, and what I'm seeing that I'll also dislike about 5e - I can't tell from a quick look what a character is capable of doing, since I've got to read through every spell or maneuver they can perform and then fill in any "holes" that might come up from a spell's wording.
As a DM, knowing what my characters are capable of doing when they are going all out in a session means that I can provide them with appropriate challenges or an easy ride to make them feel like heroes. Having to parse through a paragraph of a spell for "summon a simple mundane tool" in 20x the amount of words is not useful to me. Just tell me wtf it does, and then role play it however you want to.
Yep, I played my paragon tier warlord using four 5x7 notecards, with one sheet as my stats (ability scores, HP, surges, skills, level, all that), one card for encounter powers (I took exclusively encounter utility powers), and a 3rd for all other powers. A fourth card had feats and equipment on it, but I rarely got (or wanted) equipment with powers, preferring instead to just have properties, which were easier to manage for me. So that stuff was more for reference than anything, I rarely needed to refer to it, since that stuff was all always on. So mostly I used like 2 and a half of those 4 cards. And had I typed it all up, I could have done it one two sheets easily, 8pt font.
I will give 5th edition one thing over 3.5, the PHB outlines abilities and features more clearly, so it's easier to see and scan/reference what you have/get at what level. In 3.5 it was like they were trying to cram it all into as little space as possible. In 5th they didn't mind taking more space for headings and the like.
Posts
The warpick, morningstar and rapier are all basically the same weapon in play, with the exception of the rapier which can be finessed if you're so inclined, but if you're not, you'll see little to no difference between the weapons.
If anything you're probably better off to pick the rapier simply because, like the warpick, it's 2 pounds lighter then the morning star but unlike the warpick, can be finessed. Though if you don't care for using your dex to hit things with, the warpick will save you 10 gold when compared to the MS and 20 when compared to the rapier.
On a similar note the battle axe and the longsword are both d8 weapons with the versatile property, but the former manages to shave off 2 pounds and five gold off the final price. Not as bad as the warpick, but still.
The worst offenders, though, are the Halberd and the glaive. 20 gold each. 1d10 slashing each. 6 pounds each. And both happen to have heavy, reach & the two-handed properties. They are, quite literally, the same weapon on paper.
It's not near as bad as the laundry list of polarms we've seen in previous editions, but the D&D 5th ed weapon list is just as boring as the ones that came before it.
While I abhor to use "real life" as a model for things in my elf games, this is one place where we should be taking the general concept and turning it up to "Gandalf", or whatever setting you find on fantasy speakers. Weapons, IRL, often informed you of your style of combat: some were made to hook into shields, armor, weapon and limbs, others were meant to batter enemies and cause them pain even on a block, some were meant to deform armor and make movement painful, etc...
While the end goal of virtually all weapons was "I am alive, he is not" the ones D&D has historically presented us with have never really made me excited to play a character using any given weapon. Really, if anything I would simply pick a style of combat and go over the weapon list, throw math at it until it gave me the "best" weapon.
If you're going to give me a list of weapons, make them interesting. Make want to roll up a PC that goes "this blade is cool" and builds his combat style around it. As it currently stands, 5th ed would, IMO, be best served by a weapon subsystem akin to the one found in Legend, where you pick your combat style and "build" the weapon you want to best mechanically fit that concept and flavoured to taste.
Seriously, check out that weapon system. While I can't say i'm the biggest fan of the system as a whole, that weapon subsystem is slick as all fuck.
The real differences in weapons was usually who had access to what, or could use which weapons for their class abilities. Specifically, I'm thinking about the Rogue and the Swordmage here, as they were the most restricted weapons users. And even there, unless you're thinking about playing a Rogue that only uses clubs there were pluses and minuses for any given weapon choice, not inferior and superior options.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
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.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I've told this before but one of my players wanted a flamethrower, so it was a d6 melee with reach, magical fire keyword and scything (attack all adjacent enemies to primary with a -4) for his modifiers. Worked fucking great.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
FF games give everyone the options of Fight and Use Item, and some people get Ability and/or Magic. Most combat is fast and inconsequential. Just like traditional DnD games.
Tactics gives everyone abilities and required spatial planning to use most of them. Combat is slow, and usually had a purpose. Just like 4e.
I don't think I've ever been in any edition D&D game* where combat didn't devour the majority of the time. Which raises the question to me, if it's inconsequential why the fuck are we spending time on it?
Now maybe 5e will have combats where in a 4 hour session they don't take up more than an hour....but that still is a big chunk of time on inconsequential stuff.
*On average. There have been sessions where little to no combat happened but they were atypical and had little to nothing driven by system mechanics.
I don't actually agree with you here. For the example of the Fighter, the PHB1 4E fighter has much more interesting choices and more to do than his 5E equivalent easily. I feel this is the case in general, because once again from what I've read of the 5E PHB we're back to the idea the only classes with genuinely meaningful choices are casters.
And levels 1-2 are indeed utterly worthless random dice roll swingfests. Well, unless I wanted to roll behind the screen and fudge my dice constantly, but that's not something I've done for years now. So I am back to once again starting everyone at level 3 as the new 1st level. Yes, they explain that levels 1-2 are supposed to represent characters being kind of useless.
I honestly don't really find that meaningful.
I started playing DnD with OD&D. So did many others here. This has been a cop out to try and justify people who like 4E as newbies or "not real roleplayers" generally, but it isn't true. 4E was a great relief to many, even if I initially (ironically) hated it because it removed a ton of problems that I didn't recognize I had before. Why run a game at level 3 all the time (that 5E brings back) because level 1-2 characters are flimsier than plywood? Why bother with non-casters when spellcasters often picked up companions/summons that were as good (or better) than level 1 characters? Why have an action economy that punishes martial characters over casters that can summon monsters for basically an entire new set of actions? Why have martial characters at all at high level play?
And so on. I actually like systems where I don't need to sit down and make hundreds of individual tailored rulings so the game functions because the rules are written poorly. For example, after reading the 5E book for an hour I already had to make notes about "This is how I would rule this, I need to clarify this, no this making adamantine illusion coats doesn't work, this spells natural language is god awful so this is how it works" and eventually I thought "Nope, this is not an edition I want to bother with".
The only thing I sort of approve of is the monsters*, but I'm not sure if there are good encounter or DM guides yet for building encounters. So I haven't seen the full picture on how that part of the system works yet and as I primarily DM it's also the most important. And arguably, the last chance that 5E has of possibly getting me to even try the full thing at all.
But again, I started with OD&D almost 17 years ago now, but that doesn't mean I'm stuck in game design from 17 years ago.
*The Red Dragon being a good example of lessons learned from 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragon's game design. Up to the idea of how to give a creature more actions to challenge an entire party by itself. Except that it's not clear what it does if disabled by spells or similar (or if it has any clear resistances to these things, which may be buried in rules elsewhere).
But it has issues, especially from the more common design standpoints of games in a broader sense.
Just give 5E a few years of splatbooks to solve that.
I didn't need laptops, tablets or anything similar when 4E first came out either.
Also also, having played 4e for its entire run, I never had a player sit down with a digital device explicitly for their character sheet. Wasn't needed. 1 sheet for general character sheet, one sheet for gear, feats, pp, etc all explained, and 1-3 pages for power stat blocks, pre-filled with all relevant numbers in parenthesis as called.
Compare to 5th edition, where wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and bards all need at least 2 pages by 3rd level for spells, and by 5th level most need 3-4. Hell even a warlock would need at least one extra page just for spells.
Meanwhile the fighter gets to crit on 19-20.
These speakers go up to elven
Well, if you can dedicate 20+ pages to spells, why can't there be 20+ pages dedicated to weapons and their advanced/extraordinary uses (say, call them exploits)?
That sounds like some kind of video game and we couldn't have that.
I didn't say started, I said became most involved. Maybe you enjoyed 4e because it involved you more. I don't really care. I have played every edition since 3rd came out (I was playing M:tg as our schoolgroup game of choice prior to that). I have enjoyed each of the editions, including 5th
I'm interested in what you think needs custom rulings. I was able to break down almost all of the rules into a one page cheat sheet. The only rule I still have trouble with is hiding in combat.
I have enjoyed combat immensely even at lower level. At higher level, fighters can get a minimum of 5 attacks per round.
There's a ton of other reductions in your post. I don't really care if you don't like 5e. Everyone has a system they like. But, I'm actually playing the game every week and it's fun. We have 6 characters, and one of the most effective so far is the champion fighter. My Cleric is super fun both in an out of combat. Paladin, fighter/rogue, bard. They're all in our party and the game is fun. We play about 4 hours a night and have about 2 combats per night. Combat is fun, and fast for 6 people. We also have fun with the RP.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, again, if you don't like 5e, np. But I'm having fun with it, and I'm not comparing it to any other edition.
how was this different from 4e?
OR, gets a full page of tactics at level 3, or can cast spells and summon a blade, but please, keep reducing.
you needed a page for your abilities in 4e, even the at wills, because they did more than just damage most of the time.
I don't have any particular hate for 5th. I just don't have any particular like for it.
It simply fails to scratch any existing itch that other games I own already scratch, but in better ways.
To me, 5th ed sits in a weird 2nd ed-ish/3rd ed-ish spot: It tries to give us a 2nd ed type of game but with 3rd ed sensibilities.
Thing is though, I really don't care for 2nd ed's type of game. I stopped playing it over a decade ago and a cleaned up 2nd ed was never really on my list of "shit I need in my life right now". It's one of the reasons I never got into the retro TTRPG scene... It simply didn't scratch an existing itch.
As for 3rd ed, I've got loads of issues with the system and it's brethren mainly because it's the edition I'm most familiar with and I've seen it without it's makeup. Like, to the point it would become rant-y if I started... I've already seen a few gray strands in my beard and I'm only 28 dangit! But whatever... It's what people in my area play. Once a year for a few months, I bite the bullet, and my tongue, and I play with these people because I like them and honestly want to spend time with them. We're going to be ending our current mini-campaign thing we've been playing for the last two-ish months soon so I'll probably go on another 6-8 month gaming hiatus because I can only take so much of a game I don't care for.
But even if I don't care for it, I can see why others do. There are very real reasons that that group keeps playing 3rd/pathfinder and I accept it. I don't agree with those reasons, but whatever. You guys like Strawberry ice cream, I like Chocolate.
But 5th? What itch does it go for?
I'm not saying 5th is bad. I haven't seen the full game yet... but what itch is it supposed to scratch? I've got a bunch of 2nd ed stuff if I ever felt inclined to do so, i've got a bunch of 3rd ed stuff if I felt inclined to do so (as well as paizo's srd if, again, so inclined) and all my 4th ed stuff still works just great.
And if I don't want fantasy I have other systems to...
So where does 5th ed stand for me?
It's there, that's for sure. I just see no reason to pick it up.
As for the laptop thing: for me it's purely organizational. I'll see if I can find old character sheets and possibly scan one in... you'll see notes in the margins. LOTS of notes. And multiple versions of the same PC. for various things: game mechanics, NPCs, things I want to possibly do later in the campaign... I keep lots of notes. I sometimes also draw material from various sources but I really don't feel like dragging around a spell compendium for "that one spell" or keep a few dozen pages of printouts all stapled or paperclipped together.
So the lappy is good for that, like really good. Shit is tabbed and organized and easy to access. My notes are more then just three hastily scribbled words in a margin... I can have full Item/spell/ability descriptions in one spot without having to keep two or more books open. At our FLGS gaming table, the "Lappy Side" (IE the one closest to the power bar) is generally the least cluttered one at the table and probably the one referencing stuff for the rest of the group. On more then one occasion the GM and other players have asked me to look something up for them, even if they know another player has the book at the table, right now.
Convenience, man. It's convenient.
As I have been DMing since 2nd Edition and done so every since in a variety of editions, I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. You have to be "involved" as a DM or you can't do it week in and week out for years. Your point isn't a novel one and again, it's ENWorld/RPG.net and similar speak for "You people new to DnD who like that MMO DnD, how silly are you" and I am more than aware of that. Heck, this was even the case back when OD&D/2E people were calling 3rd Edition a Video Game.
I gave several examples, such as the aforementioned "What abuses can people think of about the making illusions real" ability. This is because I tend to think very mechanically and the poorly written natural language of many rules just irks me greatly. Especially the lack of any consistency: Some will be completely simply mechanically defined, others are just pudding and there is no good reason for the lack of consistency. I also dislike a lot of the core mechanics and rules of 5E, advantage and disadvantage for example. The swingyness of the mechanic, combined with the core rule being that you lose advantage due to one disadvantage (even if you have 5 sources of advantage) is something I dislike.
Essentially, I find myself wanting to tweak things because they're either poorly written, not clear or just bad mechanics instead of just running the game. If I wanted to be doing this, I could pick up Pathfinder and 3.5: Both of which have infinitely more material already available and IMO, are just flat out better than what I am seeing from 5E.
I don't, because when you accidentally kill a player with one random die roll it's a poor system straight out IMO. Of course, you could say "Well just start at level 3" and we're back to that problem where I feel levels 1-2 are a waste of space.
And casters are doing a lot more powerful, more interesting and more relevant things just like every previous edition. 2E and 3E fighters attacked a lot at high levels as well: Didn't make them any less useless when the game changes from being about raw attacks and is more about being flexible for situations. Good luck if you come across something that makes your martial weapons utterly useless, glad to see they bought that back.
Edit: I will say one thing though, they've generally got a really good sense of the art style required for DnD this time around. It's pretty good to decent all of the time. Minding art seems to be even more of a controversial personal preference thing than even the actual edition is! But I like what they have done this time around.
Edit2: And a fighter that casts spells is not a fighter in the sense we're using, so don't be disingenuous. That's a spellcaster and patching up problems with a class by adding magic is merely proving my point.
I'm not in the 4e thread saying how much it sucks or is like a videogame, because
A I don't have that opinion and
2 that wouldn't be appropriate.
Because these are my opinions on the final PHB, which I have only really been reading recently (I have extensive experience with the playtests though) and threads aren't here only for positive impressions. If you want an echo chamber that reaffirms your opinions on 5E, try elsewhere.
Your post here looks like you're just trying to avoid the points I make instead of engaging the actual argument and aren't worth responding to further. Also I think 5E is actually worse as an option for what it tries to do compared with 3.5 and Pathfinder, which was my point. 4E was actually quite different again, but is not something I could go back to with the fact I left my books in another country (then sold them) and the idea of running it without the digital tools... Just nope.
Edit: And in fairness, if the DMG is utterly brilliant and adds a whole bunch of new/interesting ideas (as in the modules concepts discussed way back in the playtest) then my opinion could change. But the core system as portayed in the PHB I find is pretty lacking in many ways.
Edit2: And it's well worth noting you might have to put up with my opinions for a while. I'm only giving up totally when I see the DMG, which thanks to Wizards blindingly silly decision to put the books out over 3 months means I have to actually wait to see how the system is supposed to be run (and whatever options it might have to make 5E more interesting/tactical).
Edit3: And also, just so you know, people having and posting negative opinions about 4E in the 4E thread was entirely allowed. It even actually happened when it came out!
They don't get the full page, they get to pick three of the maneuvers. And going with that archetype means that choice of three is the last significant thing you'll ever pick for that Fighter. Later levels don't give you more maneuvers, they just give you bigger superiority dice. And going with that archetype means you give up a second fighting style, give up expanded crit, etc etc. The archetype is supposed to be a master tactician and battle strategist. Where are these benefits reflected mechanically after level 3? How does this build compare to, say, a 4e Warlord?
By the by, a level 3 5e Fighter with three maneuvers still does not have as much variety in the things he can do in combat as a level 1 4e (insert any class here). Maneuvers are basically the equivalent of an Encounter power; splash an extra damage die and add a tactical effect, for the most part. It's nice that I get four superiority dice (and consequently can use a Maneuver 4x per encounter), and it's nice that those dice get bigger, but level 3 is still the last time I ever get to make a meaningful choice (or any choice) from a variety of options for character development. Attacking four times a round at level whatever instead of three times a round at level whatever minus one does not equal character development to me.
If I play 5e at all, I will be playing a Circle of the Moon Druid because by my calculations it will take very very few levels before said Druid has more options available to him than any Fighter ever will. I'll be able to shift into whichever creature best suits the current dilemma whilst still being able to do ranged and spell attacks in humanoid form. Why does the Druid get this versatility and breadth of options while the Fighter does not? What sort of sense does it make?
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.
I'm not looking for an echo chamber. I had no problems with you saying you didn't like the phb, but what kind of discussion are you actually expecting? Am I supposed to say you're wrong and break down your post with how I disagree that 5e melee combat for fighters specifically.
Why, I don't disagree with you on that point.
Literally the only thing I'm saying is that I find 5e fun and you don't seem to. Why do you feel like an argument about that needs to be engaged. Your posts just make it look like you want to start an edition war and win it.
5 At Wills means 20 potential combinations (5x4 remaining), then two build options (which would restrict the use of some of the At Wills, granted), and 4 options for Encounter powers.
That's 80 potential sets of differentiated abilities at level 1, without counting Race, Feats, Attributes or Gear. And that number increases linearly at all but a few levels going up.
Frankly, after playing a 4E Fighter, it's going to be really hard for me to get excited about a few extra damage dice or whatever. Note that this math also applies to every other class in the PHB, with some wiggle room for the number of Class Feature options available. Attacking a couple more times a turn is not a reasonable substitute for me, I'm afraid.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
What if he wants to get between the bad guys and the rest of the party and slow them down? Does he have any hindering options beyond carrying several bags of ball bearings and/or pots of grease around?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
Yes, at level 1 he can use his action to shove, which causes prone or push. he also can position himself to cause Opportunity attacks, but he only gets one per round. If we're talking level 3 or more, anything other than a champion has access to either evocation and abjuration spells or battle maneuvers which he can use to become "sticky" Also, if your dm allows the human variant, you can start out with sentinel, which basically causes your opportunity attacks to stop enemies in their tracks.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
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.
Engagement you could have: describe in depth how you have had none of these problems. What has your party done to demonstrate that the effectiveness of the fighter has not been diminished.
Don't tell him he's wrong, simply give a solid, in-depth, exacting example of the mechanics working for you.
Many people here appreciated the exacting, simple and standardized formatting and mathematics of the 4th Edition D&D ruleset; they are going to use that same rubric to measure the 5th Edition D&D rules and decide if they are wanting or not. Any contribution you can make to explain why they are not as people assume or see them should be helpful, provided you do so in a respectful manner. Most previous posts have asked how, they pose a question, and they are looking for an honest answer, but also an in-depth answer. "Because I like it" isn't helpful in that it lacks any kind of substance to latch on to it; why do you like it, what itch does it scratch, etc?
That's the engagement that people are looking for. It's a compare/contrast discussion here, as should be expected at the beginning of a new edition.
What I'm saying is that while the current PHB one-to-one possibly leaves 5th edition material lacking, future material could add in much more additional functionality, and while I don't expect it to happen, it would be hyperbolic to state that 5th will "just never measure up to X older edition", as it's only just started. Prognostication of this sort is, I feel, disingenuous to the discussion at hand.
Now, saying that in a one-to-one comparison with what we have right now, that 5th lacks what previous editions of any number had at their start is totally fair and reasonable. But the forecasting of an entire edition based on it's PHB is what opponents of 4th edition did to run it down, and opponents of 3rd did as well, and so on. It really makes us sound like horrible old grognards, instead of trying to fairly judge it on the basis of one-to-one. If it lacks in that measure, then by all means tear it apart for what it lacks now, but don't try and assign it properties it hasn't gotten in books that haven't been released yet. You have, for example, stated above what seems lacking in a one-to-one comparison, and that is helpful. The person I was responding to made the claim that they can't ever see 5th being as deep as 4th, and while that might be their opinion, it sounded more a statement of future events. I find your post helpful in a comparison; the other I did not, thus my response.
Yes that was an overly dramatic example.
the fuck kinda blind ass people you playing with you need a whole page for maybe 3 powers?
I mean I get that you might want to play a character that isn't quite a hero yet (didn't Tycho and/or Gabe come up with rules for that in 4e?) sometimes, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want it to be the default starting point. Saying "oh just start at third level then" doesn't help either because even as a 'veteran' player those late start rules would need to be looked up and if I were a newbie, would I even know to do that much?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
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.
Every class in 4e, at lower levels, can be played off a single standard sized note card, front and back, that contains -everything- you need to know about that character. That means all of your powers, all of your class features, any feats, skill bonuses, defenses, items, everything that makes it a full character. Not everything has to be expressed on a M:TG sized card for a single ability, people just do it that way because it looks good and makes it super easy for everyone at the table to see what they're capable of doing in any given situation at a glance.
Which is one of the main things that I disliked about 3.x and such, and what I'm seeing that I'll also dislike about 5e - I can't tell from a quick look what a character is capable of doing, since I've got to read through every spell or maneuver they can perform and then fill in any "holes" that might come up from a spell's wording.
As a DM, knowing what my characters are capable of doing when they are going all out in a session means that I can provide them with appropriate challenges or an easy ride to make them feel like heroes. Having to parse through a paragraph of a spell for "summon a simple mundane tool" in 20x the amount of words is not useful to me. Just tell me wtf it does, and then role play it however you want to.
R*SC: BladeCruiser
Check out my GTAV-PC custom race tracks inspired by real life racing circuits!
I will give 5th edition one thing over 3.5, the PHB outlines abilities and features more clearly, so it's easier to see and scan/reference what you have/get at what level. In 3.5 it was like they were trying to cram it all into as little space as possible. In 5th they didn't mind taking more space for headings and the like.