Author Topic: D&D 5e: For real this time?  (Read 351737 times)

Offline Complete4th

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
    • The Complete 4th Edition
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #940 on: September 13, 2013, 06:30:38 PM »
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.   :tongue  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.  :tongue

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

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #941 on: September 14, 2013, 05:49:18 AM »
You need to modify monsters to fit. Which is a lot more work than rolling out a change to PCs to remember to implement.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Complete4th

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
    • The Complete 4th Edition
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #942 on: September 14, 2013, 03:05:42 PM »
What's the alternative change that players implement?

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #943 on: September 14, 2013, 03:15:12 PM »
3.5   :p

Offline Bauglir

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
  • Constrained
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #944 on: September 20, 2013, 02:44:23 PM »
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.

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2313
  • Chara did nothing wrong.
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #945 on: September 22, 2013, 07:59:27 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2013, 08:01:59 PM by ImperatorK »
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #946 on: September 23, 2013, 12:10:41 AM »
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.  :banghead  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.    :banghead  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.

Offline VennDygrem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4587
  • Exceptionally Average
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #947 on: September 25, 2013, 06:24:15 PM »
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.

Offline oslecamo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10080
  • Creating monsters for my Realm of Darkness
    • View Profile
    • Oslecamo's Custom Library (my homebrew)
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #948 on: September 28, 2013, 10:08:08 AM »
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.

Offline Nytemare3701

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1657
  • 50% Cripple, 50% Awesome. Flip a coin.
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #949 on: September 30, 2013, 05:29:54 PM »
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.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #950 on: October 01, 2013, 05:10:53 PM »

... 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.

Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Keldar

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • What's this button do?
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #951 on: October 01, 2013, 08:04:13 PM »
 :plot

Offline Demelain

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #952 on: October 01, 2013, 08:12:58 PM »
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)

(click to show/hide)

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #953 on: October 03, 2013, 12:48:10 PM »
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. 

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3352
  • The dice are trying to kill me
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #954 on: October 03, 2013, 01:29:44 PM »
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? 
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline Demelain

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 564
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #955 on: October 03, 2013, 02:29:52 PM »
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.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7639
  • classique style , invisible tail
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #956 on: October 03, 2013, 04:49:17 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 04:50:57 PM by awaken_D_M_golem »
Your codpiece is a mimic.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #957 on: October 06, 2013, 05:55:54 PM »
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. 

Offline PsyBomb

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 195
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #958 on: October 20, 2013, 06:53:26 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 07:06:35 PM by PsyBomb »

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: D&D 5e: For real this time?
« Reply #959 on: December 13, 2013, 01:46:34 AM »
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 :???