A Grognard's Guide to 5E D&D Rules [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : A Grognard's Guide to 5E D&D Rules

Pages : 1 [2]

T.G. Oskar

2014-07-19, 07:36 PM

I feel bad for posting regarding the tangential discussion rather than the topic at hand, but I apparently found out something worthy to write about so that the post isn't inherently empty.

Tangential: to be brief (gasp!), I see a conflict between people who run the gamut between MTP and Rules Lawyers. Going by Basic Rules, 5e inclines more towards MTP (the DM has to adjudicate things a bit closer), but the rules still have enough worth, and it's probable that the PHB or splats will cater to the rules lawyers by making solid rules. Or maybe not. Thing is: the fight is out of topic, so I'd like to ask Person_Man to request the mods to split the discussion and take the MTP vs. Rules Lawyers debate out of the topic (before it gets out of hand and is closed: perhaps also suggest the thread to be stickied? Potentially necessary if the discussion is split up.) Because of this, and to actually contribute to the topic...

Topic-related: grokking Proficiency bonuses are easy, but it'd be great to explain how do you get them. There's more than one way to get your proficiency bonus to something, and 3e/PF/4e players might get confused with some. For example: there is no Open Lock skill; there is proficiency with lockpicks, which adds the bonus to the Dexterity check to open the lock. There is no Ride skill; there is proficiency with vehicles and mounts, which allows you to apply your proficiency bonus when driving that vehicle or riding that mount. This is important, because the proficiency might overlap: some DMs might forget and adjudicate proficiency bonuses if the character has the Animal Handling skill proficiency, which might end up with people suddenly surprised when they notice there's separate proficiencies with mounts. Still a tad too early, but if it happens, it could clear a lot of confusions. Even without the mount thing, some proficiencies are hidden and not very well explained (gaming set proficiencies, for example?) I'd say that's a reason why people would prefer solid rules than winging it, but again: that's not the point of the thread.

Leon

2014-07-20, 05:08 AM

yeah because they're broken as heck, who'd want to play something so unbalanced?

Well most of this board would, all they are interested in is being King Solo if you read enough of the threads.
But just because some players came up with a rating system and other players have run with it makes no class better or worse for any given player to use. Wizards may bore you (i know they bore me) but a Sword and Board Fighter may be exactly what you dream of playing and are entitled to play that option regardless of what a player fabricated ranking system says about it.

Lord Raziere

2014-07-20, 05:49 AM

Well most of this board would, all they are interested in is being King Solo if you read enough of the threads.
But just because some players came up with a rating system and other players have run with it makes no class better or worse for any given player to use. Wizards may bore you (i know they bore me) but a Sword and Board Fighter may be exactly what you dream of playing and are entitled to play that option regardless of what a player fabricated ranking system says about it.

Sir, you are highly mistaken.

I acknowledge that such people are interested in doing so. It is nothing but common god-impulse roleplaying, you can find it on any freeform roleplaying in less restrained forms with no rules to hold such people back. My first real roleplaying experience was with that kind of roleplaying- it wasn't fun. I was playing a character equal or better to most epic dnd characters while facing players with just as great power, with the powergamer-optimizer mindset to boot applied to freeform rules. it didn't end well, and no one truly had any fun. you end up doing nothing but constantly warring against ten different beings all terraforming the world is some form or manner in an effort to gain complete control over everything....and accomplishing nothing but causing apocalypses and wrecking cities. I would not recommend the experience to anyone else.

no, what your mistaken about is my view on wizards: wizards do not bore me. I want to play a spellcaster, I could not play a fighter to save my life. my favorite WoD game is Mage the Awakening, one of my favorite shows is Fairy Tail, and most if not all my characters have wielded magic in one form or another. But that doesn't mean I want wizards to be overpowered. I want a wizard, a spellcaster that is thematic and has their own certain style, not one that uses Wish and does whatever they want. I want to play a pyromancer who tries their best to wield fire responsibly because fire means something to him, I don't want to obsessively prepare for contingencies like a bad clone of batman, I want to be a cunning trickster who uses illusions to outsmart evil masterminds, or a street-smart mage who snaps off improvised magic in the spur of the moment, or an earth mage who raises up walls and summons rock guardians to protect others, and so on and so forth.

not this....reality warping pseudo-god magical batman clone, or an obsessive secret keeping prideful jerk, or a so-called wise wizard who will maybe use his magic once or twice to help out. but hey, I guess thats why I play M&M3e instead of DnD now.

and just because one is entitled to play something, doesn't mean its a good option, or that its desirable to play it. I may want to play a spellcaster, but I will not accept the party fighter, rogue or any other mundane class being so weak compared to myself, that is unfair to them, and they shouldn't have to suffer so.

Fwiffo86

2014-07-20, 08:44 AM

and just because one is entitled to play something, doesn't mean its a good option, or that its desirable to play it. I may want to play a spellcaster, but I will not accept the party fighter, rogue or any other mundane class being so weak compared to myself, that is unfair to them, and they shouldn't have to suffer so.

Are you saying that the other classes need to be raised up to be equal to the wizard (which hints at the god-level RPing you were talking about) or that wizards need to be reigned in a bit to align them with other classes? I'm just looking for position clarification.

rlc

2014-07-20, 08:57 AM

no, what your mistaken about is my view on wizards

when he used the word "you," he didn't actually mean "you." you like wizards, but some people don't. they should be able to play in the same party, which you seem to agree with.
i agree with both of you, by the way. all of the classes should be relatively equal (if anything, i think the most overpowered class should be something martial).

Lord Raziere

2014-07-20, 02:49 PM

Are you saying that the other classes need to be raised up to be equal to the wizard (which hints at the god-level RPing you were talking about) or that wizards need to be reigned in a bit to align them with other classes? I'm just looking for position clarification.

Either one is good as long as they're equalized.

Edit:

(if anything, i think the most overpowered class should be something martial).

No, no, and hell no. I'm not trading DnD's "look at me I'm a bad godly magical batman clone!" magic system for Exalted's "Solars R Teh Betters at everything." super-skills that outstrip any sorcerous magic. I hear enough tiring speeches about the limitless ingenuity of humanity and supposed mundane awesomeness from them, I don't need it being spread around.

PinkysBrain

2014-07-20, 02:55 PM

Are you saying that the other classes need to be raised up to be equal to the wizard (which hints at the god-level RPing you were talking about) or that wizards need to be reigned in a bit to align them with other classes? I'm just looking for position clarification.
Personally I'd just like a melee martial to be able to do the best single target damage by a wide margin (I'd say twice as much as a caster and at least 50% more than an archer). After that we can see how much weeaboo stuff we want on top of that. Single target damage is the biggest niche non utility martials are supposed to have in my opinion and they shouldn't be upstaged in that respect ... not even once a day.

Tholomyes

2014-07-20, 03:24 PM

Personally I'd just like a melee martial to be able to do the best single target damage by a wide margin (I'd say twice as much as a caster and at least 50% more than an archer). After that we can see how much weeaboo stuff we want on top of that. Single target damage is the biggest niche non utility martials are supposed to have in my opinion and they shouldn't be upstaged in that respect ... not even once a day.Well, Personally, for me, I think round-by-round "I attack the target" is one of the most boring parts of combat. While martials should probably be, in general, the best at single target damage, making them that much head-and-shoulders above casters doesn't give much room for actually interesting mechanics, like maneuvers and such, not to mention non-combat features and abilities. Also, I fail to see why melee should be notably better than a ranged character, especially not 150% the damage output of a ranged martial. Being ranged has some benefits (such as less chance of being attacked, greater ability to choose targets), but also some associated penalties, too (such as, the fact that when an enemy does get into melee, you're kind of screwed, and that you can't try to keep enemies from engaging squishy allies very easily). As such, I don't see much of a reason to have too great a disparity between the two, in terms of damage output.

rlc

2014-07-20, 03:34 PM

No, no, and hell no. I'm not trading DnD's "look at me I'm a bad godly magical batman clone!" magic system for Exalted's "Solars R Teh Betters at everything." super-skills that outstrip any sorcerous magic. I hear enough tiring speeches about the limitless ingenuity of humanity and supposed mundane awesomeness from them, I don't need it being spread around.
it doesn't have to be, "HAY LUK I R MEGA AWSUMZ WIT DA SORDZ," maybe more along the lines of, "yup, my archer hits your wizard with a called shot to the forehead for 60 damage, doing more than enough to take all 48 of his hp. however, i will refrain from taunting you via internet meme quotations."
or, something like this:

Personally I'd just like a melee martial to be able to do the best single target damage by a wide margin (I'd say twice as much as a caster and at least 50% more than an archer)
...when using maneuvers.

i don't know, though. maybe i'm biased. i don't really like magic.

Sartharina

2014-07-20, 04:17 PM

I have no problem with martial characters being T4 and casters being T3 in D&D (By the old system). The problem was martials were T5 or T6, and Casters were T1 and T2.

Personally I'd just like a melee martial to be able to do the best single target damage by a wide margin (I'd say twice as much as a caster and at least 50% more than an archer). After that we can see how much weeaboo stuff we want on top of that. Single target damage is the biggest niche non utility martials are supposed to have in my opinion and they shouldn't be upstaged in that respect ... not even once a day.No. A ranged character should not do less damage than a melee character. That way lies madness and archer-hatred, because the only thing that really matters in combat is how quickly you drop enemies.

The biggest niche non-utility martials have is locking down enemies (You can't OA with a spell) and shrugging off damage that crushes squishier characters. They don't need "Best Single-target Damage" - Leave that to characters that trade defense for greater offense. Also, DPR goes down dramatically for non-repeatable actions over an extended combat, such as most spells.

Furthermore, Fighters aren't single-target (Though rogues are). They can attack as many targets as they have attacks.

rlc

2014-07-20, 04:25 PM

so...how about, like, a monk that gets a really awesome punch, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef5T3Ir2yY0

PinkysBrain

2014-07-20, 04:27 PM

Well, Personally, for me, I think round-by-round "I attack the target" is one of the most boring parts of combat. While martials should probably be, in general, the best at single target damage, making them that much head-and-shoulders above casters doesn't give much room for actually interesting mechanics, like maneuvers and such, not to mention non-combat features and abilities.

I disagree, it opens up room across the spectrum between fighters and casters for utility-martials who can do some weeaboo stuff. The problem with the fighter as it stands is that you can't really create much more versatile martials without making the fighter superfluous, like XPH/ToB did in 3e. Yet certain people want a character who mostly just moves and attacks with any other abilities mostly coming from magic items ... and they cry bloody murder when the fighter becomes superfluous.

For the boring fighter to be able to be in the same game with much more versatile martials you need to give him a niche, AC/DR and single target damage are the easiest niches to hand out and because of bounded accuracy the damage is the most important.

PinkysBrain

2014-07-20, 04:29 PM

No. A ranged character should not do less damage than a melee character. That way lies madness and archer-hatred, because the only thing that really matters in combat is how quickly you drop enemies.

The archer can do damage beyond movement range ... for him to do the same average damage he has to do less peak damage.

Furthermore, Fighters aren't single-target (Though rogues are). They can attack as many targets as they have attacks.

So can rogues across multiple turns ... if the basic fighter had some sort of cleave build into the class it would be better.

Morty

2014-07-20, 04:35 PM

rlc

2014-07-20, 04:46 PM

The problem with making single-target damage the non-magical warriors' biggest edge is that you might as well have a single class with a single weapon style at that point. Otherwise everything is going to come down to how you deal that high damage. And it's probably going to be rendered superfluous anyway, because being the best at passive numbers of an incredibly shallow combat system is an awful niche to have, plain and simple. It's hard, if not impossible, for it not to be pushed to the wayside by more indirect ways to disable opponents.well, i don't think anybody actually wants combat to become shallow or dominated by a single weapon style. it's more along the lines of wanting the dude who trained hard all of his life to be at least as capable as the guy who read a lot of books. not all martial attacks have to be focused on a single target (and i'm glad tat they don't), but somebody should be able to have one really strong attack that does exactly that, even if it's at a time that using attacks that are more spread out would be more efficient. especially then.
But we've really moved away from the thread's original premise, haven't we?i never really understood some people's taboo against letting conversations evolve on the internet.

Sartharina

2014-07-20, 04:59 PM

You cannot gauge capability just by looking at one aspect of a character. You have to appraise the class holistically.

Morty

2014-07-20, 05:18 PM

well, i don't think anybody actually wants combat to become shallow or dominated by a single weapon style.

Become? It already is. 5e avoids the trap of making one weapon style superior, it seems, but it also makes combat as a whole even more shallow than it is in 3.P. Because if the only goal is to deal lots of damage quickly, there's not a whole not of room to make things well-rounded.

Tholomyes

2014-07-20, 05:37 PM

The archer can do damage beyond movement range ... for him to do the same average damage he has to do less peak damage. Perhaps it's differences in playstyles, but I rarely find that movement range is much of a limiting factor, beyond reducing target options somewhat. The greater target options is balanced out by the limitations they face when they are in melee with an enemy. I fail to see what reason, otherwise, would require ranged and melee damage to be significantly disparate.

So can rogues across multiple turns ... if the basic fighter had some sort of cleave build into the class it would be better.Rogues are forced to concentrate their damage on a single enemy during their turn, though; fighters are not. As for a something akin to cleave, I'm sure feats (which fighters get more of) or maneuvers will take care of that. It doesn't need to be something basic to the fighter; after all, was cleave basic to the Fighter in 3e? No, but that didn't stop it from being a fairly common fighter tactic.

A Stray Cat

2014-07-20, 07:58 PM

You cannot gauge capability just by looking at one aspect of a character. You have to appraise the class holistically.

Quoted for truth

Person_Man

2014-07-24, 09:57 AM

New interview with lead designer Mike Mearls is public:

http://suvudu.com/2014/07/interview-with-dd-lead-designer-mike-mearls-gamers-wanted-5e-to-be-fast-flexible-and-easy-to-play.html

Key quote: "We found that many people in the audience wanted a fast, flexible, and easy-to-play game. That feedback went against nearly 15 years of conventional wisdom in the D&D business."

The game itself is definitely easier to play then previous editions. But the character creation is now more complicated then its every been before. The PHB is probably going to end up being at least 3/4 character creation and spells. So it'll be interesting to see if new players really see it as fast, flexible, and easy to play.

He also states that there will be a "complex" Fighter option, which makes sense, since its clearly something a segment of players want, and easy to incorporate with a subclass.

Sartharina

2014-07-24, 12:13 PM

The game itself is definitely easier to play then previous editions. But the character creation is now more complicated then its every been beforeWhat planet are you from?

I've found character creation to be incredibly easy in D&D Next, thanks to the proficiency and background systems, and starting gear (As opposed to shopping for everything ala cart) There are also MUCH fewer calculations on the paper, especially without having to dive through as many feats and count beans skill points and fiddly little bonuses.

SouthpawSoldier

2014-07-24, 12:37 PM

T.G. Oskar

2014-07-24, 12:56 PM

What planet are you from?

I've found character creation to be incredibly easy in D&D Next, thanks to the proficiency and background systems, and starting gear (As opposed to shopping for everything ala cart) There are also MUCH fewer calculations on the paper, especially without having to dive through as many feats and count beans skill points and fiddly little bonuses.

Agreed with this.

Did a hybrid test of the rules, using the Basic Set, one of the Playtest documents for everything else that wasn't there, and the D&D 3.5 Basic Set box for the adventure (the first one, not the second). One of my players is adept to optimizing and mechanics, while the other is adept to roleplaying. I was completely amazed by how both could tap into the other side: the roleplayer had a grasp of mechanics that surprised everyone (all three of us, myself included) in the table, and my optimizer was amazed his character was actually forced to react and roleplay on an unexpected situation.

The optimizer played the kind of character he usually plays (Human, Fighter, tweaked to deal maximum damage per hit without sacrificing defense), and the first thing he told me once I spoke to him today was that he found out his character had a death wish, because of his penchant for taking risks and his developed PTSD due to his background options.

The roleplayer, who usually asks us to work on his characters, had already two or three character options. He chose one of the Playtest backgrounds, and while it took us some time, it was no more than an hour to improvise two personality traits, an ideal, a bond and a flaw for him that worked with his idea for the character. That said, he also managed to remember things about the rules and barely had to be reminded of the loads of bonuses his characters usually have. He's also playing his typical character (long range character, sometimes Rogue, with good social skills and expertise in Stealth).

Since I'm using the Basic Set from 3.5 but the monster versions of 5e (and the Eberron Campaign Setting book for 3.5 as well, since we don't like Forgotten Realms at all), I had a bit of work but not that much. Battles ended up in a cinch, and the movement was pretty fluid (but having only two characters at once makes that extremely easy).

So yeah: I have to agree that the character creation rules and the game mechanics are pretty easy to understand. That said, I have to mention that it's still too early, since while the basic rules of creation are pretty simple, there is still no option bloat to think about. The true test will come two years after the Core Rulebooks have been released, when there's enough splats to bloat the options: if the game is still easy to build and play by then, it'll have passed. But, for the moment, it's pretty easy to work with.

I'd like to point out, though, for the benefit of the guide, that there should be a sort of skill/non-weapon proficiency equivalency table, since people shifting editions might get confused. This is particularly true for the former Search skill, which is mostly split between the Investigation and Perception skills. Making an ad hoc rule for Persuasion would also work.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-24, 01:00 PM

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTN0rNgtj7So4zO9lpVir9yVkjM84KIo C-GYEHpTY9iOpF__gPm3A

Can someone explain why they kept the legacy ability score system, instead of strictly ability bonuses? Saw it mentioned somewhere, but can't find it in my history or via Bing/Google. Figure that'd be one more step of simplification.

obryn

2014-07-24, 01:11 PM

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTN0rNgtj7So4zO9lpVir9yVkjM84KIo C-GYEHpTY9iOpF__gPm3A
(That's a cash cow, not a sacred one.)

Person_Man

2014-07-24, 01:36 PM

What planet are you from?

New York. A lot of problems with my personality could probably be attributed to that fact. :smallwink:

I've found character creation to be incredibly easy in D&D Next, thanks to the proficiency and background systems, and starting gear (As opposed to shopping for everything ala cart) There are also MUCH fewer calculations on the paper, especially without having to dive through as many feats and count beans skill points and fiddly little bonuses.

In 1E and 2E, default 1st level character creation was dirt simple. You rolled your Ability Scores, in order. You picked 1 of the 5-7 Races, you picked 1 of 9-10 Classes you qualified for, you bought some equipment from a relatively short list, filled in some basic fluff like Alignment, if you were a spellcaster you chose a couple of spells from the list of 1st level spells, and then you're done. Races and Classes had minimum Ability Score requirements, and so your options were almost always even more limited then that. Everything else was optional (including Non-Weapon Proficiencies, ie, Skills), and it was presented as such. Using alternate methods of generating Ability Scores definitely gave you more options, but unless you rolled well, most players ended up as a Fighter, Thief/Rogue, Magic-User/Wizard, or Cleric. If you weren't using Spells, everything you needed for character creation was contained within around 40 pages of rules.

In 3E it was complicated the process was complicated by Skill Points and Feats. But by there was still a relatively small number of classes, the rules strongly encouraged you to invest your Skill Points in Class Skills, and you probably only qualified for a relatively small number of the core Feats.

The 4E process added one more layer of complication, in that every class has to choose Powers. (Although Skills were cleaned up a bit). the Power lists were long and duplicative, which was one of the big turn-offs for many players (like me). But at 1st level, all you really needed to do was read your 1st level Powers.

5E removed the necessity of choosing a 1st level Feat (unless you're an Alternate Human, which will probably end up being the most popular race). You don't have to assign Skill Points, which is definitely simpler. But you still need to read through all of htem and choose them, and Skill Proficiencies are determined by a combination of your Class and Background (which needlessly complicated it). But now everyone needs to choose a Background, and there will probably be 20+ of them in the core rules. Most races have a subrace to choose from. And most importantly, each class has at least 3 and up to 9 sub-class options, which is a huge number of choices for a new player to wade through.

So my argument is that prior to 5E, you had a small number of options to choose from, and those variables were more or less dictated by your initial Ability Score generation and choice of Class. Each step of the process constrained your next choice, so the decision tree for a new player was basically;

1) Pick which Ability Score(s) I want to be good in (or have it randomly generated)
2) Pick a Class which suits those scores.
3) If playing 3E, pick a Feat and Skills that fit that Class, and spells if needed (or Powers if playing 4E).
4) Equipment and Fluff.

In 5E, you have a huge number options to choose from (like, 2/3+ of a 300+ page book), and they can be mixed and matched together in a huge array of different options.

5E is only simpler if you only use the Basic Rules (and not the actual Player's Handbook) or if you're creating your first character with an experienced DM who is guiding you through the process and basically shielding you from having to sort through a ton of options. "Don't worry about Feat options, just don't play an Alternate Human. Don't bother reading through 20 pages of Backgrounds, just pick the one that sounds like what you want to play. Don't worry about all the different Skill options, just use the ones assigned by your Class and Background. Don't worry about reading through 12 different Classes, just coose from the three or four simple ones I tell you about that don't have spells. Don't read through any of the subclasses until you've picked a class, and then pick the subclass I tell you is easiest to use even though you have no basis for knowing which one is simple and which one is complex." And so on.

Morty

2014-07-24, 01:39 PM

Can someone explain why they kept the legacy ability score system, instead of strictly ability bonuses? Saw it mentioned somewhere, but can't find it in my history or via Bing/Google. Figure that'd be one more step of simplification.

Because they're desperately playing it safe, is my guess. Even though it runs directly contrary to their goal of making things easy and accessible for new players - the way attributes work is unintuitive and confusing for people with no D&D experience.

Sartharina

2014-07-24, 01:44 PM

Person_Man

2014-07-24, 02:34 PM

I think it feels a lot easier, partially from my experience, but significantly moreso from a more intuitive layout. Class+Background, with everything else nearly auto-selected, unless you're a caster.

Understandable. But you're also someone who clearly has a very high level of rules mastery.

I honestly don't know if the 5E Player's Handbook will be simpler for new players or more difficult. The only thing I know for sure is that character creation (without spells) is going to be at least 100 pages of material and will include a ton of different options, and that's a lot of stuff to sort through for anyone.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-24, 03:01 PM

(That's a cash cow, not a sacred one.)

It was meant to be a double whammy, I'm pretty sure money is what is sacred to the company :smalltongue:.

Sacred Cash Cow

Theodoxus

2014-07-24, 03:10 PM

Understandable. But you're also someone who clearly has a very high level of rules mastery.

I honestly don't know if the 5E Player's Handbook will be simpler for new players or more difficult. The only thing I know for sure is that character creation (without spells) is going to be at least 100 pages of material and will include a ton of different options, and that's a lot of stuff to sort through for anyone.

I can see that the first time (possibly two) making new characters - but soon, you'll know the various background options, what classes have interesting subclasses and which ones will probably never sound interesting. One of my groups favorite activities is sitting down with new rulesets and creating characters together - having a group read where someone gets excited by a feature and another exclaims that it's OP and a third hum-drums it in boredom.

I would proffer to anyone considering playing with the the PHB instead of just the basic rules, to sit down and read through - preferably with the DM and spend an hour or two really scrutinizing the options before even thinking of what you'd want to play (if there isn't a solid character concept already).

Sitting down 15 minutes before a new game session without ever seeing the book or what the options are is a pretty poor idea and rife for an unpleasant time.

I'm running the Starter Set module next weekend (the 2nd) and have asked the players to at least peruse the basic rules - haven't decided if we're using the pregens or not; but I do want them to have some understanding before we play of the rules differences (we play PF primarily - so there's some system mastery inherent - but the differences will probably be confusing at first).

Sartharina

2014-07-24, 03:33 PM

Wrenn

2014-07-24, 03:53 PM

Merlin the Tuna

2014-07-24, 04:31 PM

As far as character generation goes, you also have to take into account that the PHB is considered an 'advanced' option. The simplified basic rules are specifically made to introduce your new players to the game. I think 1 or 2 short campaigns through with the basic rules will have anyone ready to tackle character creation with the PHB. Yeah, it'll probably take a little longer to wade through the options in the PHB, but that's what comes with having all the bells and whistles. Starting a group of brand new players with Basic will give them the foundation they'll need to grasp all the options available to them when they do get introduced to the PHB.To a certain extent, you're right - Starter/Basic/whatever cuts back the scale on how involved character creation is. At the same time, I don't think that absolves it from being a bit sloppy in terms of the overall process.

In math & computer science, Big O Notation is a common way to evaluate algorithms. It basically says "I don't care exactly how it takes to do this for a specific case, I care how complicated it is at its core and how it scales." So if I say n represents the number of files in my database, I might have a function that looks at every single one of them (meaning it takes n operations) and another that looks at each of them 50 separate times (50n) On the flip side, I might have another function -- maybe some kind of matching function -- that involves looking through every combination of files (n2).

Here's the thing. In terms of actually grading the algorithm, n and 50n are treated as 100% the same. It grows linearly, we entirely do not care that one is literally 50 times the other. Similarly, n2 is categorically worse than both. It doesn't matter that, if n is happens to be 30, it's actually faster than 50n. It says "this gets nutty increasingly quick."

Getting back to D&D, that's sort of where character creation sits right now. Yes, if you keep it to the Basic set, you've only got (exact numbers may be wrong) 4 classes, 8 (sub) races, and 4 backgrounds. But they're linked to each other, much like our n2 friend, so it's sort of manageable while the numbers are small but will get increasingly bloated as we add more options. You can choose to ignore how your class interacts with racial features and background elements (most notably skills) and just plow through character creation, in which case you're basically working with a linear (n) system. (There's still a little bit of a runaround in the form of "Choose a Class, choose a race, choose ability scores, then oh yeah go back and look at your race again to see if it affects your ability scores." I still prefer it to the playtest's presentation, which was "Choose ability scores, then set them aside to do half a dozen other things, and oh right let's do something about those scores now.") But the best case scenario in terms of making a strong, effective character - is to cross-reference all those pieces against each other to game the system as hard as you can -- hello, n2.

Basically, it's engineered for bloat. We know there are going to be a billion races and backgrounds added as the game goes, and because of the way the process works, the nuisance-factor scales up quickly.

Wrenn

2014-07-24, 05:23 PM

SouthpawSoldier

2014-07-24, 09:30 PM

As a relatively new player, I think my perspective my be different from most of you.

I've only been playing taletops for a little over a year or so. I've been exposed to it quite a bit (first Neverwinter Nights, reading tons of Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, et al (hell, my father was nerd enough to give his kids middle names from Tolkien, so you could say I was born for it)), but only recently have I met a group and been able to play.

Almost all of my experience has been 3.x/PF; 3.5, with some 3.0 books worked in (never learned how to tell the difference other than the core 3). I LOVE d20 mechanics; I need rules and structure. My biggest problem with 3.5 is the over abundance of options and redundancies, and the complicated mess of things like grappling. Even trimming down to the core 3, I have a hard time going through and selecting feats and spells to build a caster in less than a couple hours.

Reading Basic, I love how it feels simpler than 3.5. I think some aspects make no sense, like the aforementioned ability scores, but it seems a great compromise between 3.5's balance issues and 4E's reputation for being a pure tactics game. No experience with 4E, so take that with a grain of salt. Even so, Basic is enough like 3.5 to still feel like DnD.

I like the feel of just enough structure and rules to provide consistency in rulings and play, without feeling like I need a degree in statistics for rules mastery. Give me a brief set of rules for common situations, a smattering of spells and instructions on writing new ones...you get the idea.

Maybe I need experience with other systems, like Free20 and other OGL's, but Basic feels like a step in the right direction. Drop the redundant weapons and feats, ditch ability scores for just modifiers, and make fighters interesting without needing a splatbook dedicated to martial classes.

Merlin the Tuna

2014-07-24, 09:57 PM

I'm not sure I completely understand the complaint. Are you saying you would rather have fewer options for customization? Putting every choice on a linear path would seem to leave no real choice at all.Essentially, Race/Background/Abilities are all wrapped up in each other rather than being isolated choices, meaning that most of the time you're going to juggle them simultaneously rather than making one choice, then another, then another. If you decouple the elements, such as by basing skills entirely on backgrounds and making race not affect core attributes, you get a much simpler process and potentially expand your room for customization from a practical standpoint because you're no longer looking for direct stat synergy.

da_chicken

2014-07-24, 11:38 PM

Merlin the Tuna

2014-07-25, 12:11 AM

First, you should be looking for what makes a good character, not what gives you the most stat synergy.

Second, the first page of the Backgrounds rules (Basic p36) tells you how to make your own Backgrounds.It strikes me as a little silly to make a game as elaborate as D&D then to get upset when people treat it like an elaborate game. But my snark aside, making a good character is at best synergy agnostic, and at worst doing so is actually impeded by certain races being de-facto better due to stat synergies. You don't think it's discouraging if -- incoming thought exercise -- I see the sidebar about Drizzt and think "Yeah, a renegade Drow! That sounds cool!" And so I figure that such a character would be shunned by everyone, forced to wander the world alone, and think "Huh, how about a Barbarian, a tough badass loner that doesn't need help from anyone!" The problem being that Drow (probably?) get a boost to Dex and Cha, when as a Barbarian, I'd get (probably?) get a lot more mileage out of Str and Con. So despite the fact that one of my first thoughts was "tough badass," the system has decreed that I'm really not that tough and really not that badass despite choosing the tough badass class and allocating my stats towards being a tough badass. But I guess I'm pretty quick and well-spoken? So I'm comparatively kind of bad at jumping in with my greataxe and chopping things to pieces.

And heck, the Basic game includes a table that specifically lays out each attribute, says which class cares about it a lot, then lists the races that get a boost to it. This ain't rocket surgery. Lining up primary stats isn't the most important thing in the world, but there's a pretty clear push in that direction, if only because "why not?"

On the background front, making your own is great! Extensibility of a system for homebrew is fantastic. But it doesn't make character creation notably easier to say "after you've read through all the stuff you bought a book for, you can ignore it and start from scratch instead!" I'm not going to try to make the case that Backgrounds are this huge ordeal to the character creation process - they aren't - and as I've said elsewhere, I'm really happy they're in the game. But it should be pretty clear that by having character elements straddle Classes and Backgrounds is going to lead to a lot of flipping back and forth between the two, and there's really no good reason to set it up that way.

BigONotation

2014-07-25, 12:54 AM

Getting back to D&D, that's sort of where character creation sits right now. Yes, if you keep it to the Basic set, you've only got (exact numbers may be wrong) 4 classes, 8 (sub) races, and 4 backgrounds. But they're linked to each other, much like our n2 friend, so it's sort of manageable while the numbers are small but will get increasingly bloated as we add more options. You can choose to ignore how your class interacts with racial features and background elements (most notably skills) and just plow through character creation, in which case you're basically working with a linear (n) system. (There's still a little bit of a runaround in the form of "Choose a Class, choose a race, choose ability scores, then oh yeah go back and look at your race again to see if it affects your ability scores." I still prefer it to the playtest's presentation, which was "Choose ability scores, then set them aside to do half a dozen other things, and oh right let's do something about those scores now.") But the best case scenario in terms of making a strong, effective character - is to cross-reference all those pieces against each other to game the system as hard as you can -- hello, n2.

Basically, it's engineered for bloat. We know there are going to be a billion races and backgrounds added as the game goes, and because of the way the process works, the nuisance-factor scales up quickly.

Made this account to respond to this comment. O(log log n) would be the worst case scenario for searching an array indexed by keys which is what books with an index are. As you choose each piece of your character, you're essentially memoizing the decisions you've already made with respect to the values you've yet to make decisions. O(n) would be reserved for a book that the information was randomized in.

Tholomyes

2014-07-25, 02:09 AM

It strikes me as a little silly to make a game as elaborate as D&D then to get upset when people treat it like an elaborate game. But my snark aside, making a good character is at best synergy agnostic, and at worst doing so is actually impeded by certain races being de-facto better due to stat synergies. You don't think it's discouraging if -- incoming thought exercise -- I see the sidebar about Drizzt and think "Yeah, a renegade Drow! That sounds cool!" And so I figure that such a character would be shunned by everyone, forced to wander the world alone, and think "Huh, how about a Barbarian, a tough badass loner that doesn't need help from anyone!" The problem being that Drow (probably?) get a boost to Dex and Cha, when as a Barbarian, I'd get (probably?) get a lot more mileage out of Str and Con. So despite the fact that one of my first thoughts was "tough badass," the system has decreed that I'm really not that tough and really not that badass despite choosing the tough badass class and allocating my stats towards being a tough badass. But I guess I'm pretty quick and well-spoken? So I'm comparatively kind of bad at jumping in with my greataxe and chopping things to pieces.

And heck, the Basic game includes a table that specifically lays out each attribute, says which class cares about it a lot, then lists the races that get a boost to it. This ain't rocket surgery. Lining up primary stats isn't the most important thing in the world, but there's a pretty clear push in that direction, if only because "why not?"

On the background front, making your own is great! Extensibility of a system for homebrew is fantastic. But it doesn't make character creation notably easier to say "after you've read through all the stuff you bought a book for, you can ignore it and start from scratch instead!" I'm not going to try to make the case that Backgrounds are this huge ordeal to the character creation process - they aren't - and as I've said elsewhere, I'm really happy they're in the game. But it should be pretty clear that by having character elements straddle Classes and Backgrounds is going to lead to a lot of flipping back and forth between the two, and there's really no good reason to set it up that way.I don't much disagree with some of what you have to say (though I think Backgrounds honestly are a lot less wrapped up in race and class than you seem to), but I will note that until 5e (or perhaps 4.essentials, I forget, not having played much of that), Drow weren't very well set up to be the TWF ranger, a la Drizzt (though, to be honest, I've also never read anything about Drizzt that made me think "oh wow, I want to play someone like him" instead of "Wow, how uninteresting" but that's just me, I guess). I haven't played enough 2e to remember what the Drow and ranger synergies were, so someone correct me if they were just the perfectly synergous race and I'm not remembering correctly, but I know in 3e, Drow had a bonus to Dex, Int and Cha, but a penalty to Con, where Rangers, primarily had an interest in Strength, Con and Wisdom. While there was some interest in having Dex, it wasn't as necessary, especially since Combat Style gave the TWF tree to the character for free, without need of dex. In 4e, the TWF ranger style had a need for Str and Dex, and tertiary Wis, but strength was fairly definatively the more important, and the other drow abilities weren't great for the Ranger's style. Only in 5e are Scimitars finesse and light, so they can be Duel Wielded and Finessed effectively (gee, wonder if there was any reason for that change; couldn't be anything to do with the fact that FR also happens to be the default setting, and Drow will be one of the PHB races...), meaning a Drow Ranger isn't a terrible choice, but even so, the synergy isn't even great.

Sartharina

2014-07-25, 02:20 AM

On the contrary, a Drow's dex bonus improves the Barbarian's survivability, and charisma, while he won't be using to make too many friends and become a leader, WILL be used to let him not get Killed on Sight for being a Drow.

Race+Class has never been a hard part of D&D. The complications came from extremely esoteric ACFs (Do I want a magical bicycle, double damage on a charge, or extra healing power?), Spell Slot Allocation, Skill Point distribution (Not merely skill selection), Feat Selection, and gear shopping. Oh yeah - and calculating and tracking Saves, Attack Bonuses, Skill Bonuses, Armor Class, Initiative, and sometimes even Hit Points. 5e's unified Ability Check+Proficiency system is awesome.

Wrenn

2014-07-25, 05:33 AM

Essentially, Race/Background/Abilities are all wrapped up in each other rather than being isolated choices, meaning that most of the time you're going to juggle them simultaneously rather than making one choice, then another, then another. If you decouple the elements, such as by basing skills entirely on backgrounds and making race not affect core attributes, you get a much simpler process and potentially expand your room for customization from a practical standpoint because you're no longer looking for direct stat synergy.

Gotcha, I'm coming from a different play style.
I would counter -
1) that, if you're playing the game in such a way that you're deriving your enjoyment from finding those highly optimized combos, the search should be time consuming. Arguably it's merely an illusion, but the more time spent finding the esoteric combo, the more enjoyment a player such as that will gain.

2) that such optimization is relative to the individual group. Low-op characters are only unviable if you and your fellow players make them unviable. I'll argue that this applies to any edition.

This is something I've only recently learned with the introduction of a new player to our group about 2 yrs ago or so. See, before then we had never encountered an optimizer, and he is really good at it. Over the last 15 yrs of playing we've had many different players come and go, but each of us have always built our characters around the narrative; story first, numbers being more or less incidental.
Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a high-op player in a vacuum, or in a group of other high-op players. But, introduce one to a group of players like us and it throws party balance for a loop. It degrades the enjoyment for everyone, really. If the Dm builds an encounter balanced for the narrative-builds, then the high-op has no challenge, and the reverse applies. But let me stop there, that's a whole different discussion.
I just believe that optimization and synergy are relative.

Morty

2014-07-25, 06:47 AM

Knaight

2014-07-25, 07:26 AM

1337 b4k4

2014-07-25, 08:44 AM

Maybe I need experience with other systems, like Free20 and other OGL's, but Basic feels like a step in the right direction. Drop the redundant weapons and feats, ditch ability scores for just modifiers, and make fighters interesting without needing a splatbook dedicated to martial classes.

Absolutely get some experience with other games if you have the opportunity, including other versions of D&D. That's good advice for anyone, and especially if you think you ever want to DM, the more games you have experience with, the more you'll be able to pick and pull when running the game. Oh, and don't think you need to spend a whole lot of money getting that experience either. Most games these days have at least a basic "starter" version of their rules available for a free download. In no particular order, you might want to check out (mostly free links):

Other D&D Versions:
Labyrinth Lord (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html) : A free OSR clone of early (B/X) D&D
Swords and Wizardry (http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/) : Another free OSR clone of early D&D. Depending on which version you pick up, emulating anywhere from the original version (0e) up through AD&D 1e, but with modifications, and really open to hacking and customization
Dark Dungeons (http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/) : Another free OSR clone, this time of the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D from the early 90's, with rules to go from 0 to Immortal

Space / Sci-Fi:
Starts Without Number (http://www.sinenomine-pub.com/) : D&D in space, also free. Takes the familiar D20 system that D&D uses and moves everything to space, with rules for ship combat and planet exploration
Eclipse Phase (http://eclipsephase.com/releases) : Trans-human sci-fi. Has a free quick start version, but the core rules are actually freely licensed so if you hunt around online, you can probably also find the full rules, otherwise the main PDF is $20
Traveller (http://www.farfuture.net/) : Asimov inspired space opera. Traveller is a bit of an odd duck. It has been through multiple releases and versions, from the classic (and 4th and 5th editions) that you can find at that first link, to a GURPS Version (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/traveller/) to a version by Mongoose Publishing (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpgs/traveller.html) (with an free SRD (http://www.travellersrd.com/)). Any version will give you the basic feel for the game, although classic has the original deadly character creation. The past few years, classic has been available for free from DriveThruRPG around christmas time, and indeed is currently as we speak still free (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/80190/CTSTStarter-Traveller).

Others / Misc:
Dungeon World (http://dungeon-world.com/) : If you ever plan on running a game, you should read dungeon world. The game is chock full of great GMing advice, and is a ton of fun to boot. It's a fantasy game a la D&D written in the style of Apocalypse World. It was pitched to me as "D&D as you always imagined it would be, before you saw the rules" and that's not too far off. A full art and paid for PDF available at that link, or an online artless version available here (use the menus at the top of the page) (http://book.dwgazetteer.com/)

Call of Cthulhu (http://www.chaosium.com/the-call-of-cthulhu-quick-start-pdf/) : Lovecraft horror in a TTRPG. Quick start rules available at the link with more complete pay for versions. Notable for it's Sanity mechanics, and for being an awesome game to play on halloween.

Burning Wheel / Mouse Guard (http://www.burningwheel.org/) : A fantasy RPG with some interesting social / political mechanics. Worth looking into if only to see a game that does combat (and indeed most skills) different. They have a quick start / core download somewhere, I just can't find it at the moment.

GURPS (http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/lite/) : The mother of all universal RPG systems. If you want to do something, chances are you can do it with GURPS. Lite rules will get you started, but then if you want you can spend insane amounts of money ($80 just for the core 2 books) on building a library that takes up whole bookshelves. Was the system I cut my teeth on, and to be honest isn't quite as complicated as its reputation once you realize that almost every part of the system is optional, and if you don't want to use it you don't have to. Definitely a nice system to have in your tool box.

Microlite20 (http://microlite20.net/downloads/) : Originally a D&D 3.x clone, stripped down to its absolute barest essentials (3 pages of rules, not counting spell lists), M20 has taken on a bit of a life of it's own, and fans have taken the idea and stretched it to hundreds of other games with the same goal of paring the game down to its barest essentials. As a result, there are M20 based versions of everything from Famous Fantasy RPGs, so Famous Spy RPGs to RPGs about Adolescent Genetically Altered Karate Reptiles and everything in between. A lot of fun can be had from just 3 pages of rules.

West End Games D6 systems (http://www.rpgnow.com/product/29204/D6-Core-Set-BUNDLE?it=1) : This was the system that powered old fan favorites like WEG Star Wars RPG and others. Now stripped of any licensed content, they are freely available systems that retain the mechanics, you just need to supply the brand names.

Obviously there's a ton more out there, but that should be more than sufficient reading material to keep you busy for years. Like was said, reading up and branching out is never a bad thing. If nothing else, it will always give you a better appreciation for the things you do and don't like. Just beware System ADD, your group might get annoyed at you (as mine did) if you want to switch systems every few weeks :smallbiggrin:

But my snark aside, making a good character is at best synergy agnostic, and at worst doing so is actually impeded by certain races being de-facto better due to stat synergies. You don't think it's discouraging if -- incoming thought exercise -- I see the sidebar about Drizzt and think "Yeah, a renegade Drow! That sounds cool!" And so I figure that such a character would be shunned by everyone, forced to wander the world alone, and think "Huh, how about a Barbarian, a tough badass loner that doesn't need help from anyone!" The problem being that Drow (probably?) get a boost to Dex and Cha, when as a Barbarian, I'd get (probably?) get a lot more mileage out of Str and Con. So despite the fact that one of my first thoughts was "tough badass," the system has decreed that I'm really not that tough and really not that badass despite choosing the tough badass class and allocating my stats towards being a tough badass. But I guess I'm pretty quick and well-spoken? So I'm comparatively kind of bad at jumping in with my greataxe and chopping things to pieces.

One of the nice things about bounded accuracy is that is really eliminates the pressure for using syngergistic class race combos. With ability scores being capped at 20 and powerful magic items applying a fixed score rather than a bonus, a optimal and non optimal race / class combo can be realistically expected to be if not equal at least fairly close in ability by mid game.

Merlin the Tuna

2014-07-25, 08:51 AM

Gotcha, I'm coming from a different play style.
I would counter -
1) that, if you're playing the game in such a way that you're deriving your enjoyment from finding those highly optimized combos, the search should be time consuming. Arguably it's merely an illusion, but the more time spent finding the esoteric combo, the more enjoyment a player such as that will gain.

2) that such optimization is relative to the individual group. Low-op characters are only unviable if you and your fellow players make them unviable. I'll argue that this applies to any edition.Don't even think of it as trying to optimize in a vacuum. Part of why I've moved away from D&D as a primary system is because it's setup to encourage those kinds of away-from-the-table research. Just think of it as signing on to play a specific character - in this case, a big beefy elf in a loincloth - and the game system pushing up its glasses to say "Hrm, actually..." partway through.

Who cares that most drow are lithe & eloquent? We've already established that this PC is a weirdo because he's a desert-wandering strongman who wants nothing to do with his native people. We're well past the point of caring what typical demographics of drow look like. The PCs aren't a group put together as a representative sample of the world, where each character speaks for entire chunks of society. ("So Zrdit, what do black elves think about being devoured by gelatinous cubes?" "Well Selgolas, we think it sucks, just like white elves do.")

Like Morty mentioned, this -- making race matter without making it a nuisance -- has been discussed before, and attributes mods are one of the weaker ways to do it. Even aside from my complaining about what it does to the character creation process, it's a big power modifier that's still largely invisible. If our hero here passes a Dex save vs dragon breath by the skin of his teeth, we aren't going to think "Man it's a good thing I'm a drow!" any more than we're going to shake our fist at the sky and curse the drow when we fail a Con save versus an assassin's death attack. In contrast, using Faerie Fire to highlight an enemy in the middle of a sandstorm or Darkness to create room for an escape in an otherwise open desert -- those are moments where you say "Heck yeah drow!" and note that a Half-Orc, Human, or Dwarf would have done it differently.

Really on the attribute front, I wish they had just gone the Gamma World route. "You're a Rogue? You have 18 Dex. Wizard? 18 Int. Barbarian? 18 Strength. Everything else, do whatever. But we're not distinguishing your character by incompetence in his field of choice." Was that in the playtest at some point, or am I misremembering?

Person_Man

2014-07-25, 08:54 AM

I'm not sure I completely understand the complaint. Are you saying you would rather have fewer options for customization? Putting every choice on a linear path would seem to leave no real choice at all.

No. My opinion is that there should be a ton of options, but they should be packaged and laid out in such a way that they are optional and largely independent of one another, so that a new player has to read and the number of choices that a new player has to make should be kept to a minimum, and you don't have to worry about the metagame/optimization when you make each choice.

Examples:

1) Required subclasses: This is the biggest offender. It means that players have to basically wade through 50-80 core options to make a class decision. I think 9-12 core classes would have been fine, and then they could have added Kits or Archetypes or new Powers or whatever in a separate book, maybe in about a year after people had really figured out the class balance. Alternatively, you could have set up a Track system like Legend, or kept something close to the Power system from 4E but make every Power scale through all 20 levels so that there's no duplication and no fiddly stuff, or any other system that doesn't involve players reading through 80+ pages just to make a class decision.

2) Skills: Split up between class and background and race, which means that you have to first read through all the different Skills and understand them before making a choice about your class, background, or race, and then you need to assemble your Proficient Skills from those 3 different sources. It would have made a lot more sense just to limit it to one source (presumably class or background), or to simply make it independent of your class/background/race.

It also could have been dramatically simplified a lot more by following the model of 1E & 2E, you just made an Ability Score roll. Non-Weapon Proficiencies were an optional part of the game. 5E could have followed a similar model, where each class is Proficient in 2 Ability Scores (and Rogues were proficient in 4) of your choice for the purpose of all checks. And then there's an optional Skill system that's more granular (to please people who like that).

3) Race: Racial abilities should be optional. This could be done in a number of different ways. For example, being a Dwarf should give you access to Dwarf Feats (or Powers, or a track of abilities, etc). Remove the Christmas tree of different abilities and Ability Score bonuses entirely, so that there is no implied or actual "right" or wrong Race/Class combination. That way, all you have to do is choose fluff. You don't even have to read the racial descriptions if you don't want to, since most of them are iconic.

4) Backgrounds: I love Backgrounds. But again, the crunch from Backgrounds should be optional, so that players don't need to read through 25 pages of them before picking one. Decouple Skills from Backgrounds. Make the Background abilities (which are really cool) an optional add on, and/or a Feat option, or Tracks of abilities (where you get more impressive Narrative abilities as you gain levels).

5) Spells: Although they've gone a long way in simplifying and re-balancing things, there is no reason to have 9 levels/200+ core spells with a convoluted Short Rest + Long Rest refresh mechanic. Come up with a more streamlined casting system, boil it down to the most iconic spells, remove all duplicative spells, and have all spells scale so that you don't have the oddball "cast out of a higher level slot" issue.

The key thing to remember is that any edition of D&D is going to have literally 10,000+ pages of splat and 3rd party material printed for it. Every spell, Feat, class, subclass, Background, magic item, and everything else that you can imagine is going to be written by someone at some point in the not too distant future. My argument is not that options are bad. My argument is that core options should be simple for new players to understand.

Wrenn

2014-07-25, 09:02 AM

They did have classes modifying abilities along with a single racial modifier. Wizard gave +1 Int, etc.
I did like that model very much.

obryn

2014-07-25, 09:14 AM

1) Required subclasses: This is the biggest offender.
FYI - for almost every class (excepting the Cleric, apparently Sorcerer, and maybe Warlock), you don't pick a subclass until Level 3.

Person_Man

2014-07-25, 09:40 AM

Sorcerer and table of contents are now public (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook).

Character Creation looks like its about 163 pages long.

7 pages explaining the process.
33 pages of Races.
75 pages of Classes/Subclasses.
22 pages of Background.
19 pages of Equipment.
2 pages of Multiclassing rules.
5 pages of Feats.

Plus an additional 90 pages of spellcasting rules and spells for magic using classes.

Sorcerer looks extremely similar to Wizard. Cha based, 1st through 9th level arcane spells using the same Spells Know/Spells per Day format, Cantrips, plus "Origin" and Metamagic class abilities. I'm guessing Origin is very similar to the Pathfinder take on Sorcerers. New 2nd level signature ability is "Font of Magic" - any guesses as to what that means?

Wrenn

2014-07-25, 10:01 AM

[QUOTE=Person_Man;17826045 My argument is not that options are bad. My argument is that core options should be simple for new players to understand.[/QUOTE]

Like Basic?

pwykersotz

2014-07-25, 11:19 AM

No. My opinion is that there should be a ton of options, but they should be packaged and laid out in such a way that they are optional and largely independent of one another, so that a new player has to read and the number of choices that a new player has to make should be kept to a minimum, and you don't have to worry about the metagame/optimization when you make each choice.

1) Required subclasses: This is the biggest offender. It means that players have to basically wade through 50-80 core options to make a class decision. I think 9-12 core classes would have been fine, and then they could have added Kits or Archetypes or new Powers or whatever in a separate book, maybe in about a year after people had really figured out the class balance. Alternatively, you could have set up a Track system like Legend, or kept something close to the Power system from 4E but make every Power scale through all 20 levels so that there's no duplication and no fiddly stuff, or any other system that doesn't involve players reading through 80+ pages just to make a class decision.

2) Skills: Split up between class and background and race, which means that you have to first read through all the different Skills and understand them before making a choice about your class, background, or race, and then you need to assemble your Proficient Skills from those 3 different sources. It would have made a lot more sense just to limit it to one source (presumably class or background), or to simply make it independent of your class/background/race.

It also could have been dramatically simplified a lot more by following the model of 1E & 2E, you just made an Ability Score roll. Non-Weapon Proficiencies were an optional part of the game. 5E could have followed a similar model, where each class is Proficient in 2 Ability Scores (and Rogues were proficient in 4) of your choice for the purpose of all checks. And then there's an optional Skill system that's more granular (to please people who like that).

3) Race: Racial abilities should be optional. This could be done in a number of different ways. For example, being a Dwarf should give you access to Dwarf Feats (or Powers, or a track of abilities, etc). Remove the Christmas tree of different abilities and Ability Score bonuses entirely, so that there is no implied or actual "right" or wrong Race/Class combination. That way, all you have to do is choose fluff. You don't even have to read the racial descriptions if you don't want to, since most of them are iconic.

4) Backgrounds: I love Backgrounds. But again, the crunch from Backgrounds should be optional, so that players don't need to read through 25 pages of them before picking one. Decouple Skills from Backgrounds. Make the Background abilities (which are really cool) an optional add on, and/or a Feat option, or Tracks of abilities (where you get more impressive Narrative abilities as you gain levels).

5) Spells: Although they've gone a long way in simplifying and re-balancing things, there is no reason to have 9 levels/200+ core spells with a convoluted Short Rest + Long Rest refresh mechanic. Come up with a more streamlined casting system, boil it down to the most iconic spells, remove all duplicative spells, and have all spells scale so that you don't have the oddball "cast out of a higher level slot" issue.

The key thing to remember is that any edition of D&D is going to have literally 10,000+ pages of splat and 3rd party material printed for it. Every spell, Feat, class, subclass, Background, magic item, and everything else that you can imagine is going to be written by someone at some point in the not too distant future. My argument is not that options are bad. My argument is that core options should be simple for new players to understand.

This is very insightful. Well said.

Lycoris

2014-07-25, 12:35 PM

Sorcerer looks extremely similar to Wizard. Cha based, 1st through 9th level arcane spells using the same Spells Know/Spells per Day format, Cantrips, plus "Origin" and Metamagic class abilities. I'm guessing Origin is very similar to the Pathfinder take on Sorcerers. New 2nd level signature ability is "Font of Magic" - any guesses as to what that means?

As they also gain Sorcery Points at that level, I'm assuming that they're intrinsically linked in some way. Past that, I'm guessing it's something that'll work similarly to metamagic, though the fact that they outright get metamagic the following level may say otherwise.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-07-25, 03:16 PM

Basic question, as I am completely unfamiliar with 4th edition beyond playing a Bugbear Rogue for one 2 hours session.

Was metamagic a thing in 4e? How similar was it to metamagic in 3.5/PF?

obryn

2014-07-25, 03:24 PM

Basic question, as I am completely unfamiliar with 4th edition beyond playing a Bugbear Rogue for one 2 hours session.

Was metamagic a thing in 4e? How similar was it to metamagic in 3.5/PF?
The first way is through feats. There are some feats - like Enlarge Spell - which modify the properties of a spell when you'd like. In this case, it reduces the damage of a Wizard spell in return for expanding the burst or blast. Others, like Resounding Thunder, work similarly for effects with certain keywords at no penalty.

The second way was through Utility powers, though mostly these weren't as popular.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-25, 03:28 PM

The first way is through feats. There are some feats - like Enlarge Spell - which modify the properties of a spell when you'd like. In this case, it reduces the damage of a Wizard spell in return for expanding the burst or blast. Others, like Resounding Thunder, work similarly for effects with certain keywords at no penalty.

The second way was through Utility powers, though mostly these weren't as popular.

This is one of the few areas I feel like 4e drop the ball.

Morty

2014-07-25, 03:30 PM

Really? I honestly don't see metamagic as all that important. It's far more trouble than it's worth in 3e.

obryn

2014-07-25, 03:34 PM

Really? I honestly don't see metamagic as all that important. It's far more trouble than it's worth in 3e.
Yeah, me either, frankly, and it ties in with my overall dissatisfaction with "feats." Given 4e's design, it should get just as much consideration as any other power source did, and it ended up getting probably more, overall.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-25, 03:58 PM

Really? I honestly don't see metamagic as all that important. It's far more trouble than it's worth in 3e.

Not super important to the game but an area of the game that has so much potential, and they wasted it.

da_chicken

2014-07-25, 09:58 PM

Not super important to the game but an area of the game that has so much potential, and they wasted it.

Pretty much this. The cost of metamagic was too high to be worthwhile. I don't think I've ever used anything other than Extend, Empower, or Quicken, with the latter being restricted to near max level. Oh, and elemental swapping feats, because those are abusive as hell. Sudden metamagic helped, but was not flexible enough. Even metamagic rods didn't help enough. They've tried a number of things to make it work, but none of them have been flexible enough. Presumably sorcery points can be used to empower/extend/maximize/etc., but I'll be interested to see how they go about doing it.

Morty

2014-07-26, 06:20 AM

You mean potential for what? :smallconfused: Fiddling with the spells' parameters? Other than sculpting the spells' areas of effect, I really don't see much of a point to it.

Also, to get back to the earlier discussion:

Really on the attribute front, I wish they had just gone the Gamma World route. "You're a Rogue? You have 18 Dex. Wizard? 18 Int. Barbarian? 18 Strength. Everything else, do whatever. But we're not distinguishing your character by incompetence in his field of choice." Was that in the playtest at some point, or am I misremembering?

I don't think it was. But I agree that the assumption of competence in your class's main field might work. Except I believe every class should have at least two attributes they can specialize in.

Person_Man

2014-07-28, 08:53 AM

Updated class section to reflect the subclasses for every class, which has been publicly posted by WotC (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140728).

There are a total of 40 subclass options in the 5E Player's Handbook. Oddly, most classes only get 1-3 subclass options, but the Wizard gets 8 (one for each of the traditional schools of magic) and Cleric gets 7 (covering the most popular domains/god types).

The subclass system is extremely similar to the 5E Pathfinder Archetype system, though more regimented.

Updated Bard based on publicly posted preview (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364133-Bard-Preview&p=17841253).

Human Paragon 3

2014-07-28, 04:05 PM

You left off that bard gets his choice of any 3 skill proficiencies.

1eGuy

2014-07-28, 04:09 PM

Sorcerer and table of contents are now public (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook).

Character Creation looks like its about 163 pages long.

7 pages explaining the process.
33 pages of Races.
75 pages of Classes/Subclasses.
22 pages of Background.
19 pages of Equipment.
2 pages of Multiclassing rules.
5 pages of Feats.
Well, that sounds about as bad as I was expecting it to be. 75 pages of classes? What is wrong with these people? I want to get people from the office round for an adventure, not a book club reading.

No one is ever going to pick this up and start playing unless they're already a player; which is suicide for the game and the company (WotC, not Hasbro).

Demonic Spoon

2014-07-28, 04:20 PM

Well, that sounds about as bad as I was expecting it to be. 75 pages of classes? What is wrong with these people? I want to get people from the office round for an adventure, not a book club reading.

No one is ever going to pick this up and start playing unless they're already a player; which is suicide for the game and the company (WotC, not Hasbro).

Man, it would be great if WotC would release a simplified version of the rules, a set of basic rules, to make the game palatable for brand new players.

Doug Lampert

2014-07-28, 05:20 PM

Man, it would be great if WotC would release a simplified version of the rules, a set of basic rules, to make the game palatable for brand new players.

Yep, in the basic rules character creation might well start on say, page 6, and by the time you get to the end of page 41 you'd be done!

Only 36 pages of character creation to cover the simplest builds of the four basic classes! No beginner could ever object to reading 36 pages of rules to create a character prior to the next 65 pages of basic rules (not to mention the pages before that starts and the sample character sheets and other stuff) after which you still haven't got a single monster or item of treasure or any real information on what these characters are supposed to be doing or what the GM should do.

A 110 page document which heavily references other rules (feats for example) and isn't actually adequate to play and calls itself "basic", that won't discourage anyone.

There is a beginner set out. But the basic rules themselves are a disaster in terms of getting in new players without an experienced GM and will only get longer as more material is added. The current basics are the PHB basics, I believe they plan to add DMG and MM basics as the first books come out.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-07-28, 06:17 PM

Yep, in the basic rules character creation might well start on say, page 6, and by the time you get to the end of page 41 you'd be done!

Only 36 pages of character creation to cover the simplest builds of the four basic classes! No beginner could ever object to reading 36 pages of rules to create a character prior to the next 65 pages of basic rules (not to mention the pages before that starts and the sample character sheets and other stuff) after which you still haven't got a single monster or item of treasure or any real information on what these characters are supposed to be doing or what the GM should do.

A 110 page document which heavily references other rules (feats for example) and isn't actually adequate to play and calls itself "basic", that won't discourage anyone.

There is a beginner set out. But the basic rules themselves are a disaster in terms of getting in new players without an experienced GM and will only get longer as more material is added. The current basics are the PHB basics, I believe they plan to add DMG and MM basics as the first books come out.

Funny, since the basic rules release I've personally played with 43 (wish it was 42, but alas) completely new players to D&D and not a single one of them (some as young as 12) had a problem running through it. Sure some small questions where asked (mostly by the 30 some year olds who never played before) but things have been going great.

Give people some credit, it isn't like everyone is an idiot and can't pick up the basic rules and run with it.

Hell, a few of the teenagers picked it up faster than some veterans of the game, since you know, they didn't have other edition rules competiting for memory space and junk.

rlc

2014-07-28, 06:23 PM

Character Creation looks like its about 163 pages long.
Plus an additional 90 pages of spellcasting rules and spells for magic using classes.

well over half of it for spell stuff.
lame.

Knaight

2014-07-28, 06:46 PM

Funny, since the basic rules release I've personally played with 43 (wish it was 42, but alas) completely new players to D&D and not a single one of them (some as young as 12) had a problem running through it. Sure some small questions where asked (mostly by the 30 some year olds who never played before) but things have been going great.

Give people some credit, it isn't like everyone is an idiot and can't pick up the basic rules and run with it.

Hell, a few of the teenagers picked it up faster than some veterans of the game, since you know, they didn't have other edition rules competiting for memory space and junk.

It's not a matter of inability, but a matter of time expenditure. RPGs tend to be really long, and some people just don't want to deal with the sheer length. D&D core rules usually run to 900+ pages, which is more than a number of novels. That's a kind of ridiculous standard.

Sartharina

2014-07-28, 06:49 PM

Yep, in the basic rules character creation might well start on say, page 6, and by the time you get to the end of page 41 you'd be done!

Only 36 pages of character creation to cover the simplest builds of the four basic classes! No beginner could ever object to reading 36 pages of rules to create a character prior to the next 65 pages of basic rules (not to mention the pages before that starts and the sample character sheets and other stuff) after which you still haven't got a single monster or item of treasure or any real information on what these characters are supposed to be doing or what the GM should do.

A 110 page document which heavily references other rules (feats for example) and isn't actually adequate to play and calls itself "basic", that won't discourage anyone.

There is a beginner set out. But the basic rules themselves are a disaster in terms of getting in new players without an experienced GM and will only get longer as more material is added. The current basics are the PHB basics, I believe they plan to add DMG and MM basics as the first books come out.Yeah... 110 pages is a bit light for a reference document trying to teach people the game, since about two thirds of it are completely worthless to any given player - but never the same two thirds for any given two. Presentation matters far more than size - the basic PDF could be reduced to a few-page SRD... but then you lose all the stuff that actually carries instruction and guidance.

T.G. Oskar

2014-07-28, 07:12 PM

The subclass system is extremely similar to the 5E Archetype system, though more regimented.

You mean the PF Archetype system, or the subclass from 4e Essentials? You're referencing the system itself, unless you refer to 6e already (do they return to 3e stuff in 6e, o seer? ;) )

If meaning the first, it's not exactly like the Archetype system, since it doesn't replace anything: in fact, choosing no archetype means you gain nothing. It behaves more like Prestige Paths, though without requirements: they're part of the class, not a new class on its own. That's why I feel it's more like 4e Essentials: a new way to play the class, changing some of the core things of the system, except it doesn't change anything.

IMO, it's a bit more complex. I'd say it's more like WoW's Talent Trees or DDO's Prestige Enchantment trees, but you don't have the flexibility to choose between the different trees (you're locked into one). AGE system (and specifically Dragon Age) has specializations, which grant advancements in specific levels (6, 8, 10) and are specific to class, but those ALSO have requirements (explicit requirements, that is; Eldritch Knight has an implicit requirement in order to cast spells, but you still get them even without the right ability score).

Also: how about showing the Bard preview? I know it's on another thread, but the Bard is one class that has shifted violently with editions: from 1e triple-classing (Fighter/Thief/Druid, but you get Bard powers instead of Druid) to 2e Rogue class without spells, to 3.x with partial (2/3rds) spellcasting, to 4e "Arcane Leader", to 5e where it will probably reign as king of classes (judging by what it offers, though I think its limitations will be whether Bardic Inspiration/Song of Rest will require concentration like spells). That's one class that has definitely changed, compared to the relatively static Big Four and some others.

Knaight

2014-07-28, 07:55 PM

Yeah... 110 pages is a bit light for a reference document trying to teach people the game, since about two thirds of it are completely worthless to any given player - but never the same two thirds for any given two. Presentation matters far more than size - the basic PDF could be reduced to a few-page SRD... but then you lose all the stuff that actually carries instruction and guidance.

110 pages is hardly light. There are specific things that are conspicuously missing, but there are plenty of complete game systems which can be picked up by a new group and played, yet clock in at less than 110 pages. Nemesis is 60, it's not a rules light game, and it fits that criterion to a T - mostly because it's concise where it needs to be, but actually contains useful info. The basic set really could stand to be more concise in places, but is also missing stuff.

archaeo

2014-07-28, 08:23 PM

110 pages is hardly light. There are specific things that are conspicuously missing, but there are plenty of complete game systems which can be picked up by a new group and played, yet clock in at less than 110 pages. Nemesis is 60, it's not a rules light game, and it fits that criterion to a T - mostly because it's concise where it needs to be, but actually contains useful info. The basic set really could stand to be more concise in places, but is also missing stuff.

Responding as much to the length & complexity thread of the conversation as much as you yourself, Knaight,

As has been said, keep in mind that the Basic PDF is going to get an appendix of monsters, a few "essential" modules/dials, magic item rules, and adventure construction advice. Nemesis will be all the shorter in comparison to the full Basic. But I'm not sure how this is at all a disaster. For the experienced player, obviously, more is better; 5e is quick to pick up if you're familiar with any d20 system. For the beginner, however, I'd argue that it still isn't a big deal.

I, for one, can remember being a pretty young fellow and still pouring over complicated manuals or intricate game systems. That brand of nerdery isn't going away any time soon, and it's always been part of the core constituency for D&D: kids fascinated by big games and the big books they come in. In my own experience, I found Basic to be well written and generally engaging. Full of flavor, even if it's all rather cliche flavor, to a certain extent. A pleasure, even.

Length and complexity aren't necessarily bad things. And giving away all that length and complexity (and Basic will end up being both) seems like a net win for pretty much everybody.

(As for a quick introduction to 5e, the Stater Set is probably still the way to go. What is it, like ~100 pages total, 60% of them an adventure from level 1-5? Pregens, obviously, but if you're the sort of player who balks at a pregen, you're probably the sort of player who will download Basic to scratch that itch.)

Knaight

2014-07-28, 08:45 PM

Length and complexity aren't necessarily bad things. And giving away all that length and complexity (and Basic will end up being both) seems like a net win for pretty much everybody.

No, they aren't. They're neutral - some people like them, some people don't, it's nice to have options for people all along that spectrum, and with RPGs as a whole we do. It's just that there's been a great deal of claiming that people who favor shorter games which aren't as detailed are just too stupid to handle the longer, more complex ones. That's nonsense, and it's honestly quite offensive.

Person_Man

2014-07-29, 08:06 AM

You left off that bard gets his choice of any 3 skill proficiencies.

Updated. Thanks for the catch.

You mean the PF Archetype system, or the subclass from 4e Essentials? You're referencing the system itself, unless you refer to 6e already (do they return to 3e stuff in 6e, o seer? ;) )

Yes, I meant PF Archetype system. I misspoke (miswrote?), and have corrected it. But after reading your comment, I agree that it is more like the the 4E Prestige Paths.

In my opinion, the 5E subclass system is an attempt to:

1) Cater to every possible character idea. You want to play an Assassin? OK, here's an Assassin subclass.

2) Make character building easier. Because class abilities are packaged in subclasses, you don't have to pick new Powers or anything else every level (unless you're a spellcaster, then you have to choose spells). You just have to choose the concept you like.

However, in practice, I strongly dislike the idea.

First, it gives credence to the false idea that in order to play X character concept you need a class or subclass named X. You can play a Samurai without taking class levels in Samurai.

Second and more importantly, it segregates class abilities in a way that makes customization very difficult. If I like the 3rd level Thief subclass ability but the 9th level Assassin ability, I have to choose one or the other, and there is no possible way for me to combine them.

Also: how about showing the Bard preview? I know it's on another thread, but the Bard is one class that has shifted violently with editions: from 1e triple-classing (Fighter/Thief/Druid, but you get Bard powers instead of Druid) to 2e Rogue class without spells, to 3.x with partial (2/3rds) spellcasting, to 4e "Arcane Leader", to 5e where it will probably reign as king of classes (judging by what it offers, though I think its limitations will be whether Bardic Inspiration/Song of Rest will require concentration like spells). That's one class that has definitely changed, compared to the relatively static Big Four and some others.

I agree that the Bard has yet to nail down a set of iconic abilities that are consistent across editions.

With 9th level spells, I'm hoping that the Bard's spell list is very tight, like the 3.5 Beguiler. If done well, that would hopefully resolve any balance issues.

1eGuy

2014-07-29, 04:01 PM

However, in practice, I strongly dislike the idea.

First, it gives credence to the false idea that in order to play X character concept you need a class or subclass named X. You can play a Samurai without taking class levels in Samurai.Well, I agree with this. The Cavalier in 1e (UA) was a pointless addition, as was the Barbarian. They're both just fighters plus roleplay. Paladins' powers were a bit more distinct so that doesn't bother me so much.

Second and more importantly, it segregates class abilities in a way that makes customization very difficult. If I like the 3rd level Thief subclass ability but the 9th level Assassin ability, I have to choose one or the other, and there is no possible way for me to combine them. I don't really agree with this, though, as I don't like mixing classes except for demi-humans (which I hardly ever see in play anyway). I prefer a strong core-identity for the class, with modifications coming from the player rather than the rules.

If there has to be mechanical fluff to support the class, then subclasses like assassins who get assassination abilities as well as their parent class' abilities is okay but should be kept to the minimum.

Something D&D has suffered from right down the line has been "grabbagitis" where the books give you a kit of parts for a wide range of settings/characters and then DMs and players use them all all the time instead of taking a selection and building something distinct with them. The former is fun but when it's all you ever see it starts to get old.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-07-29, 08:40 PM

As someone who has been playing Pathfinder for a while now, I have honestly come to hate archetypes, subclasses, and other regimented ways give a character a tree of abilities, for the same reason that PF is getting me close to hating feats.

You almost always end up in a situation where you have to swim across the river of crap to get to the happy fields on the other side. Sometimes it's where you have to step in a puddle of crap, but the point remains the same. To get X and Y abilities you actually want, you have to take ability Z that no one wants. With feats it's awful, terrible feat chains (Combat Expertise + Dodge -> Mobility -> Spring Attack --> Whirlwind Attack), and with archetypes it's just getting stuck with abilities that plain aren't any good (Sweeping Fend and Steadfast Pike of the Polearm Fighter Archetype).

Archetypes have also become one of Paizo's more clever ways to print the same ****ing content over and over. "Hey, let's just have alchemists and bards duplicate content from every other class! Trapfinding for everybody!"

There are a couple other issues I have with archetypes, and I doubt all (or even most) of them will carry over to 5e, but I've seen this movie before and it ends with an absurd amount of rules bloat from useless archetypes that aren't actually that great at their supposed niche.

SouthpawSoldier

2014-07-29, 09:27 PM

Honestly, if it wasn't for my love and familiarity for DnD source material, I wonder if I would be as loyal or interested in 5E.

I've been doing a TON of reading into other systems, as suggested. While I lack the play experience to say "____" is better than "___" I'm finding a bunch of aspects to different systems that make more sense than 3.5. Some traits are found in 5E, but there are things I find elsewhere I like more. The "Tome of Awesome" rewrite for 3.5 that incorperates feats that scale by level; no more wasted feat chains. SW and other systems that drop ability scores in favor of straight modifiers to simplify the game. Legend's rule of "No Dead Levels" and character mutability. The Cortex+ leveling system used for the new Firefly RPG; using specific events from earlier adventures so advancement is related to what the character has actually experienced.

I know I'm underqualified to design my own game. I'm sure that my lack of gaming experience means that my opinions of 5E/Basic lack relative weight. But I think 5E will do what it set out to do; attract new players. Archetypes may feel pigeonholing to experienced players, but simplified choices are great for people getting started. In my new group, we have a 11 year old trying to play 3.5 along with his dad. Our DM is putting in lots of work to keep the game interesting and simple for him. Other guys are new to 3.5, and were unaware of things like skill synergy bonuses until I pointed it out. Even having only played a year or so, I'm finding myself giving more advice and info than I'm getting. A 5E/Basic game would alleviate a lot of that. I'm sure there are better designed games out there, but I think it's a great intro to DnD.

Knaight

2014-07-29, 10:52 PM

You almost always end up in a situation where you have to swim across the river of crap to get to the happy fields on the other side. Sometimes it's where you have to step in a puddle of crap, but the point remains the same. To get X and Y abilities you actually want, you have to take ability Z that no one wants. With feats it's awful, terrible feat chains (Combat Expertise + Dodge -> Mobility -> Spring Attack --> Whirlwind Attack), and with archetypes it's just getting stuck with abilities that plain aren't any good (Sweeping Fend and Steadfast Pike of the Polearm Fighter Archetype).

That's not an issue with feats. That's an issue with prerequisite feats (which I'd be more than happy to see gone), which aren't anywhere near inherent to the feat structure.

Sartharina

2014-07-30, 01:26 AM

That's not an issue with feats. That's an issue with prerequisite feats (which I'd be more than happy to see gone), which aren't anywhere near inherent to the feat structure.
The removal of extensive feat chains was my favorite part of 4e. In 3e, every feat you took was locked in from character creation. In 4e, I was free to grab any six feats I wanted per tier, in almost any order. The few cases I did want a feat with a prereq (Usually from a previous tier), there was always enough space to slip that in somewhere.

obryn

2014-07-30, 08:15 AM

I'm sure there are better designed games out there, but I think it's a great intro to DnD.
Oh yeah, absolutely, but D&D 5e is hitting a solid point where there's a combination of great production values, support, and at least fair rules design.

I strongly encourage you to branch out, though. There's a lot of excellent near-D&D and not-D&D RPGs out there. And the more games you play, the better you'll be with all games.

SouthpawSoldier

2014-07-30, 08:37 AM

Oh yeah, absolutely, but D&D 5e is hitting a solid point where there's a combination of great production values, support, and at least fair rules design.

I strongly encourage you to branch out, though. There's a lot of excellent near-D&D and not-D&D RPGs out there. And the more games you play, the better you'll be with all games.

My old group was 3.PF only. I've had my Dresden Files books for over a year, and never used them. New group has said they're open to new things; at least they've expressed interest in the couple of GB worth of other systems I have in PDF form. In the middle of a campaign now, but the DM loves to pull bits from other systems. And we may have a day where we take a break from the current campaign to crack one open. Here's hoping, at least.

Psyren

2014-07-31, 08:47 AM

The Dragon Age tabletop game is a ton of fun. It's a 3d6 system by Green Ronin.

SouthpawSoldier

2014-07-31, 09:25 AM

I've got samplers for that, Savage Worlds, True20 and Traveler; full versions of Fallout and Super Mario rewrites of 3.5, the new Firefly RPG and the aforementioned Dresden files, as well as all kinds of random stuff (over a GB) of random 1-50p samplers and oneshots (including an RPG based on playing with sock puppets (Argyle)). All things that were free, pay what you want, OGL, etc, so sharing is no issue either.

Issue has been getting the experience to tell what features from which games work best and make the most sense. Until I get that, the best I can do is compare to 3.PF. 5E/Basic is like many of these; d20 based, similar in in enough respects to 3.5 that it's familiar territory, but different enough, and with the right differences, to feel like an improvement. Simpler design and rules, less detail oriented, etc.. 3.5 exemplified the fact that the more complicated something is, (plan, machine, or game rules) the more likely it will have an aspect that is broken and fails. Overly complex rules and an over abundance of material makes it more likely to find rules that are contradictory, or features that provide RAW exploitation.

Now, once all core for 5E is published, my opinion may (and probably will) change. I've read some disturbing inferences based on the quantity of pages dedicated to character creation in the new PHB. Options in and of themselves aren't a bad thing, but redundancy is. Too much choice for a new player is a horrible thing. I had a really easy time picking up the rules of 3.5, but character creation, especially the competitive nature of optimizing characters, makes it tough; going mining for feats, class shopping, spells selection, etc makes it harder to choose what is "best"; thematic character builds are easy, but too often, mine fail to be as effective or efficient in combat.

T.G. Oskar

2014-07-31, 11:22 AM

The Dragon Age tabletop game is a ton of fun. It's a 3d6 system by Green Ronin.

I know I mentioned it before, but I'll mention it again.

To fully understand 5e, a great idea is to play a few sessions of the AGE system (the system from which the Dragon Age RPG is based on, and essentially its main asset, much like the D&D is the main asset of the d20 System). Both games are remarkably similar in a lot of aspects, particularly the way a character develops.

AGE is simpler in execution, as it only has three classes (Warrior, Rogue, Mage), but the way skills are dealt with is very similar (Skill Proficiency is equivalent to Focus), class progression is relatively similar (ability score increments are class-based, Specializations are roughly equivalent to subclasses), and Backgrounds are a key element of your character.

Backgrounds work a bit differently between the two. While in 5e Backgrounds define extra proficiencies, a roleplaying trait and potential choices of personality traits, bonds, ideals and flaws, AGE Backgrounds define your choice of races, classes, ability score boosts and even some starting focuses.

Some stuff from the AGE system could be ported into 5e, though with difficulty. One of the aspects that makes AGE so fun is the stunts; being a Bell Curve-based system, you're liable to roll doubles or even triples. This enables you to make stunts by spending points gained through the results of one of the rolled dice (generally one that's different-colored). The choices are varied and useful: you can move yourself or the opponent, disarm them, automatically knock them prone, deal extra damage, make an additional attack, make an attack against two opponents at once, taunt or threaten them. This also works for exploration and roleplaying; it also works for spells, which is a bit of a peeve I have with the system because Mages are extremely flexible (but then again, so they are in 3.5, to ridiculous extents), and they could be the basis for the Battlemaster (the way Superiority Dice seem to work is remarkably similar to stunts, except you choose one and see if you succeed rather than use the dice to determine what "stunts" you use).

Another point of similarity, although tangential at best, is between Feats and Talents. AGE Talents are scaling, but slow-scaling: you get three tiers of progression (Novice, Journeyman and Master) which grant specific options. Feats work somewhat in the same regard, except that they replace an ability score and are granted all at once. The tangential point is on how Talents are the equivalent of Feats in 3e and 4e as all characters gain them at specific levels.

However, the most important point of comparison is how easy it is to understand the rules. With a unified system for most things, it takes little time to make a character and even less time to start playing. For those who say that D&D got too focused on die rolling to determine just about everything, I'd say AGE trumps that: the default assumption is that you roll for ability scores and the benefits from Backgrounds (you only roll in 5e Backgrounds to determine your roleplaying traits, not your ability score increments or your choice of proficiencies as would be with AGE's backgrounds), though you *can* choose at a loss: you have a rudimentary point-buy system where you can't spend more than 3 points on the scores (which in the end is pretty similar to how you can't advance over 15 when buying ability scores) and your choices are somewhat more limited when directly choosing your background benefits (two skill proficiencies or one ability score increment, when the dice rolls could leave you with two ability score increments). Any concept of tie or depth of resolution is easily solved by looking at the "Dragon Die" (the alternate-colored die also used to determine stunt points), where a "1" is poorly resolved and a "6" is great success. Beyond that, it's relatively rules-light, and this is where I find the most similarities with 5e: there are rules for the most part, but the general assumption is that the DM/GM will have to adjudicate on the fly. The AGE system is less keen on houserules, but for the most part they exist; 5e is actually welcoming of houserules and mostly promotes their existence (or at least acknowledges them). It is up to the DM to make the system a bit heavier in terms of rules, but that is by adding houserules of their own.

I can say that, having played Dragon Age, I found 5e pretty natural. Perhaps without it, I could have probably dismissed the system (or be even more amazed).

Person_Man

2014-08-06, 01:17 PM

There is now a pretty extensive summary of the Player's Handbook up on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2crldi/early_phb_release_a_quick_summary/) and ENWorld (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?357793-Finally). LOTS of interesting bits to chew on. I won't be updating my main post until I get my pre-ordered copy in hand, or a Playgrounder I trust (which is almost all of you) gets one and posts details on this forum. Again, please don't post anything you think might break forum rules. I'd hate for this thread to get locked.

HorridElemental

2014-08-06, 01:26 PM

Squirrel_Dude

2014-08-06, 03:14 PM

Most notable thing that I'm seeing is that quite a few feats grant +1 to an ability score in addition to the feat's abilities.

Person_Man

2014-08-20, 09:47 PM

Major updates have been added, which should make the guide much more useful to new players who don't own the book. If you have any additions or disagree with anything I wrote, please let us all know. (Though please try to avoid posting too many non-fair use details, which could get the thread locked).

Yuki Akuma

2014-08-21, 07:15 AM

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are actually third-casting [/nitpick]

Edit: That is, every spellcaster who isn't a weirdo (like Warlocks and two-thirds of the Monks) uses the same progression for spellcasting - the multiclassing spellcaster table. Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards progress along it at 1:1 speed. Paladins and Rangers progress along it at 1:2 speed. And Arcane Tricksters and Eldritch Knights progress along it at 1:3 speed.

I actually find this kinda interesting, honestly. All the spellcasters match up with that table (roughly - the third-casters do break away from it slightly so their spell progression isn't too boring, but they always match up with it on every level divisible by 3).

ImSAMazing

2015-06-15, 11:04 AM

Starting at age 12, D&D has been a life long hobby for me. I have played all the various editions of the game over the past 24ish years. So I thought it might be useful to post a brief overview of the new 5E rules, and then do my best to briefly compare those rules to previous editions of D&D.

You can download a complete legal copy of the D&D Basic Rules from the WotC website here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules).

A Very Brief Overview of 5E Rules

Note: I will not be posting anything other then very very brief "fair use" descriptions of anything, in order to stay legal and comply with forum rules. I suggest you do the same.

The Basics

In my opinion 5th edition D&D is the best version of 3rd edition D&D ever published. If you like 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder D&D, you'll probably enjoy playing 5th edition. If you think that the mechanical flaws of 3rd edition make it unworkable or have no interest in buying yet another clone of a game you already own or can read for free online, then you probably won't like 5th edition.

Theater of the Mind (http://geek-related.com/2014/05/27/theater-of-the-mind/) is the default game mechanic, not a physical tabletop map with miniatures. Players describe what they want to do to the DM and maybe roll a dice, the DM adjudicates it and describes what happens. The movement, Opportunity Attack, reach, and targeting rules are all built to support this play style, and if you attempt to use the Basic rules with a physical tabletop map and miniatures you'll probably end up with some unintuitive or difficult to adjudicate results.

Ability Checks, Saving Throws, and Contests: The basic unified resolution mechanic for 5E is to roll 1d20 + Ability Score Modifier + Proficiency Bonuses + Other Modifiers, and compare the result against a set Armor Class (AC), Difficulty Chance (DC), or the result of your enemy's Ability Check.

Advantage/Disadvantage: When there are positive or negative circumstances, then you can gain Advantage or Disadvantage. You roll 2d20 instead of 1d20, and use the higher (Advantage) or lower (Disadvantage) result. Multiple Advantages and Disadvantages don't stack, so you never roll more then 2d20. If you have at least one Advantage and at least one Disadvantage, then they cancel each other out, even if you have multiple Advantages and just one Disadvantage or vice-verse. You can gain/impose Advantage/Disadvantage lots of different ways, including DM fiat.

Proficiency Bonus: Scales with your character level, but it is a relatively small bonus. The vast majority of rolls in 5E are going to have a modified result between 1 and 31.

Abilities:

Uses the same ability scores from every previous edition; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma.

The bonuses provided by ability scores are standardized using the same methodology from 4E and 3E (10 = 0, 12 = +1, 14 = +2, etc), which means that odd Ability Scores continue to be pointless in most circumstances.

As you gain class levels, you gain the option of ability score increases (or Feats), which are part of your class chart (and not part of your character level progression). An ability score cannot be increased past 20 (+5 bonus) with a few rare exceptions.

The standard methodology for determining Ability Scores is roll 4d6, drop the lowest die, repeat until you have six scores, then assign the scores as you prefer, then apply racial modifiers. They also offer up a standard array and point buy as alternative methodologies. Using the point buy method, the highest score you can get prior to racial modifiers is 15 and the lowest is 8.

Races

Races in the Basic rules are Human, Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. The Player's Handbook adds the Dragonborn, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc and Tiefling. The Dungeon Master's Guide adds Aasimar as an example of how to make your own custom race.

Race provides a package of fluff, age, size, speed, ability score modifiers, and some special abilities, some of which are useful. Some races have sub-race options, which add an additional ability score modifier and ability.

Some race/class combinations are clearly more optimal then others. For example, most players probably won't choose to play race or subrace that grants an Intelligence bonus unless they want to play a Wizard, because Intelligence is only useful for playing a Wizard, occasional Skill checks, and very rarely a Saving Throw. Though Variant Trait Humans are notably pretty good at being anything.

Aasimar: +2 Cha, +1 Wis, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Resistant to Necrotic and Radiant damage, Light cantrip, and as you gain levels you also get Lesser Restoration and Daylight once per Long Rest. (DMG pgs 286-287).

Dragonborn: +2 Str, +1 Cha, Medium, 30 ft speed, a weak-ish breath weapon, and resistance to one energy type.

Dwarf: +2 Con, Medium, 25 ft speed, Darkvision, Advantage and Resistance vs. Poisons, mostly useless Stonecunning, some minor/fluffy weapon and tool proficiencies. Hill Dwarf sub-race adds +1 Wis and +1 hit point per level. Mountain Dwarf sub-race adds +2 Strength and light and medium armor proficiency.

Elf: +2 Dex, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Perception Skill Proficiency, Advantage vs Charm, Immune to magical sleep, Long Rest only takes 4 hours. High Elf sub-race adds +1 Int, a Wizard Cantrip, an extra language, and some weapon proficiencies. Wood Elf sub-race adds +1 Wis, higher base movement, and camouflage. Dark Elf (Drow) sub-race adds +1 to Cha, superior darkvision, sunlight sensitivity. Eladrin subrace (5E DMG pgs 286-287) adds +1 Int, Misty Step spell once per Short or Long Rest. All of the subraces also add a few weapon proficiencies.

Gnome: +2 Int, Small, 25 ft speed, Darkvision, and Advantage on mental Saves vs magic. Forest Gnome sub-race adds +1 Dex, minor illusion cantrip, and speak with small beasts. Rock Gnome sub-race adds +1 Con, a higher proficiency bonus on some Intelligence (History) checks, and a fluffy but useless tinker ability.

Halfling:+2 Dex, Small, 25 ft speed, Lucky (potent reroll ability), Advantage vs Frightened, can move through larger creature's spaces. Lightfoot sub-race adds +1 Cha and Naturally Stealthy ability. Stout sub-race adds +1 Con and Advantage and Resistance vs. Poisons.

Half-Elf:+2 Cha, +1 to any two other ability scores, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Advantage vs Charm, Immune to magical sleep, and two extra Skill proficiencies of your choice.

Half-Orc:+2 Str, +1 Con, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Intimidation Proficiency, a Diehard (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Diehard)-like ability, and bonus damage on critical hits with a melee weapon.

Human: +1 to all six ability scores, Medium, 30 ft speed, bonus language. Variant Human Traits gives you +1 to any two ability scores of your choice, a Bonus Feat (the only way to get a Feat at first level), and Proficiency in one Skill of your choice.

Tiefling: +2 Cha, +1 Int, Medium, 30 ft speed, Darkvision, Resistance to Fire, and some minor spells.

Classes

Your class choice determines your hit points, hit die, Proficiencies, and class abilities. Within the first three levels, every class must also choose a subclass, which provides a different package of class abilities at certain levels.

Barbarian: d12 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, simple and martial weapons, Strength and Constitution Saves Proficiency, 2 Skill proficiencies. The new and interesting ability is a dramatically improved Rage. Otherwise the class basically just grants bonus damage, plus Advantage on various rolls. Primal Path subclass options are Path of the Berserker (more offense) and the Path of the Totem Warrior (more defense or other options). Barbarians are a simple class that can be very, very hard to kill while in a Rage (especially Bear Totem), so I think its a good option for any new players who just want to hit stuff with a melee weapon.

Bard: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light armor, simple weapons plus a few extras, any 3 Skill proficiencies, Dex and Cha Save Proficiency, some very useful bardic performance abilities, and 9th level spellcasting from the bard spell list, plus the ability to cherry pick a small number of spells from other class lists. College subclass options are College of Lore (better spells) and the College of Valor (better armor/shield and Extra Attack). The Bard is now very clearly on par with other top tier magic users.

Cleric: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, simple weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Wisdom and Charisma Save Proficiency, full spell casting up to 9th level spells from the cleric spell list, Channel Divinity (Turn Undead plus Domain abilities), and a package of domain related abilities. The new and interesting ability is Divine Intervention, where you can call for aid from your god directly once per week and have a small % chance of your deity intervening, as determined by your DM. Your 20th level capstone ability is that it works automatically. Domain subclass options are Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, and War. Cleric is once again a very strong full caster with a ton of potent options.

Druid: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, (though no metal armor or shields), some limited weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies plus the Herbalism (healing) kit, Intelligence and Wisdom Save Proficiency, full spell casting up to 9th level spells from the druid spell list, open ended Wild Shape starting at level 2 (though you can't cast spells while in Wildshape until level 18), and a few other minor abilities. Circle subclass options are Circle of the Land (better spells) or Circle of the Moon (better Wildshape). Nothing particularly new or interesting compared to Druids from previous editions, but still a very potent and flexible full caster class that's also strong in melee.

Fighter: d10 hit die/hit points per level, all armor and shields and weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Strength and Constitution Save Proficiency. Gets bonuses to-hit, damage, and AC, gains Extra Attacks, reroll a Saving Throw, or heal some damage to himself. The new and interesting ability is Action Surge, which gives the Fighter an extra Action once (or twice at very high levels), which can then be restored with a Short Rest (1 hour). Fighter is also the only class that gets up to four default attacks per turn (everyone else is limited to one or two, not counting attacks from things like two weapon fighting, spells, etc). Martial archetype subclass options are Champion (simple option, increases critical hit chance), Battle Master (adds some basic combat maneuver options), or Eldritch Knight (adds one-third casting). The Fighter is a fairly simple class that's good at making mundane attacks.

Monk: d8 hit die/hit points per level, no armor, simple weapons and short swords, 2 Skill proficiencies plus artisan's tools or a musical instrument, Strength and Dexterity Save Proficiency, and a lot of abilities similar to the Pathfinder Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk) (though arguably much stronger). Monastic tradition subclass options are Way of the Open Hand (augments unarmed strike), Way of Shadow (Stealth related), or Way of the Four Elements (adds energy effects). The Monk is mobile class with a variety of special defenses (especially at higher levels) and a few useful offensive tricks. I'm sure it will once again be one of the most debated classes in the game.

Paladin: d10 hit die/hit points per level, all armor and shields and weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Wisdom and Charisma Save Proficiency, 1st through 5th level spellcasting from the paladin spell list, and a variety of other abilities similar to the 3.5 Paladin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) (though arguably much stronger in some ways). Few of the base class abilities are particularly new to players familiar with previous versions of the Paladin, though they are a lot more effective. Oath (Code of Conduct) subclass options are Oath of Devotion, Oath of the Ancients, and Oath of Vengeance. As in previous editions, the Paladin is basically combination warrior/cleric.

Ranger: d10 hit die/hit points per level, light and medium armor, shields, all weapons, Strength and Dexterity Saves Proficiency, three Skill proficiencies, and a variety of other abilities similar to the Pathfinder Ranger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger). Ranger Archetypes are Hunter (better attacks and defense) or Beast Master (Animal Companion with a nerfed action economy). For me, the Ranger is currently the biggest disappointment in the book. Outside of combat the Ranger's effectiveness can sometimes be highly dependent on whether or not you come across your Favored Enemies or Terrain. In combat they can be sub-par compared to other classes, though I'm sure this will be heavily debated.

Rogue: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light armor, simple weapons plus a few extras, 4 Skill proficiencies plus Proficiency with Thieves' Tools, Dexterity and Intelligence Save Proficiency, various abilities that make Skill checks better, very easily triggered Sneak Attack once per turn, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge (which are way better then the 3.5 versions). The new and interesting ability is Cunning Action, which lets you Hide, Disengage (avoid Opportunity Attacks), or Dash (move faster) as a Bonus Action. This means that under the right conditions you can move, Sneak Attack, move some more, then hide (avoiding counter attacks) every turn. Roguish archetype subclass options are Thief (Skill options), Assassin (ambush and kill), and Arcane Trickster (one-third casting from illusion and enchantment spells). The Rogue is a solid option for players who want to be sneaky, mobile, hard to kill, while also dealing plenty of damage (and probably my personal favorite non-caster).

Sorcerer: d6 hit die/hit points per level, no armor proficiencies, crud weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Charisma and Constitution Save Proficiency (with the latter being very important for Concentration rules, see below), full casting from the Wizard/Sorcerer. The new and interesting ability is Font of Magic, which gives you Sorcery Points that you can use to recover spells or use metamagic effects. Origin subclass options are Draconic Bloodline or Wild Magic. The Sorcerer is very similar to the Wizard, and honestly could have been combined with it.

Warlock: d8 hit die/hit points per level, light armor, simple weapons, Wisdom and Charisma Save proficiency, two Skill proficiencies. Patron subclass options are Archfey , Fiend, and Great Old One. On first glance at the Warlock's chart it appears to be a half-caster that restores can restore its limited spells with a Short Rest (unlike every other spellcaster, which needs a Long Rest) that also gets a number of at-will Invocations and some continuous magic buffs from your Patron. But read the details and you realize that its another full spellcaster with access to 1st through 9th level spells, though it gets just one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell per Long Rest. The Warlock is a good choice for players that are willing to accept fewer spells in exchange for the ability to use those spells much more often.

Wizard: d6 hit die/hit points per level, no armor proficiencies, crud weapons, 2 Skill proficiencies, Intelligence and Wisdom Save Proficiency. Full casting from the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list, and a package of metamagic like effects that improve various spell effects or give you additional spell uses. The new and interesting ability is Arcane Recovery, which restores spell uses, and a few very high levels abilities that allow you to cast some low level spells at-will. Wizard Arcane Tradition subclass options are Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation. (Based on the traditional schools of D&D magic).

Magic

Forget about how you think D&D magic works. Although 5E borrows a lot of the same vocabulary and appears superficially the same, the mechanics, resource management, and tactics used by 5E spellcasters are different, and direct comparisons can be confusing. Explaining the management of your spells is even more of a Rube Goldberg Machine then it used to be, though in actual games I've found it to be a bit simpler then 1/2/3E once you get the hang of the new system. (Though more complicated then the standardized 4E at-will/encounter/daily/ritual mechanics).

Magic users can prepare a number of spells each day. They can then cast from that list spontaneously.

Spells do not automatically scale, as they usually did in 3E/2E/1E. Instead you must cast a spell using a higher spell level slot if you want to increase it's effect. Thus a 20th level Wizard that casts the 1st level Magic Missile spell only deals 2d4 + 5 Force damage when he casts it out of a 1st level slot. If he wants it to increase the damage he must choose to spontaneously cast it out of a higher level spell slot. (For people who have played 3.0/3.5 or Pathfinder, this is similar to how the Sorcerer needed to use higher spell level slots to increase the effectiveness of spells with Metamagic Feats). This is important because high level spellcasters actually have very few high level spell slots available. It also means that some spells are useful around the level you first learn them, but not at higher levels.

Spell uses can be restored by a Long Rest (8 hours, or with a Short Rest for spells below 6th level if you're a Warlock). The Sorcerer and Wizard also can also replenish some spell uses using their respective class abilities. In addition, the Wizard gets a few high level class abilities that allows some low level spells to be used at-will.

Spells with the "Ritual" tag can be cast out of their base spell level "for free" without using a spell slot by increasing the casting time to 10 minutes. Ritual Spells include many utility and divination spells, but not all of them.

The Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard each get at-will Cantrips ("0th level spells") so they always have something to do that doesn't require using a crossbow or some other Dexterity or Strength dependent weapon. They're much more impressive then Cantrips from previous editions, but less useful then 1st level or higher spells. They're basically on part with At-Will Powers from 4E. Warlocks also get small number of at-will Invocations, which are equivalent to various low-mid level spells.

Between Rituals, Cantrips, and various class abilities which provide spell-like abilities and restore spell uses, saying that a spellcaster gets "X spell uses every game day" is usually incorrect and misleading, since it is more like a pool of spell uses, some of which get emptied and refilled throughout the game day.

Many spells with a duration now require Concentration (but not all). You can only have Concentration on one spell at a time. Whenever you take damage while you are Concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution Saving Throw that scales with damage or the spell ends. In theory this will limit "CoDzilla" builds that stack multiple buffs, and action advantage builds that summon hoards of creatures to gain tons of actions and battlefield control by flooding the map. It also encourages spellcasters to buff allies (instead of themselves) and then hang back, instead of fighting in melee on the front line. But this limitation will only be meaningful to the extent that they enforce it systematically across all spells. For example, the 9th level Foresight spell is extremely potent, lasts for 8 hours, and requires no Concentration. On the flip side the very fluid movement rules make it easy to move around enemies, which in turn may make Concentration spells very temporary.

Spellcasters of all kinds can cast spells while wearing armor, as long as they're proficient in it.

Equipment

Armor: There are easy ways for every class to get AC of 17 or 18, unless your Dexterity and Strength are both very low. Using a shield and a few class abilities and spells can push it up a bit further. There are also trap option armors that provide you with inferior AC with no benefit other then being slightly cheaper, so you may have slightly lower AC for your first couple of levels. There is no down side to wearing heavier armors other then Disadvantage on Stealth checks. Encumbrance exists but will rarely be a problem for anyone unless your Strength is terrible.

Weapons: You can make both melee and ranged attack and damage rolls using your Strength or Dexterity, as long as you choose the right weapon to use. Some weapons deal slightly more damage then others. Reach weapons add 5 feet of reach without any fiddly drawbacks. Everyone can use Two Weapon Fighting by default with light weapons.

Tools: You can craft things or add your Proficiency bonus to a few other things that were previously handled by Skills (like disarm traps, open locks, and perform with an instrument) by having proficiency in the proper tools for it.

Magic Items

Some magic items require that you "attune" them with a Short Rest in order to use them. You can have a maximum of three attuned magic items at a time. Other magic items don't need to be attuned, such as +1 armor, +1 weapon, potions, or scrolls.

You cannot buy or sell magic items other then (one use) potions and scrolls. You have to find them. Reusable magic items do not have a listed gold piece or other value.

Magic items that effect your Ability Scores or movement rate set it at a fixed number, rather then providing a bonus. For example, when attuned Gauntlets of Ogre Strength grants you Strength of 19. So a character with 19 or 20 Strength gains no benefit from them.

Other sections coming soon.

How 5E rules differ compared to previous editions
This is a work in progress. I will add additional sections soon.

Abilities

5E: Uses the same ability scores from every previous edition; Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma. The bonuses provided by ability scores are standardized using the same methodology from 4E and 3E (10 = 0, 12 = +1, 14 = +2, etc), which means that odd Ability Scores continue to be pointless in most circumstances.

4E: Ability scores can be determined several ways, with a standard array or point buy used as the suggested methods, which meant that in most games every player started out with the same number of resources in their ability scores. Each and every class has explicit key abilities, which determine the bonuses to their Powers. There are also three "couplets" of ability scores which may determine your Defense Values - Strength or Constitution for Fortitude Defense, Dexterity or Intelligence for Reflex Defense, Wisdom or Charisma for Will Defense. So from an optimization point of view, if you're using a non-random method of determining ability scores, in order to maximize Defenses, players generally aimed to have one high statistic from each pair. And in the interests of efficiency, players generally endeavored to minimize their investment in the partner of a high attribute. (In other words, almost every build has exactly 3 dump stats).

3E: Ability scores are determined randomly, with the default method being roll 4d6, drop the lowest die, repeat this six time, scrap/reroll all rolls if your overall array is too low, and then assign them to your preferred ability scores. Some classes (especially spellcasters) were considered "Single Attribute Dependent" (SAD - like the Wizard who only needed high Intelligence to be very effective) and others were Multiple Attribute Dependent (MAD - like the Monk who needed high Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom to be modestly effective). Charisma was consider almost entirely useless unless your class depended on it.

2E: Ability scores were determined randomly, with random 3d6 rolled in order being the default method. This meant that players sometimes had radically different ability scores. Races and Classes had minimum ability score requirements for entry, and if you were using the default method it was extremely rare to randomly generate a character that could qualify to be certain classes (like the Paladin, who required 12 Str, 9 Con, 13 Wis, and 17 Cha). Each Ability Score has it's own chart which determines your bonus or percentage chance for success for various specific things, and the bonuses provided are not consistent between Ability Scores. (18 Strength gives you a +1 to hit and +2 to damage, 18 Dexterity gives you a +2 to Reaction, +2 to ranged attacks, and -4 to your Defensive Adjustment). Only Warriors (Fighters, Paladins, Rangers) could benefit from a Constitution bonus of +3 or higher, which meant that Warriors almost always had much higher hit points. Only Fighters could benefit from "Exceptional Strength" - if you had 18 Strength at the time of character creation, you got to roll 1d100 to determine if it was permanently higher. This typically gave Fighters a very useful additional Strength bonus at low levels, which was typically replaced by a magic item at mid-levels. Also, Charisma could be a surprisingly important Ability Score at higher levels, because it determined the number of Henchmen you had, their base loyalty percentage, and your reaction adjustment (interactions with NPC's).

1E: Very similar to 2E, though the bonuses provided for specific ability scores and what the ability scores applied to were somewhat different and sometimes wonky. Only Fighters can benefit from a Constitution bonus of +3 or higher (not Rangers and Paladins). The 1st edition Unearthed Arcana also presented the option of the infamous Comeliness (physical attractiveness) Attribute, which was basically useless unless you optimized it, in which case it could be used as an at-will fascination or charm effect.

Races

5E: Core races are Dragonborn, Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling. Racial abilities are more numerous and consequential then in previous editions, though many smaller fluffy abilities still exist.

4E: Core races were Dragonborn, Dwarf, Elf, Eladrin (high elves), Half-Elf, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling. Each race provides you with a +2 bonus to two attributes (except for humans, who get +2 to one attribute of your choice). This meant that certain racial options were more optimal then others for certain classes. Races also provided 6ish mostly small/fiddly bonuses, and a racial Power or additional flexibility on choosing another class Power.

3E: Core races were Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Halfling, and Human. Human and (for certain builds) Dwarf were generally considered the most powerful by far, and other core races were considered quite weak. Every race other then the Human and Half-Elf provided an ability score bonus and penalty, with the Half-Orc getting two penalties.

2E: Core races were the same as 3E, minus the Half-Orc. Except that non-Human races had minimum ability score requirements. In other words, you couldn't be a Dwarf without 8 or higher Strength and 11 or higher Constitution. Races also had class restrictions. For example, only Humans could be Paladins, and you couldn't be a Dwarf Wizard. Humans had no special abilities or bonuses other then unrestricted class choice, which meant that players rarely chose to play a human unless they wanted to play a class or class combination limited only to humans. As in 3E, racial bonuses were generally small or situational, with the most noteworthy and useful being the scaled Constitution based Dwarf and Gnome bonus to Saving Throws against all poison (Dwarf only), wands, staves, rods, and spells, which was somewhat balanced out by a random chance of failure when using some types of magic items. The net result was that certain race/class/level combinations were strictly more optimal then others.

1E: Core races were the same as 3E. Requirements, restrictions, and benefits are very similar to 2E, though they were somewhat different, more limiting, and more arbitrary. In particular, every non-human race had a maximum class level in most classes. So it was always optimal to be a non-human at low-mid levels, but only humans could reach high levels. The funny/odd exception to this was the Thief class, which meant that all high level non-humans were Thieves (or Assassins, if you were a Half-Orc).

Classes

5E: Each class has a unique chart of things that it does. Each class gains at least one new ability from their class chart every level. There are subclasses, which allow you to swap out a package of class abilities for a different package (very similar to Archetypes in Pathfinder). Overall class setup and feel is very similar to 3E.

4E: Each class has a unique set of Powers, plus a small number of stand alone class features. Powers are divided into at-will, encounter, daily, and utility. Every class gains new Powers at the same exact rate, and so classes are generally balanced in terms of the number of resources that they each get. Powers are highly granular and fairly balanced. You swap out lower level Powers for higher level ones as you gain levels. Your class also determines your Role (the types of things most of your Powers help you do), Power source (fluff), armor and weapon proficiencies, Defense bonuses, trained Skills, hit points, and healing surges. Classes have 30 levels, instead of the classic 20. At level 10 and 20 you can choose different Paths, which provide you with additional class features plus Power options.

3E: Each class has a unique chart of things that it does. Your class chart determines the rate at which you gain Skill ranks, hit points, Saving Throw bonuses, base attack bonus, plus starting weapon and armor proficiency. Classes also gain class features as they gain levels, though non-spellcasters don't necessarily gain anything other then better numbers many levels. For example, 9/20 of the Fighter class is dead levels. Classes get dramatically different amounts of resources, and class abilities have wildly different power levels.

2E: As in 3E, but non-full spell casters are almost entirely composed of dead levels where they gained nothing but higher bonuses, Saves, and/or % success rates. Arcane magic users are extremely fragile unless they have defensive spells active. Classes have subclasses which provide the same progression of bonuses/saves/etc but different class abilities. As mentioned above, classes have racial and minimum attribute requirements, so you can't be a Paladin unless your a human with 12 Str, 9 Con, 13 Wis, and 17 Cha. Classes require different amounts of experience to gain a level. And after a certain level, you only gained a small fixed number of hit points, instead of rolling an additional hit die). Only Rogues and Bards can do certain things which are handled by Skills in all future editions (Pick Pockets, Move Silently, Hide, Open Locks, Disarm Traps) which protects their exploration toolbox niche.

1E: As in 2E, but less balanced. For example, a 1st level Magic-User is comically easy to hit and kill and gets just 1 spell per day but eventually weilds godlike power, and a Thief starts out with a 20-50ish% chance (with modfiers) of success in most Skills but has a 100%+ chance of success in most Skils starting around level 11ish.

Magic

5E: A variation of Vancian Magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VancianMagic) is the default, as was the case in every previous edition other then 4E. See the description above for a detailed explanation. Overall, spellcasters appear to have fewer "I win" buttons then before and can't just stack a bunch of buff spells to become "better then the Fighter at fighting." But once you master the Rube Goldberg Machine of their resource management, they never truly run out of resources while you're adventuring, unlike 3E/2E/1E where running out was a common event at low levels.

4E: Spells were converted into standardized Powers, and were thus balanced with every other Power in the game, and were used on an At-Will/Encounter/Daily basis like every other Power. Utility and most of the broken spells from previous editions were converted into Rituals, where the spellcaster had to pay a gold piece cost and often spend a long time casting in order to use them. In most cases the cost was not worth the benefit, and so for players most Rituals were not worth using. (Though for DMs they could be an important tool to make NPCs and monsters more interesting and powerful).

3E: Classic Vancian Magic was the default. Full casters (Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid, and many others introduced through supplements) in most games had many more resources then other classes, and were often wildly more powerful. A single spell could often win any given encounter. Some higher level spells could be abused to give players god-like powers. In theory there were limiting factors to magic, such as Spell Resistance, Material Components, Attacks of Opportunity, or limited armor. But in reality, any player who mastered the rules could bypass these restrictions. For many players, the flexibility and coolness of magic was one of the most fun parts of the game. For others players and some DMs, it was one of the most broken parts of the game.

2E: Classic Vancian Magic was the default, and it could be extremely powerful. But there were a number of very real limiting factors on them.

Spells had a casting time counted in initiative points, with most higher level spells taking longer to cast. If you take damage in any way during that time, you automatically lose the spell. Which meant that it was very risky to cast higher level spells in combat if you faced quick and/or smart enemies.
Memorizing spells took much, much longer for higher level spells. And random encounters outside of town was the default rule, so resting to restore spells mid-dungeon crawl was a time consuming and risky endevour.
Non-Warriors of all kinds were usually much more fragile (as their bonus hit points from Constitution were limited to +2 per level and their armor was typically more limited). Conversely, damaging spells were significantly more powerful than they were in 3e and 4E due to those editions' hit point inflation.
Wizards had to find spells, learn them (and there was a chance that you failed to learn them if your Intelligence wasn't high enough), and add them to their spellbooks, which was both time-consuming and expensive.
Druid and Cleric spells only went up to 7th level, not 9th level like the Wizard. Paladins could still get up to 4th level Cleric spells though, which was comparatively more powerful in this edition compared to 3E.
Many spells had specific drawbacks; Fireball and Lightning Bolt could easily hit you and/or other party members if you targeted them wrong, Haste permanently aged it's targets, using Shout more then once per day could deafen you, you had to make a system shock roll that could kill you when Polymorphed, etc.

1E: Classic Vancian Magic mechanics were created. The Illusionist was a sepereate sub-class of the Magic-User (other specializations didn't exist yet). Some spells were very poorly written and open to DM interpretation.

More to come soon. I will continue to update this post on a regular-ish basis until all of the core rules are covered. I know that there are a number of things in the playtests that will probably be in the core rules. But until I see it in an official excerpt or actual game materials, I'm not going to post it here, in order to avoid confusion and re-writes. Again, I would appreciate any help from other Playgrounders who could summarize or compare rules. Thanks.

Thanks for this summary! I'll give this to new players!

KorvinStarmast

2015-12-14, 09:33 AM

1E: Very similar to 2E, though the bonuses provided for specific ability scores and what the ability scores applied to were somewhat different and sometimes wonky. Only Fighters can benefit from a Constitution bonus of +3 or higher (not Rangers and Paladins).
This is incorrect. Rangers and Paladins were a sub class of Fighter, only Fighters (that class) were able to use the +3 and +4 Constitution bouns, and as noted on page 12 of the PHB, all other CLASSES could only get +2.

The class Fighter included in it the sub classes of Ranger and Paladin.

(Warm regards, someone old enough to be a real grognard).

ross

2018-01-25, 02:39 PM

Maybe that magic items shouldn't help you take on challenges above your level and should only help you take out challenges of your level or lower?

:smallconfused:

Why is that the case?

Unoriginal

2018-01-25, 03:47 PM

Why is that the case?

This post is three years old. Please don't necro threads.

Theodoxus

2018-01-25, 04:21 PM

i thought guides were outside the necro-thread rule, because they're guides.

To answer ross, there's an idea that magic items are a crutch, allowing characters to handle situations beyond their normal abilities. The counter idea is that magic items are a necessity to handle situations the characters encounter regardless.

I feel there's a bit of truth to both approaches; sometimes even in the most mundane of adventures, you'll come across a critter that just requires magic to overcome. regenerating trolls or incorporeal ghosts, perhaps. In previous editions, you couldn't even damage a ghost without a magic item. In 5E, it's just helpful in overcoming resistance.

OTOH, if you have access to a magic carpet, all of a sudden you're able to conquer that floating cloud giant tower - is it necessary for the metaplot? Probably not, but it's an expansion of character abilities beyond what they would normally be able to do - a crutch that lets them bridge the gulf between ground and air adventures.