Switch to full style
TLG d20, Necromancer Games and general. Discuss any game not covered in another forum.
Post a reply

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:33 pm

I miss Dungeon Magazine far more than I miss Dragon.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Sep 23, 2015 9:37 pm

Treebore wrote:I miss Dungeon Magazine far more than I miss Dragon.


THIS!

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:59 pm

Michael Montalto wrote:I'm not certain if I simply enjoy forums more than social media due to being old school or not, but I can say this, Twitter is NOT a great alternative to a forum. I completely agree that Twitter is best for broadcasting rather than conversation. As much as I liked it when I first started using it, I go there now more for the ability to scan for news than I do anything else. In fact, I can't remember the last time I had a conversation on that medium that lasted longer than 5 tweets.

I rather enjoy forums for the sense of community and focus that they bring.

-mM

I concur. Twitter is like vocal conversation. It does not work like these fora or those of ENWorld, Dragonsfoot, and the like do, because one cannot really go back on Twitter and track down things that were suggested, ideas that were offered or tried at a gaming table, or the ins and outs of the histories and glossographies of the various settings like I do at DF when I want to look up Greyhawk talk or here when I want to look up Aihrde or Haunted Highlands talk. Twitter is almost like a vapor after so much time elapses and Facebook is becoming more of the same. Who wants a hassle when they can use the good ol' forum "Search" button?

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:06 pm

finarvyn wrote:
Jyrdan Fairblade wrote:I thought cancelling Dragon magazine made no sense either.
Agreed. Dragon magazine was the last of the big time RPG magazines devoted to the games I like. I'm not counting the Crusader because its publication has been so random, and Gygax mag hasn't been around long enough for me to have a good feel for its content. Even as it moved on to 3E content, I still subscribed to Dragon and enjoyed reading it. (I also know that White Dwarf is still out there, but it hasn't been a general RPG magazine for a very long time.)


Arduin wrote:
Treebore wrote:I miss Dungeon Magazine far more than I miss Dragon.


THIS!


While I do miss Dungeon more than Dragon, I would say I miss the Dragon era of the 60s through the early 100s as much as I miss Dungeon.

/splitting hairs post

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:36 pm

Twitter has been a good source of info for me (road conditions, etc) but what amazed me is what a great platform for gaming it was. Forces people to be concise, there's a die roller, it works. Other than that what I like about twitter is that I can post stuff and no one cares unlike those facebook people who keep liking and commenting.

I prefer forums, but they are slowly becoming a thing people 'used' to use. That said, there are many gamers out there absolutely unwilling to use more modern social media, and kudos to them! Everyone is too busy with Pokemon Go to do anything else anyway, like watching for traffic.

I regret getting the PH for 5e, but I'm glad to have the boxed set.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:12 pm

Thread necromancy alert.

So, got my 5e DMG and MM today (had the PHB already in anticipation of the game Nwelte1 plans to run.)

My reaction is mostly positive. I still have to play it before I can make any real decision about it: 3.5e looked easy on the surface but the rigidity and expectations of the rules manifested in play with demanding and informed players in a way that doesn't really happen in C&C (for me.)

The PHB still looks a bit heavy to me. Players get a lot of stuff. Multiclassing is still awkward. The short/long rest bug me. Advantage/disadvantage looks usable.
I like the tone of the DMG: useful information given in a non-authoritative way, assumes that you will shape the information given to your campaign and game, and helps you define your setting.
The MM doesn't require a lot of cross-referencing: what the monster can do is usually all in the description. It has a good list of animals, and some NPC types so you can have your baddies be monsters instead of fully statted NPCs.

Of course, you get 10s of thousands of potential players instead of 10s with 5e (but you only need a few.) so that's a consideration. Roll20 support is much better than it is for games other than Pathfinder, with support for their Compendium of OGL rules and a Roll20-supported sheet with all the bells and whistles.

That is also the drawback of 5e: no official PDF of the rules. They have some kind of app coming out, but if it doesn't run on all of my desktops and laptops it's not much good.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:39 pm

Pretty sure the Monday group is going to give it a try too. Just a question of when.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 12, 2017 12:54 am

Aergraith wrote: *snip*

That is also the drawback of 5e: no official PDF of the rules. They have some kind of app coming out, but if it doesn't run on all of my desktops and laptops it's not much good.


I came across this PDF the other day from wizards:

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads ... lesV03.pdf

from here where it mentions d&d, but not 5e:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

Do these rules match your PHB?

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:03 am

Rhuvein wrote:
Aergraith wrote: *snip*

That is also the drawback of 5e: no official PDF of the rules. They have some kind of app coming out, but if it doesn't run on all of my desktops and laptops it's not much good.


I came across this PDF the other day from wizards:

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads ... lesV03.pdf

from here where it mentions d&d, but not 5e:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

Do these rules match your PHB?

Those are the free "basic" rules pdfs that Wizards released a while ago. They only include some of the things in the PHB/DMG/MM, but are compatible with the main books. A useful tool to get people into the hobby, but if you want more in depth character choices, you have to get a physical book.

R-

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 12, 2017 3:42 am

Rigon wrote:
Rhuvein wrote:
Aergraith wrote: *snip*

That is also the drawback of 5e: no official PDF of the rules. They have some kind of app coming out, but if it doesn't run on all of my desktops and laptops it's not much good.


I came across this PDF the other day from wizards:

http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads ... lesV03.pdf

from here where it mentions d&d, but not 5e:

https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

Do these rules match your PHB?

Those are the free "basic" rules pdfs that Wizards released a while ago. They only include some of the things in the PHB/DMG/MM, but are compatible with the main books. A useful tool to get people into the hobby, but if you want more in depth character choices, you have to get a physical book.

R-


Thanks, Rig.

Good to know. No in depth interest, yet. Just want to give 5e a look and then decide whether or not to get the PHB. For the most part, it doesn't grab me. Looks pretty darn boring. But then, a good CK - oops a good DM might be able to run a descent game outta this.

Pretty much like any D&D, rules may matter from game to game -- but the good CK/GM can make a crap ruleset great by how he/she presents same!

No wat eye mean?

:P

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Apr 12, 2017 4:03 am

I know what you mean, Rhu. I have physical copies of the PHB/DMG/MM for 5e and am interested in either playing (which I will when Nate finishes his current game) or running one of my own. Just to try it out and see how it plays over the long haul (I ran a one shot over the summer for my friends on vacation). But I expect to like it less than C&C. Just something about the way it reads. It's a bit fiddly for me tastes anymore.

R-

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:05 pm

Looking around at 5e forums and subforums, and seeing the same old character optimization crap I used to see for 3.5e. I guess nothing can be done to keep people from playing that way but I thought maybe since it had fewer books and was a little more stripped down, it wouldn't attract that type of player.

I am naive though, CO is as old as D&D, and a little of it is good play and contributes to an effective party. It's just exasperating as a DM having people piecing together characters based on bonuses gathered willy nilly from different sources solely to gain some kind of mechanical advantage.

The worst was in 3.5 when some prestige class would have some flavor tying it to a setting and role but the optimizer would just use it for the attribute bonuses and ignore any of the reasons the class might exist.

Anyway, I am not knocking people who have fun playing that way, but it's not what I want in my game. I wonder if it's the expectation with the existing player base and part of the philosophy of the system though and by not embracing it you are playing "wrong".

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:40 pm

Aergraith wrote:Looking around at 5e forums and subforums, and seeing the same old character optimization crap I used to see for 3.5e. I guess nothing can be done to keep people from playing that way but I thought maybe since it had fewer books and was a little more stripped down, it wouldn't attract that type of player.

I am naive though, CO is as old as D&D, and a little of it is good play and contributes to an effective party. It's just exasperating as a DM having people piecing together characters based on bonuses gathered willy nilly from different sources solely to gain some kind of mechanical advantage.

The worst was in 3.5 when some prestige class would have some flavor tying it to a setting and role but the optimizer would just use it for the attribute bonuses and ignore any of the reasons the class might exist.

Anyway, I am not knocking people who have fun playing that way, but it's not what I want in my game. I wonder if it's the expectation with the existing player base and part of the philosophy of the system though and by not embracing it you are playing "wrong".



Kind of surprised. Are they taking bits and pieces from each path to do this? Because btb you follow one path. You don't get to mix and match.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:29 pm

No, it's more subtle than that. It's more the spirit of the discussions than anything else. Level dipping is still a thing if you allow multiclassing, and this Unearthed Arcana stuff from the Wizards site makes it more worth it than what is in the core books.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Tue May 08, 2018 6:12 pm

So, as some of you know, I ran Lost Mine of Phandelver this past weekend on a long weekend away. It was supposed to be a test run for 5e to see if I liked it or not. Here are my thoughts.

Playability: Everyone that was playing or running was new to 5e, me included. They have experience with BD&D thru to 3e. The game plays quite smoothly for the most part. There was some slow down as we all became accustomed to the rules, but other than that, it played nicely.

Power level: 1st level characters are extremely powerful. They deal out some serious damage and have multiple avenues to deliver it.

Saves: Weak and a non-issue. In 2 10-12 sessions, with several saving throws, the party only failed to save 2 or 3 times. With Save DCs in the low teens and most characters gaining a +2 to +6 bonus, they hardly failed. It made saves mostly useless. I would estimate that the PCs made around 90% of their saves.

Bounded Accuracy: What a crock of dung. "We want to keep the number inflation to a minimum, so we are going to limit bonuses and AC. But to make up for easier to hit enemies, we are going to artificially inflate HP (Zombies with an AC of 8 and 22 HP)." One of the guys playing said, it seems more exciting because we are hitting so much, but its just an illusion.

Things I thought worked well: As has been stated previously, the Advantage/Disadvantage system was nice and the players seemed to like it.

Things I didn't like: Some of the rules seemed incomplete while others seemed over-defined. Example: Background stuff seems overly defined while some combat manuevers where literaly just a definition of the term with out any indication of how it was supposed to work in play.

Other things I didn't like: It lends itself to power gaming, much like 3e did. And my buddies are subperb power gamers. They pretty much broke everything they could break in 3 or 4 levels.

Another thing I didn't like: The class features are all oriented for combat situations. There is nothing to differentiate the class from each other, other than their combat abilities. Take Rogue for example. The traditional rogue abilities of finding and removing traps can be done by anyone with the right background and skills. Hell, find trap is an Investigate check and disarming traps is a straight Dex check. There is not corresponding skill for it.

Final thoughts: I would definitely play 5e and I might be tempted to run it again (just not for the same guys). I found that as I was running the game, it kept popping into my head that C&C would handle the situation better.

R-

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Tue May 08, 2018 7:57 pm

Rigon wrote: I found that as I was running the game, it kept popping into my head that C&C would handle the situation better.

R-



This sums up my thoughts from the 4 or 5 month campaign I played in when it first came out. I still want to give it a go with a GM that I could actually describe as being a good GM, or run it myself, but right now all 5E has is some decent ideas I may one day adapt for use in my C&C games.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed May 09, 2018 2:35 am

Treebore wrote:
Rigon wrote: I found that as I was running the game, it kept popping into my head that C&C would handle the situation better.

R-



This sums up my thoughts from the 4 or 5 month campaign I played in when it first came out. I still want to give it a go with a GM that I could actually describe as being a good GM, or run it myself, but right now all 5E has is some decent ideas I may one day adapt for use in my C&C games.

I may give it another go with you all. My one buddy only ever tries to derail any game I run. Which is frustrating, since he doesn't do that for our other buddy when he runs games. It may play completely different with people who are interested in roleplaying and not power gaming. We shall see when the Kalamar campaign wraps up.

R-

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed May 16, 2018 10:41 am

I think that WotC is trying to avoid some of the power creep, and you might check out the "Adventurer's League" rules to see how things are done in standard play rather than using all of the options in the rulebooks.

For example, the AL uses point-buy for attributes to avoid having gaudy stats at the onset. They also don't roll hit points, but instead have a formula to calculate how many a character has. My "old school" roots rebelled at this stuff at first, but I realize now that it takes a lot of the shady dice rolls out of character advancement.

Also, characters can be built only on the "PH plus one" rule, so you can't totally cherry-pick stuff from any book you like but instead are limited to the PH plus any one book you like. So, for example, a wizard can't take a character build option from the SWORD COAST book and mix it with spells from the ELEMENTAL EVIL book. Seems like a small thing, but it does limit the powergamers somewhat.

Having said that, in my home campaign I'm tempted to limit options to the PH only. I find that some of the options in SWORD COAST, such as the swashbuckler and sun monk, are much cooler than the regular PH options and that nowadays everyone wants to be one of the newer classes instead of the older ones. Folks still find basic fighters and basic wizards boring and don't play them, so they aren't amped up enough compared to other classes. Barbarian's 2x hit point advantage while raging is unbalanced in comparrison, warlocks get spells back after a short rest, and other rules twists make the standard classes less fun than the flashy ones much of the time. (Having said that, I'll confess that I ususally play fighters and wizards becasue I like them.)

Another thing (and this is a personal thing, not a game thing) but I've decided that I'm tired of using CHA as a dump stat. In the books, heroes are usually charismatic and I've decided that from now on all of my new characters will be built with at least a +1 modifier. I know that it will screw me over a little, point-build-wise, but I don't care. Heroes ought to be charsimatic! :D

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed May 16, 2018 1:28 pm

Marv, I was running the Lost Mines of Phandelver from the Starter Set and I only allowed extras from the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide. Only one guy picked anything out of it and I think it was a background. My experience had more to do with my friend being a huge arse. I am tempted to give it another go with the Monday Night Reprobates after my Kalamar campaign wraps up. Those guys care as much about the story as they do about all the kewl shat that they can do.

Also, most of the things that the system does, is handled more elegantly in C&C and I just have a problem with saves. Even at low levels (1-2), the PCs were making 75-80% of their saves and had a 45% or better chance of passing any given save. The base 8+Prof mod+ability bonus makes saves too easy, IMO. If I was running 5e long term or consistantly, I would house rule it to be base 10. That way saves become a little more challenging.

R-

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:39 am

Ok I'll resurrect this thread since it was brought up last night as we worked out the kinks of map tools and prepped for the new campaign.

Now we haven't played yet, so I can't talk about that, but from what I've seen on character creation

5e is a middle road. It isn't as easy as C&C. However, it is so much more easy than 3.5 (I never played 4 e so I can't speak to that iteration).

I do like how 5e handles skills and the paths a class can take .

Also, I like how 5e handles races all have benefits, but none are given a restriction (the C&C 2 primes for other races and 3 primes for human).

I actually think I like the skills system and the races better than C&C.

The paths, I haven't tried to make a test magic user (mage or cleric) so I don't know how they will feel. But I made a practice fighter, a barbarian, and thief. Then I made 2 real thought out characters, a paladin - that at 2nd level will be a Paladin thief, a thief - that at 2nd level will be a thief fighter.

I truly like how diverse the characters can be. Different skills different paths different feels but the same classes.

Also, I like how devastating the thief looks to be at higher levels. But I'm not sure about the 'magic using thief' or the magic fighter, I'm sure others will like them, but I don't think they will be my flavor

For the rules, they seem simple enough. Though I think the advantage / disadvantage mechanic for almost everything is a bit harsh.

Also, I'm not sure I'll like the heal during a short rest. Though it will make it easier to adventure without a cleric ... but I'm not sure I like it.

So, thus far, before the first dice is tossed, it is mixed.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:57 am

Good post.

Still digesting after having the chance to create a char and read through the full book rules.

I do have a more favorable opinion of the game for sure.

Now let's see how it plays out.

:)

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:47 am

Been gone a long while playing 5E. It's a fairly decent game with some major issues cooked into the system. It does encourage the same build your character with wowzer powers in this order in this way to be UBER SNOOBER. Some classes and races are stupid unbalanced and some of those front load the unbalancing abilities so a dip into a class gives you Untold power! lol

Honestly most of those issues can be ignored with the right players BUT....if you don't go into it already with the right players your experiences can suffer.

All that can be fixed just by not using optional rules(it says optional on the tin but players want to knife fight about them if you decide not to use them).

While all that did bother me at certain times what really got to me was how complicated it all was. 5E has a ton of rules! I mean a lot of them. What makes the issue so much worse is that EVERY single race and class breaks those rules in lots of ways. So you not only need to remember that one rule among thousands but each and every way every class and class combination(if you allow multiclassing) breaks them.

So it sounds bad right? It really wasn't.

So 5E isn't rules light. Not every game needs to be. After a while most of those rules became second nature and didn't have to be looked up and most of the ways to break them became easy to remember out of sheer repeatedness.

What finally downed my 5E fun was simply realizing that I spent a lot longer working on encounter math and building the right number and types of bad guys with the right abilities to counter or fall victim to my PC's that the fun part of prep..actually making cool adventures and exciting bad guys in amazing terrain was a insignificant percentage. The games themselves tended to have long combats and often even when doing my best the party too easily defeated monsters far far above what you would think would be doable.

I found myself on a treadmill and decided to get off.

Now all that is after YEARS of playing and DMing 5E and a lot of it boils down to the game being too rules heavy for my taste.

Oh, one last thing.

I hated the 5E math. I did not like the low level party tank with AC better than the most powerful Dragon in the world. I do realize why they did it. I just didn't like it as the DM and it was far worse as the player who was playing a tank and really tried to pour everything into attracting bad guys and not getting hit by them. I think at 1st level my AC was 18 and at 20th it was 24. Everything hit me. They limited the AC numbers in the game but the to hit numbers were close to the same. It was not uncommon for enemies to have a +12-+17 to hit. But they made it so a +3 platemail and +2 shield were EPIC power.

It reminded me of Into the Odd. Everyone hits every time.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:33 am

I've been running 5e for a few months now on the Monday Night game. It's better than 3e in some aspects, but it falls way behind when compared to C&C. I find myself running the game and going, "Wow, this would be so much better if I were running C&C" a lot. I probably won't run 5e again, but I'd be willing to play it. Same as my feelings about 3e. But if I'm going to be running the game, I am definitely going to be using C&C (or Victorious).

R-

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Tue Jul 09, 2019 12:36 pm

Rigon wrote:I probably won't run 5e again, but I'd be willing to play it.
That's the heart of the issue, isn't it? True old school games are earlier on the DM but provide fewer options for the player. New school games provide a lot more player options, at the expense of being harder to run.

As a player, when you only have one character to deal with, playing 3E or 5E is clearly superior.

As a GM, where you have a world to juggle, running OD&D/AD&D/C&C is clearly superior.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:53 pm

finarvyn wrote:
Rigon wrote:I probably won't run 5e again, but I'd be willing to play it.
That's the heart of the issue, isn't it? True old school games are earlier on the DM but provide fewer options for the player. New school games provide a lot more player options, at the expense of being harder to run.

As a player, when you only have one character to deal with, playing 3E or 5E is clearly superior.

As a GM, where you have a world to juggle, running OD&D/AD&D/C&C is clearly superior.

Personally, I'd rather be a player in C&C than 3E or 5E (and would never DM 3E and probably not 5E either at this point). C&C is all around superior for me.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:44 pm

I've haven't DM'd 5e yet, but it seems as if it would be more difficult to handle than C&C. Our current 5e game has been fun, but I'll take C&C as a player.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:28 am

maximus wrote:I've haven't DM'd 5e yet, but it seems as if it would be more difficult to handle than C&C. Our current 5e game has been fun, but I'll take C&C as a player.


Rgr

I like the eclectic group we were able to out together in the Monday night 5e game, and it is easier than the evil 3.5e games I played in a few times when that version of D&D came out. But, it is no where near as easy as C&C.

Now take how 5e does races and backgrounds, and tool them on Siege engine that is C&C (and get rid of non humans only get 2 primes) any you would have a great home brew Frankenstein monster of a game.

Oh yeah ... 5e and the short/long rest ... I will willing benefit from it in game, but I don't like it. ALL HP back after 8 hours rest (and a good heal boost even from a short rest), some powers reset after an hour res, others after 8 hours rest ,,,, cab you get any more over powered ... If I did a home brew blend this is one thing that would not be included in the mix !

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:09 pm

Lurker wrote:Oh yeah ... 5e and the short/long rest ... I will willing benefit from it in game, but I don't like it. ALL HP back after 8 hours rest (and a good heal boost even from a short rest), some powers reset after an hour res, others after 8 hours rest ,,,, cab you get any more over powered ... If I did a home brew blend this is one thing that would not be included in the mix !
In my current homebrew 5E game (in Blackmoor, which is always fun) I use a rule that sleeping overnight is a short rest, and the only long rest you get is if you are resting in a particularly safe place (think Rivendell). Changes the dynamic quite a bit.

I'm not sure where I got it -- maybe the DMG, maybe from a message board. Either way, it might be something for you to consider.

Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:50 am

finarvyn wrote:
Lurker wrote:Oh yeah ... 5e and the short/long rest ... I will willing benefit from it in game, but I don't like it. ALL HP back after 8 hours rest (and a good heal boost even from a short rest), some powers reset after an hour res, others after 8 hours rest ,,,, cab you get any more over powered ... If I did a home brew blend this is one thing that would not be included in the mix !
In my current homebrew 5E game (in Blackmoor, which is always fun) I use a rule that sleeping overnight is a short rest, and the only long rest you get is if you are resting in a particularly safe place (think Rivendell). Changes the dynamic quite a bit.

I'm not sure where I got it -- maybe the DMG, maybe from a message board. Either way, it might be something for you to consider.

If I was going to run 5e again, I would consider doing it like that. But I just can't get into all the fiddliness of the game. When I'm done running this adventure, Imma heading back to C&C.

R-
Post a reply