Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[D&D 5E] Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

17810121399

Posts

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Flanking just doesn't work very well in 5e.

    You can pretty easily follow the decisionmaking process that led to the default 5e flanking/OA rules.

    In previous editions (both 3e and 4e), any movement within an enemy's reach would provoke an OA unless you specifically made 'careful' moves, represented by 5-foot-steps/shifting, which precluded other movement and only allowed you to move one space.

    As a result, it was often difficult to get into a flanking position (two players on opposite sides of an enemy) and usually took a couple turns to achieve. The reward was a +2 bonus to hit that enemy (specifically a flanking bonus in 3e, changed to just Combat Advantage (which came with a +2 bonus anyway) as part of 4e's consolidation of 3e's huge variety of conditional bonuses.

    We already covered that the difference in OAs was down to a simplification of positional tracking in order to facilitate gridless play.

    The loss of flanking bonuses was partly due to that change in OAs, but also largely due to the fact that 5e has consolidated almost all conditional bonuses down to Advantage, and Advantage is fucking huge compared to most of those older bonuses - unless you're trying to do something extremely easy/difficult, Advantage usually translates to somewhere between a +4 and a +5, statistically, and it will almost always be in that range when you're talking about combat because of the way monster math works.

    This means that Advantage is a much larger bonus than the +2 you got for Combat Advantage/flanking in older editions, which meant that the easiest ways of generating that bonus needed to be more restrictive, so the bonus for flanking got nixed.

    It's even more clear if you look at things like 5e's Sneak Attack - in older editions, it required flanking (or some other form of combat advantage). And you still get it if you have Advantage, but they made Advantage harder to get, so they needed an additional condition that would trigger Sneak Attack more reliably, and they chose...basically flanking, once you account for the fact that with the new OA rules there's not much practical difference between 'two people adjacent to a target' and 'two people in a flanking position'. It just happens to exist now in a weird space where only Rogues care much about it because there aren't any built-in bonuses for it, because that was the kludge that let everything else stay functional without requiring a rework of either situational bonuses or the Sneak Attack class feature.

    FryElvenshae
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    My 5E group played with flanking for a little bit, then we realized that the melee characters got to have advantage on 100% of their attacks and the ranged characters almost never did* which seemed massively unfair, so we had a pre-game meeting and DM decreed no more flanking bonus. Honestly, we haven't missed it.


    * ok, the bow rogue still gets to have advantage every round from hiding, but that's what the character is built to do

  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    Fuselage wrote: »
    I still don't prefer flanking, myself. The DMs I play with do, so I use it, but I'm unsure.

    Also I read a big ol' thread on how the new class options impact The 5e Meta. They had some insight about min-maxing different class combinations to the limit, but if D&D is only played in groups of 2-10 at a time, what does it matter what is becoming more common outside of your group?

    It depends. If class imbalances are sufficient that you don't need to min-max to the limit to overshadow other players, it's a problem. If imbalance is marginal, it doesn't matter.

    People respond to mechanical incentives, however they might protest to the contrary.

    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
    JustTeeFuselage
  • JustTeeJustTee Registered User regular
    For the most part, I really enjoy running 5E. I don't mind most of its little weird foibles (probably because I've never run previous D&D versions, and my other DM experience is in entirely different systems).

    My biggest issue is that I wish there was just more meat to engage with the game mechanically. I understand why flanking was removed, I understand why the careful step thing was removed, I understand why grappling is so limited. And I don't disagree with any of those things. I just wish there was just something added to take their place.

    Possibly something like - Defensive Fighting Stance as an action - you give up your main action, but anything that moves past you provokes unlimited opportunity attacks that reduce speed (which is what Tunnel Fighter + Sentinel would do, except it feels like an active choice rather than just a thing you decide on leveling up). Or Aggressive fighting stance - you give up your ability to use opportunity attacks to have advantage on all attack swings (or you can add your proficiency bonus to damage, or something).

    Mainly, one of the things I like best about tightly designed mechanics in games are also things that allow you to *break* those rules in cool, unique, and different ways. I love that 5E is super simple to explain and run in the early levels, but as my main group approaches level 8, the spell casters get cool and different options and stuff, but the melee fighters are still basically doing the same thing. Granted I give them different and interesting weapons (or I try to, anyways), but the main thing is still: I make a d20 attack roll. Do I hit? Ok, cool, here's my damage. I want more competing options for your actions, built into the game rules and not "well what did you come up with for them to interact with on this particular battlefield?!"

    Diagnosed with AML on 6/1/12. Read about it: www.effleukemia.com
    ElvenshaeOatsOptimusZedEncMegaMekjdarksun
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Tried out the first session of my new campaign with the party on sunday and had an utter ball with it; The party has been involved with a gnoll attack, a mage assasinating a noble with an epic fireball, killing that mage and then learning that he was in fact one of cormyr's war wizards (which happens to be where the party is at the moment).

    Most fun of the session though, was hands down having the party interact with some NPC's via their backgrounds; The inquisitive rogue met up with an aunt of his for information on the state of affairs with cormyrian nobles and we had a lovely conversation wherein I did my best to inpersonate a stereotypical jewish mother while the Ranger of the farmer leaned on her farmer background to talk to some folks at the farmers market with both of us leaning hard into the "of the land" optional feature of people imediately knowing that you are sort of a hick.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    LockedOnTargetnever die
  • TerrendosTerrendos Decorative Monocle Registered User regular
    JustTee wrote: »
    For the most part, I really enjoy running 5E. I don't mind most of its little weird foibles (probably because I've never run previous D&D versions, and my other DM experience is in entirely different systems).

    My biggest issue is that I wish there was just more meat to engage with the game mechanically. I understand why flanking was removed, I understand why the careful step thing was removed, I understand why grappling is so limited. And I don't disagree with any of those things. I just wish there was just something added to take their place.

    Possibly something like - Defensive Fighting Stance as an action - you give up your main action, but anything that moves past you provokes unlimited opportunity attacks that reduce speed (which is what Tunnel Fighter + Sentinel would do, except it feels like an active choice rather than just a thing you decide on leveling up). Or Aggressive fighting stance - you give up your ability to use opportunity attacks to have advantage on all attack swings (or you can add your proficiency bonus to damage, or something).

    Mainly, one of the things I like best about tightly designed mechanics in games are also things that allow you to *break* those rules in cool, unique, and different ways. I love that 5E is super simple to explain and run in the early levels, but as my main group approaches level 8, the spell casters get cool and different options and stuff, but the melee fighters are still basically doing the same thing. Granted I give them different and interesting weapons (or I try to, anyways), but the main thing is still: I make a d20 attack roll. Do I hit? Ok, cool, here's my damage. I want more competing options for your actions, built into the game rules and not "well what did you come up with for them to interact with on this particular battlefield?!"

    It really sounds like you would enjoy 4e. One of the keystones of the design is that everyone gets "powers," aka things you can do with your actions. Some can be done whenever you want, like a basic attack, others can only be used once per battle or per day. For casters, most of these were their spells: a Wizard casts a Fireball which is a 5th level Daily Power. But non-magic classes got them too, so a Warlord could make a basic attack and let an ally shift for free, letting a caster ally get away or putting a melee ally into flanking, for instance. Everybody got to do cool stuff. And everybody had class-specific stuff they could do at will, so even when the Sorceror is out of her Daily and Encounter powers she can still contribute.

    It also gave classes specific combat roles, which I felt encouraged team play better. The Leader makes everybody better at their jobs, but still do fun things themselves. The Striker focuses on big burst damage. The Controller makes enemies miserable with status conditions and battlefield manipulation. And the Defender makes sure nobody gets past him to the squishy targets unscathed. 4e parties feel way more synergistic than 3e or 5e parties IMO.

    The drawback of this sort of complexity is that it can really slow down combat, because everyone has lots of codified options to choose from and the optimal choice may not be obvious. I like 4e and 5e for different reasons, but between the two I definitely prefer 4e.

    ElvenshaeMsAnthropyFryOatsOptimusZedDenadaPowerpuppiesFuselageAegisJustTeeJPantsjdarksunTofystedeth
  • webguy20webguy20 Registered User regular
    Yeah 4e benefits from only running important combat. If the group is just subduing a couple guards for example you hamdwave it or run q quick skill challenge.

    On the other hand the big fight with the red dragon and his kobold retainers that takes place in the volcanic layer you go all out on and enjoy your hour+ combat.

    This method really helps streamline 4e. Honestly it works pretty good in most editions, but 4e takes the most advantage.

    Steam ID: Webguy20
    Origin ID: Discgolfer27
    Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
    MsAnthropyElvenshaeDenadaDiannaoChongJustTeeMostlyjoe13Tofystedeth
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration.
    By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    A million times this. Unfortunately the people I play with, who never DM, are all about the 5th ed. Specifically because they found all the options and such in 4e too overwhelming and wanted something simpler.

    But god damn are the 5th ed books overpriced trash compared to 4th from a DM point of view.

    MsAnthropyFryDenadaJustTee
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration.
    By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    A million times this. Unfortunately the people I play with, who never DM, are all about the 5th ed. Specifically because they found all the options and such in 4e too overwhelming and wanted something simpler.

    But god damn are the 5th ed books overpriced trash compared to 4th from a DM point of view.

    Heh

    Didn't even need to buy 4e books. Just have a membership for the insider tools and you got all the content from every book as part of it. Heck buying 4e books was often a waste because half the book would be rewritten pretty immediately in "errata". Like at least 1 book came out with day 1 patches And by the end the base phb and dmg had like a small book's worth of rewrites.

    In 4e the bulk of all books was player content. 5e regularly attempts to balance books around both player and DM content.

    Sleep on
    Moridin889Hachface
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration.
    By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    A million times this. Unfortunately the people I play with, who never DM, are all about the 5th ed. Specifically because they found all the options and such in 4e too overwhelming and wanted something simpler.

    But god damn are the 5th ed books overpriced trash compared to 4th from a DM point of view.

    Heh

    Didn't even need to buy 4e books. Just have a membership for the insider tools and you got all the content from every book as part of it. Heck buying 4e books was often a waste because half the book would be rewritten pretty immediately in "errata". Like at least 1 book came out with day 1 patches And by the end the base phb and dmg had like a small book's worth of rewrites.

    and this is exactly why some people think of 4e as "D&D the video game" (despite being the only edition, including pre-1st ed back in the 70s, to have no real video game version of it).

    You can get the mechanics that way but the fluff text, art and explanatory text / reasoning in the book. EG: people who only ever used the character builder still tend to think 4e character creation was too complicated. When in fact it is around on par with 5th and much simpler than 3rd (because of the need to plan several levels ahead in 3rd). When you have no idea where the numbers on your sheet came from, and there are hardly any more numbers than in 5th, it will always seem opaque.

    Likewise, people who did this miss all the stuff in the books about roleplaying, creating character backgrounds etc...

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration.
    By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    A million times this. Unfortunately the people I play with, who never DM, are all about the 5th ed. Specifically because they found all the options and such in 4e too overwhelming and wanted something simpler.

    But god damn are the 5th ed books overpriced trash compared to 4th from a DM point of view.

    Heh

    Didn't even need to buy 4e books. Just have a membership for the insider tools and you got all the content from every book as part of it. Heck buying 4e books was often a waste because half the book would be rewritten pretty immediately in "errata". Like at least 1 book came out with day 1 patches And by the end the base phb and dmg had like a small book's worth of rewrites.

    and this is exactly why some people think of 4e as "D&D the video game" (despite being the only edition, including pre-1st ed back in the 70s, to have no real video game version of it).

    You can get the mechanics that way but the fluff text, art and explanatory text / reasoning in the book. EG: people who only ever used the character builder still tend to think 4e character creation was too complicated. When in fact it is around on par with 5th and much simpler than 3rd (because of the need to plan several levels ahead in 3rd). When you have no idea where the numbers on your sheet came from, and there are hardly any more numbers than in 5th, it will always seem opaque.

    Likewise, people who did this miss all the stuff in the books about roleplaying, creating character backgrounds etc...

    Daggerdale.

    4e definitely had a videogame version... it just happens to be kinda bad.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration.
    By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    A million times this. Unfortunately the people I play with, who never DM, are all about the 5th ed. Specifically because they found all the options and such in 4e too overwhelming and wanted something simpler.

    But god damn are the 5th ed books overpriced trash compared to 4th from a DM point of view.

    Heh

    Didn't even need to buy 4e books. Just have a membership for the insider tools and you got all the content from every book as part of it. Heck buying 4e books was often a waste because half the book would be rewritten pretty immediately in "errata". Like at least 1 book came out with day 1 patches And by the end the base phb and dmg had like a small book's worth of rewrites.

    and this is exactly why some people think of 4e as "D&D the video game" (despite being the only edition, including pre-1st ed back in the 70s, to have no real video game version of it).

    You can get the mechanics that way but the fluff text, art and explanatory text / reasoning in the book. EG: people who only ever used the character builder still tend to think 4e character creation was too complicated. When in fact it is around on par with 5th and much simpler than 3rd (because of the need to plan several levels ahead in 3rd). When you have no idea where the numbers on your sheet came from, and there are hardly any more numbers than in 5th, it will always seem opaque.

    Likewise, people who did this miss all the stuff in the books about roleplaying, creating character backgrounds etc...

    Daggerdale.

    4e definitely had a videogame version... it just happens to be kinda bad.

    Eh. That's an action RPG that swiped a couple terms from 4e. A bit like the Neverwinter MMO.

    Basic/1st/2nd had stuff like the gold box SSI games that were literally as direct translations as possible. 3rd had the single player Neverwinter Nights thing (not the AOL proto-MUD).

    RiemannLives
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Videogame directly based on the edition none the less.

    Even tried to have it released by leveling tiers

    Sleep on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    A "real" game based on 4e would have been a turn-based SRPG on a grid.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    MsAnthropyElvenshaeAegeriRiemannLivesDenadaHexmage-PADevoutlyApathetic14357MegaMekOatsRhesus PositiveAnialosOptimusZedFryToxRainfallMostlyjoe13never dieTheDrifterjdarksunTofystedeth
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    So 4e without a live dm

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Sleep wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration.
    By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    A million times this. Unfortunately the people I play with, who never DM, are all about the 5th ed. Specifically because they found all the options and such in 4e too overwhelming and wanted something simpler.

    But god damn are the 5th ed books overpriced trash compared to 4th from a DM point of view.

    Heh

    Didn't even need to buy 4e books. Just have a membership for the insider tools and you got all the content from every book as part of it. Heck buying 4e books was often a waste because half the book would be rewritten pretty immediately in "errata". Like at least 1 book came out with day 1 patches And by the end the base phb and dmg had like a small book's worth of rewrites.

    In 4e the bulk of all books was player content. 5e regularly attempts to balance books around both player and DM content.

    That's not true at all. There was a ton of DM content in the 4e books, it just obviously didn't end up in the character builder, so you probably missed it if you didn't read the actual books.

    We're talking about an edition that had 2 DMGs and 3 Monster Manuals. There were 3 books just full of additional magic items to award as treasure, and half a dozen DM-focused planar handbooks, on top of the DM-specific campaign handbooks for each setting (the player setting books were a whole different thing). Plus, the monster vault as another source of monsters and encounter-running stuff and two entire books dedicated specifically to giving DMs more stuff to run dragon-related encounters, and another one just for demons.

    And then there were the adventure books and so forth. Oh, and another Monster Manual just for Dark Sun.

    Edit: And the weird hybrid adventure book/campaign setting things, like Vor Rukoth.

    I'm pretty sure there were more DM books in 4e than there were player books.

    Abbalah on
    MsAnthropyRiemannLivesitalianranmaElvenshaeMegaMekOatsMuddypawsOptimusZedjdarksunTofystedeth
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    7 monster manuals actually. They had entire books dedicated solely to specific monsters. Two books on Dragons, two on demons/devils and 3 monster manuals.

    There has never been a more laughable claim I have seen yet about 4e.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    DenadaElvenshaeMoridin889Rainfall
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    To throw my own 5e Hot Take:

    My biggest complaint about 5e comes as a player, in that there is no benefit to wielding a one handed weapon without a shield in your offhand. Want to be a swashbuckler? There is no fighting style that encourages that. Everything encourages a weapon and a shield. My fancy rapier fencer guy doesn't want a goddamn shield. Add a goddamn fighting style that rewards you for using a 1h weapon without a shield! Duelist? You can still use a shield (what, why there is a whole shield wielding fighting style already why would you dammit Wizards).

    I mean, I played (non-optimally) without a shield and was happy enough because I value character over mechanics most times, but it is still rather irritating at times.

    Enc on
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
  • italianranmaitalianranma Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    JustTee wrote: »
    For the most part, I really enjoy running 5E. I don't mind most of its little weird foibles (probably because I've never run previous D&D versions, and my other DM experience is in entirely different systems).

    My biggest issue is that I wish there was just more meat to engage with the game mechanically. I understand why flanking was removed, I understand why the careful step thing was removed, I understand why grappling is so limited. And I don't disagree with any of those things. I just wish there was just something added to take their place.

    Possibly something like - Defensive Fighting Stance as an action - you give up your main action, but anything that moves past you provokes unlimited opportunity attacks that reduce speed (which is what Tunnel Fighter + Sentinel would do, except it feels like an active choice rather than just a thing you decide on leveling up). Or Aggressive fighting stance - you give up your ability to use opportunity attacks to have advantage on all attack swings (or you can add your proficiency bonus to damage, or something).

    Mainly, one of the things I like best about tightly designed mechanics in games are also things that allow you to *break* those rules in cool, unique, and different ways. I love that 5E is super simple to explain and run in the early levels, but as my main group approaches level 8, the spell casters get cool and different options and stuff, but the melee fighters are still basically doing the same thing. Granted I give them different and interesting weapons (or I try to, anyways), but the main thing is still: I make a d20 attack roll. Do I hit? Ok, cool, here's my damage. I want more competing options for your actions, built into the game rules and not "well what did you come up with for them to interact with on this particular battlefield?!"

    Yeah, I'm a little disappointed with the base options for fighters, barbarians, and rogues especially. Rangers, paladins, and monks have a few additional options even at low level, but generally I wish they all had more. You look at a lot of the feats and they're pretty cool: Shield Master, Great-Weapon Master, Polearm Master, even things like Charger and Mobility are pretty fun. The problem is that the opportunity cost for these are so high and for most characters you have to wait until 4th level. So my solution to this is to combine the Fighting Style benefits with an appropriate feat and give those as options to the 'martial' classes at 1st level. I'm kinda working through the bugs with this current group, and I'm afraid that doing so is going to devalue feats too much, but overall I'm confident that the non-spellcasters especially could use a little bump in power that a free feat would offer.

    Edit: Let me do my second pass on my house rules and post it on Google Docs for the thread to enjoy. I'm kinda proud of the movement conventions I use, and you might enjoy the fighting style home-brews I came up with. In any case I'd welcome the feedback.
    Enc wrote: »
    To throw my own 5e Hot Take:

    My biggest complaint about 5e comes as a player, in that there is no benefit to wielding a one handed weapon without a shield in your offhand. Want to be a swashbuckler? There is no fighting style that encourages that. Everything encourages a weapon and a shield. My fancy rapier fencer guy doesn't want a goddamn shield. Add a goddamn fighting style that rewards you for using a 1h weapon without a shield! Duelist? You can still use a shield (what, why there is a whole shield wielding fighting style already why would you dammit Wizards).

    I mean, I played (non-optimally) without a shield and was happy enough because I value character over mechanics most times, but it is still rather irritating at times.

    Well, it's convoluted but there are a few feats that benefit one-handed weapon w/o a shield; you can pick the dueling style and then use the Tavern Brawler and Grappler feat together to make an unarmed attack, initiate a grapple as a bonus action, and then enjoy advantage on the remainder of your attacks against that creature. Alternatively you may want to keep a free hand to spellcast as an Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger. But honestly most fencing schools used a weapon, buckler, or even a cloak wrapped around the arm as a second weapon. The modern fencing doesn't, but it's a sport not a martial art.

    italianranma on
    飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
    JustTee
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    But without a free hand, how can I hold a rose?

    #Vincent De Boule

    ElvenshaeTofystedeth
  • DenadaDenada Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Denada wrote: »
    p.s. - There you go Deneda, that's your opening to talk about grid v no grid

    Thank you my friend! I think both are perfectly fine ways to go. Personally I prefer a grid. I like the visuals, and I like not having the burden of deciding how effective my players' powers are. I don't think that burden is wrong to have, it's just not one I like.

    I still like running 4E (I run it for my kids) and it's still as easy as it's ever been. I'm running through a published adventure with them and it's ridiculously easy to adjust encounters on the fly.

    Running 5E didn't click the same way for me. Especially running without a grid. I found it exhausting. Playing 5E is just fine, I enjoy that about as well as any edition of D&D. Running it, for me, is an exercise in frustration.
    By the time I turned it into a game I would want to run I'd basically just be running a different game.

    A million times this. Unfortunately the people I play with, who never DM, are all about the 5th ed. Specifically because they found all the options and such in 4e too overwhelming and wanted something simpler.

    But god damn are the 5th ed books overpriced trash compared to 4th from a DM point of view.

    Heh

    Didn't even need to buy 4e books. Just have a membership for the insider tools and you got all the content from every book as part of it. Heck buying 4e books was often a waste because half the book would be rewritten pretty immediately in "errata". Like at least 1 book came out with day 1 patches And by the end the base phb and dmg had like a small book's worth of rewrites.

    In 4e the bulk of all books was player content. 5e regularly attempts to balance books around both player and DM content.

    I believe you're probably being intentionally hyperbolic, but the 4E DMG has 7 pages of errata. The DMG 2 has a single page. PHB 1 has 26 and a half pages. PHB 2 has three pages, and PHB 3 has just a little more than 2 pages. Not exactly a "small book's worth of rewrites."

    In fact the PDF of all of the collected errata for the entire line of 4E products is 140 pages, and many of those pages are only a single item.

    Elvenshae
  • italianranmaitalianranma Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Enc wrote: »
    But without a free hand, how can I hold a rose?

    #Vincent De Boule

    With your teeth. Shows that you're ready to tango.

    italianranma on
    飛べねぇ豚はただの豚だ。
    PowerpuppiesSteelhawkElvenshaeJustTeeToxTofystedeth
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    To throw my own 5e Hot Take:

    My biggest complaint about 5e comes as a player, in that there is no benefit to wielding a one handed weapon without a shield in your offhand. Want to be a swashbuckler? There is no fighting style that encourages that. Everything encourages a weapon and a shield. My fancy rapier fencer guy doesn't want a goddamn shield. Add a goddamn fighting style that rewards you for using a 1h weapon without a shield! Duelist? You can still use a shield (what, why there is a whole shield wielding fighting style already why would you dammit Wizards).

    I mean, I played (non-optimally) without a shield and was happy enough because I value character over mechanics most times, but it is still rather irritating at times.

    Simple solution. Carry a "parrying dagger" in your off hand that acts like a shield. You can fluff it away as being this cool off hand weapon that you never use offensively but intercept attacks and bat away arrows or what not. Or a cool as fuck arm guard that you use in place of a shield. Same idea.

    Costs the same as a shield. Mechanically exactly like a shield. You lose its benefits whenever you need that second hand. Just as if you slung a shield, put a dagger away or cant ise that guard effectively while swinging out the window when the Lady's husband returns.
    Narratively it can be whatever you want it to be.

    italianranma
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Honestly I think 4E's biggest problem is that every player has to be fully engaged to keep combat from dragging on (although maybe I could have encouraged this by not pulling punches). If one guy isn't paying attention outside his turn or is having trouble grasping the rules it makes things way less enjoyable. 5E's rules are considered simpler to understand than 3E and 4E's, right? I'd assume so if even flanking is optional.

    Looking at the 5E starter set's monster and NPC statblocks makes me miss the ones from 4E, particularly how spellcasters just have their spells listed and not any built-in abbreviation of their mechanics.

    As a sidenote, after looking at the 5E monster books I also miss how 4E made more effort to explain why creatures exist in the world, relating them to one another, modifying some classics and excising redundant ones. The 4E monster books (especially MM3 onward) had all sorts of notes on where various creatures came from (created by/arose from a destroyed primordial in the case of hydras and ettins, derived from another creature variety in the case of azers, etc). In contrast, 3E and 5E will have entries like "tritons are things that exist". I also vastly prefer 4E's elemental archons and reincarnating devas to their counterparts in other editions. I'll probably carry over most of 4E's setting and monster assumptions.

    BTW, how has Pathfinder fared following 5E's release?

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
    RiemannLivesMsAnthropyOatsJustTeeOptimusZedjdarksun
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think 4E's biggest problem is that every player has to be fully engaged to keep combat from dragging on (although maybe I could have encouraged this by not pulling punches). If one guy isn't paying attention outside his turn or is having trouble grasping the rules it makes things way less enjoyable. 5E's rules are considered simpler to understand than 3E and 4E's, right? I'd assume so if even flanking is optional.

    Looking at the 5E starter set's monster and NPC statblocks makes me miss the ones from 4E, particularly how spellcasters just have their spells listed and not any built-in abbreviation of their mechanics.

    As a sidenote, after looking at the 5E monster books I also miss how 4E made more effort to explain why creatures exist in the world, relating them to one another, modifying some classics and excising redundant ones. The 4E monster books (especially MM3 onward) had all sorts of notes on where various creatures came from (created by/arose from a destroyed primordial in the case of hydras and ettins, derived from another creature variety in the case of azers, etc). In contrast, 3E and 5E will have entries like "tritons are things that exist". I also vastly prefer 4E's elemental archons and reincarnating devas to their counterparts in other editions. I'll probably carry over most of 4E's setting and monster assumptions.

    BTW, how has Pathfinder fared following 5E's release?

    The thing that still irritates me most about 5e's monster books is the fact that I have to consult an entirely different book if I want to know what a spellcasting monster's spells do. If you're going to give me a statblock, give me the whole statblock.

    If including the monster's spells in its statblock makes the statblock too long because your CR 1/4 cultist with 9 HP has six different spells, maybe that's too many spells for him to have.

    DenadaElvenshaeRiemannLivesMsAnthropySteelhawkRhesus PositiveJustTeeToxMvrckjdarksun
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Hexmage-PA wrote: »
    Honestly I think 4E's biggest problem is that every player has to be fully engaged to keep combat from dragging on (although maybe I could have encouraged this by not pulling punches). If one guy isn't paying attention outside his turn or is having trouble grasping the rules it makes things way less enjoyable. 5E's rules are considered simpler to understand than 3E and 4E's, right? I'd assume so if even flanking is optional.

    Looking at the 5E starter set's monster and NPC statblocks makes me miss the ones from 4E, particularly how spellcasters just have their spells listed and not any built-in abbreviation of their mechanics.

    As a sidenote, after looking at the 5E monster books I also miss how 4E made more effort to explain why creatures exist in the world, relating them to one another, modifying some classics and excising redundant ones. The 4E monster books (especially MM3 onward) had all sorts of notes on where various creatures came from (created by/arose from a destroyed primordial in the case of hydras and ettins, derived from another creature variety in the case of azers, etc). In contrast, 3E and 5E will have entries like "tritons are things that exist". I also vastly prefer 4E's elemental archons and reincarnating devas to their counterparts in other editions. I'll probably carry over most of 4E's setting and monster assumptions.

    BTW, how has Pathfinder fared following 5E's release?

    The thing that still irritates me most about 5e's monster books is the fact that I have to consult an entirely different book if I want to know what a spellcasting monster's spells do. If you're going to give me a statblock, give me the whole statblock.

    If including the monster's spells in its statblock makes the statblock too long because your CR 1/4 cultist with 9 HP has six different spells, maybe that's too many spells for him to have.

    Well that's how it worked before 4E...

    Speaking of 4E, if anyone else was as big a fan of its cosmology and planar entities as I was you might be interested in this RPG.net thread reviewing the articles covering various demon lords, archdevils, archfey, and primordials.

    Let's Read: 4E's Faces of the Planes

    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
    DenadaElvenshaeMsAnthropyTox
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    That complaint I'll wholeheartedly agree with. Ever since ye olden days I've been miffed at spellcasting stat blocks giving me their entire spell repertoire. I don't care. I don't give a shit if the magic user can cast Scry or Hallow. That doesn't help me in an encounter.

    Put the full spell list in the creature description, sure, but leave the stat block for more pertinent encounter information.

    4e really did have great monster stat blocks.

    MsAnthropy
  • SteelhawkSteelhawk Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Planescape and the Great Wheel 4 Lyfe.

    Steelhawk on
    SmrtnikElvenshaeMoridin889Aegis
  • Hexmage-PAHexmage-PA Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Steelhawk wrote: »
    Planescape and the Great Wheel 4 Lyfe.

    I'm reading a thread over on ENWorld that compares 4E's cosmology to those in other editions of D&D. An interesting point that has been raised is that the 4E World Axis cosmology feels somewhat more inspired by real world mythology, while the Great Wheel trends more towards weird fantasy. For me personally, most everything I've ever read about Planescape sounds friggin' weird. Not even Spelljammer gets quite as strange.

    One interesting aspect of the World Axis setting that developed over 4E's lifespan is that it could have ended up more like the Great Wheel. The Astral Sea is the ruins of a "Lattice of Heaven", while the Elemental Chaos was at one point intended to be organized into distinct elemental planes by a primordial called the Prime Architect.

    Hexmage-PA on
    Friend Code: 1590-5696-7916
    Friend Safari Type: Rock
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    You hold a brick in your off hand, anyone who gets into a fight with you is going to be scared shitless of what you are going to do with that brick. You should basically just have combat advantage or intimidation bonuses. People are highly motivated to not get clobbered with a brick.

    steam_sig.png
  • KadokenKadoken One batch, two batch, poyo and hIIIIII Registered User regular
    I’m trying to get a katana so I can use my offhand action to use master of tactics every turn instead of just having a dagger.

    Also because I think Katanas are cool and even though I’m a rogue, they just count as longswords which I can use.

    I am going to shoot this mystery with my pistol of deduction -Sherlock Holmes (Scott Benson)
    Mine TTRPG blog http://darkheresychainsofmalice.blogspot.com/
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    You hold a brick in your off hand, anyone who gets into a fight with you is going to be scared shitless of what you are going to do with that brick. You should basically just have combat advantage or intimidation bonuses. People are highly motivated to not get clobbered with a brick.

    Rocks in a sock. Rincewind-style.

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
    Rhesus PositiveTofystedeth
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    To throw my own 5e Hot Take:

    My biggest complaint about 5e comes as a player, in that there is no benefit to wielding a one handed weapon without a shield in your offhand. Want to be a swashbuckler? There is no fighting style that encourages that. Everything encourages a weapon and a shield. My fancy rapier fencer guy doesn't want a goddamn shield. Add a goddamn fighting style that rewards you for using a 1h weapon without a shield! Duelist? You can still use a shield (what, why there is a whole shield wielding fighting style already why would you dammit Wizards).

    I mean, I played (non-optimally) without a shield and was happy enough because I value character over mechanics most times, but it is still rather irritating at times.

    There is but it is not immediately clear and it mainly comes in action economy.

    Specifically doning and doffing a shield is a full action. Drawing a single weapon can be done as part of a move but it eats your “one thing as part of a move” requirement.

    So drink a potion as a sword and board... and you lose combat threat for two enemy rounds. Or you can drop your weapon...

    You cannot cast spells, operate machinery that requires two hands, pick up an important object off the ground without losing effective combat rounds...

    Another good example for rogues but also anyone really is the off hand dagger throw. To do so you must draw and throw and have an off-hand available.

    For the most part, I take this a bit further when I gm. You may only start combat with your shield equipped if you mention it before combat starts. Otherwise you had your shield on your back like a normal person not actively engaged in war.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Ivellius
  • Moridin889Moridin889 Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    To throw my own 5e Hot Take:

    My biggest complaint about 5e comes as a player, in that there is no benefit to wielding a one handed weapon without a shield in your offhand. Want to be a swashbuckler? There is no fighting style that encourages that. Everything encourages a weapon and a shield. My fancy rapier fencer guy doesn't want a goddamn shield. Add a goddamn fighting style that rewards you for using a 1h weapon without a shield! Duelist? You can still use a shield (what, why there is a whole shield wielding fighting style already why would you dammit Wizards).

    I mean, I played (non-optimally) without a shield and was happy enough because I value character over mechanics most times, but it is still rather irritating at times.

    There is but it is not immediately clear and it mainly comes in action economy.

    Specifically doning and doffing a shield is a full action. Drawing a single weapon can be done as part of a move but it eats your “one thing as part of a move” requirement.

    So drink a potion as a sword and board... and you lose combat threat for two enemy rounds. Or you can drop your weapon...

    You cannot cast spells, operate machinery that requires two hands, pick up an important object off the ground without losing effective combat rounds...

    Another good example for rogues but also anyone really is the off hand dagger throw. To do so you must draw and throw and have an off-hand available.

    For the most part, I take this a bit further when I gm. You may only start combat with your shield equipped if you mention it before combat starts. Otherwise you had your shield on your back like a normal person not actively engaged in war.

    Listen, I stiffed an order of paladins of vengeance. Of course I'm going to have my shield out at all times!

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    But without a free hand, how can I hold a rose?

    #Vincent De Boule

    With your teeth. Shows that you're ready to tango.

    I see what you are saying, but what about delivering my epic poetry as I stab the enemy?

    This is important

  • KwoaruKwoaru Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    To throw my own 5e Hot Take:

    My biggest complaint about 5e comes as a player, in that there is no benefit to wielding a one handed weapon without a shield in your offhand. Want to be a swashbuckler? There is no fighting style that encourages that. Everything encourages a weapon and a shield. My fancy rapier fencer guy doesn't want a goddamn shield. Add a goddamn fighting style that rewards you for using a 1h weapon without a shield! Duelist? You can still use a shield (what, why there is a whole shield wielding fighting style already why would you dammit Wizards).

    I mean, I played (non-optimally) without a shield and was happy enough because I value character over mechanics most times, but it is still rather irritating at times.

    Use one of these cute little things

    GOjC4Ni.jpg?1

    It has the added bonus of everybody you beat wondering if they really just lost to some asshole holding a metal bowl

    2x39jD4.jpg
    ElvenshaeRhesus PositiveitalianranmaDiannaoChongjdarksun
  • FryFry Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    I am confused by the claims that 4E had good monster fluff in its rulebooks. My recollection from running 4E as a DM was that the Monster Manuals usually had a heading for a monster type, like "Orc" or "Red Dragon", maybe a paragraph at most with a basic physical description of the creature, and then like six or ten stat blocks. Maybe I was spoiled by growing up with 2E-era Dragon Magazines to read monster descriptions, where they give the full ecology of where things live, what they eat, how they reproduce, etc.

    To be fair, I haven't looked at the DM books for 5E, maybe they're somehow worse?

    Fry on
    SteelhawkHachface
  • SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    Fry wrote: »
    I am confused by the claims that 4E had good monster fluff in its rulebooks. My recollection from running 4E as a DM was that the Monster Manuals usually had a heading for a monster type, like "Orc" or "Red Dragon", maybe a paragraph at most with a basic physical description of the creature, and then like six or ten stat blocks. Maybe I was spoiled by growing up with 2E-era Dragon Magazines to read monster descriptions, where they give the full ecology of where things live, what they eat, how they reproduce, etc.

    To be fair, I haven't looked at the DM books for 5E, maybe they're somehow worse?

    5e monster manual is about a half page of fluff half page of stats on average. The 5e Volo guide book that came out is like 5 pages of fluff per monster type, another half page for subtype of several subtypes, and half page stat blocks.

    steam_sig.png
  • ZomroZomro Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    The 4E Draconimicon was pretty rad. Multiple pages devoted to specific chromatic dragons, such as enviroments where they build their lair, the kinds of treasures they like (brown dragons, for example, really like fancy dinnerware) and the kinds of creatures they might employ / enslave as minions and guards.

    Zomro on
Sign In or Register to comment.