Author Topic: Have they simplified too much?  (Read 13411 times)

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2015, 04:41:16 PM »
I can't really guess how much simplifying has happened.
And it also depends on which Edition-o-centric is the comparison.
Clearly the stone cold game maths are superior to 1e and 2e.

I get the impression that one of the gamingden critiques of PF
is not that far off, when applied to 5e.  It's a bunch of Houserules
stuck onto the 3e skeleton.  Except that the maths are better.

But yeah, like SorO said it's early.

iirc - maybe it was Talen Lee at giantitp that did a Panther Charger Lance Ranger.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2015, 08:42:57 AM »
What level is your ranger at? I will admit that it's one of the most mechanically simple classes though. Like many things in D&D, it's a case of "just add magic" and it's fun. Or add a different class level or three. Anything really. Rangers can be pretty damn boring.
My experience was a playtest or a preview or whatever, so suffice to say it did not give me a favorable first (well, second or third, but you get the idea) impression of 5E D&D. 

I may eventually, in part when I have the time or impetus (everyone I know is pretty happy with 3E or Pathfinder or hybrids thereof, so there's not a lot of urge to change, and when I do, it tends to be for an entirely different system) take a look at 5E given that you guys seems to like it.

Offline Dictum Mortuum

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #22 on: February 11, 2015, 09:27:24 AM »
I like it because of the low maintenance. It's really hard to mess up a character in 5th edition, so even my optimization-newb friends can still be fairly competent.

In 3.x most of the times it's the opposite: you have to pay attention so that you don't end up being worthless.

For me it's like this:

Theory crafting, guide-writing, theoretical optimization fun: 3.x
Actually playing: 5th
Dictum Mortuum's Handbooks: My personal character optimization blog.

Offline sambojin

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • It's a game. Have fun.
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #23 on: February 11, 2015, 07:28:00 PM »
I don't mind the constraints and simplification of 5th. It makes finding the optimizations fun. Yet you still know that it won't be so optimized that other people can't contribute in a meaningful way compared to you. I tend to think that 5.0 has a ton more options for optimized characters in the PHB and DMG than 3.5 did. You don't actually need the splatbooks to represent a wide variety of builds and characters, it's already a core part of the system.

It's nice that it's all there in 3 books too. This will change, but for now when people ask "What books are we using?", you don't even have to answer them. They're there, sitting in front of you.

Offline bhu

  • Uncle Kittie
  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16054
  • Fnord bitches
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #24 on: February 12, 2015, 03:41:44 AM »

It's nice that it's all there in 3 books too. This will change, but for now when people ask "What books are we using?", you don't even have to answer them. They're there, sitting in front of you.


My point though is how long can them make new books given that simplification before someone says "Crap, I'm outta ideas we need a new edition or we need to complicate this one".

Offline Nunkuruji

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • I shall bring great terror
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #25 on: February 12, 2015, 10:42:03 AM »
The critters natural attacks dont get modified to be magic though, so at higher levels they dont do much.

Which is why I keep mentioning Insignia of Claws, from Hoard of the Dragon Queen :)


To comment a little further on the beast master

Ranger HP: d10 hit die: Let's say eventually 19 con via item for, 204 HP @ 20th
Beast HP: 4x Ranger Level: 80 HP @ 20th

The big boon to the beast here is the Ranger proficiency bonus added to AC, attack roll, damage roll, and proficient saves & skills.

Thus, the Beast can be quite an AC tank, with simple routes of
-Natural Armor 1-3 + Dex19 magic item (4 AC) + Proficiency 6 AC @ 20th 21-23 AC
-Plate Barding AC 18 + Proficiency 6 AC @ 20th 24 AC (extremely costly, and time consuming to create plate barding)
-Cheap Light to Medium barding that maximizes natural dex is likely 16-17 AC + Proficiency 6 AC @ 20th 22-23 AC

Any other magic items that boost AC are gravy at this point

However, they're totally going to eat shit from magic or anything else requiring a save, as most have no saving throw proficiencies, so they don't get the Ranger's proficiency bonus to any saves.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2015, 11:24:21 AM by Nunkuruji »

Offline SorO_Lost

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7197
  • Banned
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #26 on: February 12, 2015, 01:00:59 PM »
Which is why I keep mentioning Insignia of Claws, from Hoard of the Dragon Queen :)
The Tyranny of Dragons, the home of all our current splat.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #27 on: February 12, 2015, 04:49:07 PM »

It's nice that it's all there in 3 books too. This will change, but for now when people ask "What books are we using?", you don't even have to answer them. They're there, sitting in front of you.

My point though is how long can them make new books given that simplification before someone says "Crap, I'm outta ideas we need a new edition or we need to complicate this one".

Perhaps indefinitely ... if PF is any indication.

The localstoregame I'm in, the dudes have all played 3.X, 'cept 1 guy is 2e only.
Something will come up with the rules, and it goes:
a) "It's the same"
b) "It's different"
c) "It doesn't matter anymore" , which usually gets a Huh? O.K.
d) "uhh lets look that up" (i.e. it's a little complicated for insta-memorizing)

My guess is wotc can keep this abcd-mini-game up for a long time.
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline majicwalrus

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2015, 11:58:29 AM »
No way.  It makes optimizing more complex and based more in planning strategies than just having big numbers.  Plus, it's super easy for non-players to get into.  I'm in two weekly games right now and each of them are made up of about 50% new players.  Not only are they enjoying it, but they also feel just as relevant to combat situations because as it's been mentioned before it's kind of hard to screw up too badly with most of the classes. 

Compared to the more recent 4th edition it's got layers and layers of complexity beyond just simple pick your attack and then move forward and compared to 3.5 it's easy enough for most people to be able to pick up a PHB, a character sheet, and a pencil and start playing that same day.  3.5 was a nightmare for anyone coming into the game - especially if you were playing with experienced people who minmax - there were dozens of books that veterans either had or had access to that could ramp them into gods by 7th level and if you were the new guy who decided to be a Bard because isn't music cool you were useless in a lot of situations.

I like 5e. 

Offline TenaciousJ

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • AVENGE WAGON
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #29 on: March 27, 2015, 10:33:33 AM »
A bard with inspire courage available was never useless!  But otherwise, I'm seeing the same thing.  It's far easier to get new people into 5e and have them turn into good players.
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA

Offline eleazzaar

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #30 on: March 28, 2015, 04:54:38 PM »
I sort of like 5e so far (the pbps im in keep falling flat), and while fooling about with character making i notice that by drastically simplifying from 5e they may have simplified too mcu, and may soon face a problem where in new material is the same mechanically as what they've already done, but with different fluff.

I haven't played 5E much since the beta, and i am a little disappointed in the simplicity of the skill system.

But to your actual question  It seems to me that  5E stacking bonuses much less, and instead more often distinguishes classes/races with unique mechanics-- like the Lightfoot Halfling's Luck, the Arcane Trickster's Mage Hand Legerdemain, or the Sorcerers Sorcery points.  This kind of things are specific rules that you only need to care about if someone of that class/race is at the table, but you can just keep making up more of them.

But in general, it seems to me that they are setting themselves up to focus more on campaign and setting books rather than books of classes, feats and spells.  At least that's where i hope they are going...



You are aware that Familiars can't attack. Ever. Right?

The Chain Pact Warlock's familiar can attack.

Offline Reshy

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2015, 04:21:11 AM »
I'm a 3.5e player here; kind of wondering how 5e compares to 3.5e, 4e, and pathfinder.  My friend's urging me to play 5e but so far I've not really gotten any real impression fro those who have played it and 3.5e other than "It reduces character choices not unlike what 4e did." but of course these people main pathfinder/3.5e so I can't really do a comparison.

I do favor customization quite a bit, which is why 4e never interested me.
"You're a DM, man.  The only reason you roll dice is because you like the sound it makes."

"I'm helping!"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tvNDnsnzj4dOkkYwxl1iGTeTNnQ5PK3geufSX5DwyYo/edit
Eggynack's Comprehensive Druid Handbook

Offline Nunkuruji

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 905
  • I shall bring great terror
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2015, 12:26:16 PM »
For PCs, they seem to have setup for more races, feats, archetypes and spells, as they've already released some of such content for free in pdfs.
I wouldn't expect a great number of new classes outside of psionics, latest UA article is alt class/modification.
For DMs, certainly new Monster Manuals, campaigns, magic items.

I'd imagine business wise, they're going to look back at what content types sold well, and prioritize that.
I'm curious if there is/was some correlation to common community allow/ban list that affected sales for them (Core + Complete's only).


Offline TenaciousJ

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 600
  • AVENGE WAGON
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2015, 01:51:04 PM »
At the table, 5e feels like playing a streamlined 3.5.  At character creation and customization, there's a lot less choice than 3.5 but that's mostly due to 5e not having much beyond core at the moment.  There's no prestige classing but you can still multiclass without much restriction.

I doubt 5e is going to have prestige classes, but I feel the prestige classes are not needed so much since each base class has archetype choices built in that replicate some of what you would get out of choosing a prestige class.  We'll probably see psionic classes at some point and maybe the artificer.  Anything else will probably be class archetype variants.

There's less opportunity to customize via feats but each feat comes with multiple benefits.  The analogues to cleave and power attack are 1 feat in 5e for example.
Make Eberron Great Again! #MEGA

Offline bruceleeroy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Hey man, what it look like?
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2015, 02:31:31 PM »
My gaming group was, for many years, a high-op 3.5 group. We switched to 5e last fall due to a new group composition: only 1 player from the die-hards stuck around (aside from me, the DM), everyone else got babies or stupid jobs or  moved. The other 5 players (who rotate in and out due to schedules, usually about 3-4 players at the table ) are from different backgrounds: one is a 2E Grognard, one is a 4E rookie, one is a 3.5 veteran who is usually too high to recall having played before... You get the picture.

We are all liking 5e, for various reasons. The simplification of the system is intense, from the perspective of a DM who would routinely spend weeks crafting major NPCs or boss fights in 3.5. From the perspective of the players with less experience, it is extremely approachable. It has enough baked in traditions from the other versions that it is easy for anyone to pick up if they have had the slightest exposure to a DnD game. I would characterize the ideology of game design as 'elegant'. Not as deep as 3.5, but certainly easier on the eye and brain than the jerry-rigged, cancerous hatchet job of revisions, updates, erratum and house rules that 3.5 became ( I say that with deepest affection for all things 3.5, except you, Toughness. Fuck you.)

One of the major features that I am enjoying as a DM is the ability to plug things in on the fly. A system that is simple is easy to attach things to. Magic items, monsters, settings, spells, are all pretty easy to adapt from the myriad 3.5 and 2E sources I have in my library.

I'm a Monty Haul/Gygaxian hybrid DM, so the game is never going to feel all that "simple" for myself or my players: they're going to get tons of loot and items and bonus feats and boons and yadda yadda, and then they're going to die or have their gender switched or their limbs removed or be cursed into being a were-sandwich or what-have-you, so the lack of 50 sourcebooks to meticulously plot out their advancement to level 20 doesn't register.

As far as the ability to customize your character from the player's perspective, I feel that the background aspect of the character creation does a great job of that, especially with the variants or write-your-own version. Feats are neat and powerful (except the Grappler one, what the fuck) enough to be a difficult choice most of the time, and the classes feel different enough that there isn't really a "right" answer for a given role.

A suggestion that I have for you as a 3.5 player is to use an unusual character concept and then try to build it using the 5e mechanics. Multiclassing is sweet, finally, instead of obligatory or ridiculous, and there's a wide variety of things that can be easily refluffed to fit a given genre (for instance, a space pirate in my game uses Eldritch Blast as his laser gun).
Normally, I would be reading this, open the reply box, decide what I had to say didn't need said, and close out. But this is just too ridiculous.



Offline bluephenix

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Have they simplified too much?
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2015, 05:53:40 AM »
What level is your ranger at? I will admit that it's one of the most mechanically simple classes though. Like many things in D&D, it's a case of "just add magic" and it's fun. Or add a different class level or three. Anything really. Rangers can be pretty damn boring.
My experience was a playtest or a preview or whatever, so suffice to say it did not give me a favorable first (well, second or third, but you get the idea) impression of 5E D&D. 

I think part of the issue also is that from what I've read in the PHB, there's a suggestion for the DM to improvise things like combat contests that my DM in anycase doesn't seem to want to do.
What i'm talking about are things like the laymens trip, disarm and so on that would give players that felt trapped in terms of options some more variety. These being the basic, Str athletics vs dex acrobatics kinda checks and I think are different enough from the battle master's own, trip, disarm and such since If I remember rightly, That fighter archetype only has to hit then expend special pooled dice to make stuff happen with occasional saving throws against 8+ proficiency+ dex or some such.