| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Derulbaskul
Senior Scribe
Singapore
408 Posts |
 Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 10:40:19
|
I think 5E is a pretty solid update to AD&D. It's clearly a successor to 1E and 2E but inspired by 3.xE and 4E, IMO.
It's not the game for me - 4E is my favourite edition in 33 years (and I have never played WOW or other MMORPGs) - but I can see its attraction for someone wanting a more traditional form of AD&D (or D&D) that is updated to have a tighter ruleset than anything Gygaxian.
|
Cheers
D
NB: Please remember: A cannon is a big gun. Canon is what we discuss here. |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 25 Nov 2014 : 15:31:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Derulbaskul
I think 5E is a pretty solid update to AD&D. It's clearly a successor to 1E and 2E but inspired by 3.xE and 4E, IMO.
It's not the game for me - 4E is my favourite edition in 33 years (and I have never played WOW or other MMORPGs) - but I can see its attraction for someone wanting a more traditional form of AD&D (or D&D) that is updated to have a tighter ruleset than anything Gygaxian.
Gotta agree with you. I think 5E can make for a very fun, if lite, beer and pretzels sort of game with a lot less emphasis on combat and more free-form style game. It's also super quick to get into and start playing in 20 minutes compared to v3.5 or 4E character creation.
As WotC puts out more information on the DMG, I'm getting less and less of an impression that it's going to contain the amount of tools and options to make the game more malleable as they first stated. For one, no alternative healing rules. While I'm perfectly fine with full HP on a long rest (with 1/2 HD regained) I know there has been some dissent about it on other boards (and at least 1 thread here) that would like to see the rates changed, at least from an official stand-point. There also isn't, to my knowledge, any rules on creating magical items OR incorporating a magic-shop as standard trade in the game. Ever since my AD&D days magical items have been for sale in shoppes in most of the major cities and capitals of Faerūn so it's hard for me to see this now all going away.
So far it's a pretty solid game, but mostly due to the lowered numbers and deceased options at the player level. Also a lot of the round-by-round complexity is gone. Some view that as a good thing while others (including myself and my group) aren't so pleased. Hopefully in the future they'll put out a Tactics module that will focus more on this and maybe provide options for character to swap out features for more combat-centric ones (like the Rogue's thieves can't ability or a Paladin's divine sense). |
|
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1155 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2014 : 13:11:39
|
| Just skimming through the 5e DMG. They called Zakhara Al-Qadim... |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6362 Posts |
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2014 : 20:25:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Derulbaskul
I think 5E is a pretty solid update to AD&D. It's clearly a successor to 1E and 2E but inspired by 3.xE and 4E, IMO.
It's not the game for me - 4E is my favourite edition in 33 years (and I have never played WOW or other MMORPGs) - but I can see its attraction for someone wanting a more traditional form of AD&D (or D&D) that is updated to have a tighter ruleset than anything Gygaxian.
Gotta agree with you. I think 5E can make for a very fun, if lite, beer and pretzels sort of game with a lot less emphasis on combat and more free-form style game. It's also super quick to get into and start playing in 20 minutes compared to v3.5 or 4E character creation.
As WotC puts out more information on the DMG, I'm getting less and less of an impression that it's going to contain the amount of tools and options to make the game more malleable as they first stated. For one, no alternative healing rules. While I'm perfectly fine with full HP on a long rest (with 1/2 HD regained) I know there has been some dissent about it on other boards (and at least 1 thread here) that would like to see the rates changed, at least from an official stand-point. There also isn't, to my knowledge, any rules on creating magical items OR incorporating a magic-shop as standard trade in the game. Ever since my AD&D days magical items have been for sale in shoppes in most of the major cities and capitals of Faerūn so it's hard for me to see this now all going away.
So far it's a pretty solid game, but mostly due to the lowered numbers and deceased options at the player level. Also a lot of the round-by-round complexity is gone. Some view that as a good thing while others (including myself and my group) aren't so pleased. Hopefully in the future they'll put out a Tactics module that will focus more on this and maybe provide options for character to swap out features for more combat-centric ones (like the Rogue's thieves can't ability or a Paladin's divine sense).
Quick note here. There are a couple optional/alternative healing rules in the DMG that should satisfy critics of the full health at long rest mechanic. I'm away from books right now, so can't provide more detail. There are also rules for more lethal crits that'll make the healing even more important.
There aren't set prices in the DMG for magic items, but there is a table for ballpark cost based on rarity. So magic shops aren't gone, the price is just totally up to the DM. |
- 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 |
|
|
|
Xnella Moonblade-Thann
Learned Scribe
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2014 : 21:33:44
|
| I like how 5e is going from what I've seen...it's how 4e should have been done (and 4e should have been a side-game/cross-over/tie-in system). I have looked at the Player's Handbook, and will look at the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide when I get the chance. It seems to be more open in terms of what your character can and can't do, and even gives you a bonus or two for your background (useful for those that love to roleplay, not just battle). When I have the money, I will get the core rulebooks and go from there (although Realms stuff is almost always a guarenteed buy just for the ideas I can implement into my own Forgotten Realms). |
"Sweet water and light laughter until next we meet." - traditional elven farewell
Please forgive any spelling and grammer errors, as my android touch-screen phone has no spellchecker. If I do make a grammer mistake, please let me know and I'll try to fix it.
New laptop, still trying to sort my "scrolls" on its shelves...and when will this cursed thing stop doing things I tell it not to?  |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2014 : 18:22:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xnella Moonblade-Thann
I like how 5e is going from what I've seen...it's how 4e should have been done (and 4e should have been a side-game/cross-over/tie-in system).
I disagree. I think D&D:Next could only achieve it's present state because of 4Es system and what the designers learned from that edition (in addition to the others). Despite the fact that Next looks and "feels" different than 4E, and to a certain extent 3E/Pathfinder, there is a LOT of influence from those particular editions here. Influences that could not have occurred if 4E was never a thing.
If anything 4e should probably be praised to help fuel innovation for a system that can both cater to the more nostalgic crowed while continuing to use more modern mechanics that keep the WotC-era D&D players happy. In a lot of ways it blended the mechanical elements and combat-focused mini wargame features that were so prevalent in 3e, Pathfinder, and 4E while bring into the light a more robust story-motivated system that puts more emphasis on why and how your character is here compared to just what your character can do in combat. Now a lot of people, myself included, can do this with any system and 4E is no exception to the rule here but I see the effort put in by the designers to make this aspect more front-and-center, almost a requirement, rather than a tacked on element.
quote:
Originally posted by Xnella Moonblade-Thann
I have looked at the Player's Handbook, and will look at the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide when I get the chance. It seems to be more open in terms of what your character can and can't do, and even gives you a bonus or two for your background (useful for those that love to roleplay, not just battle).
Totally agree. 3rd edition and Pathfinder (and a tad to the lesser extent, 4E) are exception-based designed systems to the extreme when it comes to the mechanics. For example a character who, while fighting in 3E, grabs up a second weapon to dual-wield will INSTANTLY be hit with -6/-10 penalty to attacks or -4/-8 if the off-hand weapon is light. So basically the idea of randomly picking up a weapon, even if it's thematic, is a totally terrible idea that pretty much penalizes you to the point of never trying that. 4E basically says unless you have a special ability that allows it, it can't be done at all barring the DM using p.42 (which I've used dozens of times because of the exception-based system). In 5E if you pick up a second weapon on a whim while fighting and you don't have Dual-Wielder feat there's no penalty. You must, however, be holding two light-weapons. So while the exception is there, it's not as terribly limiting as either 3E or 4E. Couple this with bounded accuracy and it opens the door for more classes attempting this, not just the warrior-types.
Same thing with factors like Feats. In 3E and Pathfinder if you specialize your feats you have to focus on one singular weapon. If you have the misfortune to find a magical weapon that isn't said specific weapon, you're out of luck. 4E lessened the penalty by grouping weapons into categories (and there's a variant rule in Unearthed Arcana for v3.5 that does the same) but the exception is there. D&D:Next does away with most of this as feats tend to be more broad in application.
Overall I think it's a good and solid design for a system build around the sandbox style.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2014 : 15:11:49
|
So far, I have been enjoying it very much. Can't wait to get the DMG (I have the other two books already. It feels like D&D again (not trying to bring back the edition-war, just my personal opinion is all).
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Just skimming through the 5e DMG. They called Zakhara Al-Qadim...
Zakhara is the name of the land; 'Al-Qadim' is the name of the setting.
Just like we have 'Faerūn' and 'The Forgotten Realms'. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1847 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2014 : 17:33:26
|
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.
I was thinking about this earlier and I have to agree 5e isn't meeting with the...vitriol...that 4e was met with. That said, I don't see any real enthusiasm for the ruleset either. I can live with 5e and it has its merits, but I'm a player/DM who likes choices and so far I still prefer my 3.x/PF system just fine. Perhaps as they release more material that will change but given the recent history of the game and our favorite setting, I'm rather ambivalent. Time will tell though and my main concern is what happens with the Realms more than the rules. If they really make me happy with the direction they take the setting then I'll almost certainly invest in their rulebooks (even if I don't use them) just to support their efforts. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36813 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2014 : 17:50:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
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.
I was thinking about this earlier and I have to agree 5e isn't meeting with the...vitriol...that 4e was met with. That said, I don't see any real enthusiasm for the ruleset either. I can live with 5e and it has its merits, but I'm a player/DM who likes choices and so far I still prefer my 3.x/PF system just fine. Perhaps as they release more material that will change but given the recent history of the game and our favorite setting, I'm rather ambivalent. Time will tell though and my main concern is what happens with the Realms more than the rules. If they really make me happy with the direction they take the setting then I'll almost certainly invest in their rulebooks (even if I don't use them) just to support their efforts.
I've seen a good bit of enthusiasm, though I don't recall seeing the "I want to marry this ruleset and have its baby!" enthusiasm I've seen in the past. This is not necessarily a bad thing. |
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! |
|
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1155 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2014 : 19:19:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Just skimming through the 5e DMG. They called Zakhara Al-Qadim...
Zakhara is the name of the land; 'Al-Qadim' is the name of the setting.
Just like we have 'Faerūn' and 'The Forgotten Realms'.
Dude, don't you think I know that?
I understand why they made the mistake - the other campaigns are named after the continent they're set in - but they called the *land* Al-Qadim. To me, that's like calling the Hordelands 'The Horde boxed set'. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2014 : 05:27:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Arcanamach
Perhaps as they release more material that will change
I think this is huge. Back in the 2e/3e days, by the time the rules were published we already had a release calendar in our hands or on the website, and at least every other month would feature a new Realms sourcebook on the shelf, along with other potentially interesting material like Birthright or Al-Qadim or Spelljammer or whatever. They're publishing much more slowly, at least for right now, and it's probably going to be just the Realms and Eberron for a while, so we just don't have as much support as we did earlier. I think patience is key.
The counterpoint is that this Twilight Zone presents us with a wide-open world for the first time since the Gray Box. Bust out your old 1e/2e maps... for the most part, that's what Faerun looks like, with all the additional places added from 3e and 4e. Most of the NPC names are different now, and monster CRs have changed, but there's no reason to change the political infrastructure of the world unless you want to. So plug in new NPCs and you can run old adventures again, or --if you're so inclined-- you can scrap everything and write your own world. It won't be contradicted officially for a while... definitely long enough to run a campaign or two.
I'm actually kinda excited for the slower pace. Which feels really weird. I just hope they're playtesting the bejeebus out of the 5e Realms setting material, and I hope the testers are non-employees, and I hope they're vicious. And with luck, they're taking the criticism of the Tyranny of Dragons books seriously and moving in a better direction. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1847 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2014 : 13:35:40
|
| Yeah 2e was kind of a 'golden age' for DnD and the Realms. I know we can't expect that at the moment as the game has taken some serious hits. But lately, the more I play the more I just shrug off thoughts of rules and revamping the setting. I still play in the 1e/2e era of the Realms and don't follow canon in the games that I run because I don't want to be constrained by it. I'm just hoping for the return of the myriad plot hooks, interesting locales, wondrous magical discoveries, etc. that seemed to be in every piece of Realms material that hit the shelves 20 years ago. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 12 Dec 2014 : 14:06:30
|
Well, then, I would say FR has a 'bright future' in store for you.
Or should I say... 'Bright Past'? 
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Dude, don't you think I know that?
I understand why they made the mistake - the other campaigns are named after the continent they're set in - but they called the *land* Al-Qadim. To me, that's like calling the Hordelands 'The Horde boxed set'.
Sorry - I mistook what you wrote. I thought you had never heard 'Al-Qadim' before (many FR fans don't bother with the 'satellite settings'). My bad. 
I see what you mean now. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 14 Dec 2014 : 23:35:35
|
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
|
|
|
|
Tamsar
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
141 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 12:54:53
|
| My main issue with 5th edition from what I've seen so far is a level 1 (novice adventurer) has a +2 proficiency bonus whereas a level 20 (pinnacle of mortal achievement) has +6, a difference of only +4 (or 20% on a d20)? Also why does a level 20 wizard with equivalent strength have the same chance to hit as a fighter? It's just too incongruous for me. Not going to explore 5th edition beyond the starter set for me, system isn't compelling enough for me to switch. |
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 12:57:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:21:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamsar
My main issue with 5th edition from what I've seen so far is a level 1 (novice adventurer) has a +2 proficiency bonus whereas a level 20 (pinnacle of mortal achievement) has +6, a difference of only +4 (or 20% on a d20)? Also why does a level 20 wizard with equivalent strength have the same chance to hit as a fighter? It's just too incongruous for me. Not going to explore 5th edition beyond the starter set for me, system isn't compelling enough for me to switch.
I will not defend most of 5e's features, because I still favor the greater variety and resolution of 3.5e bonuses, but there are a couple of responses to your concern.
The first is that fighters have proficiency (and therefore advantage) with Strength checks and wizards don't. This means (if I'm reading correctly) not only do fighters get to roll all their melee attacks twice and take the better roll, but they also get to add their proficiency bonus (ranging from +2 to +6) to those attacks, while wizards don't get either of those bonuses because they don't have proficiency with Strength checks.
There's also the Extra Attack feature of the fighter class, which means that a level 20 fighter can make 4 attacks each round. The wizard doesn't get this class feature.
This does not mitigate the fact that the best attack roll a level 20 fighter can get is 26, but within that range the fighter is more likely than the wizard (due to advantage) to get a better attack roll.
5e has different design goals from earlier editions. It's aimed at simplifying the system. Some people call it "subtractive design" -- basically remove as much as possible while still covering the bases. Fighters, over a period of time, will deal more damage than other classes using melee attacks. That base is considered covered, and they did it in spite of removing "base attack bonus" and most other bonuses as well.
5e isn't an improvement on any previous edition, because it doesn't build on anything before it. It wipes the slate clean, sets some priorities, and builds something new. I think every edition has kinda been that way; it's just more obvious this time because the numbers throughout the system have dropped dramatically. AC, to-hit rolls, saving throws... all much smaller numbers than they used to be. So it feels... not just different like previous editions have felt different, but weaker. Level 20 characters seem like pansies compared to previous editions... especially since some previous editions have allowed level 30 and level 40, while 5e characters are stuck at 20.
But the monsters are scaled down too. Level 20 fighters have four attacks per round and can get up to 26 plus their Str bonus on an attack roll, and the Tarrasque's AC is only 25. It's still doable.
Whether it's more challenging, or less... whether you enjoy it more, or less... that's for each of us to find out, rolling dice and saving the world. 
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36813 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:23:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM.
Capping players at level 20 has long been a D&D thing. |
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! |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:44:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM.
I'm thinking the same thing, but I can see a point to it.
From the angle of encounter design, there needs to be a maximum level. There needs to be at least a handful of different monsters, of each type, at each CR. This is easy for the first 10 CR values, but it becomes mathematically impossible if there's no upper limit.
It's possible to create higher-level encounters by simply doubling up on your max-CR monsters. Need a CR 24 encounter in 3.5e? A group of ten CR 17 creatures works just as well (in theory) as a single CR 24.
But what if the PCs are level 50? This scenario should be covered by the ELH but... it's really not. There probably are a few creatures with appropriate CRs, but mostly you're limited to (A) advanced dragons, (B) creatures with class levels or advancement, or (C) very large groups of much-lower-level monsters. Gaming with these limits gets stale quickly.
Then there's the issue of treasure. A CR 50 encounter (just to continue being extreme), if you were to extrapolate the tables in the DMG/ELH, should contain a ridiculous amount of coins and gems, and a pile of crazy magical items. Some DMs start dumping multiple artifacts on the party because generating treasure takes hours and inevitably comes out looking stupid. What are PCs supposed to do with billions of coins and hundreds of +10 swords? What does this imply about the game world?
I think that's the point behind limiting level advancement... it makes encounter design more manageable, and the eventual outcomes less extreme.
Ultimately, though, I agree with removing the level cap. They feel limiting and spoil the fun even in video games, and I don't want that in my pencil & paper rpg experience. When I reach the point where I feel like combat encounters are becoming awkward, I'll give the PCs an epic finale and start a new campaign, rather than capping them at a particular level. |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 10 Mar 2015 15:17:13 |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:44:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Just a confirmation that PCs are capped at level 20.
DMG, page 38, top of the 1st column: "Characters who reach 20th level have attained the pinnacle of mortal achievement." In the next paragraph: "Characters gain no more levels at this point..."
The point is made that this isn't the end of the game. "Chapter 7 details epic boons you can use as rewards for these characters to maintain a sense of progress." These boons basically resemble epic feats, or what epic feats should have been in 3.5.
As already stated in this thread, a lot of folks don't care about levels above 12 or 15 or 20, and it's not a big enough issue for me to pan the edition either, but there it is in black and white.
Why are they trying to force a level cap on players? That would be the first thing I'd remove as a DM.
Capping players at level 20 has long been a D&D thing.
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 14:54:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe.
Pretty sure you're thinking the of the 3e Epic Level Handbook... it's awesome in some ways, but I think it's the source of some folks' complaints that 3e numbers got too big. And to think I was disappointed with how weak and unimaginative the "epic" advancements were.  |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 15:09:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe.
Pretty sure you're thinking the of the 3e Epic Level Handbook... it's awesome in some ways, but I think it's the source of some folks' complaints that 3e numbers got too big. And to think I was disappointed with how weak and unimaginative the "epic" advancements were.
Ahh yes that's the one! People are going to complain about something with any edition of D&D. The key to RPG happiness to to pick and choose what you want to incorporate into your own rule set.  |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36813 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2015 : 16:04:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Can't remember the name of the sourcebook, but one of them showed experience charts through level 30 for all classes. 2E I believe.
Pretty sure you're thinking the of the 3e Epic Level Handbook... it's awesome in some ways, but I think it's the source of some folks' complaints that 3e numbers got too big. And to think I was disappointed with how weak and unimaginative the "epic" advancements were.
As I recall, the Forgotten Realms Adventures hardcover also provided advancement thru level 30, and I believe that the Anauroch book gave spellcaster advancement thru 40, because of the phaerimm.
That doesn't change the fact, though, that in pretty much all versions of D&D, the basic, core material caps levels at 20. |
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 Mar 2015 : 17:14:30
|
Another thing to keep in mind is that 5E is a very flexible ruleset. You could easily go on gaining levels after 20 if you wanted to without breaking things too much, though you would have to multiclass if you didn't homebrew higher levels.
If my games proceed that far, I do plan on giving players options. If they are already multiclassed, they may continue until they are level 20 in each class. If they are single classed, they may multiclass as per the multiclassing rules in the PHB until their second class hits twenty. They may also gain Epic Boons.
The DMG also provides the proficiency bonus progressions through level 30. You can tailor something around that, as well.
It's not like you run out of options that are built into the official material at level 20. You merely have to start really getting creative. To my mind, if you've made it that far, creativity isn't a resource you lack. |
- 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 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4447 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 05:19:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamsar
My main issue with 5th edition from what I've seen so far is a level 1 (novice adventurer) has a +2 proficiency bonus whereas a level 20 (pinnacle of mortal achievement) has +6, a difference of only +4 (or 20% on a d20)? Also why does a level 20 wizard with equivalent strength have the same chance to hit as a fighter? It's just too incongruous for me. Not going to explore 5th edition beyond the starter set for me, system isn't compelling enough for me to switch.
1. Because bonuses ranging from +1 to +20 exacerbates the numbers to a ridiculous degree, causing multipliers and stats to rise astronomically compared to the averages of others in the system. Basically it leads to numbers porn where the AC of a monster of X level needs to be Y because......game.
and
2. Its more important that a Fighter gets 3 attacks per turn (6 with action surge) compared to a wizards 1 attack, ever. Even if the attack modifier is the same (which I'd speculate that 90% of the time it won't be), the fighter is always attacking more and having higher damage output compared to wizards weapon attacks.
and
3. Weapon proficiencies. Fighters get proficiency with ALL weapons while wizards selection is extremely limited. So yeah a 20th level wizard is getting +6 to attack with his Quarterstaff, dealing 1d6 + Str mod damage compared to a Fighters +6 to attack (3x) with a great sword dealing 2d6 + Str damage or more depending on feats choice.
As for level capping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came out with a Epic levels handbook further down the road to supplement the epic style campaigns. |
Edited by - Diffan on 11 Mar 2015 05:21:35 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 14:30:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
1. Because bonuses ranging from +1 to +20 exacerbates the numbers to a ridiculous degree, causing multipliers and stats to rise astronomically compared to the averages of others in the system. Basically it leads to numbers porn where the AC of a monster of X level needs to be Y because......game.
Yes, the numbers in 3e can get bigger than they do in 5e. So? Problems can arise when they're not balanced properly, but the numbers themselves are not a problem. Barring a phobia of big numbers (I'm not making fun of anyone, just making a point) I think disapproval of 3e's numbers should actually be aimed at balance, not at the magnitude of the numbers.
How is it unrealistic for a level 20 fighter to "automatically hit" a target that a level 1 fighter has to put some effort into? 3e might not be perfect, but 5e's tiny progression is unrealistic. They may have scaled ACs down to fit it, but it still doesn't make sense.
From a different angle, a smaller range of numbers makes each point more "powerful." In 3e, if a high-level character gets another +1 bonus from something, it's no big deal right? In 5e, it's a big deal. So a +1 upgrade to an item or stat is great from the 5e beneficiary's perspective, but it has more potential for unbalancing the group than it does in 3e.
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
As for level capping, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came out with a Epic levels handbook further down the road to supplement the epic style campaigns.
Maybe. With 5e's emphasis on simplifying, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't ever create over-20 rules.
It's not a big deal for me either way, really. I don't anticipate having a need for a new epic level handbook. If a campaign stretches past level 20 I'll make my own rules if there isn't a book for it.
The key for me is how enjoyable playing is, at every level. If playing at level 1 is just as enjoyable as playing at level 20, then players have no resistance to ending a campaign and rolling up new characters for another. It's only when low levels stink that we want to keep going into higher levels, and that's been a problem (for me at least) in previous editions. |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 14:59:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
Yes, the numbers in 3e can get bigger than they do in 5e. So? Problems can arise when they're not balanced properly, but the numbers themselves are not a problem. Barring a phobia of big numbers (I'm not making fun of anyone, just making a point) I think disapproval of 3e's numbers should actually be aimed at balance, not at the magnitude of the numbers.
Agreed. I will say that 3E's numbers were daunting to me, and I ran that edition for years. My brain always shuts down when you throw several (meaning more than one) double digit numbers and tell me to math them. I kinda feel like this guy. Having smaller numbers helps from a playablity standpoint. It makes the game more appealing to a wider range of people because they aren't daunted by the numbers. I do agree, however, in terms of debate, your strongest argument is going to be focused on game balance.
quote:
How is it unrealistic for a level 20 fighter to "automatically hit" a target that a level 1 fighter has to put some effort into? 3e might not be perfect, but 5e's tiny progression is unrealistic. They may have scaled ACs down to fit it, but it still doesn't make sense.
It does to me in a sense. Like you point out, a smaller bonus is a much bigger deal. Your training in this edition doesn't mean bigger numbers, it means more options. Look at your fighter. Sure, his proficiency bonus scales the same as everyone else, but he gets more options on how to use it in melee combat.
quote:
Maybe. With 5e's emphasis on simplifying, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't ever create over-20 rules.
It's not a big deal for me either way, really. I don't anticipate having a need for a new epic level handbook. If a campaign stretches past level 20 I'll make my own rules if there isn't a book for it.
The key for me is how enjoyable playing is, at every level. If playing at level 1 is just as enjoyable as playing at level 20, then players have no resistance to ending a campaign and rolling up new characters for another. It's only when low levels stink that we want to keep going into higher levels, and that's been a problem (for me at least) in previous editions.
Right on. Most games I've been a part of don't get more than ten levels before the story wraps up. I don't see levels beyond twenty being a priority simply because most games don't get that far. If they do, great, and if an ELH is published, I'll pick it up for ideas, but like you said, I don't need it. |
- 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 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 15:53:26
|
I think a moderate portion of the reason why many campaigns don't get past a certain point is an assumption that every campaign should begin at level 1, or at a low level at least. What if you make a new 15th level character for Lord of the Iron Fortress and the adventure doesn't end because the DM has a campaign that follows from it? (tricksy DMses!)
Unusual, yea, but possible and potentially awesome.
A lot of players I've talked to have only gotten to 15th level once or twice, and have never played to 20th level, and the stories look something like this:
they always start at level 1
boredom and "one-up-man-ship" become apparent around level 6
by level 8 drama between the players is threatening to break the group apart
by level 12 the group is hemorrhaging players and the newbies get intimidated by the simmering aggression
the DM vanishes and changes his phone number
That's not necessarily a weakness of the game. It suggests several possible observations about the players and the DM and how tedious and unrewarding the game might be at low levels, but it doesn't mean that nobody wants to play higher levels.
A player who realizes that he's never played a 20th level character has a challenging situation. The DM has to have high-level adventures available, and be confident running them. The other players have to share this player's desire to play higher levels. The group has to have some cohesion, some motivation to cooperate and ignore drama, etc.
Those things also have to be present in higher doses than when the characters are lower levels because playing a higher level character demands more focus and more roleplaying -- you have more abilities to understand and use properly, and a typical teenager with the capability of wiping out the town militia and forcing his will on the peasants has to expend more willpower to resist the urge.
I'm just saying it's tough for many players to just pipe up with "hey let's play high level characters." The usual response seems to be "uh, let's not." Because many DMs have few/no positive (and maybe several negative) memories of DMing higher level groups. Also, many DMs might accurately predict that the current group of players are unlikely to deal with it well.
You want the high levels? You can't handle the high levels!
The problem is, that remains true as long as nobody gets to practice.
This rambling rant has been brought to you by me. We now return you to your regularly scheduled... ranting by everyone else. |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 11 Mar 2015 15:57:14 |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1271 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2015 : 17:03:57
|
LOL. You make good points. My own experience with high level DMing in 3.5 didn't break down because of in-party fighting (most of my long-time players are post-college age.) But I'm probably not the norm. A lot of the "let's burn down the town because we can" stuff is policed by my own PC's because that's not what many of them want out of my games.
It broke down for me in providing challenging encounters at high levels that I could manage. That's just as much my fault as anything else. Like you said, it remains true as long as nobody gets to practice.
I think what the playtest did for me was give me that extra boost of practice. I got to see how this edition was designed from the ground up. Why they went XYZ way instead of ABC, and that helped me learn the system. I didn't have that when I learned 3.5. If I had, I may not have ever switched.
Another added benefit, again, is the trimmed down system. I had trouble juggling all the things a Colossal Red Wyrm could do, was resistant to, had Damage Reduction from, was Immune to, etc. It's a lot more trimmed down in 5E. The same Colossal Red Wyrm provides just as big a challenge when run correctly against an appropriately leveled party, but there are fewer things for me as DM to remember, and that has helped me a lot. |
- 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 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Thoughts on 5e?
