| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 17:26:21
|
Having read through the 5e PHB and MM, I'm not all that impressed. I don't hate it, but there's nothing about it that makes me want to play it instead of any of the other systems I would consider playing/running.
At this point, I'll be looking at the various realms products they put out (adventures or setting supplements), and waiting to see if any rules supplement books make the system more interesting to me.
|
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 19:12:47
|
I like the 5e rules so far. I'm disappointed with how much they're (still?) simplifying monsters... 3.5e worked well for me, and the 4e reorganization had some merits (minions, boss-types, etc), but I never played or DM'd 4e so I can't speak to whether it worked or not. I'm not thrilled about the nerfing of feat and ability point advancement. I strongly dislike the apparent return to level caps... that's a drawback of video games which real rpgs should not share. But none of these things are dealbreakers. I'll just houserule the level caps out and probably tinker with the monster system depending on how they handle advancement in the DMG.
So I have some reservations. I am glad to see that at-will cantrips were retained from 4e... for me, that's probably the major motivator to play 5e as opposed to 3.5e. As far as DMing goes... waiting on the DMG. Recharging abilities is an interesting mechanic too; I'm cool with that as well.
So far, I feel okay with the money I've put into the PH and MM, and I'll get the DMG when I can.
New editions are pretty much always like this; you like some of the new rules, you dislike some, and you bring your favorite old rules forward with house rules. The big question mark is what they're going to do with the settings. I'm unimpressed by Tyranny of Dragons, but Ed Greenwood has been excited about 5e and that says a lot for me, so I'm optimistic until I have a reason to not be. 
|
 |
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 19:25:46
|
What do you mean level caps? I didn't notice anything of that sort in the PHB. Clearly I missed something.
Well, Pathfinder also went for at-will cantrips; IMO it's the contender for the alternate choice. I can't see myself going for a 3.5 core game again these days.
I'm pretty iffy on recharging abilities, for the same reason I've never liked x/day class features in older editions or daily/encounter powers in 4e. It just doesn't make enough sense to me from an in game perspective, and that nags at me.
The setting material is the big thing that could be the draw for me. The core rules? Meh. I'd play it if someone whose GMing I liked was running it, but I'm not presently interested enough to go buy it. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 20:03:01
|
I'm finding I very much like the 5e system. It's simple and missing a lot of the detailed complexity of the 3.x/PF systems, but I'm finding there is enough to love in 5e that it's still satisfying (by satisfying, I mean I still get excited when thinking about what kind of characters I can create and play).
I do have my reservations though. I'm finding WotC exceedingly lackluster in their communications about the direction of 5e. My impression is they are making it up as they go, like they have no long term goal and/or plan. Now I'm sure they do, but whatever they might be, they aren't sharing.
The setting support is also a question mark for me. All I've heard is "they want to do something with the Realms". That sort of worries me. They want to? It's their IP...don't want, do. Just don't farm it to a 3rd party, because the published adventure is junk (to me anyway).
I like 5e very much, but I get the distinct impression it will be a rather....sparse one. It's a feeling that it will only received "second thought" support. I want to be wrong, and hope I am, because 5e is a fun system. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36813 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 20:09:52
|
I've not really looked at the rules, too much, so I can't offer much for a personal opinion, other than to note that I've not disliked what I've seen.
I will note, however, that I saw a lot of opposition to the 4E rules, when they came out. Much that I personally saw of the rules turned me off to them, and there was a lot of negative commentary here and elsewhere. I've not seen any of that, this time. Sure, there have been individuals commenting about aspects they don't like, but I don't think I've seen anything approaching, even in the small scale, the animosity I saw to the 4E ruleset. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 20:34:18
|
I for one am loving the new edition. I love the elegant simplicity of the overall system, and at the same time out easily allows me to make detailed characters.
I'm not sure what's meant by level caps. The current system only has levels 1-20 detailed, but that doesn't mean the game stops there. They simply haven't released epic level rules. The Basic DM pdf has the proficiency bonuses for levels beyond 20, so it's just a matter of home brewing, multiclassing, or time before we have more. Ability scores are capped for PC's, but that's an understandable result of the new bonded accuracy mechanic.
Overall, the number crunching is much easier, which was a huge selling point for me.
|
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 20:54:44
|
quote:
I will note, however, that I saw a lot of opposition to the 4E rules, when they came out. Much that I personally saw of the rules turned me off to them, and there was a lot of negative commentary here and elsewhere. I've not seen any of that, this time. Sure, there have been individuals commenting about aspects they don't like, but I don't think I've seen anything approaching, even in the small scale, the animosity I saw to the 4E ruleset.
Oh I absolutely agree. My reaction to 5e is "I'm not sure I like this enough to drop my now heavily customized Pathfinder based ruleset for it." Whereas my reaction to 4e was "This looks terrible. Some friends are telling me it's really good, I'll give it a try" followed after a 6-8 month campaign by "Yep, this game doesn't do any of the things I'm looking for out of D&D. I would rather have no game than play this again."
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I for one am loving the new edition. I love the elegant simplicity of the overall system, and at the same time out easily allows me to make detailed characters.
I'm not sure what's meant by level caps. The current system only has levels 1-20 detailed, but that doesn't mean the game stops there. They simply haven't released epic level rules. The Basic DM pdf has the proficiency bonuses for levels beyond 20, so it's just a matter of home brewing, multiclassing, or time before we have more. Ability scores are capped for PC's, but that's an understandable result of the new bonded accuracy mechanic.
Overall, the number crunching is much easier, which was a huge selling point for me.
Hmm. From what I've seen and read about it so far (as you've probably gathered) I'm presently ambivalent. I'm glad it's already working out so well for you though.
I'm going to officially upgrade my 5e status from "meh" to "cautiously optimistic". I intend to keep my eye on the new releases for a while, and see where they're taking this ship. If I like it, I'll pay for the cruise. If not, I'll keep using the yacht I've already got. ;)
And setting and adventure material, I'll evaluate separately from game system. If I end up not being sold on the 5e rules, but the realms material is good, I'll still totally buy the realms material. :)
As Wooly pointed out though, it's really good that this edition is one where there's no gigantic backlash. That bodes well for the future. :) |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 10 Nov 2014 20:56:42 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 21:32:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sylrae
quote:
I will note, however, that I saw a lot of opposition to the 4E rules, when they came out. Much that I personally saw of the rules turned me off to them, and there was a lot of negative commentary here and elsewhere. I've not seen any of that, this time. Sure, there have been individuals commenting about aspects they don't like, but I don't think I've seen anything approaching, even in the small scale, the animosity I saw to the 4E ruleset.
Oh I absolutely agree. My reaction to 5e is "I'm not sure I like this enough to drop my now heavily customized Pathfinder based ruleset for it." Whereas my reaction to 4e was "This looks terrible. Some friends are telling me it's really good, I'll give it a try" followed after a 6-8 month campaign by "Yep, this game doesn't do any of the things I'm looking for out of D&D. I would rather have no game than play this again."
quote:
Originally posted by Delwa
I for one am loving the new edition. I love the elegant simplicity of the overall system, and at the same time out easily allows me to make detailed characters.
I'm not sure what's meant by level caps. The current system only has levels 1-20 detailed, but that doesn't mean the game stops there. They simply haven't released epic level rules. The Basic DM pdf has the proficiency bonuses for levels beyond 20, so it's just a matter of home brewing, multiclassing, or time before we have more. Ability scores are capped for PC's, but that's an understandable result of the new bonded accuracy mechanic.
Overall, the number crunching is much easier, which was a huge selling point for me.
Hmm. From what I've seen and read about it so far (as you've probably gathered) I'm presently ambivalent. I'm glad it's already working out so well for you though.
I'm going to officially upgrade my 5e status from "meh" to "cautiously optimistic". I intend to keep my eye on the new releases for a while, and see where they're taking this ship. If I like it, I'll pay for the cruise. If not, I'll keep using the yacht I've already got. ;)
And setting and adventure material, I'll evaluate separately from game system. If I end up not being sold on the 5e rules, but the realms material is good, I'll still totally buy the realms material. :)
As Wooly pointed out though, it's really good that this edition is one where there's no gigantic backlash. That bodes well for the future. :)
Understood. Every person has their own preferences. One of my friends really misses some of the details of 3.5, the edition we played for years. He likes the varying crit ranges for weapons, and the many types of stacking AC. I don't miss them. I like the smaller numbers, and I like the fact that crit ranges are more a function of skill than simple weapon stats (see the Fighter in the Basic Rules for an example.)
I like the fact that "level one" monsters are more deadly at higher levels, without tweaking their stats and adding class levels.
Part of the simplicity also makes it easier - for me - to design custom monsters that I'm confident are reasonably balanced. I never got good at it when I ran 3.5, despite trying. With this edition, it seems to come naturally to me.
I'm not saying that to bash 3.5, I'm just saying this edition just fits my style better. There are many here that could probably take a monster concept that I give them and churn out 3.5 stats for it in half the time it takes me to do it in 5e. It's not the system, it's my own limitations.
Anyway, I digress. Hope you enjoy it, however much or little you play the new system. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36813 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 21:48:41
|
I'll also note that I am playing a Pathfinder game right now, which is a large part of why I've not been that interested in looking at the 5E rules.
I think the strong success of Pathfinder is going to be a large obstacle for WotC, and that it's going to impact adoption of the 5E ruleset. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 10 Nov 2014 21:50:12 |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 21:51:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by DelwaUnderstood. Every person has their own preferences. One of my friends really misses some of the details of 3.5, the edition we played for years. He likes the varying crit ranges for weapons, and the many types of stacking AC. I don't miss them. I like the smaller numbers, and I like the fact that crit ranges are more a function of skill than simple weapon stats (see the Fighter in the Basic Rules for an example.)
I like the fact that "level one" monsters are more deadly at higher levels, without tweaking their stats and adding class levels.
Part of the simplicity also makes it easier - for me - to design custom monsters that I'm confident are reasonably balanced. I never got good at it when I ran 3.5, despite trying. With this edition, it seems to come naturally to me.
I'm not saying that to bash 3.5, I'm just saying this edition just fits my style better. There are many here that could probably take a monster concept that I give them and churn out 3.5 stats for it in half the time it takes me to do it in 5e. It's not the system, it's my own limitations.
Anyway, I digress. Hope you enjoy it, however much or little you play the new system.
Sure. I can see that. Honestly though, for me it's not the number scaling and tracking of all the tiny modifiers that I miss in 5e; I'm fine with being rid of those. I miss pathfinder's feat every second level; and all the options to choose in my class features when I'm building my character.
In 5e, most of my class features are pre-selected *(unless I subclass, but even then, those are also filled with preselected features) and I'm only going to get to pick up a couple of feats over 20 levels, when you take into consideration that I will also need stat raises.
But as mentioned, the game looks perfectly serviceable, and I'm sure I would have fun playing it despite those complaints. I'm just not convinced I would have *More* fun. :) |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 21:54:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'll also note that I am playing a Pathfinder game right now, which is a large part of why I've not been that interested in looking at the 5E rules.
I think the strong success of Pathfinder is going to be a large obstacle for WotC, and that it's going to impact adoption of the 5E ruleset.
That might be the case. The /tg/ folks are pretty fed up with pathfinder though. Apparently there is a pretty large number of people who are pissed off about all of the trap options in Pathfinder (and it has a lot of trap options, unfortunately).
|
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 21:57:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think the strong success of Pathfinder is going to be a large obstacle for WotC, and that it's going to impact adoption of the 5E ruleset.
I feel this way. Pathfinder is still my preferred system, as much as I'm liking 5e. I want to see 5e open up a bit more before I commit more fully to it. By "open up", I mean more product of various types. A campaign setting book (preferably Realms), whatever style they go with as far as splat books, etc (I don't include adventures, they hold no value to me).
I'm not getting a good feeling about future products as yet (and I know that's unfair, given we're still waiting on the DMG), so I feel like I'm dancing in the middle a little at the moment. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 22:12:05
|
quote:
I'm not getting a good feeling about future products as yet (and I know that's unfair, given we're still waiting on the DMG), so I feel like I'm dancing in the middle a little at the moment.
I understand this completely. They've given out basically no info on their upcoming titles.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinXPathfinder is still my preferred system, as much as I'm liking 5e. I want to see 5e open up a bit more before I commit more fully to it. By "open up", I mean more product of various types. A campaign setting book (preferably Realms), whatever style they go with as far as splat books, etc (I don't include adventures, they hold no value to me).
Have you checked out any of Paizo's Adventure Paths? I don't mind that kind of adventure. It gets me a complete campaign, a new bestiary of monsters, and an article or two about places, factions, or deities. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2014 : 22:12:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sylrae
quote:
I'm not getting a good feeling about future products as yet (and I know that's unfair, given we're still waiting on the DMG), so I feel like I'm dancing in the middle a little at the moment.
I understand this completely. They've given out basically no info on their upcoming titles.
[quote]Originally posted by ZeshinXPathfinder is still my preferred system, as much as I'm liking 5e. I want to see 5e open up a bit more before I commit more fully to it. By "open up", I mean more product of various types. A campaign setting book (preferably Realms), whatever style they go with as far as splat books, etc (I don't include adventures, they hold no value to me).
Have you checked out any of Paizo's Adventure Paths? I don't mind that kind of adventure. It gets me a complete campaign, a new bestiary of monsters, and an article or two about places, factions, or deities. But I agree completely when it comes to one-off adventures.
|
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 07:07:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sylrae
What do you mean level caps? I didn't notice anything of that sort in the PHB. Clearly I missed something.
Sorry, no, you didn't miss anything, at least not in the PH. I just overstated a bad vibe I got from a paragraph in the MM.
quote:
Some monsters present a greater challenge than even a typical 20th level party can handle. These monsters have a challenge rating of 21 or higher and are specifically designed to test player skill.
The emphasis is mine, and this says to me that WotC intends PC levels to be limited to 20 in 5e. That would be lame, but it could be part of the simplification of the rest of the edition. I don't have sources but I recall a few quotes from designers saying that the vast majority of DMs and players work in the level 1-12 range, and at least one (Sean Reynolds?) has talked about a "sweet spot" somewhere around 4-6 or 8 if I remember right.
But the quote becomes stupid if there's anything in the works for level 21+ PCs. It would have been better to just leave the second sentence off, if there was a plan for PCs to be able to reach higher levels.
I'd like to be wrong, and I've certainly been mistaken before, but that's the impression I get from the wording and I've been stewing in it for a week or two so I presented the "level cap" thing too strongly. My bad.
The monsters in question, with CRs of 21+ are:
21: ancient black dragon, ancient copper dragon, lich, and solar
22: ancient bronze dragon and ancient green dragon
23: ancient blue dragon, ancient silver dragon, empyrean, and kraken
24: ancient gold dragon, ancient red dragon
30: tarrasque
Iconic monsters, and ones which WotC might want to be the strongest of the strong. I can definitely see them planning for the tarrasque to be the biggest baddie out there, and that PCs should need uber gear and great skill and luck in order to handle it, since they're capped at level 20... much like an endgame raid boss in WoW.
Because if the PCs can level up to 30, the tarrasque is like a brown bear at level 1... and if they can reach level 40, then killing the tarrasque is taking candy from a baby... and what mortal monster should legitimately be stronger than the tarrasque? It's bigger than dragons and krakens and the children of gods.
Anyway, we'll have to wait and see. It just feels very different than 3.5, where nothing was said about monsters "specifically designed to test player skill." Even within the MM1, titans and solars had a higher CR than the tarrasque. I think they've changed the design goal for the tarrasque in this edition. |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 11:45:10
|
Hmm.
Personally, I'm fine with capped levels. Pathfinder doesn't really have epic levels (though the level range is sortof extended if you're using mythic ranks, but not in the same way as 3.5 Epic levels), and while it has some rudimentary rules for advancing if you need your game to go to 22-25, it doesn't have much of that sort, and its presented as optional. I've never seen them used.
But also, in the past 14 years, I've only seen a campaign hit 20+, once.
Most games happen in the 1-12 range; I've heard some people say their "sweet spot" is 4-8, as that is supposedly the level range with the best balance between mundane characters and casters. For my purposes, the "sweet spot" is in the range of 7-14, and I tend to tend my games between 14 and 16.
Games that run for a really long time are pretty uncommon though, and that may be what you are doing do if you go epic a lot. In my experience, a campaign tends to last 12-48 sessions. (6 months to a year, 1-4 sessions a month). And more often than not, they fizzle out mid way before a proper ending happens. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 11 Nov 2014 11:46:21 |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2434 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 12:34:30
|
"Meh" from me.
It's pretty much 3.x with pieces of everything from C&C to 4e floating in it. This in itself would be enough to doubt the new team's ability to design new stuff, even if we didn't have glimpses of the process before.
Which in turn makes prospects even less shiny: if so, where they can get much good stuff? 3.5 already reused AD&D2 books, sometimes with new co-authors dropped in. What we can realistically expect now - facelifts of those facelifts? This time with names of the original designers (who mostly jumped the ship by now, which also does not bode well) gone the way of tadpoles' tails?..
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I will note, however, that I saw a lot of opposition to the 4E rules, when they came out. Much that I personally saw of the rules turned me off to them, and there was a lot of negative commentary here and elsewhere. I've not seen any of that, this time. Sure, there have been individuals commenting about aspects they don't like, but I don't think I've seen anything approaching, even in the small scale, the animosity I saw to the 4E ruleset.
This may be a sign of people seeing it as at least acceptable, or... simply not expecting anything good at this point.
That said, 5e does look better. I, for one, recognize it as an overhaul of 3.x/C&C rather than a byproduct of unhealthy fascination with blenders and mysterious mushrooms.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3807 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 12:44:18
|
Yes, I've only skimmed through the rules, but it does indeed look very much like 3-3.5e to me.
I have to admit that I haven't really analyzed the rules, because my interest was mainly out of curiosity, since we rarely fight in our campaign (we also prefer free form RP for exploration/social interaction) and we decided to use a homebrew system for it. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 13:52:37
|
I honestly get a more 2e-vibe from 5e. It feels like (to me), 2e that cherry picked a bunch of stuff from 3.x and 4e, to the point that the sum has become greater than its parts (bounded accuracy is I think what gives it a truly new feel, rather than just Frankenstein'd parts of earlier editions).
To Sylrae: I have indeed checked out some Pathfinder APs. The only ones that held value to me were Tournament of the Ruby Phoenix and the Jade Regent paths. I didn't use the adventures, just the lore and info about the Dragon Empires. We play a lot of Oriental Adventures-set games (Kara Tur specifically), so when we switched to playing in Golarian, this was where we ended up. I find the Pathfinder APs offer enough setting lore and material to be useful. The current 5e adventures I've found extremely lacking for that purpose. |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
Edited by - ZeshinX on 11 Nov 2014 13:53:24 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3807 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 14:24:09
|
| Idk, bounded accuracy feels just like a slowly scaling BAB to me. However skill advancement is simplified with it, and I like that. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 11 Nov 2014 14:24:32 |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 11 Nov 2014 : 14:32:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinX
I honestly get a more 2e-vibe from 5e. It feels like (to me), 2e that cherry picked a bunch of stuff from 3.x and 4e, to the point that the sum has become greater than its parts (bounded accuracy is I think what gives it a truly new feel, rather than just Frankenstein'd parts of earlier editions).
I like the concept of bounded accuracy in D&D. It's a pretty good idea. I'm not as much a fan of the implementation.
I've often felt (in previous editions of D&D, that skill was not nearly relevant enough to success and failure until the upper levels. Basically, the range of the randomizer is too big, and the bonuses too small. 5e removes the part of the game where rolls aren't nearly as BS swingy, by capping the bonuses on a d20 roll at +11. I'm not sure how I would address that, but I do know I don't like it.
My first thought was perhaps I could use a d10 and add half your level to your rolls, but that would have some unwanted consequences. My next thought was that I could double the bonuses, so they cap out at +22 rather than +11, but that would require upscaling all of the DCs from a 1-30 scale to a 1-40 scale. I suppose I could combine the doubling of bonuses with the eduction in randomizer to a d10 (and leave the target numbers the same), but that might make the random part not significant enough. Perhaps the answer would be to reduce the randomizer to a d10, and rescale all of the target numbers from a 1-30 scale to a 1-20 scale. In short, I think it's just much too swingy, and I think that's something that could really use fixing.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeshinXTo Sylrae: I have indeed checked out some Pathfinder APs. The only ones that held value to me were Tournament of the Ruby Phoenix and the Jade Regent paths. I didn't use the adventures, just the lore and info about the Dragon Empires. We play a lot of Oriental Adventures-set games (Kara Tur specifically), so when we switched to playing in Golarian, this was where we ended up. I find the Pathfinder APs offer enough setting lore and material to be useful. The current 5e adventures I've found extremely lacking for that purpose.
Yeah, I've always liked the lore sections in the pathfinder APs. As far as marketing goes, they're a good way to have me buy many books. I get a fix for my setting wants, a fix for my monster wants, and an ongoing adventure. I didn't pick those up, I'm not as big of a fan of the Kara-Tur/Dragon Empires/Asia Fantasy stuff. I'd play it if someone was running it, but I'm more interested in the western fantasy setting info. I really liked Council of Thieves AP, and it was much more for the setting info and the monsters than for the adventure itself.
The compiled Rise of the Runelords lost a lot of the setting information, which is unfortunate. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 12 Nov 2014 08:09:09 |
|
|
|
Plaguescarred
Learned Scribe
Canada
190 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 10:31:33
|
| I love 5E a lot! Its a simplified system that runs easily! |
Yan
Playtester |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 12 Nov 2014 : 22:39:04
|
The overall impression my group gave of 5E was "meh". I think the problem is, it doesn't really do anything special. Each of the past 3 and a half edition had something specific that made it different, unique, and distinct from one another.
3E and v3.5 had system-as-world physics bent on uniforming the rules of the game and removing a good portion of required DM adjudication. Every monster, NPC, and PC played by the same rules of creation (level, BAB, Saves, Abilities, Feats aquired, Skills, etc.) Further it really pushed customization of characters with the new Multiclass system and feats and removed a good portion of restrictions on classes and races. It was also probably the first time the system assumed you'd be getting magical items by-way of progression (WBL chart).
4E largely removed the system-as-world physics and instead went a more narrative approach in terms of PCs, NPCs, and Monsters. An NPC didn't need to be a Paladin X to have the Smite power or be X-level of Wizard to cast a fireball-like spell. Further, 4E's rules were largely focused on Combat. Sure, there were lots of options that didn't pertain to combat via Rituals, Feats, Martial Practices, Utility powers, and he like but the primary focus for the rules was combat. Out-of-combat stuff was largely left up to the DM and group to figure out as needed. This edition also put a lot of emphasis (I'd say more so than 3.x) on character options and creation. Even using the Character Builder it could take a seasoned 4E player over 30-minutes to make a character
So when our group looked at 5E, nothing really definitive popped out at us other than: Simplicity. Now that's not a bad thing to strive for, especially when looking at the previous two editions, however when you're "used" to the previous two editions suddenly the Simplistic route becomes a bit "meh" after the first few sessions. I'm just not sure it has the staying power that the previous two editions had in terms of keeping players interested through character-design. At least, from my group's perspective. I will, however, make a list of things that I think 5E did well and things that my group received well:
- Bounded Accuracy - This little nugget keeps things in check. While I think 5e is "meh" I'm very happy to see the numbers remain relative over 20 levels rather than the ridiculous inflation both 3E/PF and 4E have installed. This feature also keeps things like Multiclassing in perspective. With 3E's MC system in place, I don't have to keep running over the BAB math when I add a new class level.
- Multi-attack - One of the defining problems with 3E/PF is the "full-attack" action which basically punished EVERY and ALL weapon-users in the game. The fact that you can now move and make all your attacks (in between moving even) is something of a beauty. It's so good that I completely removed "full-attack" action from my v3.5 games. Now weapon-users don't suck quite as bad at higher levels.
- Character creation - In spite of us loving 4E (and to a lesser extent v3.5/PF) the amount of options presented at 1st level can be staggering. In 4E you have Race, Class and class choices defined by build, Ability score allocation, theme, background, at-will powers, encounter powers, daily powers, equipment, and for some - rituals. That's a lot of options to go through the 1st time AND get the game going in less than 20 minutes. In 5E the creation process is a lot faster.
- Fiddly Bits - As Mike Mearls puts it, the little nuances, modifiers, round-by-round math that sort of plagued and hampered both v3.5/PF and 4E is somewhat non-existent with 5E due to the (dis)Advantage mechanic. It's simple and easy and conveys what it's designed to do. No more piddly -2s and +3's modifiers for the most silliest of circumstances.
- Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws - This is just straight up pure gold. Great elements to ANY RPG, it helps mold a character that at one point was just a mash of numbers and features. It also fuels player's creativity for some really interesting concepts. It's so good I might infuse this with my 4E characters too.
- Limiting Power - It's no secret that a lot of people thought the power of spellcasters in 3E was outrageous. And there's no denying that certain builds and classes in 4E are just straight up better at their chosen profession than others *cough*Ranger*cough*. Now theres' no way to achieve "total" balance when it comes to an RPG. And while I'm sure 5e has it's own "DPS-Champs" and "uber-Builds" right now that will no doubt grow as more supplements are presented, the overall tone is a lot less than it was previously. This is thankfully due to Concentration. This little gimmick keeps the ridiculous BUFFING of 3E in check and eliminates the combo of the Flying Invisible mage reigning down fiery death with impunity that was an all too common sight in 3E AND the attack, attack, on-your-turn attack, opportunity attack Rangers of 4E that was racking up oodles of DPR with a few encounter powers and an At-Will.
Those, currently, are the selling points for me that I'm trying to impress on my group. Unfortunately they're smart and they can see these "adjustments" and simply make them to out v3.5/PF games and 4E games too. So 5E is going to need to come up with some pretty great adventures and splats for us to really take an interest with this new edition. |
Edited by - Diffan on 12 Nov 2014 22:39:24 |
|
|
|
Renin
Learned Scribe
USA
290 Posts |
Posted - 18 Nov 2014 : 14:03:43
|
After reading through the 5e PH, my immediate thought is 'finally, no more need of a PhD to handle higher level pcs!"
I've been running 3 simultaneous campaigns for the past 10 years. Obviously, everyone is approaching levels 15-20 at near to the same time, mostly all in 3.5 (and one PF, which is at 12).
There are so many numbers, adjustments, stacks, etc that just makes alot of the game slow.
5e, I agree, gave me an initial impression and flavor of 2nd Ed. "I attack!" You miss! Onto the next guy.
So, after I finish my last PF campaign, I believe it'll be onto 5e for us. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2014 : 13:48:52
|
I like it. It reminds me of 'the good old days'.
I am currently running a game around Neverwinter, and for the first time in years it really feels like I am running D&D again. We are all having a lot of fun.
Now, to each his own. I loved all other iterations of D&D (except 4e), and I also love PF, and a plethora of other systems. If you like those, or anything else, thats great - just keeping playing whatever makes you happy.
Just make sure you are playing in The Forgotten Realms.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1155 Posts |
Posted - 19 Nov 2014 : 17:18:50
|
My players are enjoying 5e, though I think that's partly due to the party dynamic that they have. I don't like a lot of it but it certainly makes my job as DM easier.
Combat is sped up significantly but 3.5e/Pathfinder will be hard to beat as a ruleset because of its sandbox nature. I and my players all really enjoy the freedom that 3.5 and its derivatives gave to the d20 system. I'm sure we'll keep playing it as we also play 5e. I still say 4e doesn't suit a place at the tabletop and should be relegated to CRPGs - though I do know people who love playing 4e with dice. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6669 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2014 : 01:06:01
|
I don't mind 5E at all as a rules system (but then again I didn't mind any of them except 4E which never did much for me).
As someone who dabbles in the rules however for some crunch to add to the fluff, and writing in the here and now, the only frustrating thing is having to wait for the bobs and whistles to build on the basics. So roll on the Compete (insert class her) series ASAP WotC - I've got work to do!
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 20 Nov 2014 : 01:44:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I still say 4e doesn't suit a place at the tabletop and should be relegated to CRPGs - though I do know people who love playing 4e with dice.
Can't say that I think 4E would be a good CRPG. I think the Neverwinter MMO is pretty generic and using any/all 4E-isms is just in name only. Even the Fighter "powerz" in the game don't even come close to what they actually did in the book. |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2014 : 07:51:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I still say 4e doesn't suit a place at the tabletop and should be relegated to CRPGs - though I do know people who love playing 4e with dice.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Can't say that I think 4E would be a good CRPG. I think the Neverwinter MMO is pretty generic and using any/all 4E-isms is just in name only. Even the Fighter "powerz" in the game don't even come close to what they actually did in the book.
4e Doesn't play like an MMORPG. 4e Plays like games such as Final Fantasy Tactics, or Disgaea. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2014 : 09:28:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sylrae
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I still say 4e doesn't suit a place at the tabletop and should be relegated to CRPGs - though I do know people who love playing 4e with dice.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Can't say that I think 4E would be a good CRPG. I think the Neverwinter MMO is pretty generic and using any/all 4E-isms is just in name only. Even the Fighter "powerz" in the game don't even come close to what they actually did in the book.
4e Doesn't play like an MMORPG. 4e Plays like games such as Final Fantasy Tactics, or Disgaea.
Really? I think it plays pretty much like our AD&D and 3E/PF games but with more bells and whistles. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36813 Posts |
Posted - 23 Nov 2014 : 14:49:11
|
| Okay, before we go any further down this road and it starts going astray, let's focus on our thoughts of the 5E ruleset, please. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Thoughts on 5e?
