D&D 5e: For real this time?

[Nanshork]

Hey, getting married versus playing 4th Edition.
Sounds like the same "compromise" JanusJones
had to make ; and he recently reappeared too.

Whoa ... that's a Harmonic Convergence (sda).

Yeah I saw JJ's posts in a few places too. 
"I sense something...a presence I haven't felt since..."

Why do people that I haven't seen in years keep popping up?  Not that I'm complaining, it is just odd timing.

Like who?

jameswilliamogle and janusjones for two. 

[Bard]

FYI: For what it's worth to you, 4e currently has lots and lots of character options. Maybe not as many as 3.x -- I don't know, I haven't counted -- but still more than I'll ever be able to play in my lifetime. And once the number of options gets beyond the 'in my lifetime' threshold, it doesn't actually matter whether one edition has more than the other.

I'm happy to hear that, I'll make sure to take a new look at it as soon as I have the chance to grab some 4th books (should be soon). The biggest grief I had with it is that it was a "you got two classes, one for 11 levels and another similar one later" deal with some little feats to make it seem you were different from any other guy for the first 11 levels even tho you weren't. Coming from "I've got 3 classes and 4 PrC carefully stacked in a character" it made me feel like I was just $token_soldier_13. I hated, hated, hated that feeling. I felt like I was playing Ragarok Online If it turns out well I might have to convince our DM to try another go at it.

But 4e fulfills my three D&D requirements: It has strange monsters to kill, lots of loot to grab, and weird dice to roll.

That's true for lots of games, most of the ones I played actually ended like that at least once (often way more than once). I think it could describe even some World of Darkness campaigns I ended in and ALL of the Deadlands ones (plus Hollow Earth Expedition, some Shadowrun ones, the cthulhu-cyberpunk one, Exalted, Scion, some Star Wars d20, the old and bad Mutant Chronicles game, etc, etc)

[veekie]

@Forgotten Realms:  The idea of changing fluff and settings due to system changes strikes me as quite silly.  They did this with 3E, too, I think, with the inclusion of Sorcerers and some suchness.  I am not now, nor have I ever been, really on top of FR as a setting.

Each time the ruleset changes, the most noticeable change is to the magic system.

So they kill Mystra.

Again.

[jameswilliamogle]

The 5e playtest feels a lot like the system my 1e crew used to use, incorporating the 2e proficiencies into the 1e ruleset in some manner.  The progression feels like the kits of 2e (we never played through those).  The only other thing different is the feats, which are more relevent to combat than the proficiencies.  There's no multiclassing yet from what I've read.  The experience etc. system feels much more simpler, which I really appreciate.  The amount of rules in the playtest is extremely light compared to any edition previously IMO and that I REALLY like.  4e was such a foreign beast to me that it didn't feel like DND.  The 5e playtest feels like DND to me as I remember it from the 1e-2e days, but with much less rules pressure on the DM, which I like (the arguments from 3.5 were non-stop compared to my 1e groups).  The magic feels much closer to 1e, for all the spellcasters, but the warrior classes feel closer to 4e, and utility classes feel close to 2e.

Overall, I think this is a great move away from 4e without swinging so far back to 3.5 that its a full reversal.  I think that they need to work on PC and monster customization options to satisfy the 3.5 crowd, still.  The playtest ruleset feels solid: enough concrete rules to show how the game is played, but still enough flexibility that DMs can play the way they want it to play such that they don't feel like they're completely rewriting the rules.

I'm trying to assemble a playtest for 5e in Spring, TX, if anyone reading this is interested...

[Bard]

the arguments from 3.5 were non-stop compared to my 1e groups

It was the very opposite for me, 2nd edition in my group at the time was WAR, I don't know how else to put it. It was bad to a point we stopped playing D&D and went on to play other games for years until 3.0 hit the shelves.
With 3.0 most of the arguments were "No DM, you forgot this or that rule, it's actually like that" - "You're right/You're wong/Let it go for now, we'll check the books during the week" and with time and more rules and experience with them they almost disappeared.
I think it really depends on the group, but sometimes it surprises me how different some experiences can be in front of the same "issue".
I must admit I never played 1e tho. I'm way to young for that :\ 2nd edition came out that I was 5, and I didn't start playing until high school, in my Ultima Online days.

[jameswilliamogle]

I must admit I never played 1e tho. I'm way to young for that :\ 2nd edition came out that I was 5, and I didn't start playing until high school, in my Ultima Online days.

1e was so confusing that you had to just "wing it".

[Complete4th]

FYI: For what it's worth to you, 4e currently has lots and lots of character options. Maybe not as many as 3.x -- I don't know, I haven't counted -- but still more than I'll ever be able to play in my lifetime. And once the number of options gets beyond the 'in my lifetime' threshold, it doesn't actually matter whether one edition has more than the other.

I'm happy to hear that, I'll make sure to take a new look at it as soon as I have the chance to grab some 4th books (should be soon). The biggest grief I had with it is that it was a "you got two classes, one for 11 levels and another similar one later" deal with some little feats to make it seem you were different from any other guy for the first 11 levels even tho you weren't. Coming from "I've got 3 classes and 4 PrC carefully stacked in a character" it made me feel like I was just $token_soldier_13. I hated, hated, hated that feeling. I felt like I was playing Ragarok Online If it turns out well I might have to convince our DM to try another go at it.

That "fighter #114" thing that you describe is how I feel about 2e non-casters.

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..." Don't get me wrong, I think 3e-style multiclassing was a great idea, but failed because non-casters are front-loaded in all the wrong ways and casters...well, because casters. Maybe one of these editions WotC will do 3e-style multiclassing right, but 5e doesn't look like the one.

4e character building feels just about right. I think I could happily play the game without feats -- the zillion available powers, paragon paths, and epic destinies scratch my character-building itch -- but feats fill dead levels, so whatever.

But 4e fulfills my three D&D requirements: It has strange monsters to kill, lots of loot to grab, and weird dice to roll.

That's true for lots of games, most of the ones I played actually ended like that at least once (often way more than once). I think it could describe even some World of Darkness campaigns I ended in and ALL of the Deadlands ones (plus Hollow Earth Expedition, some Shadowrun ones, the cthulhu-cyberpunk one, Exalted, Scion, some Star Wars d20, the old and bad Mutant Chronicles game, etc, etc)

The truth is that I and many gamers don't actually need the D&D logo to feel like we're playing D&D. Our D&D needs aren't tied to specific game mechanics or legacy quirks, which means that we can get that D&D experience from any edition or clone, and even other games. Although we all have our favorite rulesets.

[SorO_Lost]

Open ended question here.

Why do people think Magic Items should be rare?

And I mean that question, all to often we have threads about omfg magic items Banhammerz them!, or in *my* game magic items are rare. It's such a huge thing that 5th is being built on the idea f*ck wealth (and leveling). But I just cannot grasp the concept. And before you reply, I want you to keep two things in mind.

* 3rd Edition makes a better JRR Tolken world than 2nd. That rag tag group of 5th level PCs were handed magical stuff at each leg of their journey (sic, end rewards). By the time everything was said and done they had no less than three magical swords, two artifact rings, a half dozen enchanted tools, freaking magical stay-fresh bread, and every damn one of them owns an enchanted cloak. Think on that, seriously. A typical D&D character would murder a Kobold for loot, all these guys did was move through uncivilized areas and they obtained enough to blind someone using Detect Magic. So ever since D&D came to be, and in all video games today, magical loot has always been handed out like candy.

* "I want my items to be unique!" Is a common point seen. Which I don't understand either. 3rd is littered with unique magical rewards, blanket banning items that add unique abilities or traits in favor of making items that add +1 to a metagame die element uber rare isn't going to change how exciting they are. Oooh a +1 Greatsword you say? That's +1/12th to my damage *rollseyes*. Oh, it's a +1 Flaming Greatsword? So you mean to tell me the depths of your creativity is to plagiarize adding a d6 in damage that doesn't work on anything color coded in red, looks hellishly menacing, or is on fire, and amounts to dousing my sword in oil and setting it on fire. Got it.

I just don't understand the appeal at all.

[Raineh Daze]

Most of the LotR items aren't particularly magical, that's why. They're exceedingly well crafted--masterwork, basically--but the most magical property any of the weapons possess is 'glow in the presence of orcs'. The cloaks aren't exactly magical, either. Now, the random junk they're carrying around--Sam's dirt, that flask that somehow has starlight (and that's a gem on a guy's forehead, at that)--is magical, but they're also basically slightly helpful at best. Ditto for the Ring and Palantir. Most of the stuff they've got is actually just the result of exceptional craftsmanship (and materials, for the mithril chainmail)

So no, 3.X does not emulate LotR better because it requires doling out +X equipment like it's going out of fashion. :|

[SorO_Lost]

Really? Because a green elven cloak appearing as a rock sounds pretty flipping magical to me.

Edit - Sam's rope could magically untie any knot when tugged on. Eragon's Scabbard bestowed unbreaking traits to whatever sword rested in it. Both of which didn't appear in the movies.

[bhu]

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?

[Raineh Daze]

Really? Because a green elven cloak appearing as a rock sounds pretty flipping magical to me.

I thought they were grey?

Edit - Sam's rope could magically untie any knot when tugged on. Eragon's Scabbard bestowed unbreaking traits to whatever sword rested in it. Both of which didn't appear in the movies.

Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.

[Bard]

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?

Whoa I forgot that game, used to play a lot of it back in the 4th/5th Hero System version time.

[Complete4th]

Most of the LotR items aren't particularly magical, that's why. They're exceedingly well crafted--masterwork, basically--but the most magical property any of the weapons possess is 'glow in the presence of orcs'. The cloaks aren't exactly magical, either. Now, the random junk they're carrying around--Sam's dirt, that flask that somehow has starlight (and that's a gem on a guy's forehead, at that)--is magical, but they're also basically slightly helpful at best. Ditto for the Ring and Palantir. Most of the stuff they've got is actually just the result of exceptional craftsmanship (and materials, for the mithril chainmail)

The difference between 'magical' and 'well-crafted' is pretty semantic in the context of SorO's question. They're not all super-useful items, but they have properties which can only be explained as magical or sufficiently advanced technology.

Open ended question here.

Why do people think Magic Items should be rare?

Personally, I can appreciate magic being either rare or everyday. What I hate is how D&D ties a significant portion of its level-up math to magical bling, which naive DMs then frequently take away in the pursuit some sort of 'pure fantasy.'

In 3.x and earlier, your PC becomes a glass cannon without his magical +X's. And he maybe can't even damage some monsters without his +X sword. Any deviation from 'quite a lot of magical loot,' and every time a dispel magic goes off, results in a fundamental change in combat dynamics. And NPCs suck, because they can't afford to carry all that +X soon-to-be loot.

In 4e, your PC more or less becomes X levels lower without his +X gear, unless your DM has inherent bonuses turned on.

[Complete4th]

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?

I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."

And then you die. So basically, it sounds a lot like 3.x chargen turned up to 11.

[SorO_Lost]

Really? Because a green elven cloak appearing as a rock sounds pretty flipping magical to me.

I thought they were grey?

Actually, barring further review, I'm going with they changed depending on the scene in the film.

(click to show/hide)

Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.

You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

[Raineh Daze]

Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.

You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.

[littha]

Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.

You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.

The problem of course being that you DO need those magical bonuses to function...

[SorO_Lost]

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.

That's just it. It doesn't.

A Rod of Ropes's value doesn't alter because you own a Vet of Resistance +3 or not, it's still a grappling hook and the Vest still saves you're life. As long as the vest exists, players will seek it. IE why have a 20% chance of being killed when you could have 15%, or even 10%? It's only after these bonuses are obtained do you turn else where and purchase those unique tools. Blanket banning and it's embodiment D&D Next share the same fundamental problem. They both want you to think +3.5 damage is a unique very rare effect. But all it really is, is a boring bland tasteless numerical bonus. The good stuff isn't worth typing up in new rule books or worth acknowledging.

When you ban things under the pretenses you want magic items to feel special, you're doing more harm than good. You've created a greater demand for numerical items, not the gimmicky or functionally interesting ones that are already special and cool to own.

[veekie]

Yeah you're better off ditching the raw bonuses entirely, or making them unavailable without tradeoffs to other raw bonuses. As long as they exist they will be first choice.