Troll Lord Games
https://trolllord.com/forums/

D&D 5th Edition Discussion
https://trolllord.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14404
Page 1 of 14

Author:  Aergraith [ Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:58 pm ]
Post subject:  D&D 5th Edition Discussion

What do you think of D&D 5th edition?

Author:  Treebore [ Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Like I believe you essentially said, I won't really know until I give it a run. Something we can do with our Monday group, IF everyone is interested in doing so, but I won't want to do that until I have all the core books on my shelves.

Author:  Treebore [ Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I can't vouch for the Math, but the "curve" on the Advantage system is interesting when compared to straight D20 rolls, and the inverse should also be true for a Disadvantage...

http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/201 ... taged.html

Author:  Ancalagon [ Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Not interested in D&D5. C&C fits the in-print gaming very nicely!

Author:  Arduin [ Sat Jul 05, 2014 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Treebore wrote:
I can't vouch for the Math, but the "curve" on the Advantage system is interesting when compared to straight D20 rolls, and the inverse should also be true for a Disadvantage...

http://gamingballistic.blogspot.com/201 ... taged.html


Looks like the math is done right. It is a +-5/25% to the roll/outcome. Good for some circumstances, could be a sledgehammer approach for other situations.

A once size fits all bonus/penalty approach isn't that brilliant of an idea for a D&D type game though. YMMV.

Author:  finarvyn [ Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I've been a playtester for 5E for more than a year now, and have run several games as a DM. Overall, I like it. It's better than 3E and better than 4E. It's similar to 13th Age. It is more detailed than C&C, but fills a similar niche of "what 3E ought to have been."

As to Advantage/Disadvantage, I didn't follow the link but when I did the math myself I got +/- 3.3 instead of +/- 5. I did a brute-force method of creating a 20x20 grid and counting all of the possible outcomes. For advantage I got an average of 13.8 and for disadvantage I got an average of 7.2, both compared to the 10.5 that you'd get with 1d20.

Author:  Julian Grimm [ Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I like what I have seen so far but,as I have said before, my investment in C&C mixed with the price point of 5e is going to keep me away. I would love to play a game of it and see how it works on the table. As it is, I will see what I can borrow for C&C and check out the other material that comes out. If I see the books cheap I'll pick them up but other than that C&C is going to be my default game because of the above reasons.

Author:  Arduin [ Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

finarvyn wrote:
I've been a playtester for 5E for more than a year now, and have run several games as a DM. Overall, I like it. It's better than 3E and better than 4E. It's similar to 13th Age. It is more detailed than C&C, but fills a similar niche of "what 3E ought to have been."

As to Advantage/Disadvantage, I didn't follow the link but when I did the math myself I got +/- 3.3 instead of +/- 5. I did a brute-force method of creating a 20x20 grid and counting all of the possible outcomes. For advantage I got an average of 13.8 and for disadvantage I got an average of 7.2, both compared to the 10.5 that you'd get with 1d20.


Here is the Statistical math behind it laid out in tabular format. http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/2012/06/11/dd-advantage-vs-flat-bonuses/

Author:  Relaxo [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

here's a question: humans +1 to all stats or use the optional feat rules....
With no BTH progression (the change that surprised me the most), I'm thinking the stat modifiers are more important to a characters' success, so even munchkins would choose the +1 to all stats.
or something.
It just seems more generally useful than the granular (and probably unnecessarily complicated) nature of using feats.
I dunno. They'd have to explain to the newer young players the idea of 'try/do anything you can imagine' vs. you need X,Y,Z feat/skill/thingy.
I'm sort of thinking out loud, not edition bashing. :D

Author:  Relaxo [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

So does the Starter Set coming out this week have all the classes and races? I see the free basic rules has the four food groups classes, but can I get druid, monk, bard etc without the PHB?

And the question to ask I guess, is: does the starter set make sense if you are going to run adventures you already have and have dice? It's for levels 1-5, but the basic rules go to level 20... so if not more classes and races, the only 'new' stuff is the adventure and pregens. which might be worth it for some people but I just need to know what's what before I decide if i want it.

Thanks!

Author:  Relaxo [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

DIG

http://frothsofdnd.blogspot.com/2014/07 ... nture.html
fan made free 5ed adventure.

Author:  Relaxo [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Found the answer: Starter set has the same PreGens as the Basic PDF:

Unboxing:
http://diehardgamefan.com/2014/07/04/un ... ondd-next/

This quote from the unboxing blog might get some grognards in a dither:
"A look at some of the spells from 5e. As you can see from the large version, magic is even more powerful (some might say unbalanced) than in previous editions. Yes, Burning Hands does do 3d6 damage as a first level spell. Good bye Magic Missile as the most useful starter spell for a new wizard, eh?"

I must say, Burning Hands being more useful than Sleep is a tad more dynamic. I always sucked at playing Wizards because I'd want, you know, wizard power and I'd choose Magic Missile for my one spell, fire it off, hide behind the fighter, and get killed anyway. :lol:

Author:  serleran [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I have many other systems I would prefer to test before returning to one called D&D. Mostly because they have not been played by my current group and I miss them... things like Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, and Toon!. Once those are explored we will return to C&C and I might introduce elements of 5e then... but I don't tend to play any game as its written, using stuff from wherever (and my brain) to make it more suited to me.

Author:  finarvyn [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Relaxo -- a couple of things (which you may have answered for yourself already)

I agree that the +1 to all stats is pretty sweet, but otherwise I find that everyone wants to play non-humans. In my six player 5E group, only one is human.

Starter set has "core four" classes (fighter, cleric, MU, rogue) and you have to get the PH to get the other classes. Same for races other than elf, dwarf, halfling and human.

My wife loves wizards and really loves 5E wizards, and the cantrip thing is part of what really grabbed her. I've done a "zap spell" fix to OD&D/C&C for years where she can fire a magic attack instead of using a bow or throwing daggers, and having cantrips which can do the same thing is an excellent addition.

I'm slightly confused by your statement that "Starter set has the same PreGens as the Basic PDF", however. Does the Basic PDF have pregens? (I hate the lack of a table of contents in the PDF...)

Author:  serleran [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I haven't looked, but that sounds like you don't get gnome in the core? I am heartbroken. Heh.

Author:  Relaxo [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Yeah, the box has pregens. THere's a link above; taking a quick look, I think they're they same pregens as the basic PDF>

(now, if the PDF doesn't have pregens, that sentence makes no sense, I might be confusing the two)

Author:  Arduin [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

serleran wrote:
I haven't looked, but that sounds like you don't get gnome in the core? I am heartbroken. Heh.



Not in the free PDF or Starter Set. Probably will be in the full PHB

Author:  Treebore [ Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Arduin wrote:
serleran wrote:
I haven't looked, but that sounds like you don't get gnome in the core? I am heartbroken. Heh.



Not in the free PDF or Starter Set. Probably will be in the full PHB



Yeah, PHB is when we will see all the classes and races.

Author:  Litzen Tallister [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

It looks like the PHB will include the lion's share of classes and races. But, Warforged are planned to be within the DMG (and I think there's another race included in there too, but I can't find the citation offhand). And, I'm willing to bet we'll see lots of other races/classes (Last edition managed to have three player's handbooks, after all).

Author:  Arduin [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Litzen Tallister wrote:
It looks like the PHB will include the lion's share of classes and races. But, Warforged are planned to be within the DMG (and I think there's another race included in there too, but I can't find the citation offhand). And, I'm willing to bet we'll see lots of other races/classes (Last edition managed to have three player's handbooks, after all).



If I remember what the designers said earlier; the game is somewhat modular. In that you can run a "basic" game with no feats and what not or, use optional rules to add layers of complexity. The PHB will probably have those extra "layers" fleshed out.

Author:  DMSamuel [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I've been running the playtest for about a year and a half. So I have lots of thoughts...

1) Advantage/Disadvantage: The adv/disadv mechanic makes combat go very fast and so it flows very well. (Added for clarity: gaining advantage means that you roll 2d20 and take the highest, and disadvantage means you roll 2d20 and take the lowest) Skill checks similarly are easily adjudicated. I like that the aid-another mechanic is basically to provide advantage - it feels more organic than adding a +1 or +2 to another's roll. While mathematically it equates roughly to a +/-3, in the game it feels less abstract than that. It also cuts down on having to remember a metric crap-ton of other +2 modifiers every time a PC attempts an action. Since they went for a flatter power increase, there are many fewer modifiers to keep track of for actions - adv/disadv is the replacement for that since advantage can easily buff a PC's attempt, and disadvantage can easily, well, disadvantage an attempt, but it is transitory, so no one at the table has to remember. It's nice, and it has a collateral benefit of the joy player's get when they roll 2d20 instead of 1d20.

2) Bulkiness of Character Info: Compared to 3.x/4e, the amount of info on the PC sheet, and therefore what the player needs to know and remember, is streamlined. There are many fewer feats in the system (and they are described as optional) than there were in the feat-heavy 3.x and 4e (and Pathfinder) systems. The basic pdf only mentions feats in passing and refers the reader to the PHB. Not having feats in the first release of the basic pdf, and also not in the starter set, hits home the point that they are options, not mandatory parts of the game. Overall, the streamlining is an improvement on the most recent editions of the game, as well as late 2e (which became unbearable with all the kits and splatbooks released).

3) Role-playing and Character Development: The basic rules suggest ways to round out your character - there's even a whole chapter on personality and background which includes traits flaws and bonds that can be randomly rolled or chosen from a table. While I wish it wasn't necessary, it is a nice addition to the book that signals to new players that there is more to their PC than a nice shiny blade and a +8 to-hit bonus. This section prompts development and suggests ways to round out one's personality. In my opinion, this is a nice addition to the character generation rules and it is possibly necessary for newer players who cut their teeth on later editions or video games.

4) Inspiration: Along with traits, flaws, and bonds, the rules provide a mechanic that encourages role-playing a character to those descriptions. That mechanic is called inspiration and it acts a bit like a bonus token (some-what like Bennies in Savage Worlds or Fate points in FATE core) which gives you advantage on a roll when you use it. I have mixed feelings about this (as I do with #3 above), but ultimately I think it is a good thing. These items (traits/flaws/bonds) are words or phrases and they do not require a huge amount of brain-space or space on the PC sheet to record, nor do they incur constant bonuses, so there is no overhead in terms of memory for these. You write the word on your PC sheet (and maybe a phrase) and then when you play up that item during the game, you might get a bennie Fate Point Inspiration point for it. A nice touch is that a player can give their Inspiration Point to another player who they feel did something awesome - yay teamwork.

5) Lifestyle Expenses & Trinkets: These two pieces of the game are interesting and show how a DM can choose to include optional rules in their campaign if it fits their style. I like that, and I think it should be lauded. The lifestyle expenses are mostly flavor, but do provide a quick view of the "cost of living" in a campaign world, and also a way for the DM to get some extra money away from the party. This might be a bit too micro-management for some games and that's okay, because it is basically optional. It could also be used for good role-playing fodder - meeting NPCs off-screen (in between gaming sessions), and then using them as contacts during a game. The trinkets table brings a tiny bit of creativity to a new PC/player and provides an example of how easy it is to add a game-able hook to the description of your PC.

6) Task Resolution & Combat: the basics here are not new - roll d20+modifiers and compare to DC (difficulty class) or AC (armor class). If the total meets or exceeds the target number then the attempt is a success. Other than ability score modifiers, you can get an extra proficiency bonus on some rolls. If you are making an attack with a weapon for which you have proficiency, for example, you gain a small proficiency bonus to hit. Speaking of proficiency, it scales with level, starting at +2 for a first level PC, and capping at +6, which occurs at level 17 (max level in 5e is 20). That proficiency bonus is added to several things, one of the interesting ones being tool use. If you are proficient with a particular set of tools (like a set of lockpicks, or even a deck of cards) then you get a +2 to your roll when you use that item. I like that proficiency is not simply applicable to weapons, but items and tools as well - possibly making your equipment choice more interesting than just picking items off a list. Proficiency can affect saves too, which brings me to...

7) Saving Throws: There is a saving throw for each attribute and each class gets to add a +2 proficiency bonus to two different saves, based on what that class is traditionally good at. Rogues, for example, have proficiency on DEX and INT saves. I like the system because it ties things to attributes and it cuts down on the clutter of terms (e.g. Fortitude, Reflex, Will saves). Speaking of fort/ref/will - those were treated more like defenses, so the DM would actively attack one of those and the player would have to passively wait and see if they succeeded at dodging whatever it is they were trying to avoid. I like that save are now more active - the player rolls a save to avoid something and it comes off as more pro-active and less clunky than the defensive saves.

8) Widowmaker: How deadly is D&D 5? Well, it IS deadlier than 4e, by a long shot. There are no such thing as negative HP in D&D 5. Damage that puts you into negative HP equal to your max HP in a single hit kills you outright. If not killed by a hit outright, when you hit 0 HP you make death saves every turn: 3 failed saves (not necessarily in a row) and you are a goner. Three successful saves (not necessarily in a row) and you become stable (no longer needing to make death rolls). A natural 20 restores you to 1 hit point but a natural 1 counts as 2 failed saves. Getting hit when dying also counts as a failed death save, so if you get hit 3 times after going to 0 HP you die immediately. That's pretty deadly if the opponents are intelligent, while also allowing time for a downed PC to be helped by his comrades. That sounds deadly, except for the healing options...

There are ways to heal yourself if you rest for at least an hour (called a short rest). Each PC can spend hit dice (HD) to roll and heal that amount of HP during the rest. So, for example, a 3rd level fighter will have 3d10 HD, and a 2nd level rogue will have 2d6 HD. The fighter can spend all three of those to heal during a short rest, healing anywhere from 3 to 30 HP. You only get your level number of HD (e.g. 4th level = 4HD) and you only regain half of those HD when you rest for 8 hours. So that fighter only gets 1 HD back after a long rest (recovers half HD, so 3 divided by 2, rounded down), but when you take a long rest, you also gain all your HP back as long as you started the rest with at least 1 HP. So, the first day of an adventure it is easy to regain HP during short rests, but after you have spent all your HD, you don't regain them very fast.

I have mixed feelings about this type of healing system. It is waaaay better than the heal-a-thon that was 4e, but it seems very easy to heal thyself. Of course, D&D is also set in the Forgotten Realms, a very high magic setting (blah), so healing potions are abundant and healing magic is well known and accessible for the right price. This all adds up to make healing very easy to come by. Of course, one could easily house-rule the game to make it harder to heal and therefore easier to die... and I run my game in my homebrew world, which is relatively low magic and healing doesn't come as easy to the PCs. Overall I think the system is better than the last edition, but could use some work - at least it's going in the right direction.

Summary: It plays fast, but I can see where they have set it up so that a DM can build upon the basic system if one so chooses. Word is that they will have optional bolt-on rules modules that will easily mesh with the basic rules and PHB. Tactical combat is one such option that the team has mentioned in the past as a likely optional rules-module. I'm not sure if all of those rules-options will be presented in the DMG or if they will create additional products with those - probably it will be some combination of the two. Speaking of tactical combat, the lack of tactical grid-based combat makes me very happy. Another thing I like is the relative emphasis on role-playing and developing characters. I appreciate the way the system allows for the connection of proficiency to tools, not just weapons, though I think it is an easy avenue for them to add in unnecessary complexity (which I don't like). I think the saving throws are an improvement over the old fort/ref/will set of saves that were seemingly unrelated (at least at first glance for a new player) and which acted as defenses.

So that is my generic run-down of how I see the new edition. As I said, I have been running the play-test for over a year, so nothing here is really new to me. I am happy to see the solidified version of the rules (play-testing, as some of you know, can be grueling and frustrating) and my players are eagerly awaiting the release of the PHB to see if their characters are going to change all that much.


Final Word: Even with all the simplifications and the hearkening back to an older style of play that D&D 5 is trying to embody, I still think that C&C is more elegant. I will still have C&C as my go-to game of choice. The system feels more unified, simpler, easier to house-rule without blowing up the game. C&C is still offers me the style I want to play. Will I keep playing D&D 5? Probably, if only because I have an enthusiastic and creative group. So I will buy the core books and probably not much more, and I will continue to run it in a very old school fashion.

Author:  pawndream [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

DMSamuel,

Thank you for providing your thoughts on 5e. I signed up for the playtest but only managed to skim through the rules packet a couple of years ago and did not follow any additional developments. I know nothing about the game and your post let me get an idea of what to expect when the official books are released. I also downloaded the Basic Rules, but have yet to read those either (and probably won't). I am old-fashioned and like physical books. :)

Pawn

Author:  DMSamuel [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I also added this tidbit when I posted that overview on my blog:
I know I just wrote a whole bunch of stuff about D&D 5, but I do want to add one final thing... I'm not an edition warrior. I believe that everyone should play the game they want to play, the game that gives them the most joy, the game with which they have the most fun, and the game that they find meets their needs at any given time. For me, I am realizing more and more, that game is Castles & Crusades. I find the system elegant, easy to learn, easy to use, easy to house-rule without blowing up the game, and most forgiving of said houserules. Castles & Crusades is like the rosetta stone of RPGs. You can take pretty much any fantasy RPG adventure and have a very easy time converting it to play with C&C (especially old school adventures and retro-clones). C&C is, more and more, becoming my go-to game. Will D&D 5e dethrone it? At this point, I don't think so - even though the team did an absolutely fantastic job implementing their vision and they have obviously made a game that can be favored by a great deal of people (young and old). I still think Castles & Crusades, with it's unified mechanic, is the best thing for me right now. But there is a PHB coming out in about a month - I'll let you know then :)

Author:  DMSamuel [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

pawndream wrote:
DMSamuel,

Thank you for providing your thoughts on 5e. I signed up for the playtest but only managed to skim through the rules packet a couple of years ago and did not follow any additional developments. I know nothing about the game and your post let me get an idea of what to expect when the official books are released. I also downloaded the Basic Rules, but have yet to read those either (and probably won't). I am old-fashioned and like physical books. :)

Pawn


You are very welcome. I hope that it was at least a little entertaining to read and didn't put anyone to sleep! :)



For full disclosure I should mention that I also just went and posted a slightly modified version of this overview on my blog (RPG Musings - but you guys read it here first!

Author:  BLOOD AXE [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

pawndream wrote:
DMSamuel,

Thank you for providing your thoughts on 5e. I signed up for the playtest but only managed to skim through the rules packet a couple of years ago and did not follow any additional developments. I know nothing about the game and your post let me get an idea of what to expect when the official books are released. I also downloaded the Basic Rules, but have yet to read those either (and probably won't). I am old-fashioned and like physical books. :)

Pawn


Add my thanks too. Its nice to have a summary of the new rules.

Author:  Julian Grimm [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Nice rundown DMSamuel. That said I have read a couple things in the basic set and in other discussions that have turned me off the system and WOTC in general. To put it in a nutshell: Keep your progressive rainbow reaching out of my D&D. :lol:

Author:  DMSamuel [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Julian Grimm wrote:
Nice rundown DMSamuel.

Thanks!

Julian Grimm wrote:
That said I have read a couple things in the basic set and in other discussions that have turned me off the system and WOTC in general. To put it in a nutshell: Keep your progressive rainbow reaching out of my D&D. :lol:


Eh, that stuff doesn't bother me. :)

Author:  Julian Grimm [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I think I am getting to a 'get off my lawn' moment. I don't read fantasy, sci-fi or horror to be preached to and I don't play games looking for that either. When they announced that the 4e FR novels would tackle such things I read one to see how bad it would be and never picked up another. I had hoped the shift back to some older themes had would change that but now it's in the damned rules.

Gah, I'm getting old. . . :?

Author:  DMSamuel [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

Julian Grimm wrote:
I think I am getting to a 'get off my lawn' moment. I don't read fantasy, sci-fi or horror to be preached to and I don't play games looking for that either. When they announced that the 4e FR novels would tackle such things I read one to see how bad it would be and never picked up another. I had hoped the shift back to some older themes had would change that but now it's in the damned rules.

Gah, I'm getting old. . . :?


LOL - you need a sign for your front lawn - GET OFF!!!!!!!

I haven't read a Forgotten Realms book in about 20 years, maybe more... when did the Icewind Dale Trilogy come out? *looks at Wikipedia* Crap - 1988-1990... now I feel old!

It's been a very long while since I have been able to read any "D&D fiction" - I would rather read other types of fantasy and sci fi, not things based on games. I play the game to 'live' the story to be told in that world, I don't want to read about some other characters too.

Author:  Treebore [ Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: D&D 5th Edition Discussion

I agree, a very nice overview, DMSamuel, thanks!

Page 1 of 14 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/