Things you miss from earlier editions that you feel make no sense in doing so.

[T.G. Oskar]

Confusing title? Well, it should be simple when explained.

I'll start with a big example: Shield Other, or at least the spell being a Paladin spell. Shield Other still exists, and it's a pretty interesting spell called Warding Bond. Its effect is simple: you grant an ally Resistance to all attacks, plus a minor bonus to AC and saves (IIRC), but you take that half your ally no longer gets. This is exactly what Shield Other provides. It's a great tanking spell, because you don't have to worry about being near your ally to intercept the attack, and it helps whenever an enemy crosses your zone of control.

The catch? It's a Cleric-only spell. In 3.x, it was a Cleric AND Paladin spell, and while it was gained later on, the Paladin had better uses for it as it has better HP, a degree of self-healing and a great degree of self-survivability that makes it the ideal recipient for that damage. Now, a Cleric can probably do better by providing AoE healing and counting itself (thus getting more healing), but if the Cleric can't survive the damage, chances are you're having two dead allies instead of one. What's worse is that none of the Oaths gave it back, not even the Oath of Devotion.

This is something that I feel is missing, as while it's a spell that emerged from 3rd Edition, the feel of the spell is not something you'd ascribe to a Cleric (a healer, a buffer, the hammer of its deity, but not necessarily a protector). I could houserule the spell into the Paladin's list, but that'd be a patch for my table; if I wanted it on the Adventurer's League, I'd have no choice. It's a 2nd level spell, so I can't add it via Magic Initiate either.

With this example: what else do you feel that was lost between Editions that shouldn't have? It could be as early as BECMI (why didn't they got the Fighter a Martial Archetype that used the old Weapon Specialization tables!?) or as recent as 4e (why the Battlemaster didn't get cool maneuvers like Tide of Iron?), but the idea is that you feel they're missing and they'd be great to have. Note that this is a subjective table, so don't go too deep into why they're necessary (or not); if you want to discuss it, you could use this as an incubator for discussions, but don't drag the thread too much with it.

[hymer]

This is completely irrational, but I do miss it:

Having characters with the rules saying they are good at singing, and just how good they are. In 2nd edition player's option, I'd spend large amounts of character points just to make some of my characters able singers. And in at least one case I went much, much further. And they weren't bards, btw.

Edit: Speed Factor on weapons too. I think the system works better as it is now, but it was an important way to distinguish various weapons' stats. Now, weapons are depressingly similar.

[Totema]

I'm going to get crucified for saying this, but I liked all the options that 3.5's grappling system offered. It's objectively way better now, but it feels a little limiting. It's nice that they advocate improvised actions a lot in this edition, so I might be able to revive my old wrestler character concepts.

[holywhippet]

I'm kind of missing fixed HP increases per level from 4th edition. A few bad rolls when you level up can leave a character too easy to kill due to low HP. It would be nice if you had advantage when rolling for HP.

[Beige]

Kinda complaining about something I have very little right too, but I miss my paladin's horsie - it's go so ingrained in me that when I think a Paladin I see a shining knight type guy on a sparkly horse. And there is no longer a horse :smallfrown:

I mean, I love the new paladin - it's frikkin awesome, but my head just keeps asking where's the horse XD mayhaps a future expansion will add an archetype with a horse and my head can be happy once more :smallbiggrin:

[pwykersotz]

Kinda complaining about something I have very little right too, but I miss my paladin's horsie - it's go so ingrained in me that when I think a Paladin I see a shining knight type guy on a sparkly horse. And there is no longer a horse :smallfrown:

I mean, I love the new paladin - it's frikkin awesome, but my head just keeps asking where's the horse XD mayhaps a future expansion will add an archetype with a horse and my head can be happy once more :smallbiggrin:

They get the spell Find Steed to get their horsie!

[Sylian]

I'm kind of missing fixed HP increases per level from 4th edition. A few bad rolls when you level up can leave a character too easy to kill due to low HP. It would be nice if you had advantage when rolling for HP.You totally can, it's on page 15, "Beyond 1st level".

"Alternatively, you can use the fixed value shown in your class entry, which is the average result of the die roll (rounded up)."

This will actually grant you more average hp than rolling would.

[Beige]

They get the spell Find Steed to get their horsie!

but that's a temporary horsie, and it takes me time and resources to obtain. I want my horsie straight away and I'm willing to throw a childish tantrum to get it :smallwink::smallbiggrin:

[Shadow]

but that's a temporary horsie, and it takes me time and resources to obtain.

It's permanent. The spell that summons it also acts as a raise dead spcifically for it alone. There are no material components needed.

[Falka]

I'm missing the fact that I can't Fly with a Wizard while casting more spells anymore. :smallfrown:

[Shadow]

I'm missing the fact that I can't Fly with a Wizard while casting more spells anymore. :smallfrown:

You can fly while casting other spells as long as none of those other spells require concentration.

[Beige]

It's permanent. The spell that summons it also acts as a raise dead spcifically for it alone. There are no material components needed.

so it is. I was convinced it required concentration for some reason :smallconfused:

[Steel Mirror]

I miss the Warlord! Granted, the Fighter does a decent job of being a Diet Warlord if you build it right, so they didn't abandon the concept entirely, but I will occasionally shed a single tear for the loss of my favorite 4E class, even as I enjoy the fact that my favorite (in fluff) 3.5 class (monk) is finally playable.

[AuraTwilight]

I miss PCs and NPCs following the exact same rules, even though that made way more bookkeeping than is necessary.

[Uldric]

I'm probably the only one, but I miss Morale. I still use this in a general sense when I think it is appropriate to determine when something surrenders or runs away. For example, if you blind something there is a 50/50 chance it will attack wildly or run (stumble) away. If you kill half the goblins in a party before they get to act there is a 50% chance they run away. Do the same thing to orcs there is a 25% chance they run away. I don't think there needs to be hard and fast rules on when to roll for morale or what the target number should be like there was in 2e, but I'd love the concept of morale to make an appearance in the DMG. Everything fighting to the death seems silly to me.

[Falka]

You can fly while casting other spells as long as none of those other spells require concentration.

But what about my Invisible Ninja Stealth Flying Wizard? :smalleek:

[ambartanen]

I was getting pretty sick of those invisible flying drow conjurers that seemed to be half our enemies in my last Pathfinder campaign.

What I will kind of miss in this edition is the occasional opportunity to embrace the power of cheese. As a GM, it felt good every once in a while to blindside an overoptimized party of murder hobos with an equally min-maxed half-dragon vampire rogue-ninja-fighter that completely hands them their asses... and then spinning a whole adventure over the backstory and motivations of a villain that ridiculous.

[Gnomes2169]

But what about my Invisible Ninja Stealth Flying Wizard? :smalleek:

Shush, we don't talk about such heresy here. :v

[Beige]

I was getting pretty sick of those invisible flying drow conjurers that seemed to be half our enemies in my last Pathfinder campaign.

only half - you poser. everyone knows if a single drow is involved, every enemy in the campaign will be a flying invisible drow conjurer as drow spread like zombies but with more fangirls...


What I will kind of miss in this edition is the occasional opportunity to embrace the power of cheese. As a GM, it felt good every once in a while to blindside an overoptimized party of murder hobos with an equally min-maxed half-dragon vampire rogue-ninja-fighter that completely hands them their asses... and then spinning a whole adventure over the backstory and motivations of a villain that ridiculous.

that.... that is awesome. it would be the best campaign in the world

though the pre-scans of the monster manual does promise templates, and who's to say your dragon can't have class powers :smallamused:

I think a dragon with action surge and cunning action would be pretty terrifying

[Grynning]

I kinda miss 3.5's boatload of feats. It was nice having an aspect of your character build that was independent of class.
I also miss 4th ed's marking/tanking mechanics, but supposedly that's coming back in the DMG.

[Kerrin]

I miss PCs and NPCs following the exact same rules, even though that made way more bookkeeping than is necessary.

As a DM building an NPC of my own, I imagine they will be built using whatever rules desired ... from the whole cloth of imagination through using the exact same rules to build a PC or anything in between.

It's always depended upon what I feel like using in that instance.

[Person_Man]

Healing Surges, which put a maximum cap on your daily hit points, and allowed parties without Cure spells to function normally.

Levels and sale prices for magic items. I like that magic items are rare and optional by default. But plenty of other campaign worlds are going to have magic items (like Eberron). And I want to be able to start a 10th level campaign and just tell my players "you can buy up to X,000 gp of magic items" rather then having to approve every single item on case by case basis with absolutely no benchmark for what types of items they can and cannot buy.

I hate the 5E subclass/archetype setup. I would have strongly preferred Legend style Tracks, Tome of Battle style Disciplines, or even 4E style Powers if they could write the Powers to be "big" and scale correctly instead of being small and fiddly and repetitive.

[obryn]

I ran 5e this weekend. The adventure is great, and we plan to finish it, but my players weren't sold. This is fine. I am not, either.

1. I miss unified actor-rolls resolution more than I thought I would. When the Nothic used his Rotting Gaze, it felt like something I should be rolling. Likewise when the Cleric cast Sacred Flame, it should have been an attack.

2. I miss self contained stat blocks more than I thought, and I thought I'd miss them a lot.

3. I miss reasonable short rest times.

4. I miss tactics. Combat was fast, but it was clear what was lost in the process.

5. I miss clerics who didn't have to blow all their spells on healing.

[Xetheral]

Levels and sale prices for magic items. I like that magic items are rare and optional by default. But plenty of other campaign worlds are going to have magic items (like Eberron). And I want to be able to start a 10th level campaign and just tell my players "you can buy up to X,000 gp of magic items" rather then having to approve every single item on case by case basis with absolutely no benchmark for what types of items they can and cannot buy.

Very much this. Chiefly (but not solely) standing in the way of porting my 3.5 campaign over to Fifth Edition is the daunting prospect of developing my own rubric for pricing items. In my homebrewed setting, too many of the fundamental assumptions upon which the political structure rests follow from magic item economics. Hopefully the DMG will have an optional section with the mechanics needed for a setting with plentiful items.

[Person_Man]

I ran 5e this weekend. The adventure is great, and we plan to finish it, but my players weren't sold. This is fine. I am not, either.

1. I miss unified actor-rolls resolution more than I thought I would. When the Nothic used his Rotting Gaze, it felt like something I should be rolling. Likewise when the Cleric cast Sacred Flame, it should have been an attack.

2. I miss self contained stat blocks more than I thought, and I thought I'd miss them a lot.

3. I miss reasonable short rest times.

4. I miss tactics. Combat was fast, but it was clear what was lost in the process.

5. I miss clerics who didn't have to blow all their spells on healing.

Agreed on all of the above.

On #4 specifically, my opinion is that you are never going to have 3.5/PF/4E style tactical combat (battlefield control, flanking, cover, etc) in a game that uses the theater of the mind, because everything related to where people are standing and how they move boils down to DM fiat, and even if the DM is trying to adjudicate things honestly, he can't keep track of where every creature is with a great degree of accuracy. If tactical combat is the thing you like about D&D, then 5E probably isn't the edition for you. Instead, I would suggest playing 4E, Heroclix, Earth Reborn, Space Hulk, Warmachine, Blood Bowl, or some other similar game specifically designed to do what you enjoy.

If you do stick with 5E, I would suggest that each combat needs a unique narrative aspect of some kind that makes it interesting and gives players additional options. Everyone is on a sinking ship, or in the forest covered in mist that blocks sight beyond 10 feet, or the orc chieftain is physically holding one of the villagers hostage with his blade and will kill them if you don't surrender, or there is flamable oil pouring out of the sewers, or there's a big trap in the middle of the room between you and your enemies but you don't know what it does, etc. Imagine that you're writing a novel, but have no control over your main characters. You want to give your "readers" something to visualize so that they can frame the combat in their minds and start thinking "what would I do in this situation" and not just "there are 4 orcs, now what do the rules say about how we can take turns killing them" as if they were playing Final Fantasy.

[Sartharina]

On magic items - I'd rather they have a non-GP 'point value' assigned to them, if anything. I actually almost liked 4e's handling of magic items, except it broke down into gold value after a while. I'd rather NOT have my economy be trivialized by having to give my players stuff worth more than a kingdom's entire GDP.

[Steel Mirror]

I'll chip in that I do miss the tactical aspects of previous editions-in particular flanking. In fact, my players were so nonplussed about the lack of a flanking rule that we simply instigated the old-fashioned +2 bonus for flanking an enemy. Between that and a few creative rules for altitude and other small terrain advantages, we managed to get a pretty kinetic game going with lots of tactical interest, but the core rules certainly do a poor job achieving that by themselves. Here's to hoping that the DMG offers some really good ways to remedy that situation.

[obryn]

I'll chip in that I do miss the tactical aspects of previous editions-in particular flanking.
The issue with flanking in 5e is twofold. (1) OA's only trigger if you move out of someone's reach, so you can literally run in a circle around a dude without penalty. (2) OA's take your precious reaction, and you only get one of them per round.

With the rules as they stand, giving bonuses for flanking would be pretty bad.


On #4 specifically, my opinion is that you are never going to have 3.5/PF/4E style tactical combat (battlefield control, flanking, cover, etc) in a game that uses the theater of the mind, because everything related to where people are standing and how they move boils down to DM fiat, and even if the DM is trying to adjudicate things honestly, he can't keep track of where every creature is with a great degree of accuracy. If tactical combat is the thing you like about D&D, then 5E probably isn't the edition for you. Instead, I would suggest playing 4E, Heroclix, Earth Reborn, Space Hulk, Warmachine, Blood Bowl, or some other similar game specifically designed to do what you enjoy.
Well, that's already my conclusion. I'm planning on continuing with 4e, but I am running this adventure, at least.

[Steel Mirror]

The issue with flanking in 5e is twofold. (1) OA's only trigger if you move out of someone's reach, so you can literally run in a circle around a dude without penalty. (2) OA's take your precious reaction, and you only get one of them per round.

With the rules as they stand, giving bonuses for flanking would be pretty bad.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I get both of your observations on movement/OAs, but I don't see how they make flanking bonuses a bad idea. Sure, flanking is easy to achieve if you outnumber the opponent, but that's why outnumbering the baddies is a good idea! And if they outnumber you, well, you might want to bunch up to watch each others' backs.

We played with the flanking rule, and it worked great for us, but maybe I'm missing something? I don't see the issue here.

[obryn]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I get both of your observations on movement/OAs, but I don't see how they make flanking bonuses a bad idea. Sure, flanking is easy to achieve if you outnumber the opponent, but that's why outnumbering the baddies is a good idea! And if they outnumber you, well, you might want to bunch up to watch each others' backs.

We played with the flanking rule, and it worked great for us, but maybe I'm missing something? I don't see the issue here.
Basically, it's completely trivial to get flanking set up, with how OAs work in 5e. It comes down to simple outnumbering. Because 5e combat already favors the more populous side, I think any added benefits on top of that would be pretty ruinous.

If flanking were less trivial to get, I think it'd be fine. I expect we'll see something for that down the road.

[Shadow]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I get both of your observations on movement/OAs, but I don't see how they make flanking bonuses a bad idea. Sure, flanking is easy to achieve if you outnumber the opponent, but that's why outnumbering the baddies is a good idea! And if they outnumber you, well, you might want to bunch up to watch each others' backs.

We played with the flanking rule, and it worked great for us, but maybe I'm missing something? I don't see the issue here.

Under 3.x, getting into flanking position was often the challenge. Maybe you had to spend an extra round maneuvering. Maybe you had to take an AoO to get there.
Under 5e, all you have to do is walk right up to an enemy and circle around him. No risk whatsoever. Literally, the only risk involved is for the defender if he wants to not be flanked any longer, and even in that case you can just do it again with zero risk.
And none of that takes into account the fact that a +2 to hit is a huge bonus in 5e. Like, ridiculously big, considering how easy it is to get it.

There is a reason that there are no flanking rules in the PHB. But if you're going to use flanking rules, you should also houserule the 3.x movement rules regarding OAs to go along wth them, and even then you should drop the bonus to +1.
But doing that makes feats like polearm master and especially sentinel completely OP, so I recommend against it. Like I said, there is a reason that flanking rules are not present under this ruleset.

[EvilAnagram]

Flanking wouldn't give you a plus anything. It would simply confer advantage. Otherwise, Shadow is spot-on.

[Steel Mirror]

Gottcha. I see what you are saying, but I personally don't see the +2 as ruinously advantageous. PCs already hit quite often, and offering the flanking advantage very quickly changed the character of our combats from pretty static slugfests to more kinetic and interesting battles.

I'll definitely keep what you guys said in mind, and if it starts getting troublesome I'll repeal it. I know my group pretty well, and I'm sure they'll be open to your arguments, should I bring them up. For now, though, it works at our table so I'll be keeping it. :smallsmile:

[BRC]

Gottcha. I see what you are saying, but I personally don't see the +2 as ruinously advantageous. PCs already hit quite often, and offering the flanking advantage very quickly changed the character of our combats from pretty static slugfests to more kinetic and interesting battles.

I'll definitely keep what you guys said in mind, and if it starts getting troublesome I'll repeal it. I know my group pretty well, and I'm sure they'll be open to your arguments, should I bring them up. For now, though, it works at our table so I'll be keeping it. :smallsmile:
First of all, as a philosophy, 5e is avoiding table math. All things that were +X are now Advantage, so it would be get Advantage, which is a bit of a bigger deal.

[Demonic Spoon]

First of all, as a philosophy, 5e is avoiding table math. All things that were +X are now Advantage, so it would be get Advantage, which is a bit of a bigger deal.


It is reducing the dependence on table math, but table math still happens. Cover is a good example of where Advantage and Disadvantage are not used.

I don't think a +2 on an attack roll is really out of place for the benefits provided by flanking. Hell, I think it would even be fine to give advantage on flanking attacks. The real problem is:


Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I get both of your observations on movement/OAs, but I don't see how they make flanking bonuses a bad idea. Sure, flanking is easy to achieve if you outnumber the opponent, but that's why outnumbering the baddies is a good idea! And if they outnumber you, well, you might want to bunch up to watch each others' backs.


you don't need to outnumber them ,you just need to have multiple people targeting one enemy. In 'real' combat, it'd be a bit more difficult to just walk around a guy from the front to hit him in the rear.

[Steel Mirror]

First of all, as a philosophy, 5e is avoiding table math. All things that were +X are now Advantage, so it would be get Advantage, which is a bit of a bigger deal.
Well, that is the philosophy for the base game, granted. But at our table, we don't mind a single situation with a static bonus instead, since Advantage is, as you note, a bigger deal. So we use the +2, and it works (for us). Not to argue that it will work at every table; if you really like the cleaner aesthetic of only using advantage, and find our use of the +2 annoying, more power to you! Don't use it.

But now I'm starting to feel bad about hijacking the thread! I'll add another thing I miss from an older edition: prestige classes. Yes, 80% of them were useless splatbook bloat. Yes, 5% of them were broken beyond belief. No, I wouldn't actually want them to bring them back in 5E. But there is just something about flipping through my library of 3.Path splatbooks, looking for the prestige option that will marry my character concept with some sort of quirky set of abilities that will give me a leg-up in the endless treadmill of one-upsmanship that comprises a 3.Path campaign...

Good times.


EDIT TO AVOID DOUBLE POST:

you don't need to outnumber them ,you just need to have multiple people targeting one enemy. In 'real' combat, it'd be a bit more difficult to just walk around a guy from the front to hit him in the rear.At our table, we don't worry too much about simulation. We are more interested in tactical variety and decision making, so our version of the flaking rule seems to help that. You have more reason to try and find an advantageous positioning, so you have more reason to move around, and more decisions to make on your turn. Plus, you get that warm feeling when your strategy plays out as expected and you mop the floor with an enemy who displayed insufficient tactical acumen.

Yeah, in real life you probably wouldn't get people running around as much, and jumping on tables and so on, but we are okay with that in the service of swashing some buckles!

[Shadow]

Subclasses/archetypes will fill that void, and they will do it far better tha PrCs ever did by virtue of them being class based instead of classes in and of themselves.
As more products get released, mor archs will along with them.

[Steel Mirror]

Subclasses/archetypes will fill that void, and they will do it far better tha PrCs ever did by virtue of them being class based instead of classes in and of themselves.
As more products get released, mor archs will along with them.

Oh, absolutely. And like I said, I'm pretty much happy with it.

But I'll still miss the wild and crazy world of prestige classes. At least a little bit.

[ambartanen]

Honestly, handing out +2 on virtually every single attack a PC ever does might just be the biggest bonus in the whole system. I can't think of anything that even remotely compares. This is essentially making your melee character have the hit chance of characters eight levels higher than them. The only other +2 bonus in the system is given to archers and it is put there to compensate for that fact that they will often be shooting at a disadvantage and through half-cover.

Edit: Also, flanking doesn't really require positioning. You can go behind the enemy, attack with flanking bonus and go back to your initial position without any risk or difficulty.

[Demonic Spoon]

At our table, we don't worry too much about simulation. We are more interested in tactical variety and decision making, so our version of the flaking rule seems to help that. You have more reason to try and find an advantageous positioning, so you have more reason to move around, and more decisions to make on your turn. Plus, you get that warm feeling when your strategy plays out as expected and you mop the floor with an enemy who displayed insufficient tactical acumen.


And that's fine, but "...and I run around to the opposite side of him because I have no reason not to, ever" isn't deep tactical decision making, it's trivial and, IMO, silly.

Personally, I would love flanking to make a comeback. What if you made a partial return to 3.5ish AOO rules and if you moved too far around an enemy during your movement, you provoked an AOO?

[Xetheral]

Subclasses/archetypes will fill that void, and they will do it far better tha PrCs ever did by virtue of them being class based instead of classes in and of themselves.

I don't see that as an advantage. Independent prestige classes allow mixing and matching to taste, with prerequisites to avoid the silliest combinations. By linking archetype to class, you completely rule out taking archetypes with other classes. Consider: in 5e you can't play a Battle Master Paladin or Ranger or a College of Lore Sorcerer or Wizard. Yes, you can potentially multiclass into another class just to get an archetype you want, but that's a lot more burdensome than meeting prerequisites.

Furthermore, you can't mix-and-match archetypes if they reside in the base class. A warlock who deals with multiple entities to bargain for power, playing them off one another, is a fantastic concept that can't be realized in 5e without creating a new archetype from scratch. Nor can one play a Hunter/Beast Master or a multi-domain Cleric who serves an entire pantheon.

Finally, because Archetypes are nothing but class features, tweaking them to taste is a lot more difficult because it involves replacing/rewriting abilities. By contrast, a prestige class whose abilities were a bit too strong could be tweaked by adjusting BAB/HP/Skills/Spellcasting Advancement, which is a simple numeric change.

Archetypes definitely have a purpose in helping to diversify class offerings, but I don't see them as a replacement for Prestige Classes.

[ambartanen]

Personally, I would love flanking to make a comeback. What if you made a partial return to 3.5ish AOO rules and if you moved too far around an enemy during your movement, you provoked an AOO?

I don't see any problem with going back to a grid and 3e/4e movement rules. In fact, it's the only way I can see allowing flanking in my games. It just seems obvious to me the system was designed with that in mind but they decided to keep it as an optional rule in the DMG. I guess I'll find out if I am right. Even then, flanking should be advantage and not a flat bonus.

[Steel Mirror]

Honestly, handing out +2 on virtually every single attack a PC ever does might just be the biggest bonus in the whole system. I can't think of anything that even remotely compares. This is essentially making your melee character have the hit chance of characters eight levels higher than them. The only other +2 bonus in the system is given to archers and it is put there to compensate for that fact that they will often be shooting at a disadvantage and through half-cover.

Edit: Also, flanking doesn't really require positioning. You can go behind the enemy, attack with flanking bonus and go back to your initial position without any risk or difficulty.
The first part I'll just have to respectfully disagree with, in terms of it having an undue effect at the table. Everyone can get it, PCs already hit pretty often, and it provides a strong incentive to move around during the fight, which we like. You certainly have your preferences, which is cool, but I disagree and c'est la vie!

The second one is a really good point that I hadn't even considered; we're just not used to the movement being able to be broken up like it is these days! I think I'll see if everyone is cool with changing OAs to be like they were in previous editions, i.e. you provoke an attack for leaving a threatened square, not just leaving the threatened area entirely. Perhaps that will fix it. Good point, I had totally missed that! :smallredface:

[Shadow]

Archetypes definitely have a purpose in helping to diversify class offerings, but I don't see them as a replacement for Prestige Classes.

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster beg to differ (as will many others as they are released.... there's some fluff text written by a swordmage, so I can guarantee that we'll see one eventually).


I don't see any problem with going back to a grid and 3e/4e movement rules. In fact, it's the only way I can see allowing flanking in my games. It just seems obvious to me the system was designed with that in mind but they decided to keep it as an optional rule in the DMG. I guess I'll find out if I am right. Even then, flanking should be advantage and not a flat bonus.

If you do so, remove sentinel from the feat list or it will break your game.

[ambartanen]

The first part I'll just have to respectfully disagree with, in terms of it having an undue effect at the table. Everyone can get it, PCs already hit pretty often, and it provides a strong incentive to move around during the fight, which we like. You certainly have your preferences, which is cool, but I disagree and c'est la vie!

The second one is a really good point that I hadn't even considered; we're just not used to the movement being able to be broken up like it is these days! I think I'll see if everyone is cool with changing OAs to be like they were in previous editions, i.e. you provoke an attack for leaving a threatened square, not just leaving the threatened area entirely. Perhaps that will fix it. Good point, I had totally missed that! :smallredface:

Returning to the old movement rules will definitely go a long way towards actually making flanking useful. I am actually considering doing it for my own game. Probably gonna go for a flowing system where easier or less complex encounters are ToTM and important encounters with several dangerous enemies take place on a grid and use 3e/4e-style movement, flanking and AoO rules.

That said, my first point isn't an opinion, it's fact. +2 to hit is a huge bonus in 5e and will skew the game balance significantly. It should really be advantage like everything else in this edition. The only static bonuses/penalties to hit are the aforementioned archery fighting style and cover.

Edit:
If you do so, remove sentinel from the feat list or it will break your game.
I really don't see why that would be.

[Steel Mirror]

That said, my first point isn't an opinion, it's fact. +2 to hit is a huge bonus in 5e and will skew the game balance significantly. It should really be advantage like everything else in this edition. The only static bonuses/penalties to hit are the aforementioned archery fighting style and cover.
That's odd, because I actually think that advantage is a much bigger boost than +2 is. Not only does it make you more accurate (+2 is 10% better chance to hit, advantage is anything from a 5%ish to a 25%ish boost, and probably clusters around 20%), but it makes you twice as likely to score a crit. So I think that having flanking grant advantage is actually a much bigger power skew than having it give +2 to attack, which is why I use it.

[Shadow]

Edit:
I really don't see why that would be.

Because with the the movement AoO rules from 3.x, the moment that anyone or anything gets in melee range of the character with the feat, it is quite literally impossible to get away from them (or even move a single square) without the use of a ddoor/teleport/magical transportation.

At least under the 5e OA rules the target can move. It just can't leave range without finding a way to do it. Under the 3.x AoO rules, it wouldn't be able to move.
At all.
Period.

[ambartanen]

Yes, but many things give advantage and advantage doesn't stack with itself. It can also be canceled out by disadvantage. Since both advantage and disadvantage are major factors, that really skews the balance.

That +2 by comparison stacks with all advantages and cannot be negated.

[Xetheral]

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster beg to differ (as will many others as they are released.... there's some fluff text written by a swordmage, so I can guarantee that we'll see one eventually).

For the same reasons I outlined in my post, giving an archetype the same name as an old prestige class does not make it an effective replacement.

[ambartanen]

Because with the the movement AoO rules from 3.x, the moment that anyone or anything gets in melee range of the character with the feat, it is quite literally impossible to get away from them (or even move a single square) without the use of a ddoor/teleport/magical transportation.

By that logic it's impossible to get away from them now as well- if anyone tries to leave your threatened area you hit them and they stop. You can't even disengage from someone with the Sentinel feat.

Any squishies that really need protection have no reason to not be far enough back from the person with sentinel to be safe under both sets of rules. In 5e you can even close in on the tank for a touch range spell and move back out to safety in the same round.

Including the fact that the system provides no way for multiple reactions, I don't see a problem here. In some cases of specific positioning it makes a difference but more complex tactical decision is the whole reason for using a battle grid.

[Steel Mirror]

Yes, but many things give advantage and advantage doesn't stack with itself. It can also be canceled out by disadvantage. Since both advantage and disadvantage are major factors, that really skews the balance.

That +2 by comparison stacks with all advantages and cannot be negated.
In play, I know my players would always choose having advantage over having +2 to attacks. So would I, for that matter. In this case, I think the fact that advantage is so powerful overrides the fact that the +2 is more universally stackable. In other words, I think my players would benefit far more, overall, if I let flanking grant advantage than if I let it grant +2 to attacks. Advantage is just so good. Not to mention the fact that I want to keep advantage being a little harder to get. I don't want every attack ever to made with full advantage; that erodes the specialness of those situations where you get to roll 2 dice, IMO.

So I'll stick with +2, even though it sort of breaks with 5E's general desire to use advantage/disadvantage mechanics everywhere. Maybe the DMG will come out with some rule that works better, or maybe I'll see the rule disrupt my game later on, in which case I'd consider changing it.

[Shadow]

There's a difference between not being able to leave melee range and not being able to move a single square, ever. And that difference is as wide as the Grand Canyon.
The Sentinel doesn't even have to be fighting you. He just needs to be standing next to you, and you can't take a single step anywhere.
It's broken under those rules, and if you use 3.x movement style AoOs instead of 5e style OAs then sentinel needs to be disallowed.

Once again, there is a reason that flanking is absent from the ruleset, and there is a reason that OAs were changed.

[Demonic Spoon]

There's a difference between not being able to leave melee range and not being able to move a single square, ever. And that difference is as wide as the Grand Canyon.
The Sentinel doesn't even have to fighting you. He just needs to be standing next to you, and you can't take a single step anywhere.
It's broken under those rules, and if you use 3.x movement style AoOs instead of 5e style OAs then sentinel needs to be disallowed.

Once again, there is a reason that flanking is absent from the ruleset.


If Sentinel is the only thing that stops us from doing that, then removing it doesn't seem like too big of a loss.

[Steel Mirror]

There's a difference between not being able to leave melee range and not being able to move a single square, ever. And that difference is as wide as the Grand Canyon.
The Sentinel doesn't even have to be fighting you. He just needs to be standing next to you, and you can't take a single step anywhere.
It's broken under those rules, and if you use 3.x movement style AoOs instead of 5e style OAs then sentinel needs to be disallowed.

Once again, there is a reason that flanking absent from the ruleset, and there is a reason that OAs were changed.
I don't see much of a problem with Sentinel, TBH, at least nothing that the 3.5 move rules introduces. It's a feat, which seems to mean that it will be rare or nonexistent among enemies. So it applies only to some PCs, and even in those cases the PC only gets one reaction per round. Sure, in some combats that PC will do a really good job of shutting down a single opponent (assuming he hits with his OAs). But the same could be true of the Mage Slayer feat. Sentinel is strong, but it's situational, and I believe that it's only mildly stronger with 3.5 moving than with 5E moving.

[ambartanen]

There's a difference between not being able to leave melee range and not being able to move a single square, ever. And that difference is as wide as the Grand Canyon.
The Sentinel doesn't even have to be fighting you. He just needs to be standing next to you, and you can't take a single step anywhere.
It's broken under those rules, and if you use 3.x movement style AoOs instead of 5e style OAs then sentinel needs to be disallowed.

Once again, there is a reason that flanking is absent from the ruleset, and there is a reason that OAs were changed.

But you can't effectively move now either. Under ToTM your position is about as precise as "next to X" and if X happens to be someone with the sentinel feat, you are effectively prevented from ever moving- no one will be or come next to the sentinel unless they are ok with being next to you. If a squishy caster wants to use a touch spell on the sentinel, he just comes up to the other side and retreats in the same motion so you still never get close to them.

SteelMirror, my point is that advantage is great. I'll also take advantage over a +2 in most situations but because everything is advantage, there are a bajillion ways to get advantage. There is nothing stopping me from getting both that +2 from flanking (really, it's essentially given to me for free unless we switch to 3e AoOs) and getting advantage. A barbarian using this rule will make every single one of their attacks with a +2 and advantage.

[Shadow]

If Sentinel is the only thing that stops us from doing that, then removing it doesn't seem like too big of a loss.

It's the only thing at this point. But don't count on that to remain true as other things get released.
I'd be wary of changing anything just yet, until we at the very least see the DMG (and a campaign book or two) to see what kind of options and variant rules are supported.

[SaintRidley]

there's some fluff text written by a swordmage, so I can guarantee that we'll see one eventually).


Hope so. I really liked the idea of the Swordmage in 4e. Should try and find a 4e game so I can play around with one.

[EvilAnagram]

Hope so. I really liked the idea of the Swordmage in 4e. Should try and find a 4e game so I can play around with one.

I recommend it. I played as a Shielding Swordmage for a while, and it was fantastic. I was a water genasi, so I would essentially mark someone and flee to the other side of the battlefield. They could either attack my buddies and get their damage severely reduced, or move past them and take op attacks from a Berserker, Cleric, and Rogue. And once per encounter, I got to wait until the biggest monster rolled a massive hit, then teleport it next to its buddy and make it hit its buddy instead.

The battlefield was my playground, and no one could do a thing to stop me.

I also made a habit of electrocuting magpies, but that was mostly by accident.

[Steel Mirror]

SteelMirror, my point is that advantage is great. I'll also take advantage over a +2 in most situations but because everything is advantage, there are a bajillion ways to get advantage. There is nothing stopping me from getting both that +2 from flanking (really, it's essentially given to me for free unless we switch to 3e AoOs) and getting advantage. A barbarian using this rule will make every single one of their attacks with a +2 and advantage.
It's possible that my inexperience is playing a part here; I've only played 2 sessions of 5E so far. But I think that advantage is hard enough to get that you'll make most of your attacks without it, even flanking attacks. I have a barbarian in my group, and while she could certainly choose to make every flanking attack with advantage, she still has to deal with granting advantage on attacks in return. In fact, I'd argue that allowing flanking to give you advantage significantly nerfs the barbarian class- why expose yourself to being attacked with advantage when you could all the benefits of a Reckless Attack without any of the drawbacks, just by moving slightly! There is an entire class feature that will now almost never be used.

I'm certainly not arguing that my way is right and yours is bad, but I am saying that I think the gut reaction "static bonuses in 5E break everything!" is a little overstated in this case. Static bonuses all over the place would certainly be bad, which is why I'll be stopping with this one. But I think a +2 for flanking rule, combined with the 3.5 move rules should just about satisfy what my group wants from a tactical move houserule.

[Demonic Spoon]

It's the only thing at this point. But don't count on that to remain true as other things get released.
I'd be wary of changing anything just yet, until we at the very least see the DMG (and a campaign book or two) to see what kind of options and variant rules are supported.


What difference does it make if the DMG has flanking rules? When they come out, you either switch to those rules, or keep going with the homebrew.

[Beige]

I would kinda like to see the return of PrCs as well as the continuing archetypes, but more like how pathfinder handles them - PrCs get you specific abilties that are generally only avaliable through them, rather than being the thing you have to spend your levels on because they're like your base class but better

but If I don't get them, then archetypes are still fun and offer versatility :smallbiggrin:

[archaeo]

I would kinda like to see the return of PrCs as well as the continuing archetypes, but more like how pathfinder handles them - PrCs get you specific abilties that are generally only avaliable through them, rather than being the thing you have to spend your levels on because they're like your base class but better

but If I don't get them, then archetypes are still fun and offer versatility :smallbiggrin:

Maybe they'll do something with prestige classes acting like superbackgrounds that you take after level 11 or something. All the fluff, relatively less of the crunch.

Or you could do it as the new "epic" tier, wherein prestige classes are what you take when you are over level 20 in order to go fight the gods at home and whatnot.

But I feel like subclasses have eaten away at most of what prestige classes were "for" in previous editions.

[Shadow]

What difference does it make if the DMG has flanking rules? When they come out, you either switch to those rules, or keep going with the homebrew.

I wasn't thiking of flanking rules, per se. More in the line of thought that we may see more feats/Archs/variant rules which might also interfere with movement and flanking, and in so doing, muddle up the flanking rules that you're using.
There are still too many variables and unknowns at this point which I think makes changing core rules a bad idea.

[Demonic Spoon]

I wasn't thiking of flanking rules, per se. More in the line of thought that we may see more feats/Archs/variant rules which might also interfere with movement and flanking, and in so doing, muddle up the flanking rules that you're using.
There are still too many variables and unknowns at this point which I think makes changing core rules a bad idea.


Those are still variant rules. You'll have problems anyway if you get the DMG and need to change your rules around to accommodate some new variant rules you like.

[EvilAnagram]

Isn't advantage gained when you convince the DM that you have advantage? I'd give advantage for flanking someone. Why wouldn't I? It's easier to hit someone who's distracted and has their back to you.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm kind of missing fixed HP increases per level from 4th edition. A few bad rolls when you level up can leave a character too easy to kill due to low HP. It would be nice if you had advantage when rolling for HP.

I miss the higher amounts of hit points 4E PCs would get, and the way Constitution Score (not Constitution modifier) was used at first level to determine hit points.

[Theodoxus]

I miss the Fighter/Cleric/Mage multiclassing and Fighter->Cleric Dual classing. Best character I ever had was a dwarf Fighter/Cleric. One tough sombitch.

I'm hoping gestalt rules are included in the DMG, and in a way that brings back the old flavor - not that multiplies power like they did in 3rd.

[Falka]

I was getting pretty sick of those invisible flying drow conjurers that seemed to be half our enemies in my last Pathfinder campaign.

What I will kind of miss in this edition is the occasional opportunity to embrace the power of cheese. As a GM, it felt good every once in a while to blindside an overoptimized party of murder hobos with an equally min-maxed half-dragon vampire rogue-ninja-fighter that completely hands them their asses... and then spinning a whole adventure over the backstory and motivations of a villain that ridiculous.

Puh-lease, I was an illusionist!:smallconfused:

[Falka]

Isn't advantage gained when you convince the DM that you have advantage? I'd give advantage for flanking someone. Why wouldn't I? It's easier to hit someone who's distracted and has their back to you.

That makes the Help action meaningless. I used to give Advantage on flanking but when I actually read all actions that you can take in combat, I had to take that away. Some BM maneuvers, if I'm not mistaken, allow to give Help as a bonus action, so there's that.

[ambartanen]

Isn't advantage gained when you convince the DM that you have advantage? I'd give advantage for flanking someone. Why wouldn't I? It's easier to hit someone who's distracted and has their back to you.

But under the current rules you can get flanking for free so long as two of you are next to an enemy.. I guess the whole abstraction comes in at that moment so that the person you are fighting doesn't allow themselves to be flanked.

[Logosloki]

I'm missing the old crafting system right now, even though I know the DMG will probably have something in there about it beyond the PHB rules.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Shield Other

I swear that's a class feature or a feat for...something...can't find anything when you're sleepy.

[Falka]

But under the current rules you can get flanking for free so long as two of you are next to an enemy.. I guess the whole abstraction comes in at that moment so that the person you are fighting doesn't allow themselves to be flanked.

There is no flanking in the rules, currently.

[ambartanen]

There is no flanking in the rules, currently.

Yeah, I made a bit of a mess in that explanation. I mean under the current rules you can get into what used to be flanking position essentially for free so just including flanking is not advisable.

[Person_Man]

Gottcha. I see what you are saying, but I personally don't see the +2 as ruinously advantageous. PCs already hit quite often, and offering the flanking advantage very quickly changed the character of our combats from pretty static slugfests to more kinetic and interesting battles.

I'll definitely keep what you guys said in mind, and if it starts getting troublesome I'll repeal it. I know my group pretty well, and I'm sure they'll be open to your arguments, should I bring them up. For now, though, it works at our table so I'll be keeping it. :smallsmile:

Well, a +2 bonus to-hit is basically equivalent to getting Fighting Style (2nd level class ability) for free.

Any typically, players have a 65%ish chance of success to hit against most enemies. (Though this is just my experience based on the Basic box and Dragon Queen). Giving players a really easy to get +2 bonus bumps their default success rate to 75%ish, or 85%ish if they have Advantage. So with your Flanking house rule, missing in melee will be pretty rare.

It's not really troublesome, per se. It's basically just making melee combat a lot easier for whichever side is more numerous.

[toapat]

Subclasses/archetypes will fill that void, and they will do it far better tha PrCs ever did by virtue of them being class based instead of classes in and of themselves.
As more products get released, mor archs will along with them.

Do not conflate the unified concepts of ACF, Racial Sub levels, and Class variants with PrCs.

These systems on only a surface examination serve the same function. They dont.

Variants exist to differentiate a character's capacities from another of the same class.

PrCs exist to change how the story of a character is told. A rogue starts as a gutterrat, escapes the city, joins up with the party and then sneaks every note they can from wizard. Eventually they unify their life experiences into an arcane trickster or unseen seer to kick more ass.

However, like Eldrich Knight + Arcane trickster, few PrCs are actually complex enough alone to justify having PrCs in the system. Dragonmarked Heir/Heir of Siberys are the first ones the come to mind as something you have to have but cant be anything other then PrCs. With thurgic builds being inherently part of multiclassing they also will not appear. Blackguard is the last remaining notable PrC for fluff/mechanical reasons



In 5th, i think the greatest tragedy of the system is the raping of spelltheft as a playstyle. Limited to 5th level spells and only in the final 4 levels of gameplay the spellthief has fallen far from grace. Sure in third Spellthief wasnt exactly a deep investment class but that was because master spellthief was a little too convenient

[ZeshinX]

I miss 1e/2e-styled multiclassing. While I very much like the 3e/PF/5e method, and think it is a better way of doing it, I do miss the simultaneous progression that method offered. I found it more....."honest" is the best word I can use to describe it. No dips, no overt optimizations....you were a Fighter/Thief....or Mage/Cleric or what have you right from the get go.

A system that allowed 1e/2e style MCing with the freedom to combine classes that 3e introduced....now that would be, I think, fun. :smallsmile:

[Oscredwin]

I miss 1e/2e-styled multiclassing. While I very much like the 3e/PF/5e method, and think it is a better way of doing it, I do miss the simultaneous progression that method offered. I found it more....."honest" is the best word I can use to describe it. No dips, no overt optimizations....you were a Fighter/Thief....or Mage/Cleric or what have you right from the get go.

A system that allowed 1e/2e style MCing with the freedom to combine classes that 3e introduced....now that would be, I think, fun. :smallsmile:

I strongly expect something like that will be in the DMG (see all the talk about gestalt rules).