D&D 5e: For real this time?

[Complete4th]

On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!

Just about everyone and their brother tried that as a house rule in 3.0.  If there was a more common house rule in that era, it was no Favored Class.     3.0 DR was so bad, that that fix was obvious to everyone.  So of course, 3.5 decided it was a pinin' for the golf bag.

And I thought I had found a diamond in the rough. 

Now I'm curious why it didn't stick with many groups?

[veekie]

You need to modify monsters to fit. Which is a lot more work than rolling out a change to PCs to remember to implement.

[Complete4th]

What's the alternative change that players implement?

[Keldar]

3.5   

[Bauglir]

So we got a new playtest packet. I took a look at the multiclassing rules, and I don't hate them. Which is rather surprising. They're probably the most intuitive you could hope for with the adherence to Vancian casting as a thing, and I don't think any of us could honestly expect that particular golden calf to go anywhere. The ability score prerequisites bug me, but 5E is looking like one that puts a heavier emphasis on the idea of classes than 3.5 or (for that matter) 4, even if 4 gave you fewer options in that regard over the course of your career. I'm okay with letting that slide as a difference of opinion.

[ImperatorK]

Can someone tell me, in simple words, how similar is D&D 5e to 3.P and how are "mundanes"/martials doing in comparison to casters (which I assume still reign supreme)? I'm not interested in the new edition, but am considering stealing some ideas/concepts/materials if it's not too much work.

[Keldar]

Since its the last packet, I figured I'd take a look again.  And holy shit, much of the things I hated were removed!

The overused martial die are gone.  The stupid skill die is dead too.  Though skills are basically gone as well.  Bizarrely, they still exist as ability checks.  With all the various lores spelled out under Intelligence for some reason.  They'd need one whole paragraph to turn that into a basic skill system.

Feats are still an optional system, that trades out the all important stat boost.    But they're strong feats.  Such as giving heavy armor proficiency and ignoring the speed penalty and getting your Con mod as DR all for one feat.

Extra Attack is a class feature, meaning spellcasters can't touch it without deep multiclassing giving noncasters role protection they've been lacking since 2e.  Why multiclassing decided it wanted to use old Dual Classing restrictions is beyond me.  Is it really a good idea to block someone from a class just because they didn't plan their limited ability scores ahead of time for it?  Though how they handle spellcasting with multiclassing is pretty good.

Girdle of Giant Strength still is unchanged, thus still makes a mockery of the array or point buy system they default to.  And the potential huge bonus from it still completely shatters the idea of magical items being interesting rather than huge numerical bonuses.      Magic items can still make up to nearly 70% of your attack value thanks to this thing! (+7 magic vs max +11 natural)

Overall a huge move back in a direction I like from the hot mess that I gave up on.  Not enough to sell me yet, but enough to make me pay attention again.  I guess I'll have to read the whole thing.

[VennDygrem]

I've been playtesting it with a game I run for my brother and his friends and Sunday we updated to the current packet's rules. I added in a few houserules to make the game run how I want it to, but the game is running really smoothly despite everyone pretty much learning the system's particulars at once. I've got a crew mixed up out of seasoned d&d vets and newbies alike and everyone seems to be having fun. Despite the packet being kind of messy to use in practice, I've been able to run the game with minimal preparation (thanks to running the first leg of the campaign using a module from a previous edition). The bestiary suffices and actually fits the module really well, though a full monster manual will make things a lot easier on me.

Homebrewing content specific to the campaign has also been fairly easy.

As for party balance, the group is currently made up of a Monk, a Barbarian, two Mages (one enchanter and one evoker), and the newly released Bard. Everyone so far seems quite capable in combat, and though I was disappointed at how thoroughly my brother's Ray of Enfeeblement knocked the wind out of my mini-boss monster, everyone had fun. I was able to improvise encounters easily though I still am not sure about how to properly advance monster stats to provide increased challenge while remaining balanced.

I am glad to see skills are back and the realms of lore is dead (I really disliked that implementation in the last packet), though I wish the character sheet had been updated to reflect this. Overall, I quite like the rules and look forward to seeing how they evolve between now and release. But I may remain in the minority.

[oslecamo]

But I may remain in the minority.

Well, I at least am with you on that opinion. I see a lot of nice ideas and streamlining, and if wotc doesn't screw up too badly, they may just suceed on making an easy-entry D&D game that still allows for deeper complexity and diversity should the players choose.

[Nytemare3701]

But I may remain in the minority.

Well, I at least am with you on that opinion. I see a lot of nice ideas and streamlining, and if wotc doesn't screw up too badly, they may just suceed on making an easy-entry D&D game that still allows for deeper complexity and diversity should the players choose.

I'm really happy with their decision to include simple buffs into the chassis of the classes, with things like feats as substitutions.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... They've got to be hiding the real thing.  At least most of it.

Proved right (though not really intentionally) :

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130923
Meanwhile, a second design team will tackle a number of outstanding topics ... underlying math of the game ...


So like, C.O. + Stormwind Fallacy = fix the maths first, fluff/roleplay off of that.
They're doing this the other way around.  That's weird.

[Keldar]

 

[Demelain]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130930

I was a fan of class groupings in 2E, so I'm interested in seeing this. Though I hope they don't feel straight-jacketed by it when making design decisions.

I like the comment about the keyword system in 4E, as well as (the spirit of) the short rant about meta-labels.


From the comments section:

(click to show/hide)

I like the direction this is going. I loved class groups in 2e, and it's awesome seeing that come back. However, it seems a mistake to tie mechanics like hit dice, skills, and proficiencies directly to the class groups. That is better handled by the classes themselves. I found it artificial and dull that 4e had hit points tied to roles rather than classes, and it made it seem artificial when the vampire class was a striker with the hit points of a defender, because the rules just didn't get broken like that in 4e.

I would prefer (and I gather from reading the comments that a lot of people would prefer) class groups to function more like keywords did for monsters in 4e. Keywords allowed a variety of mechanics to key on them without actually defining any of the monster's other mechanics. So an aberration would be subject to things that affect aberrations, but none of its hit points, ability scores, or other mechanics were defined by it being an aberration.

This could work with classes by attaching the keyword "mage" to any spellcasting classes. A class could also have multiple keywords such as a paladin being both a "warrior" and a "priest." Further, keywords need not be set in stone. New keywords can be introduced as the game grows, allowing new concepts to be explored, such as introducing the "psion" keyword when psionics are ready to be introduced. This also works well with the current class and subclass structure, as different subclasses can have different keywords. For example, a new subclass of the monk can be introduced with the "psion" keyword even though the monk class does not normally have that keyword.

In a way, keywords are more like power sources from 4e than they are like roles. Power sources were fun and added to the story of the game. Roles on the other hand were one of the single most divisive features of 4th Edition. For many people, roles detracted from roleplaying and encouraged metagame thinking. Further, roles were set in stone. It was impossible to add new roles or break a class out of its role without the players calling "foul." Roles that broke the rules just furthered the tendency of players to engage in metagame thinking. However, when new power sources, like psionics and shadow, were introduced, they were widely accepted. I had three players in my group play psionic characters when Player's Handbook 3 came out, and I played a kobold vampire in a friend's game.

(click to show/hide)

I think the big problem is that you want to use meta-categories for character types -essentially roles from 4e- but with more natural/less meta-gamey language to appease people from other editions.

This is doomed to fail. By making meta-categories using natural language you are necessarily implying certain flavour elements/judgements about that archetype.

If you're going to go META, you have the bite the bullet and just go META. That means using things like Tank, Striker, Controller, Healer, or heck, even something like ADC or something. You can't have it both ways and make it work. Just be clear that if you use the simplified options, you are going to be using some meta-gamey language... that's fine, just be clear it's not what they are referred to 'in-game.' And leave the classes as diverse as they need to be to make everyone who has been playing for YEARS or DECADES, supporting the company and the hobbey.... HAPPY.

[Unbeliever]

A thought:  are class groupings not pernicious? 

The article Demelain linked to described Warriors, Tricksters, Mages, and Priests.  "Warriors are masters of arms."  Ok, that makes perfect sense.  And, stabbing things is a pretty huge part of D&D.  But, "Mages specialize in arcane magic," Priests in "divine magic," and Tricksters "in a variety of fields." 

Two things jump out at me.  First, Tricksters, Mages, and Priests seem to have much more capacious bailiwicks.  Second, they seem so vague as to be not particularly helpful.  I have a sense of what D&D traditionally labels arcane magic vs. divine magic, but that's from experience.  It's not readily accessible to a reader, even assuming the division persists from edition to edition.  In short, telling me a Mage is a specialist in arcane magic doesn't really tell me anything.

I thought 4E's roles conveyed more information, although I found the game overly mechanistic about it.  And, I'm not sure how useful it was to codify them as such.  Saying that a Ranger is a Striker and maybe a Warlock is a Striker with more Controller elements tells you something.  But, that doesn't seem any more enlightening than saying that an Invoker specializes in direct damage, often to a group, and an Enchanter focuses on manipulating targets.  The latter appears much more engaging and interesting, and also might unshackle designers to be more creative in designs. 

[linklord231]

I'm afraid that having class groupings will be a bad thing.  There's nothing wrong with them in and of themselves, but I'm afraid they'll be too limiting on the designers.  Unless they introduce more groups, or allow classes to be a member of two or more groups, I don't see it working. 

Presumably a Spellthief would be a Trickster and a Hexblade would be a Warrior, but what about a Duskblade or a Beguiler?  Is a Ranger a Warrior, a Trickster, or a Priest?  What about something that doesn't fit in to any of the current groups, like a Binder or Incarnate? 

[Demelain]

I agree. I'd rather not see the groupings used as Super-classes, from which every sub-class must inherent its properties. I'd rather they move them towards both more meta-labels (as 4E), and to use them as keywords that give you an idea of what it does, but does not necessarily tie the class into the general rules for the keyword.

So a Duskblade would have, say, the Warrior/Mage keywords. A Beguiler the Mage/Trickster. And staying away from the idea of a Super-class means that you can just create a new keyword for Binders, Incarnate, Psionics, etc. where creating a dedicated super-class for two or three sub-classes would be wasted effort.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

The 4 roles, and the 5 power sources, in 4e ... feel to me like class "groupings".

If it's just fluff - big deal; if there's gonna be crunch tie-ins, cue C.O.

Still, it's fertile ground lots of way to do it.

[Unbeliever]

Played a 5E playtest packet at a local Con yesterday.  It's than I expected, just from that limited experience.  Especially if your goal was to capture something more like AD&D and 2E.  That's not exactly my preference -- it feels far too limiting to me to approach character creation in an almost purely chinese menu type of way -- but I recognize I might be idiosyncratic. 

Advantage was a nice, reasonably straightforward mechanic that felt fun to use.  1st level characters were still sort of pathetic, though.  They feel so fragile that you have to wonder what would possess them to ever adventure at all.  I will never understand why D&D wants its "heroes" to start out as somewhat less competent than Bilbo Baggins. 

The biggest problem remains, though.  As a warrior type (Elven TWF Ranger, with SCIMITARS if you can believe it!) I just didn't have that much that was interesting to do in the system.  I could attack with both my swords or use a shield, and even that was b/c I picked a shield off of a foe and the DM was generous with weapon switching.  My only other option was to fire my bow, in situations where that was appropriate.  That was it.  Anything else I could do as a creative player was completely separate from my character sheet, class, etc.

Even at 1st level the spellcasters seemed to have a lot more options to make encounters feel more dynamic.  I'm still shocked that trained warriors can't feint, disarm, knock people off balance, guard allies, go corps a corps, or ANYTHING that is a hallmark of cinematic (note, not necessarily realistic) stabbing of people.  It's like the fighting manuals in D&D worlds are a whole 3 pages long. 

So, that disappointed me greatly.  It seems cracking that riddle is something that has and will still escape D&D.  There were a number of non-combat things I could do that were interesting, mostly the standard Ranger scouting and tracking.  That was nice, though not exactly earth-shattering.  And, it had all the typical scouting issues -- divide the party, risky, etc. 

[PsyBomb]

I'm liking it so far, except for the set-to stat items (particularly the Belt of Giant's Strength) and the missing combat maneuvers. The former is easily fixed, the latter... not so much. I understand why they imposed such a harsh stat limit on the characters, though, given their system of stat improvement vs. feats. It interacts interestingly with their Multiclass system, especially since it is very possible to ensure that your stats are up to par for a multiclass almost no matter what your starting point.

They are really trying to recapture the older feel of the game with updated systems, which is an admirable goal... it's just that they're not quite in the bullseye on mechanic playability yet.

[LordBlades]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/398897952724238336

So apparently everything remotely-related to Evil will be in the DMG...including spells, because allowing (or not) my neutral wizard to prepare Protection from Good should be a 'DM option' WTF