Differences from previous editions you think people didn't notice

[killerjag]

Wanted to open a thread to share small discoveries that mark this new edition, fell free to contribute:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

-The teleport spell is not 100% guaranteed to take you to your destination even if you are extremely familiar with it. To have perfect accuracy, you need an object related to your destination, or a teleportation circle.

[pwykersotz]

Astral projection seemed to look like now only works on the astral plane, causing your real body to rematerialize when you leave, with one wording bug that might lead to more for those who love RAW.


If you enter a new plane or return to the plane you were on when casting this spell, your body and possessions are transported along the silver cord, allowing you to re-enter your body as you enter the new plane.

Not causing, allowing. So your body plops down wherever you shift off the Astral, but you're not required to re-merge. This makes it harder to secure your form, but technically still usable in the way it was in 3.5.

[Sartharina]

I think that term isn't to be interpretted that way, and instead by "Allowing" you, it means it allows you to exit the astral plane (Instead of being stuck there forever). It can't say "cause", because that implies it forces you to go to the new plane instead of just hang out on the astral plane if you want.

[Callin]

Read Dispel Magic... Unless there is something I overlooked it now permanently dispels the item. Just up it to 9th level and BAM its a Disjunction.

[Jeraa]

Read Dispel Magic... Unless there is something I overlooked it now permanently dispels the item. Just up it to 9th level and BAM its a Disjunction.

You did miss something. It doesn't dispel magic items at all. It only dispels spells that are on an item (or on a creature, or just within range).


Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends.

+1 swords don't have a spell on them, they are just magical. A regular sword with a Magic Weapon spell on it can be dispelled, however, as it is a spell.

[Particle_Man]

I notice that the way attacks of opportunity now work (when you leave someone's reach) reach weapons are now slightly worse if one wants to gain that attack of opportunity as often as possible. Since the weapon has reach, it covers a larger area, so someone could start 10' to the east of you, go to a space 10' to the west of you (going around you, say 5' to the north of you in between) and never draw an attack of opportunity if you are using a reach weapon, while they will (upon leaving your lesser 5' reach) if you are using a non-reach weapon. That at least is different from 3.x (I don't know 4e).

[T.G. Oskar]

Is it me, or are the Grappling rules the simplest ones there is?

It still has its restrictions (one hand free, target up to one size category larger only), but it's hilariously simple:

Strength (Athletics) vs. Strength (Athletics)/Dexterity (Acrobatics). You win the contest, you grapple the target. That's it.

Since it lets you replace a melee attack, you can use the rest of your attacks during the round to hit the target normally. Thus, with Extra Attack (or taking another action to attack), you can deliver as many hits as possible. The Grappled condition is also very simple: the target cannot move from you. You, however, can move up to half your speed while grappling, so you can drag the target easily.

If you're grappled, you can spend your action to attempt the same contest as before (Str vs Str/Dex, or applicable skills).

As it stands, there's no size penalties (other than the size restriction), so there's nothing much to think about it.

[Squirrel_Dude]

That Gate, Astral Projection, Freedom of Movement, and Antimagic Field aren't on the Wizard's spell list in Basic.

Basically, some of the most common/famous cheese simply isn't available to wizards as it stands right now.

[da_chicken]

The Regenerate spell actually, finally grants a regeneration effect.

Sleep has no saving throw. It truly is Power Word Sleep.

[Sartharina]

I notice that the way attacks of opportunity now work (when you leave someone's reach) reach weapons are now slightly worse if one wants to gain that attack of opportunity as often as possible. Since the weapon has reach, it covers a larger area, so someone could start 10' to the east of you, go to a space 10' to the west of you (going around you, say 5' to the north of you in between) and never draw an attack of opportunity if you are using a reach weapon, while they will (upon leaving your lesser 5' reach) if you are using a non-reach weapon. That at least is different from 3.x (I don't know 4e).

Right. You need a feat to make Opportunity Attacks awesome with a polearm (And then they DO become awesome!)

[HunterOfJello]

Halflings are no longer great with ranged weapons by default like they were in 3.5. They used to have a bonus to attack from their size and from their race for a +2 to hit with slings and thrown at level 1 but now they don't get any bonus at all.

Halflings are apparently Lawful Good now. There should actually not be that many halfling theives then...

Drow and other creatures also have their alignments redefined. Overall I think the alignment system is being rest so that the definition of Chaotic is far more chaotic than it was in 3.5. I could be wrong though and races are just being redefined.

Rogues don't have trapfinding.

Experience does not progress in a slowly increasing progression. For instance 10 to 11 takes 21000 experience, but 11 to 12 takes 15000 experience.

If you are wearing heavy armor, you are not penalized for a low dexterity score. A dwarf with 3 dexterity wearing full plate still has 18 AC.

The halberd and glaive are the exact same item. (I don't think the halberd was supposed to have reach.)

Wizards are proficient with darts again! Yaaaaaaay!

Cleric requires a long rest to prepare spells when in 3.5 they only required praying for 1 hour at the correct time of day. This has advantages and disadvantages. You can't play a warforged cleric who only rests 1 hour per day any longer, but you can also spam rest+spellcasting to achieve lots of spells cast per day. *edit* guess not

[Sartharina]

Cleric requires a long rest to prepare spells when in 3.5 they only required praying for 1 hour at the correct time of day. This has advantages and disadvantages. You can't play a warforged cleric who only rests 1 hour per day any longer, but you can also spam rest+spellcasting to achieve lots of spells cast per day.Actually, you can only benefit from one long rest per day.

[Inevitability]

Raise Dead and Resurrection are Necromancy now. It makes sense, IMO.

[Sartharina]

As are most healing spells - as they were in AD&D and earlier.

[Yuki Akuma]

As are most healing spells - as they were in AD&D and earlier.

Cure Wounds is Evocation, though.

Which... still makes more sense than Conjuration.

[Inevitability]

As are most healing spells - as they were in AD&D and earlier.

They were? I didn't know that. AD&D is from far before my time...
I wonder why they changed it to Conjuration.

And now I see that about all healing spells got shuffled up. Cure wounds is Evocation, Regenerate is Transmutation, Raise Dead is Necromancy...

[Fwiffo86]

Read Dispel Magic... Unless there is something I overlooked it now permanently dispels the item. Just up it to 9th level and BAM its a Disjunction.

I approve of this highly. Its not correct, but I approve highly.

[obryn]

Did anyone mention that there's no Charge action yet? Because that's a biggie!

[Yuki Akuma]

They were? I didn't know that. AD&D is from far before my time...
I wonder why they changed it to Conjuration.

Because Necromancy is eeeeeevil.

[Inevitability]

Because Necromancy is eeeeeevil.

And then WOTC decided it wasn't, as proven by this (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/sanctify-the-wicked--93/), this (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/opalescent-glare--4606/), this (http://dndtools.eu/spells/book-of-exalted-deeds--52/affliction--86/), and this (http://dndtools.eu/spells/players-guide-to-faerun--22/pact-of-martyrdom--2274/), to make things more complicated.

[Particle_Man]

If you are grappled, you cannot move (unless your grappler wants you to and then you have to), but you can attack just fine. :smallsmile:

And I don't think people have noticed how good the Protection fighting style is. Putting all visible enemies at disadvantage when attacking your adjacent friends is pretty huge. And if two fighters take this style they can even protect each other! SPARTA!!!!! :smallcool:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I explained the rules to some people who only play 2e and some that only play 3e, some from each group didn't know 5e was a thing.

Both said that it sounds like they made an edition in which encorporates a lot of their houserules. Shove and backgrounds giving skills are prime examples along with when you take an action you can draw a weapon as part of that action.

Both group loved the death rules.

So I have to say the biggest difference in 5e is that they simplified a lot of things so that house ruling won't be a prime concern for a lot of DMs if they have been playing 2e and 3e. 2e and 3e from what I've seen have been the most massively houserules games I've ever played.

[Doug Lampert]

And I don't think people have noticed how good the Protection fighting style is. Putting all visible enemies at disadvantage when attacking your adjacent friends is pretty huge. And if two fighters take this style they can even protect each other! SPARTA!!!!! :smallcool:

That's because this doesn't work. It takes your reaction to impose disadvantage on AN ATTACK.

That's not all visible enemies attacking all your friends. Reactions are one per round, that's ONE attack and you're done till the start of your next turn.

[Yorrin]

Did anyone mention that there's no Charge action yet? Because that's a biggie!

....how did I not notice this!? That IS a biggie. That might be one of the first things I go looking for when I get my PHB.

[obryn]

....how did I not notice this!? That IS a biggie. That might be one of the first things I go looking for when I get my PHB.
There's a Charge feat; otherwise you are just moving & attacking like normal.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

There's a Charge feat; otherwise you are just moving & attacking like normal.

Is that in the starter set or did they say charge will be a feat in the PHB?

[obryn]

Is that in the starter set or did they say charge will be a feat in the PHB?
Unless something changed from the (closed and open) playtests, it's in the PHB.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Unless something changed from the (closed and open) playtests, it's in the PHB.

Ah, I thought there for a second it is confirmed. Who knows what charge will actually be.

Probably houserules out the backdoor is my guess.

[T.G. Oskar]

They were? I didn't know that. AD&D is from far before my time...
I wonder why they changed it to Conjuration.

And now I see that about all healing spells got shuffled up. Cure wounds is Evocation, Regenerate is Transmutation, Raise Dead is Necromancy...[/QUOTE

[QUOTE=Yuki Akuma;17733335]Because Necromancy is eeeeeevil.

Pretty much this.

Consider that "necromancy" (which traditionally has been a form of divination) is considered usually to be too "evil" for the tastes of people, and has traditionally been relegated in fantasy stories as the tools for evil creatures. When D&D shifted from 2e to 3e, they made a lot of concessions to their fluff to remove some of the stigma the game traditionally had. That's why there's concepts like "Baatezu" and "Tanar'ri" rather than Devil and Demon: by giving them odd names, they made them somewhat alien and not references to fiends. In the same way, they made Cure X Wounds and other such spells shift schools so that they wouldn't be associated to Necromancy. Come some years later, and the stigma softened enough to attempt the change once again.

Still, they're being very careful. It's hard to define Raise Dead and Resurrection as something other than Necromancy (if taken by its traditional fantastic meaning rather than its "literal" meaning), but there's an excuse for Evocation given that Miracle was an Evocation spell in 3.x.


Did anyone mention that there's no Charge action yet? Because that's a biggie!

Yeah, pretty much. Everyone has Spring Attack now (and not limited to one attack in the case of martial classes, like the Fighter in Basic Set and the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Bard in the playtest), so Charge is mostly moot. You can move to the enemy and then attack, and that would be a charge. As said, though, the playtest document has some ways to provide a charge action, particularly through feats. The Mounted Combat feat is one such instance.


I explained the rules to some people who only play 2e and some that only play 3e, some from each group didn't know 5e was a thing.

Both said that it sounds like they made an edition in which encorporates a lot of their houserules. Shove and backgrounds giving skills are prime examples along with when you take an action you can draw a weapon as part of that action.

Both group loved the death rules.

So I have to say the biggest difference in 5e is that they simplified a lot of things so that house ruling won't be a prime concern for a lot of DMs if they have been playing 2e and 3e. 2e and 3e from what I've seen have been the most massively houserules games I've ever played.

Yeah, same thing with my group. At least with one of my players, who's a bit of a grognard in that he's hard to convince once he's made a decision. He's adamantly against 4e, and is grudgingly playing Pathfinder because a friend of ours wanted to do such a game online (and he's still berating the system).

The first thing he told me when he heard most of the rules was "did they took a look at your homebrew?" In another instance, I explained part of the system, and he instinctively and intuitively got the rest of the rules. In that moment we realized the rules were more intuitive than before. I also recall telling him "most of these rules actually make sense!"

--

One thing I almost forgot: Miracle is no longer a spell; it's a class feature. Gained right from level 10... Frakking Clerics...

[Arzanyos]

Eh, Miracle is also more DM fiat...-y, and also not a sure thing, once per week instead of multiple times per day, stuff like that.

[Yuki Akuma]

One thing I almost forgot: Miracle is no longer a spell; it's a class feature. Gained right from level 10... Frakking Clerics...

True! But's it's once per week, has a (class level)% chance of working (100% at level 20), and the DM gets to decide what actually happens.

So your level 10 Cleric has a 10% chance of his god saving his butt, once a week.

[Envyus]

One thing I almost forgot: Miracle is no longer a spell; it's a class feature. Gained right from level 10... Frakking Clerics...

Note quite you need to roll really low on a D100 to get your god to intervine in some way to help you. You can't ask it do something your pretty much asking for help and can only do it once a week. At level 20 Your god will help you once a week is the thing as your pretty much the gods best cleric at that point.

[Inevitability]

It isn't as much 'saving his butt' as it is 'making things possibly easier', especially when you can cast the miracle's spells yourself. For 20th level clerics, it is just an extra spell slot of any level once per week.

I agree that for lower-level clerics it is nice to completely heal everyone, but how often are you willing to do that if you only have a one-in-ten chance to succeed? You'd likely accomplish more by just spending your action on making the bad guys die.

EDIT: Envyus, you seem to have made a mistake in your post, as that quoted message is definitely not mine.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, same thing with my group. At least with one of my players, who's a bit of a grognard in that he's hard to convince once he's made a decision. He's adamantly against 4e, and is grudgingly playing Pathfinder because a friend of ours wanted to do such a game online (and he's still berating the system).

The first thing he told me when he heard most of the rules was "did they took a look at your homebrew?" In another instance, I explained part of the system, and he instinctively and intuitively got the rest of the rules. In that moment we realized the rules were more intuitive than before. I also recall telling him "most of these rules actually make sense!"

I bolded this part because I wanted to say that I absolutely love 4e as a gaming system for D&D. However your friend I agree about 5e's rules.

And if this keeps happening with multiple and multiple people...

We just might have an edition that different people can sit down and play together. Be that you were divided in the past or not.

[Particle_Man]

That's because this doesn't work. It takes your reaction to impose disadvantage on AN ATTACK.

That's not all visible enemies attacking all your friends. Reactions are one per round, that's ONE attack and you're done till the start of your next turn.

Ah I had not noticed. Well, that just makes it "pretty cool" rather than "OMG! I must take this!".

Also, a wall of X fighters specializing in protection in front of the mage could protect that wizard from X attacks. Which might rekindle the "protect the wizard with the wall of beef" strategy, especially since a concentration spell is hard to maintain if the wizard gets damaged.

[Envyus]

Another way to protect the Wizard is to get in monsters faces so they have to target you or take a ton of damage from a Fighter.

[Particle_Man]

A point. Being in the bad guy's face allows one to provide a benefit similar to the protection ability vs. its ranged attacks, if one can keep the monster from moving back and then shooting the ranged attacks vs. the wizard. But I think it might be hard to set that up so that the monster can't get out of range (although drawing an Aoo would be a disincentive - another reason for fighters to avoid using reach weapons when trying this). Shoving the ranged attacking monster into a corner would help.

[Sartharina]

Whew... I just finished reading the alignment section.

Unaligned is in there, but is restricted to animals and unintelligent creatures.

Orcs and other "evil" creatures are inherently evil - Is it fair to those creatures? No, but that's because their creators are Evil, not Good. However, "Rebels" are possible - but still irrationally (As in they don't think about it - not that it's inexplicable or dumb or any other connotation of that word) driven to Evil in line with their deities.
Outsiders (Devils, Demons, Guardinals, Modrons, Archons, Yugoloths(I'm so glad we're keeping that instead of "Daemon"- which is just an archaic spelling of "Demon"), Eladrins, and Slaad are inherently their alignment - if they change Alignment, they stop being whatever species they are. Everyone's favorite 3.5e Succubus Paladin would have found herself transformed into an Archon of some sort during her conversion in 5e)

[T.G. Oskar]

Oh yeah, something I recently noticed:

As you know, Rogues have Sneak Attack, which grants you up to 10d6 worth of damage in a single strike (about 35 points of additional damage). Wizards get Cantrips that scale in levels (up to about 5d8 by 17th level; an average of 22-23 points of damage per cantrip), and their spells can deal quite a bit of damage, but focusing on Cantrips that deal damage mostly at-will.

It happens that Clerics with the Life Domain get to deal 1d8 points of additional radiant damage on each hit, 2d8 when they reach higher levels. It's only once per turn, but it's still a pretty strong hit. Not to mention Sacred Flame that deals damage as per a cantrip.

So, why all three classes get solid boosts to damage, and the Fighter gets none? Sure, they get 4 attacks per action, but the most they can reach is about 8d6 + 4xStr if they land all four hits with a Greatsword or Maul, without using Action Surge. Without Advantage, they could fail on one of these blows, so this damage isn't mostly constant (neither does the others, but when they land, they deliver all that damage). Wielding any other weapon seems counter-intuitive by these means.

Seems kinda odd that the Fighter doesn't get at least a boost to their Strength-based damage per hit. Wizards get free Cantrips and Clerics get both that AND a boost to their weapon attacks, and the Fighter retains its old "get many attacks" way of dealing enough damage per turn.

And, if the playtest stuff is true, the Paladin will also get a similar boost to damage. Kinda unfair to the Fighter, considering anyone can get feats which would be beneficial to the Fighter. Great Weapon Master is insane!!

Re: Miracle/Divine Intervention - To me, reducing its effectiveness to 1/10th of the original and its use to 1/week doesn't do much to minimize its effort. By 20th level, your deity WILL respond, no matter what. A Wizard will probably have to expend its known slot in the spellbook to use Wish, and if not used to duplicate a spell, you lose spellcasting and are severely crippled (if Wish remains as per the playtest). A Cleric doesn't have that, and doesn't even need to lose a spell slot for that. Another thing: if you don't get your deity to intervene, it takes a long rest to try again. Now, think about that, and think about the Fighter's capstone of 1 extra attack, or the Rogue's "get a free success on a check or roll" or the Wizard's "get to memorize two 3rd level spells and use them for free 1/day". The Fighter kinda got shafted on that one (no such sympathy for the Wizard, though).

In short: the mere thought of having your god directly intervene in your behalf is leagues better than a free attack or free spells. A free success 1/rest is comparable, though.

[Pex]

They need to fix Wish. If you're in a combat and the Wizard uses Wish for a reasonable request to cure the party of some nasty affliction or boost everyone's AC by 10 for the combat (or whatever appropriate but high number via Bounded Accuracy Math), it would really suck that means the Wizard is helpless for the rest of the combat. I understand why the drawback is there and accept its existence, just not for every non-duplicate spell use.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So one big difference in this edition compared to earlier editions is how fricken small the character sheet can be.

I made my own in Google docs excel, and holy crap it is like 1/4 to 1/2 the size I normally see.

Also you don't need any auto calculations on the sheet

[Ilorin Lorati]

Casting a spell doesn't seem to provoke attacks of opportunity. I, for one, welcome our new melee wizard overlords.

[HunterOfJello]

Casting a spell doesn't seem to provoke attacks of opportunity. I, for one, welcome our new melee wizard overlords.

You do get disadvantage if you cast a spell with a ranged attack roll and are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and isn't incapacitated (Basic Rules pg81).

Your joke about melee wizards very well may become true. As long as you get an armor proficiency (yay mountain dwarf!), a wizard isn't really disadvantaged in melee combat like they used to be. You don't have the extra attacks like a fighter or sneak attack of a rogue, but you aren't really penalized for melee combat.

[1of3]

That wasn't really an issue before with 5ft steps and Concentration checks.

But now you have a Poor Dwarf's Counterspell by whacking them casters, so they loose concentration.

[Adderkleet]

The spell slot/preparation changes are pretty... interesting. I memorise (lvl+wis) spells per day and can use any/all/one for my spell slots.

It's similar to Pearls of Power, I guess. It does encourage utility spells to be memorised but also limits the diversity of spells I can cast per day.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You do get disadvantage if you cast a spell with a ranged attack roll and are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and isn't incapacitated (Basic Rules pg81).

Your joke about melee wizards very well may become true. As long as you get an armor proficiency (yay mountain dwarf!), a wizard isn't really disadvantaged in melee combat like they used to be. You don't have the extra attacks like a fighter or sneak attack of a rogue, but you aren't really penalized for melee combat.

My houserule gives advantage to anyone saving against a spell where the caster is threatened by another creature.

Wizard is up against an orc and wants to cast fireball? Well that spell may not go off right or may miss it's mark, or may be weaker due to the mage not being able to concentrate on the spell correctly.

[Kerrin]

Also you don't need any auto calculations on the sheet
I just about went and danced in the streets when I read this. :smallsmile:

The spreadsheet character sheet I did for 3.5 was horrifically complicated. I look forward to not having to do that for 5!

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I just about went and danced in the streets when I read this. :smallsmile:

The spreadsheet character sheet I did for 3.5 was horrifically complicated. I look forward to not having to do that for 5!

If you wanted to get fancy you could autopopulate some things but I haven't seen a need for it because so few things really work that way and such.

[DonEsteban]

p. 70: Using Different Speeds

This means that, with a speed of 30 and fly speed of 60, you can walk 30 feet, then fly 30 feet, but you cannot first fly 30 feet and then walk 30 feet. Odd.

[akaddk]

Rogues don't have trapfinding.

Whilst technically true it's not really accurate. Trapfinding simply isn't a skill or class ability. But rogues can choose Perception as a skill they are proficient in and they can also choose it as one of their Expertise options, doubling their proficiency bonus which allows them to be quite good at spotting traps.

But if you don't want to be a the group's trapfinding bitch, then you can also put your skills and expertise elsewhere :)

[Inevitability]

p. 70: Using Different Speeds

This means that, with a speed of 30 and fly speed of 60, you can walk 30 feet, then fly 30 feet, but you cannot first fly 30 feet and then walk 30 feet. Odd.

Suggestion for a fix:

You have a 'maximum round speed' equal to your highest speed. During a round, you can move up to that distance. However, if you have a movement mode with a speed less than your maximum round speed, you can't move further than the speed of that movement mode using that movement mode.

Example: Bob has a speed of 20 feet, a fly speed of 40 feet, a swim speed of 30 feet. During his turn, he can move 40 feet. However, he can't move more than 20 feet using his land speed or more than 30 feet using his swim speed.

How's this?

[Psyren]

If you are grappled, you cannot move (unless your grappler wants you to and then you have to), but you can attack just fine. :smallsmile:

All this is true in 3.5/PF as well.


You do get disadvantage if you cast a spell with a ranged attack roll and are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and isn't incapacitated (Basic Rules pg81).

Which only matters if you're using a spell that makes you roll a d20 for some reason - there are plenty that don't.

[pwykersotz]

Suggestion for a fix:

You have a 'maximum round speed' equal to your highest speed. During a round, you can move up to that distance. However, if you have a movement mode with a speed less than your maximum round speed, you can't move further than the speed of that movement mode using that movement mode.

Example: Bob has a speed of 20 feet, a fly speed of 40 feet, a swim speed of 30 feet. During his turn, he can move 40 feet. However, he can't move more than 20 feet using his land speed or more than 30 feet using his swim speed.

How's this?

Well stated, I think that's probably what they meant. It's also how I'll be adjudicating it.

[Sartharina]

All this is true in 3.5/PF as well.
What game are you playing? In 3.5, if you get grappled, you have to either resort to trying to out-grapple the other guy (Never gonna happen - nobody grapples unless they have a guaranteed win over the other guy in said grapple due to how grapples work), or, if they have a light weapon, they can attack and eat a -4 to the attack roll. If you use any other type of weapons (Such as a longsword, or greatsword, or spiked chain, or anything else), you're forced to resort to unarmed strikes or possibly the secondary function of armor spikes if you have them.

[Alefiend]

Here's a potential biggie: There seems to be no restriction against casting arcane spells while wearing armor.

In fact, there isn't any mention of armor interacting with spellcasting in the whole of the Basic Rules, as far as I can see. Divine casters have never been restricted, though now clerics are only proficient in light and medium armors; wizards aren't proficient with any armor. Even if we assume that you can't cast in armor you're not proficient with, wizards are now one multiclass level away from ignoring one of their classic weaknesses.

[Psyren]

What game are you playing? In 3.5, if you get grappled, you have to either resort to trying to out-grapple the other guy (Never gonna happen - nobody grapples unless they have a guaranteed win over the other guy in said grapple due to how grapples work), or, if they have a light weapon, they can attack and eat a -4 to the attack roll. If you use any other type of weapons (Such as a longsword, or greatsword, or spiked chain, or anything else), you're forced to resort to unarmed strikes or possibly the secondary function of armor spikes if you have them.

He said "you can't move while grappled" and "you can attack while grappled" - both of which are true in 3.5.

[Sartharina]

He said "you can't move while grappled" and "you can attack while grappled" - both of which are true in 3.5.

He said you can attack just fine. You cannot attack "Just fine" while grappled in 3.5, which is the bigger issue.

[Inevitability]

Here's a potential biggie: There seems to be no restriction against casting arcane spells while wearing armor.

In fact, there isn't any mention of armor interacting with spellcasting in the whole of the Basic Rules, as far as I can see. Divine casters have never been restricted, though now clerics are only proficient in light and medium armors; wizards aren't proficient with any armor. Even if we assume that you can't cast in armor you're not proficient with, wizards are now one multiclass level away from ignoring one of their classic weaknesses.

Related: Divine spellcasters now do have to be proficient with their armor to cast spells in it. In 3.5, a favored soul could slap on some full plate and still cast spells with ease. Same for 4e (although you'd have to replace the favored soul with, say, an invoker). In 5e, even divine spellcasters have to be proficient with their armor to use it while casting spells.

[da_chicken]

Here's a potential biggie: There seems to be no restriction against casting arcane spells while wearing armor.

In fact, there isn't any mention of armor interacting with spellcasting in the whole of the Basic Rules, as far as I can see. Divine casters have never been restricted, though now clerics are only proficient in light and medium armors; wizards aren't proficient with any armor. Even if we assume that you can't cast in armor you're not proficient with, wizards are now one multiclass level away from ignoring one of their classic weaknesses.

You need to be proficient. This applies to any spellcaster, not just arcane. See the Casting in Armor sidebar on D&D Basic p79.

[Alefiend]

You need to be proficient. This applies to any spellcaster, not just arcane. See the Casting in Armor sidebar on D&D Basic p79.

Thanks. Missed the sidebar, but it doesn't change much. Proficiency should be easy enough to come by.

[Sartharina]

Thanks. Missed the sidebar, but it doesn't change much. Proficiency should be easy enough to come by. Feats or Dwarf are your only options.

[Inevitability]

Shouldn't dipping fighter do the trick? There's room for interpretation there, as the basic rules refer to the PHB for determining which proficiencies you get.

[akaddk]

Dwarven wizards are teh bomb~!

Sure, they're not as intelligent as elfs, they're not as quick as them either, but they can take a hit, wade into battle, and when they run out of magic, they can bash down doors with their strength and a warhammer!

Bring on the self-immolating fireballs, I say! A dorf wizzard can take it!

[da_chicken]

Shouldn't dipping fighter do the trick? There's room for interpretation there, as the basic rules refer to the PHB for determining which proficiencies you get.

Maybe. I'm thinking they might spread out first level proficiency benefits to discourage class buffet syndrome.

[Tholomyes]

Something I noticed (and will be house-ruling out as soon as possible) Opportunity attacks are reactions. Meaning builds focused around reactions have minimal ability to actually make use of opportunity attacks. I don't like this, since opportunity attacks are more of a "threat of activation" sort of thing. It might not be better than your other reactions, but, if you're a melee character you don't want to ever give up the threat, since, if you do, there's nothing to keep enemies from rushing at your squishy allies.

[akaddk]

Something I noticed (and will be house-ruling out as soon as possible) Opportunity attacks are reactions. Meaning builds focused around reactions have minimal ability to actually make use of opportunity attacks. I don't like this, since opportunity attacks are more of a "threat of activation" sort of thing. It might not be better than your other reactions, but, if you're a melee character you don't want to ever give up the threat, since, if you do, there's nothing to keep enemies from rushing at your squishy allies.

So then if you're the type who wants to remain sticky, don't build a character around reactions. Seems reasonable to me. As does not being "sticky" as a guarantee. The marking mechanic of 4e was bloody annoying and artificial to the point of detraction. It also doesn't seem unreasonable that if your attention (in mechanical terms, your "reaction") is taken up by one thing, that you can't devote it elsewhere at that immediate moment. PC's aren't octopodes.

[obryn]

So then if you're the type who wants to remain sticky, don't build a character around reactions. Seems reasonable to me. As does not being "sticky" as a guarantee. The marking mechanic of 4e was bloody annoying and artificial to the point of detraction. It also doesn't seem unreasonable that if your attention (in mechanical terms, your "reaction") is taken up by one thing, that you can't devote it elsewhere at that immediate moment. PC's aren't octopodes.
No, I'm with the poster above.

This way lays the goblin conga line.

[jamused]

Eliminating the Delay action... I like it that in 5e you can't save your turn for later: unless you're Readying an action for a specific trigger, when your Init has passed your turn is over. (OK, barring reactions, but still.)


Back in our 3.5 days we always seemed to have problems with players forgetting that Delay can't interrupt, or pile-up when everybody was Delaying and now they're all going on the same init and having to compare Init bonuses. Part of that was we have players that just don't want to get involved in the nitty-gritty of the rules at that level of detail, but the 5e way of handling it seems to be a better fit for our group.

[TripleD]

Shields.

Seeing as how mechanically useless they were in 3.5, most people probably didn't notice that they've been further downgraded. Only one type of shield which provides a flat +2 bonus. Oh, and no shield bashing.

When I looked at the section on "Shove", I had to double check that I hadn't missed some errata detailing how shields give you a bonus in this regard, seeing as how that's about 70% of what you do with a shield in a fight.

It's a shame. The weapon-and-shield warrior is iconic around the globe. I was really hoping this would be the version to fix them.

[1337 b4k4]

Shields.

Seeing as how mechanically useless they were in 3.5, most people probably didn't notice that they've been further downgraded. Only one type of shield which provides a flat +2 bonus. Oh, and no shield bashing.

When I looked at the section on "Shove", I had to double check that I hadn't missed some errata detailing how shields give you a bonus in this regard, seeing as how that's about 70% of what you do with a shield in a fight.

It's a shame. The weapon-and-shield warrior is iconic around the globe. I was really hoping this would be the version to fix them.

Personally, I would love to see fighters get (and in my games would probably house rule in) a version of the Shields Shall be Splintered (http://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2008/05/shields-shall-be-splintered.html) house rule. The tl;dr version of it is shields can be used as an ablative armor. Any time you would take damage, you instead can declare that your shield took the full force of the blow and your shield is shattered and becomes worthless. Magic shields gain a 10% or so chance to not shatter for every +1

[Inevitability]

It's a shame. The weapon-and-shield warrior is iconic around the globe. I was really hoping this would be the version to fix them.

I dare to say that some splatbook will have a fighter combat style that does exactly this.

[obryn]

re: shields, let's see what feats are available. I'm hopeful.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I dare to say that some splatbook will have a fighter combat style that does exactly this.Probably. I hope it isn't limited to fighters though.

[Sartharina]

It's a shame. The weapon-and-shield warrior is iconic around the globe. I was really hoping this would be the version to fix them.I was hoping so too, after how awesome shield users were in 4e. "Tide of Iron" was an awesome at-will power... and all those shield feats!

Something that sucks about the OAs being an interrupt is that the Protective Fighter's shield power is ALSO an interrupt.

[Particle_Man]

"Riding dogs" are called "mastiffs" now.

Well I had to have it pointed out to me. :smallbiggrin:

I was erroneously thinking the canine riding animal was not in the Basic D&D free download. Now halfling fighters can ride the fury! :smallsmile:

[Sartharina]

"Riding dogs" are called "mastiffs" now.

Well I had to have it pointed out to me. :smallbiggrin:

I was erroneously thinking the canine riding animal was not in the Basic D&D free download. Now halfling fighters can ride the fury! :smallsmile:

And they're explicitly not Dachshunds, as well!

[Inevitability]

Probably. I hope it isn't limited to fighters though.

It will probably turn out to be that way, though. :smallfrown:

[T.G. Oskar]

Shields.

Seeing as how mechanically useless they were in 3.5, most people probably didn't notice that they've been further downgraded. Only one type of shield which provides a flat +2 bonus. Oh, and no shield bashing.

When I looked at the section on "Shove", I had to double check that I hadn't missed some errata detailing how shields give you a bonus in this regard, seeing as how that's about 70% of what you do with a shield in a fight.

It's a shame. The weapon-and-shield warrior is iconic around the globe. I was really hoping this would be the version to fix them.

If going by the playtest rules, the Shield Master feat grants the ability to make a shield bash for 1d6 bludgeoning damage (alongside proficiency with shields and applying the shield bonus to Dexterity saving throws). That's the only mention of a shield-based style. Strange that "Protection" is the only application of shields in the basic rules other than "+2 to AC", but given that in 1e (at least, as far as I can recall) shields did exactly this and not more, chances are they're returning to this style of thought. Not even Pathfinder has a simple way to work with Sword & Board; had they done something like Agile Shield Fighting as part of their core (or splat-core) feats, they would have hit gold, but the requirement for Two-Weapon Fighting (and thus, high Dexterity on classes that have no incentive for it) hurts. 5e seems to go with this line, except you'd be using the shield as your primary weapon and something like a shortsword as your secondary weapon.

Applying your AC bonus to the Shove action (both to make the action and to defend against it) would have been nice. But then again: not even Dragon Age (or the AGE System, for that regard, a system that's eerily similar to 5e in terms of simplicity) has done anything good with Sword & Board, and its parent game DID (Shield Pummel, Overpower, Shield Wall...)

[Tholomyes]

Shields.

Seeing as how mechanically useless they were in 3.5, most people probably didn't notice that they've been further downgraded. Only one type of shield which provides a flat +2 bonus. Oh, and no shield bashing.

When I looked at the section on "Shove", I had to double check that I hadn't missed some errata detailing how shields give you a bonus in this regard, seeing as how that's about 70% of what you do with a shield in a fight.

It's a shame. The weapon-and-shield warrior is iconic around the globe. I was really hoping this would be the version to fix them.
As much as I think shields should be better, I don't think shield bashing is all that important. While it should exist in the game, I've also seen them, in a lot of games, just become TWF, but with a slight bonus to AC. I'd more like them to focus on defense, preferably in a way beyond just a little bonus to AC. The Protection fighting style is pretty good, except for my issues with how it conflicts with AoOs, which just tend to be better at defending party members for Tanky fighters.

[TripleD]

If going by the playtest rules, the Shield Master feat grants the ability to make a shield bash for 1d6 bludgeoning damage (alongside proficiency with shields and applying the shield bonus to Dexterity saving throws). That's the only mention of a shield-based style.


"Shield Master"? Bashing with your shield is basic competency. That's actually my biggest fear: long feat chains to get fundamental utility.




Strange that "Protection" is the only application of shields in the basic rules other than "+2 to AC", but given that in 1e (at least, as far as I can recall) shields did exactly this and not more, chances are they're returning to this style of thought.


That's what so few RPG designers seem to understand: a shield is not armor, it is a weapon. In particular, a control weapon much like a staff. It's all about forcing your opponent to move where you want them to move. It's not about dealing direct damage so much as making it easier to use your other weapon.



As much as I think shields should be better, I don't think shield bashing is all that important.


True. If your hitting with the flat of your shield the force spreads out too much to do significant damage. Heck, even against an unarmored opponent 1d6 is generous.

Edge of the shield though? Get one of those in the teeth and it'll ruin your weekend.

Personally I think the easiest route would be for shields to provide an AC boost (representing passive use of shield) and some benefits to your current weapon (representing active use of shield). Maybe +1 to attack rolls, or increasing crit range by 1 (probably OP, but damn if people wouldn't pick up boards).

But I'll expect that on the day they admit slings have greater range and do more damage than short bows. (another disappointing show in the equipment table).

[Tholomyes]

True. If your hitting with the flat of your shield the force spreads out too much to do significant damage. Heck, even against an unarmored opponent 1d6 is generous.

Edge of the shield though? Get one of those in the teeth and it'll ruin your weekend.

Personally I think the easiest route would be for shields to provide an AC boost (representing passive use of shield) and some benefits to your current weapon (representing active use of shield). Maybe +1 to attack rolls, or increasing crit range by 1 (probably OP, but damn if people wouldn't pick up boards).

But I'll expect that on the day they admit slings have greater range and do more damage than short bows. (another disappointing show in the equipment table).Honestly, I'm not really all that interested in fitting exactly to how these weapons really work, but that they conform to the tropes of fantasy games, and somewhat to alternate historical fighting styles (i.e. Phalanx fighting doesn't necessarily fit fantasy tropes, but would be a nice to have the options to do in the system). Those tropes mean you can do stuff like duck under your shield to shield yourself from dragonbreath, or impose your shield to save an ally from an attack, or stuff like that. Sheild-bashing, I'll admit is a trope, but I'd be interested in making sure it doesn't just become a DPS increase. A bonus to shoving would be an interesting way to do it, but I just find a lot of times, that the benefits of shields tend to be that they're TWF with a slight bonus to AC, and I'd like to see something more.

[da_chicken]

I think shields are just fine. Going from AC 18 to AC 20 is not insignificant.

[Tholomyes]

I think shields are just fine. Going from AC 18 to AC 20 is not insignificant.

Insignificant? No. Uninteresting, though. IMO, Sword and Board should be just as distinct as TWF or Archery. I don't like how, often times it's just either TWF with a boost to AC, or Single-weapon fighting, with a boost to AC. Moreover, even though it feels thematically appropriate for a 'tanky' character, usually it doesn't even work out well for that, because that +2 bonus to AC can be enough to convince enemies that it's probably not worth it to try to pound on the AC 20 guy, and instead just go for the AC 15 or so squishy Wizard.

[akaddk]

Insignificant? No. Uninteresting, though. IMO, Sword and Board should be just as distinct as TWF or Archery. I don't like how, often times it's just either TWF with a boost to AC, or Single-weapon fighting, with a boost to AC. Moreover, even though it feels thematically appropriate for a 'tanky' character, usually it doesn't even work out well for that, because that +2 bonus to AC can be enough to convince enemies that it's probably not worth it to try to pound on the AC 20 guy, and instead just go for the AC 15 or so squishy Wizard.

That's when you use your protection ability. Imposing disadvantage is pretty huge and what's more, the threat of imposing it becomes a tactical disadvantage to attack any target other than the fighter. I actually think it's a rather elegant solution to the "stickiness" problem.

Then you have to also consider that the Basic version of the game is not finished either. It will be expanded once the PHB, DMG and even the MM and other things come out. At this point it's merely given as a teaser so judging the entire system based on it is a bit premature.

[T.G. Oskar]

"Shield Master"? Bashing with your shield is basic competency. That's actually my biggest fear: long feat chains to get fundamental utility.

If the feats in the playtest cross almost exactly, one feat in 5e will be worth 3 feats or even 4 in tabletop. It's less "feat chain" and more "you get everything in one feat". Great Weapon Master, for example, seems to combine Power Attack with Cleave and Martial Weapon Proficiency (all two-handed weapons), and Archery Master seems to combine Precise Shot, Rapid Shot and Martial Weapon Proficiency (all bow weapons). So it's not like you need more than one feat. You still feel that you could use one more feat, though.


That's what so few RPG designers seem to understand: a shield is not armor, it is a weapon. In particular, a control weapon much like a staff. It's all about forcing your opponent to move where you want them to move. It's not about dealing direct damage so much as making it easier to use your other weapon.

Technically, the main function of a shield isn't exactly to be a weapon or a piece of armor, but a tool. It is a defensive AND offensive tool. It wasn't really designed to be a weapon: as you mention, it's not about the damage it can deal, but about the opportunities to attack it can bring. You can expect the bash to cause a specific effect, but for the most part, you have a huge plaque of wood (sometimes reinforced with metal) to deflect incoming attacks. The beauty of a shield is that you can use that deflection of attacks as an enabler to a vicious counterattack. Saying it's not armor is folly, because a shield that doesn't provide even a mere bit of defense against at least projectiles doesn't work as a tool. What's more, currently the few people who use shields use them as mobile barriers against stone throws or pressing them against unruly mobs or peaceful protesters.

Then again: have you seen a staff as a control weapon? Most of the time it is used as a focus for magic.

[Envyus]

Insignificant? No. Uninteresting, though. IMO, Sword and Board should be just as distinct as TWF or Archery. I don't like how, often times it's just either TWF with a boost to AC, or Single-weapon fighting, with a boost to AC. Moreover, even though it feels thematically appropriate for a 'tanky' character, usually it doesn't even work out well for that, because that +2 bonus to AC can be enough to convince enemies that it's probably not worth it to try to pound on the AC 20 guy, and instead just go for the AC 15 or so squishy Wizard.

The enemies are supposed to know this how? Also there is a style in the game about using shields to make it harder to hit allies.

[Tholomyes]

The enemies are supposed to know this how? Also there is a style in the game about using shields to make it harder to hit allies.

Gee, how will enemies know that the guy in Full Plate and wielding a Shield is significantly harder to hurt than the guy in robes, throwing fireballs at them? You're right, you'd need some sort of super high INT score to determine that one.

As for the Protection style, as I've already mentioned, they conflict with the ability to make AoOs, which are just better at keeping enemies from your allies, anyway. This is probably more an issue with AoOs, but it still means, in practice, you're better off, simply in terms of effectiveness, playing the same as a Single-weapon fighter, except with higher AC.

[Particle_Man]

As for the Protection style, as I've already mentioned, they conflict with the ability to make AoOs, which are just better at keeping enemies from your allies, anyway. This is probably more an issue with AoOs, but it still means, in practice, you're better off, simply in terms of effectiveness, playing the same as a Single-weapon fighter, except with higher AC.

The protection style can help keep your adjacent allies safer from ranged weapons, which Aoos currently have no way to handle.

[Sartharina]

Protection style also protects allies adjacent to you (Such as the party rogue getting his SAs off), which an OA can't. And, I don't know if they really conflict - if you're protecting an adjacent ally, you use Protection Interrupt. Protecting someone not adjacent to you, OA.

I'd have liked to see shields add their bonus to certain dexterity saves (No, it won't stop you from falling into a fissure. But it will save you from a dragon breath.) and bonus/resistance to Shoves (And I'd have rather NOT seen shoving be an Athletics check.)

[akaddk]

And, I don't know if they really conflict - if you're protecting an adjacent ally, you use Protection Interrupt.

The Protection ability uses a reaction as does an OA and you're only allowed one in-between turns. I will be surprised if there isn't a feat that allows on extra reaction though.

[TripleD]

If the feats in the playtest cross almost exactly, one feat in 5e will be worth 3 feats or even 4 in tabletop. It's less "feat chain" and more "you get everything in one feat".


Good to hear. Hopefully that idea stays in.



Saying it's not armor is folly, because a shield that doesn't provide even a mere bit of defense against at least projectiles doesn't work as a tool.


True. What I was trying to express is a shield is not "passive". It's not a bit armor that can only wait for something to hit it, it can actively create situations advantageous to the wielder. As you put it: a tool.



Then again: have you seen a staff as a control weapon? Most of the time it is used as a focus for magic.

I was talking about quarter-staff, half-staff, jo, etc. That is, the wooden poles you hit people with.

I practice Jodo and, while I can't confirm that this is universal, staff fighting is not about swinging it like a baseball bat. It's about "controlling" your opponent (who may be armed with weapons far more powerful than you) with pins, disrupted distance, and good old fashioned knocking the weapon away with improved reach to "control" your opponent and force them into a position where you can strike with maximum effectiveness.

[akaddk]

I practice Jodo and, while I can't confirm that this is universal, staff fighting is not about swinging it like a baseball bat. It's about "controlling" your opponent (who may be armed with weapons far more powerful than you) with pins, disrupted distance, and good old fashioned knocking the weapon away with improved reach to "control" your opponent and force them into a position where you can strike with maximum effectiveness.

Whilst that might be true in eastern practices the western equivalent, which was actually a different and significantly heavier weapon, was wielded much like a two-handed sword.

[Tholomyes]

Whilst that might be true in eastern practices the western equivalent, which was actually a different and significantly heavier weapon, was wielded much like a two-handed sword.

While this may be true, in reality, in terms of a fantasy setting, the tropes surrounding it dictate a different one of two things. The first being a weapon wizards use at low levels, when they don't have enough spells to last a full adventuring day, and the second being as a more eastern inspired version, akin to the bo-staff. The only time I've seen it not in the hands of a Wizard or Monk (or the equivalent in classless systems) was when it was taken for flavor reasons, and those flavor reason were for the eastern variety, not the western.

A feat would be an acceptable way to do it (though given that you don't get your first feat until level 4, it's still not the best way of handling it, but I fear it's really the only way they have of handling it)

[akaddk]

While this may be true, in reality, in terms of a fantasy setting, the tropes surrounding it dictate a different one of two things. The first being a weapon wizards use at low levels, when they don't have enough spells to last a full adventuring day, and the second being as a more eastern inspired version, akin to the bo-staff. The only time I've seen it not in the hands of a Wizard or Monk (or the equivalent in classless systems) was when it was taken for flavor reasons, and those flavor reason were for the eastern variety, not the western.

Well, in this version the quarterstaff does 1d6 damage or 1d8 as a versatile weapon. IIRC there's a feat which will allow it to become a double weapon, making it 1d8/1d8. I wouldn't give a bo-staff a 1d8 damage given how light it's meant to be and how it's meant to be used. For that I'd probably make it 1d6/1d6, which will probably be what it will be once an Oriental Adventures supplement comes out.

For now, though, the default assumption is that it's a D&D base which has always been Euro-centric.

[Tholomyes]

Well, in this version the quarterstaff does 1d6 damage or 1d8 as a versatile weapon. IIRC there's a feat which will allow it to become a double weapon, making it 1d8/1d8. I wouldn't give a bo-staff a 1d8 damage given how light it's meant to be and how it's meant to be used. For that I'd probably make it 1d6/1d6, which will probably be what it will be once an Oriental Adventures supplement comes out.

For now, though, the default assumption is that it's a D&D base which has always been Euro-centric.

"In this version" doesn't matter. We're talking about tropes which transcend editions and even systems. The fantasy RPG tropes relevant to a quarterstaff are that they're typically one of the four stereotypical 1st level wizard weapons (along with the dart, the dagger, and the crossbow), and that they're used by a monk, in a method similar to a bo-staff.

Also, yes, you're right, this is Euro-centric. Which is why the monk is a cloistered fellow, who wears his hair in a tonsure, and spends his time studying in the monastery.

[Sartharina]

Whilst that might be true in eastern practices the western equivalent, which was actually a different and significantly heavier weapon, was wielded much like a two-handed sword.

Which isn't that far off from the eastern, more mobile practices. A two-handed sword isn't swung like a baseball bat, either.

As far as staves as effective weapons... Katt is awesome!

[Leon]

Halflings are no longer great with ranged weapons by default like they were in 3.5.

On that line how are ranged weapons over all?
The one good thing i like about a what 4e did was level the playing field for Ranged Characters vs Melee, where as in 3.5 you had to sink a metric ton of effort for a Ranged Character to be able to sustain a damage output comparable to what a melee one could do with minimal effort.


A dorf wizzard can take it!

They don't have the speed to be a proper Wizzard...

[Knaight]

Whilst that might be true in eastern practices the western equivalent, which was actually a different and significantly heavier weapon, was wielded much like a two-handed sword.

So, as a fast weapon used primarily to control your opponent, keep them at bay, etc, in which even the heavier strikes have to be fast. The big baseball swing (or even dramatic overhead swing) that is associated with the weapon is kind of dubious.

[Particle_Man]

Halflings are no longer great with ranged weapons by default like they were in 3.5. They used to have a bonus to attack from their size and from their race for a +2 to hit with slings and thrown at level 1 but now they don't get any bonus at all.

Halflings are apparently Lawful Good now. There should actually not be that many halfling theives then...


For Basic, at least, Halfling can do the "mounted ranged weapon platform" better than others in a dungeon setting (easier to ride a mastiff into a dungeon than to ride a horse into a dungeon).

I think the alignment idea might go back to LoTR. Most halflings don't adventure at all, and are quite peaceful and lawful folk. Those that do adventure, however, tend to be good at rogue-stuff if they put their minds to it. Anyhow, in 1st ed. Halflings were LG, and even in third ed, their main god in the PHB was LG.