D&D 5th Edition Discussion

[Arduin]

True. To hear some tell it OD&D was intended to be pulp, was nothing but pulp and the Tolkienesque stuff was added as an appeasement to higher fantasy fans. Of course, I don't know as I was not even a twinkle in my parents' eye when OD&D came out and some sources keep using the same 1974 calendar over and over.

By the time they were publishing, the creators were playing in Greyhawk setting. Whoever fed you that line was delusional.

[Julian Grimm]

To be honest, the only thing that really has kept me from 5e is that I can do most of what is in there with C&C using other games I own. If I did not have any other material and was just coming into the hobby 5e would be an option. As it is now, 5e is only an option if I get into a game or find the books relatively cheap. Even then I see myself mining from them more than playing the game.

One thing about speculating on the system is that if this is a 'final' D&D edition we are looking at a slower strategy than in the past. They can take time to build the game and a fanbase while looking at ways to make the game attractive to those that moved on to other systems. If it works D&D will gain back the ground it lost during 4e and may come out as strong or stronger than the 3.X days.

It will be interesting.

[Arduin]

To be honest, the only thing that really has kept me from 5e is that I can do most of what is in there with C&C using other games I own. If I did not have any other material and was just coming into the hobby 5e would be an option.

Yep. It is inferior to C&C. It i also designed to appeal to munchkins. I'd have to strip out the video game rules to even play it with another group.

[Treebore]

Yep, I don't see it replacing C&C for me either, but I do see how easily I can take what I like out of 5E and using it with C&C. Which is why I love C&C more than any other system, it is just so easy to tweak with any idea I like, to make it precisely the game I want it to be.

[Julian Grimm]

To be honest, the only thing that really has kept me from 5e is that I can do most of what is in there with C&C using other games I own. If I did not have any other material and was just coming into the hobby 5e would be an option.

Yep. It is inferior to C&C. It i also designed to appeal to munchkins. I'd have to strip out the video game rules to even play it with another group.

You have to remember that WOTC's design philosophy is driven by how it designs it's other game. High powered moves, combos and plays that change the game quickly are all a part of it. I would say there has been more than a little of that creep into D&D. Of course, keeping the munch down is part of a DM's job and WOTC never was good at enforcing the idea

[Arduin]

To be honest, the only thing that really has kept me from 5e is that I can do most of what is in there with C&C using other games I own. If I did not have any other material and was just coming into the hobby 5e would be an option.

Yep. It is inferior to C&C. It i also designed to appeal to munchkins. I'd have to strip out the video game rules to even play it with another group.

You have to remember that WOTC's design philosophy is driven by how it designs it's other game. High powered moves, combos and plays that change the game quickly are all a part of it. I would say there has been more than a little of that creep into D&D. Of course, keeping the munch down is part of a DM's job and WOTC never was good at enforcing the idea

Absolutely. 3rd introduced the Prestige class which was a horrible idea to expand. By the time 3.5 was winding down the system was SO complex that it was a joke. The power levels had also gone out the roof. It is the GM's job but when you use a Super Hero type system it requires a rewrite from a GM. I'd rather start with a system that isn't designed from ground up that way. WotC now designs D&D as a video game in P&P form.

[Jyrdan Fairblade]

And this is why I never got into Pathfinder. They took an already over-complex system and started adding from there. 4e stripped a lot of that away, only to build it right back up again. I’m hopeful that 5e maintains the level they’re starting with. And even if they don’t, I started my campaign telling people that the only PC rules allowed are those in the first PHB.

By the time 3.5 was winding down the system was SO complex that it was a joke.

[Arduin]

I’m hopeful that 5e maintains the level they’re starting with.

That's not the plan. It will add layers & layers of new rules as part of its revenue model.

[Treebore]

Yeah, but if they stick to more domain and path options, and expanded character background options, rather than class after class after class and feat after feat and new power after new power, I might like the additional options this time around.

[Arduin]

Yeah, but if they stick to more domain and path options, and expanded character background options, rather than class after class after class and feat after feat and new power after new power, I might like the additional options this time around.

Any way you slice it, it's going to be "power creep" on steroids.

[Treebore]

Yeah, but if they stick to more domain and path options, and expanded character background options, rather than class after class after class and feat after feat and new power after new power, I might like the additional options this time around.

Any way you slice it, it's going to be "power creep" on steroids.

Well, if it is, then I will ignore it, like I always do.

[Julian Grimm]

And this is why I never got into Pathfinder. They took an already over-complex system and started adding from there. 4e stripped a lot of that away, only to build it right back up again. I’m hopeful that 5e maintains the level they’re starting with. And even if they don’t, I started my campaign telling people that the only PC rules allowed are those in the first PHB.

By the time 3.5 was winding down the system was SO complex that it was a joke.

Funny enough, I really like Pathfinder. The core game fixes some major issues and the game is quite playable and less confusing than 3.X was. While I cannot speak for the expanded game I am quite fond of PF. And this is a guy that swore he would touch nothing that resembled 3.X again.

Yeah, but if they stick to more domain and path options, and expanded character background options, rather than class after class after class and feat after feat and new power after new power, I might like the additional options this time around.

Any way you slice it, it's going to be "power creep" on steroids.

Well, if it is, then I will ignore it, like I always do.

Bingo. Like I said above, it is the DM's job to make sure creep, munchkining and meta-gaming are controlled. As well as keeping power levels to what they should be. This is also why I tend to stick to 'core' games/books with few additions.

[Julian Grimm]

Just another observation:

For the hobby to grow there will be a need for new players. This means coming up with ways to attract new blood into the hobby. Having been around some of the younger game crowd I can see why WOTC does have certain things in their versions of D&D that older players may not like. The newbies are coming in from MMOs, Japanese RPGs and games based on character building and high power levels. For better or worse they will want that at the table and will incorporate ideas from these types of games into D&D.

Those of us that came in before gaming moved to the above will always see such things as overpowered and munchkiny. Now, I am not saying that what WOTC is doing is right or that we would be wrong in not liking such changes. I do feel that table top games should retain some of what made them popular and not try to be a digital game on paper. Some idea changes can work but what WOTC has done in the past with power levels does make me wonder what late 5e will look like.

Just 2 more CP for the pile.

[TheMetal1]

A bit late to the party here, but I've picked up a lot of the 5th Edition Releases including the following: The Starter Set, Starter Miniature Set, PHB, MM, DMG, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, The Rise of Tiamat, the Rise of Tiamat DM Screen, and Arcane Spell Cards.

I'm a C&C Fan, but liked what I was seeing coming out of WOTC with 5e. C&C is the game I'm running now and have been for some time (sandboxing the A-Series which is high adventure for a group of 1 to 4th Level PCs), and that won't change.

I do like what I see in the books (except for the PHB art - Halfling Bard I'm looking at you), the starter set was pretty useful, the mini's were ok, the DM Screen - beautiful, but a bit underwhelming in terms of mechanical usage, the MM was excellent as they took at page from the Hacklopedia.

Just got in the DMG earlier this week and have only read a few pages of it, but I'm quite impressed. What grabbed my attention was their discussion on Deities. Nothing out of the ordinary or that I haven't seen anywhere else. Personally, I like the Avatar stuff of C&C's Of Gods & Monsters, which is pretty cool, and while that wasn't in there, the DMG did talk about Monotheism and Dualism. I haven't seen that done in really any fantasy RPG. It wasn't in your face, but just laid out of the facts in a few paragraphs on each. Very well done. I thought it was a missed opportunity by the trolls, when they didn't include it OGM, but was very happy to see it in there.

I'll continue reading 5e as I have time, and would probably enjoy playing or running it.

While never really got into 3.X, other than with some OGL Games (Spycraft, etc.), but did get a lot of the 3.X (mostly 3.5) D&D Books and setting books. The big draw for me was Dungeons & Dragons Online: Eberron Unlimited. Still play it about once a month and while that isn't a direct port, it is a fun system. I wouldn't be opposed to playing a P&P game of 3.X, though I'm sure it's a lot of work on the part of the DM.

As far as Pathfinder, I'm with Julian Grimm on this. Have a big collection, like the community, and like the support for the game from Adventure Paths, to Cards, to Maps, and Pawns. I just use all of it with my C&C Game though. Of all the games I have, Pathfinder would be the one I'd likely run after C&C (Though on in a face to face game).

Ok, enough rambling anyone else have any thoughts on the 5e DMG?

[Arduin]

Personally, I like the Avatar stuff of C&C's Of Gods & Monsters, which is pretty cool, and while that wasn't in there, the DMG did talk about Monotheism and Dualism. I haven't seen that done in really any fantasy RPG.

If you had gotten into AD&D 2nd Ed you would have read about it in the Priest handbook I believe. One of the 2nd Ed books covered it quite well.

[seskis281]

I did have the chance to play some 5e at Gamehole con in Madison WI in November.

My observations:

1. It plays like "D&D" as I would describe "feel" - I enjoyed the game, and didn't feel at all like I did when I attempted 4e. The table barely used minis and grid, and just for base orientation very much like I do.

2. Having said that, it didn't provide anything that C&C doesn't already do and does better. I also still did not like the one real video-gamey mechanic of healing, both as inherent "powers" and pretty much "rest briefly and regain most or all HPs".

3. While I enjoyed the game, the experience was somewhat hard to really evaluate because of the following: when we arrived on Thur. night we had some drinks at the bar, and heard one of the organized play staffers talking about 5e and how much he disliked it. PF was clearly "his" game and he elucidated pretty extensively on what he didn't like about the new D&D. When I showed up to play the D&D experience, said gentleman was the DM. Now, he ran a good game, but given what I had heard him saying it was clear he was DM'ing because of "need" rather than interest, and that makes it hard to say whether the game really showed me the system as it could be. I wish I could have gotten into Chris Perkin's events, but those were filled with VIG ticket holders before I could register.

[Arduin]

2. Having said that, it didn't provide anything that C&C doesn't already do and does better. I also still did not like the one real video-gamey mechanic of healing, both as inherent "powers" and pretty much "rest briefly and regain most or all HPs".

It generally plays pretty good. I too don't like the healing munchkinism (VERY un-D&D). Overall the game is inferior to C&C but better than 3rd & 4th edition.

[Treebore]

Overall the game is inferior to C&C but better than 3rd & 4th edition.

Yeah, I am glad to once again have an edition of D&D that I like. No matter what WOTC does from this point on, at least I have a "core" set of D&D books that I won't mind playing, or running.

[Arduin]

Overall the game is inferior to C&C but better than 3rd & 4th edition.

Yeah, I am glad to once again have an edition of D&D that I like. No matter what WOTC does from this point on, at least I have a "core" set of D&D books that I won't mind playing, or running.

Yup

[GreyLord]

Just another observation:

For the hobby to grow there will be a need for new players. This means coming up with ways to attract new blood into the hobby. Having been around some of the younger game crowd I can see why WOTC does have certain things in their versions of D&D that older players may not like. The newbies are coming in from MMOs, Japanese RPGs and games based on character building and high power levels. For better or worse they will want that at the table and will incorporate ideas from these types of games into D&D.

Those of us that came in before gaming moved to the above will always see such things as overpowered and munchkiny. Now, I am not saying that what WOTC is doing is right or that we would be wrong in not liking such changes. I do feel that table top games should retain some of what made them popular and not try to be a digital game on paper. Some idea changes can work but what WOTC has done in the past with power levels does make me wonder what late 5e will look like.

Just 2 more CP for the pile.

Interesting you mention Japanese RPGs. Many of them actually hearken back to a more AD&D style...and not the 3e+ style that has evolved since 2000.

On P&P there's sword world, which is more defined off AD&D than the newer stuff from what I understand.

In video games, its more with the archtype classes and such (focused more around the leader, the warrior, the gambler, the wizard, and the healer meme).

I recently played Dragon Quest IX (excellent game by the way) and their dualclassing style took an interesting turn, which was more like AD&D's dual classing (but less restrictive...if you take a new class, you start at 1st level again...and all your stats and HP are ALSO at first level) than the stuff they have in the new D&D versions.

I hear that D&D (current versions from 3e on) don't sale well in Japan. I've wondered if that's simply due to tastes for older gaming styles, national loyalty (a BIG deal in Japan...one of the reasons Xbox doesn't do well there), because there are Japanese PnP RPGs that already take up that slot, or a combination of all of the above (this is probably the most likely).

[DreamscapeDesign]

I also still did not like the one real video-gamey mechanic of healing, both as inherent "powers" and pretty much "rest briefly and regain most or all HPs".

I too don't like the healing munchkinism (VERY un-D&D).

I can see where they're coming from, in a meta-gaming way - without that clerics are often reduced to heal-bots. Still, it's not D&D as we know it, and now that I have the DMG I'll definitely be trying out the slower natural healing variants until we find one that feels right.

[Arduin]

I can see where they're coming from, in a meta-gaming way - without that clerics are often reduced to heal-bots. Sitll, it's not D&D as we know it, and now that I have the DMG I'll definitely be trying out the slower natural healing variants until we find one that feels right.

The Heal bot phenom really took off with spontaneous healing casting. Before that you couldn't do it as much. Another 3.x screw up

[Treebore]

I have no problems with Clerics being "heal bots", its what they were created for in the first place. Besides, if you want to remove some of the "burden", all you have to do is make healing potions more available/appear more often. Or stop beating the crap out of the PC's all the time.

[Arduin]

I have no problems with Clerics being "heal bots", its what they were created for in the first place. Besides, if you want to remove some of the "burden", all you have to do is make healing potions more available/appear more often. Or stop beating the crap out of the PC's all the time.

Yes, healing potions made available to purchase goes a long way. "Realistic" monster ecosystem also helps.

[TensersFloatingDisk]

One thing I'd like to hear about is medium and high level play, because perusing the Monster Manual one thing that struck me is the massive increase in Hit Points the monsters have from earlier editions (again, I know nothing of 4e) A Hill Giant, for instance had around 40HP in AD&D whereas now it has about 100. There doesn't seem to have been a similar increase in the potential for dishing out damage for PCs, on the other hand. Weapon damage is no higher (lower than 1st edition in many cases) and the chances of attacks succeeding are roughly the same or a little worse (say +3 for high str, boosted by level increases, maybe a +2 weapon, proficicency bonus of +4 or +5 for a high level PC, which is an adjusted THAC0 of 10-11 in old money) while spells remain roughly the same in damage output too, so I wonder if this doesn't mean combats seem drag on somewhat...?

[Arduin]

and the chances of attacks succeeding are roughly the same or a little worse (say +3 for high str, boosted by level increases, maybe a +2 weapon, proficicency bonus of +4 or +5 for a high level PC, which is an adjusted THAC0 of 10-11 in old money) while spells remain roughly the same in damage output too, so I wonder if this doesn't mean combats seem drag on somewhat...?

I noticed that too. When you couple increased monster HP with the effective doubling (at least) of effective PC HP, the total combat day is MUCH longer.

[Treebore]

and the chances of attacks succeeding are roughly the same or a little worse (say +3 for high str, boosted by level increases, maybe a +2 weapon, proficicency bonus of +4 or +5 for a high level PC, which is an adjusted THAC0 of 10-11 in old money) while spells remain roughly the same in damage output too, so I wonder if this doesn't mean combats seem drag on somewhat...?

I noticed that too. When you couple increased monster HP with the effective doubling (at least) of effective PC HP, the total combat day is MUCH longer.

Damage output of the PC's goes up too. Fighters get more attacks, spells do more damage, etc... So hopefully it will all balance out.

[Arduin]

Damage output of the PC's goes up too. Fighters get more attacks, spells do more damage, etc... So hopefully it will all balance out.

I think heavy use of spells might tip it back. But, only lots of playing at that level will reveal for certain.

[Julian Grimm]

I've read several reviews and something I have noted is that there is a fair amount of them written by 'old schoolers'. These reviews have all been very positive and have given lots of praise to the system. I am going to take another look at the basic rules and maybe see if I can get a game or two running.

While the books are still out of my price range I am going to watch for a used set.

[TensersFloatingDisk]

I noticed that too. When you couple increased monster HP with the effective doubling (at least) of effective PC HP, the total combat day is MUCH longer.

Damage output of the PC's goes up too. Fighters get more attacks, spells do more damage, etc... So hopefully it will all balance out.

Hopefully yes, but although there does seem to be an increase in PC damage output, it doesn't seem to be anything like as much as the increase in monster HP... Fighters getting 3 attacks per round versus 3 attacks per 2 rounds under AD&D rules, that speeds things up more in-game than it does at the table (where the only effect is the DM making one attack fewer for the monster). Magic seems to be a bit "swings and roundabouts" in that unlimited cantrip use enables a medium-high Wizard to deal a lot more damage hitting with a Firebolt or Chill Touch than his AD&D forebearer did by hitting with his +2 dagger or +1 staff, but at the same time the good old standby Fireball and Lightning Bolt do less damage for a level 9+ caster and, while I know this had to be done for balance, all but the highest level spells which once could effectively take one or more creatures out of the fight such as Web or Confusion now allow a new save every round. My impression is that things will be slowed, but someone who's played high level combat may know differently.