Waiting on my PHB, what is the thought so far?

[Grayson01]

Hey waiting on my PHB, I was/am a huge fan of 3.5 prefer it over Pathfinder. I hated 4e. Was wondering what the opinon so far is from old die hard 3.5 fans like myself. I was more into the more mundane classes and the more obscures (like Dragon Shaman). How do the classes hold up compared to the 3.5 ones?

[OldTrees1]

Well, we only have the PHB so far. This makes it harder to judge.

The basic skeleton of character generation seems improved. Multiclassing is improved (even caster multiclassing)

The basic combat rules are simplified. For the most part this is a good improvement. You can split up your movement between your attacks. However currently you can only take 1 action outside of your turn. This makes it impossible to emulate Combat Reflexes.

Feats have been improved, but made much more rare. This muffles the improvement slightly.

Classes seem to have been improved. The gaps still exist but are made smaller.


The 3 classes I played in 3.5 translate reasonable well but at the cost of more casting.
Rogue -> Rogue(Arcane Trickster) 3 / Bard(College of Lore) 17
Fighter(zone of control) -> Paladin(of the Ancients)
Dread Necromancer(nation builder) -> Wizard(Necromancer)

So far 3.5 has an edge in my opinion but only because it has more books. I think 5th will turn out well.

[Steel Mirror]

I loved 3.x and was more or less happy with 4E, so I may not be the opinion you are looking for. 5E feels a lot like 3.5, sanded down to within an inch of its life and then built back up with a much more balanced and streamlined design ethos. Traps in character creation are fewer and less punishing, system mastery is far less required at low and medium levels in order to make a playable character. Unlike in 3.5, I feel like a complete newcomer can sit down with the character creation options, decide that they want to play "an elf with a bow and arrow", and turn that into a playable character with a minimum of fuss.

Combat is greatly streamlined, which I think is a major selling point for 5E. For the first time in ages, my group goes through 6-8 encounters plus RP and exploration, rather than the 1 or maybe 2 encounters plus some shenanigans that it had become before. That simplification does come at the cost of some tactical subtlety, but you mentioned not liking 4E (where the wargame aspect was the most pronounced), so that may not worry you much. Bookkeeping for the DM during gameplay feels like it is at an all time low, but the statblocks for the monsters are arguably a little less DM friendly than they were in 4E (particularly having to look up spell-like abilities in the PHB).

The skill system seems almost too simple at first, but is really refreshing in play. It seems like in 5E the numbers have gotten out of the way, lurking in the back of the room waiting for when they are needed rather than taking center stage like they did in some other incarnations of the game. You want to do something in 5E, you describe your GM how you want to do it, and he figures out what you roll to accomplish it. There are about three numbers on your sheet you have to worry about at any given time, though you still feel like you have control over the outcome through cleverness and good RP thanks to the fact that the GM can always award advantage to you if your plan or your speech or whatnot is particularly impressive. The result, at least in my group so far, has been an experience that feels much more like assuming the roles of your characters and having fun in the world they inhabit, rather than using your character sheet to pit your numbers against the environment's numbers and seeing which end up the numberiest.

TL;DR, this reviewer really likes 5E so far. It simplifies things radically while keeping the quintessential D&D flavor that has made hacking and slashing our way through fantasy elfland fun for 40 years.

[edge2054]

I feel like it's a nice balance of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Not as open ended as 2nd, not as closed as 3rd, incorporates some of the nicer stuff from 4th like resting mechanics.

I'm really impressed so far.

But I haven't played yet, about to though :)

[MukkTB]

Its simpler than 3.x in terms of rules.
My group argued a lot about rules. This is better.

There is less choice in character creation. Fewer feats, simpler skills. Obviously less classes because we don't have any supplements yet. But they claim that they won't release many/any. I don't know if there is enough variety or not. My guess is that there is just barely, especially because weaker classes are more viable. Call it a slight downgrade and I'd be really happy with a few more added in wherever. Pathfinder has a decent model. Their splatbooks don't blot out the sun, but there are enough to fill the edges. And nobody gets left out because all the PF stuff is on the internet.

There is less imbalance between characters, and they reduced the amount of power gained from leveling. This bounded accuracy thing kind of fits here. The side effects are #1 characters are never so great at something to have autosucceed levels of mastery. If a commoner rolls well enough he can beat Conan at arm wrestling. (This is a bit of a lie. A couple feats do this, and some backgrounds give auto-success at one or two activities.) #2 monsters remain a threat for a long time. this includes normal people NPCs. #3 Since all classes are pretty much tiers 3 or tier 2 (using the 3.5 scale) you can pretty much play anything in any group and not be a waste of space. Overall I feel this is an improvement although I'd like to see a few more feats that allow exceptional skill at certain abilities.

Because the rules are a bit lax there are some holes in them. Right now there is an army of people out there trying to poke all the holes. A subset of this group is trying to prove that 5e is bad because of its mechanical problems. (It's not like there are a lot of them. But there are a few.) While I agree its not good, I don't think this lowers the value of this edition compared to others. You can find rules problems in any edition.

What stats do has seen modification. Most combat oriented characters only need strength or dexterity but not both. Spells attack using the casting stat. I'm not a major fan in all cases. I like the free weapon finesse but I feel like we lost something when we stopped making casters use dexterity for ranged touch attacks. So mixed good and bad. Lets say a little more good than bad.

So overall this edition looks promising. But we won't know how it really plays until we have both other books. My group is trying it out ATM, but we won't guarantee that we won't go back to 3.P at this point.

The monsters we've seen don't really have good CR values attached. You have to look to experience values as part of the indicator. Even then there are some really terrifying monsters with quite low CRs.

[Galen]

There is less choice in character creation.
Sorry, I have to disagree with that. To be clear, I am ONLY comparing the level of customization afforded by 5E PHB to that of 3.5E PHB, because apples to apples.

3.5E player's handbook: 7 races, 11 classes (77 combinations)
5E player's handbook: 9 races, 12 classes (108 combinations), plus 12 backgrounds (the "background" is the 3rd axis of character creation along with race/class)

Also, most races have two subraces, right there in the PHB (unlike 3.5E, where you had to splurge on Unearthed Arcana for the subraces)
Also, all classes have at least two, or more, subclasses. Right there in the PHB. Eldritch Knight, Champion and Battlemaster play completely different, even though all three are subclasses of the Fighter. And all this customization, again, is just in the PHB. No supplements are needed.

Yes, there are less feats. 46, to be precise, vs. ~120 in 3.5E PHB. But most of the 3.5 feats are dead, as we all know. [who the hell takes Point Blank Shot except as a prereq tax?]. Almost all the 5E feats are actually useful and do something special.

As for there being less skills in 5E ... No. There's pretty much the same amount of skills, except they were consolidated. Want to play a stealthy sneaky character? Well, instead of investing skill points in Hide and Move Silently, there's one skill called Stealth that covers both. Want to be a great athlete? Athletics now covers Swim, Jump, Climb, and anything related; you don't have to invest points in each separately. And so on. So, no, not less skills. Just better arranged. Unless for some weird reason you want to play someone who's really good at jumping and climbing, but can't swim. In which case, you're out of luck, the system doesn't support that.

[Mr.Moron]

If you like 3.5 more than Pathfinder and hated 4e, I'm not sure how much you'll like 5e. It departs in the same direction as pathfinder did, but goes much further in terms of changes. If Pathfinder took a stroll down half a block, 5e drove across town. It takes some notes from 4e in terms of system cohesion and consolidation that is going to feel a bit stripped down if you like lots of little knobs to turn, big skill lists and lots of direction on resolving edge cases.

In the end 5e & 3e share class layouts and the concepts of spell slots, but really not too much else.

[Grayson01]

Thank you all for you impute, it was all very helpful. I hope they add in more classes, and is there a PrC equivalent or is there just subclasses with in the bases classes?

[Mr.Moron]

Thank you all for you impute, it was all very helpful. I hope they add in more classes, and is there a PrC equivalent or is there just subclasses with in the bases classes?

Subclasses only. Given how some of the subclasses are direct ports of classic PrCs, I doubt there will be anything along those lines ever released.

[lvl 1 human]

Although i started with second edition most of my time has been playing 3.x, i never really enjoyed pathfinder and i hate 98% of 4e. and i must say, i am lovibg 5e, numbers are smaller and allows higher level play without the muddyness of big numbers and waiting fifteen minutes for each combat turn(4e :p) overall i think this embodies D&D best of all esitions

[Grayson01]

Although i started with second edition most of my time has been playing 3.x, i never really enjoyed pathfinder and i hate 98% of 4e. and i must say, i am lovibg 5e, numbers are smaller and allows higher level play without the muddyness of big numbers and waiting fifteen minutes for each combat turn(4e :p) overall i think this embodies D&D best of all esitions

Me and you seem to have the exact same DnD upbrining :-) So maybe

"Subclasses only. Given how some of the subclasses are direct ports of classic PrCs, I doubt there will be anything along those lines ever released"

yeah that's what I assumed from the what I read, maybe it will be a nice change.

[Grayson01]

Oh and people have said there are less feats, are the characters still as feat starved as in 3.5?

[Galen]

The 5E PHB contains exactly the same amount of PrCs as the 3.5 PHB :smallsmile:

[Mr.Moron]

Oh and people have said there are less feats, are the characters still as feat starved as in 3.5?

This is an entirely 3.P framing. To begin with feats are an optional rule, not a part of the game by default. Secondly you get fewer feats and don't start with any, barring another optional variant for humans.

In general feats do a lot more than a 3.P feat with a couple of passive bonuses and maybe a new active ability. You can't be "Feat Starved" because feats don't lock/unlock key character traits, they're tweaks almost like class features unto themselves. They're not building blocks where you shift through pre-reqs to get to key features.

They're add-ons. They're powerful but ultimately they provide additional optionals, they don't define play styles.

[archaeo]

Oh and people have said there are less feats, are the characters still as feat starved as in 3.5?

Well, because you can only take feats in lieu of an ability score bump, most PCs are going to face some tough decisions. But few character builds depend on more than one or two feats; each individual feat does more than the usual 3.5 feat. Furthermore, since the variant human option tends to be pretty popular, players who really want to take advantage of feats can play humans to get them at level 1.

edit: ninja'd! And he said it so much better, too.

[Kornaki]

Oh and people have said there are less feats, are the characters still as feat starved as in 3.5?

No, because the feats that exist are significant additional features for your character. No +1 conditional combat bonuses. Some people feel that not having a starting feat at level 1 is a bit restrictive though.

[lvl 1 human]

My group is using optional feat system and they are much stronger than 3.5 feats, something to note though
with the power of feats many people will gravitate towards humans because the variant and may become more powerful at low levels, however i have noticed it seems to even out eventually still

[Vowtz]

I'm like you, I spent like 5 years on ad&d, then 3.0 a little, 3.5 a lot, bought 4e core books but hated it, and now I'm trying a transition to 5e.

5e is a like a simplified 3.5, in my opinion it is a good simplification. The new magic system is different and beautiful (how to prepare and cast spells, useful cantrips, efects usually don't scale with level).

The new skill system is good for simplification parameters, but sucks for everythig else (two commoners have a better chance of stabilyzing a dying creature than a trained doctor).

Feats are more powerful individually, and only one race (feat human) has one at level 1, that was a terrible idea from the developers, it was better if everyone started with one feat.

Even so most races have racial characteristics that are as strong or stronger than feats.

Archetypes inside classes are like prestige classes, that was a good way of doing things in my opinion, all those prestige classes we had on 3.5 will just be released as archetypes for 5e.

[Vowtz]

5e's greatest problem is that a lot of rules are poorly written, giving ambiguous interpretations that every DM has to decide on spot, and a lot of times without enough knowledge of necessary details.

[MukkTB]

Sorry, I have to disagree with that. To be clear, I am ONLY comparing the level of customization afforded by 5E PHB to that of 3.5E PHB, because apples to apples.

Its not apples to apples though. 3.5E design philosophy included splatbooks out the wazoo. 5E have said something about not doing them at all. I think they were talking about just releasing adventures. If you believe that then instead of the first in a long line of options, the 5E PHB is pretty much all we got to work with. Of course they could be lying.

I can't find that statement now. Maybe I'm mistaken. I'm going to go look for it.
Here is other people on this forum talking about it.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369858-No-More-CoDzilla&highlight=5e+splatbook

[Beleriphon]

Its not apples to apples though. 3.5E design philosophy included splatbooks out the wazoo. 5E have said something about not doing them at all. I think they were talking about just releasing adventures. If you believe that then instead of the first in a long line of options, the 5E PHB is pretty much all we got to work with. Of course they could be lying.

I can't find that statement now. Maybe I'm mistaken. I'm going to go look for it.
Here is other people on this forum talking about it.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369858-No-More-CoDzilla&highlight=5e+splatbook

I think the intention is the have more adventures, and then have a big tent pole release like a campaign setting. Rumour has it that Ed Greenwood has been building the Realms refernece bible for quite a while, although no "formal" work has started.

[Galen]

Its not apples to apples though. 3.5E design philosophy included splatbooks out the wazoo. 5E have said something about not doing them at all. I think they were talking about just releasing adventures. If you believe that then instead of the first in a long line of options, the 5E PHB is pretty much all we got to work with. Of course they could be lying.

I can't find that statement now. Maybe I'm mistaken. I'm going to go look for it.
Here is other people on this forum talking about it.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?369858-No-More-CoDzilla&highlight=5e+splatbook
That's interesting, I didn't know that. However, since I'm one of those guys who mostly avoided buying the 3.5 splats, I actually think more customization in the PHB and less splats is a good thing.

[Occasional Sage]

On a tangent to the general direction of this thread: I really like the inclusiveness the game builds in as its default: LBGTQ is just assumed, and the book backs that up. This blog post (http://pile.org/games/131/diversity-in-5e-phb-art) does a solid job of breaking down the art in the book and mathing out the gender/racial/class/etc dynamics implicit in their choices. I found it to be an interesting read.

While that can be mixed into any of the editions at the table, I admire Mearls et al for wanting to put that front-and-center in their design.

[Steel Mirror]

On a tangent to the general direction of this thread: I really like the inclusiveness the game builds in as its default: LBGTQ is just assumed, and the book backs that up.I noticed that too, and I thought it was timely. The hobby has a lot of baggage and, without derailing this thread to talk about the specifics, it is nice to see them trying to take the new edition as a chance to move beyond that and set a new standard for how they deal with issues of inclusiveness and general broad-mindedness.

[Daishain]

Oh and people have said there are less feats, are the characters still as feat starved as in 3.5?
I would say overall no, mostly because the new feats tend to have much more value than the old, but I have not yet had a chance to give it a proper shakedown. Here's what I can tell you

-You tend to get fewer feats overall
-so far, there are only a small handful of feats that I wouldn't consider taking for the right character
-no feat that I've seen requires another feat as a prerequisite. (With the noted exception of armor proficiencys, you still need to go light>med>heavy for those, but if you do have to take those feats, you get nice little ability score bonuses along the way, so its not a total waste)
-Nearly all feats have multiple and/or powerful effects that can significantly change how a character is played

For example:

Great Weapon Master
-when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon, or reduce a creature to 0 HP with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action
-before you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to attack roll, if it hits, you deal +10 to the attacks damage

So, basically, they took two very popular combat oriented 3.x feats, power attack and cleave, improved them a bit, and combined them. And all it requires to fully utilize it is a heavy melee weapon that you know how to wield. A similar feat exists that rolls three of the old archery oriented feats into one package.

There's another feat that lets you tack on a slow and unwieldy form of wizardlike spellcasting to any class. There are plenty of limits, such as it taking a minimum of 10 minutes to cast the spell, only certain spells qualify, and you have to go begging others for additional spells along with the wizard, but it still adds a lot of versatility if you have the mental stats for it.

[Sartharina]

Well... one of my players after our first session's response was to look at the 3.5e/pathfinder board on this site, see how busy it was, and scream "WHY THE HELL ARE ALL YOU PEOPLE STILL OVER THERE!?", or something like that :smallbiggrin:

It feels like the developers stepped back, took a comprehensive view of the entire D&D brand, took what they learned from 3.0, 3.5, and 4e, and made a new attempt of an iteration on TSR's D&D, instead of the short-sighted attempts at iteration that 3.0 was to 2e, 3.5 was to 3.0, and 4e was to 3.5. (Because the 3.5 to 4e iteration was where they realized they'd Lost Track of what D&D was sometime in 3rd Edition, and tried to find it again with Essentials)

My only complaint about it is a lack of Catfolk and Elemental sorcerers (I love the Genie sorcerer bloodlines from Pathfinder, and think they should have had those as a path)

As far as "feat Starved" - it's currently too early to tell anything specific, but right now D&D Next assumes characters are Competent, instead of 3.5's assumption of Incompetence. For example - Two-Weapon Fighting, Finesse, Archery, and Mobile Combat all work straight out of the box, instead of requiring several levels and half a dozen feats to get up and running. Also, most feats are self-contained, with the exception of the goddamn Armor Proficiency and Armor Mastery feats (In the closed beta, they were merged - I guess people who were already proficient with the desired level of armor felt 'cheated' because they didn't benefit from proficiency they already had?), and Sentinel+Polearm Mastery for 3e-style Polearm Lockdown builds.

[Occasional Sage]

Well... one of my players after our first session's response was to look at the 3.5e/pathfinder board on this site, see how busy it was, and scream "WHY THE HELL ARE ALL YOU PEOPLE STILL OVER THERE!?", or something like that :smallbiggrin:

Because 3.P rewards system mastery, and they are unwilling to acknowledge that they are embracing the Sunk Cost Fallacy.

Or, you know, they actually like 3.P better. The strict simulationist approach is appealing to tons of folks.



My only complaint about it is a lack of Catfolk and Elemental sorcerers (I love the Genie sorcerer bloodlines from Pathfinder, and think they should have had those as a path)

I'm working on a catfolk kitbash, want a post in a day or two?



As far as "feat Starved" - it's currently too early to tell anything specific, but right now D&D Next assumes characters are Competent, instead of 3.5's assumption of Incompetence. For example - Two-Weapon Fighting, Finesse, Archery, and Mobile Combat all work straight out of the box, instead of requiring several levels and half a dozen feats to get up and running.


This is actually one of my favorite aspects of the system: it encapsulates TONS of the complexities of 3.P while saving 100 pages of rules and options, plus broadens the utility of all character builds, all while simplifying character construction.



Also, most feats are self-contained, with the exception of the goddamn Armor Proficiency and Armor Mastery feats (In the closed beta, they were merged - I guess people who were already proficient with the desired level of armor felt 'cheated' because they didn't benefit from proficiency they already had?), and Sentinel+Polearm Mastery for 3e-style Polearm Lockdown builds.

STOP EDITING THINGS IN I CAN NEVER GO TO BED AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! :wink:

[Sartharina]

I'm working on a catfolk kitbash, want a post in a day or two?Sure! My current catfolk race has CHA-to-AC, Lowlight Vision, and advantage on Dexterity Saves, Athletics Checks, and Acrobatics checks to jump, avoid falling, or not get hurt falling. The Cha-To-AC is probably OP and out of place, but it encourages my favorite catfolk playstyle.

[D-naras]

Sure! My current catfolk race has CHA-to-AC, Lowlight Vision, and advantage on Dexterity Saves, Athletics Checks, and Acrobatics checks to jump, avoid falling, or not get hurt falling. The Cha-To-AC is probably OP and out of place, but it encourages my favorite catfolk playstyle.

While the Advantage on Dex saves isn't???

[lvl 1 human]

As far as "not enough races" i actually love the idea and in my opinion is how second edition did it... ask your dm. And i know a lot of people hate that but from what i can tell if you don't like having to ask your dm for something special you will not like 5e. however in 3.5 we(my group( have always had the impression that you had to ask your ddm for anything outside of phb anyway... just my 2 cents

[Aldurin]

(Coming from a purely 3.5e background)

The PHB is a good sign of what is to come of 5e. The most obvious thing to me is that late-game numbers have been thoroughly whacked down to a smaller scaling, mainly through the implementation of proficiency bonus and having specific (and pretty low) caps on your ability scores, while also deferring from the mess of roll modifiers in favor of the advantage/disadvantage system whenever possible. This will help keep the power curve difference in builds lower than before and limit the room for abuses to occur.

The system also seems to prefer a value system run entirely by positives, where balance is achieved through benefits and not downsides. This shows strongest in how they've addressed prestige classes, where they are now just adapted to the variant packages that each class has without the heavy costs in casting progression or feat taxes. Basically the closest thing to a downside that most choices have is the fact that you aren't getting the benefits of the other choices, which is how it should be.

I would want to say that 3.5e still wins out mostly due to having the full range of sourcebooks available, but that will begin to recede when the homebrew community is done converting everything over and it will disappear completely once WotC churns out their new content.

But if you're the kind of min/maxer who prefers the silence of your setting's plane-wide crater instead of normal adventures with a normal party, you'll want to stick to 3.5e. 5e's base structure is far tighter and will likely have a smaller tier-spread in the long run, preventing Tier-0 Prototypes for happening without the use of poorly-regulated homebrew.

I'll be making the full conversion over to 5e when I'm done with the current 3.5 campaign I'm running, and it's not a bad thing to consider for yourself if the same sort of changes stand out for you.

[Vowtz]

...instead of the short-sighted attempts at iteration that 3.0 was to 2e, 3.5 was to 3.0, and 4e was to 3.5.

You say the transition from ad&d to 3e was short-sighted.

Are you sure about that?



Most opinions I hear are that 5e is a lot more similar to 3.5 than 3.0 is similar to ad&d.

[Sartharina]

While the Advantage on Dex saves isn't???Situational advantage on Dex saves. They're good at Not Falling When They Don't Want To, and good at Not Getting Hurt When Falling. Their advantage on Dex saves only applies to a single spell I've found so far - Earthquake.


You say the transition from ad&d to 3e was short-sighted.

Are you sure about that?

Most opinions I hear are that 5e is a lot more similar to 3.5 than 3.0 is similar to ad&d.

In that they looked at how AD&D 2e was being played at the time, and codifying/changing the rules to support and rebalance that playstyle better (Which it did - and then people realized how they broke the game when they went outside the 2e-at-the-time playstyle), just as 4e was a rules change to rebalance and support the way 3.5 was played by the end of its life. As opposed to taking a holistic view of the entire D&D line and making a functional reiteration of the entire brand.

[eastmabl]

Situational advantage on Dex saves. They're good at Not Falling When They Don't Want To, and good at Not Getting Hurt When Falling. Their advantage on Dex saves only applies to a single spell I've found so far - Earthquake.

If it's advantage on dexterity saving throws to avoid falling and to reduce falling damage, that should be spelled out better than "advantage on dexterity saves."

***

Back on topic, there have been reports of issues with the binding on the PHB. While Wizards is replacing busted copies, you might want to watch out for this.

System-wise, I really like it. It seems like it takes a little bit from each edition of D&D and melds it together into a fairly well working system.

[Sartharina]

If it's advantage on dexterity saving throws to avoid falling and to reduce falling damage, that should be spelled out better than "advantage on dexterity saves."It was expressed informally to the player, and is also intended to apply to athletics and acrobatics checks to reduce falling damage.

[Hyena]

Sure! My current catfolk race has CHA-to-AC, Lowlight Vision, and advantage on Dexterity Saves, Athletics Checks, and Acrobatics checks to jump, avoid falling, or not get hurt falling. The Cha-To-AC is probably OP and out of place, but it encourages my favorite catfolk playstyle.
Read as "keep catfolk out of clothes".

[cobaltstarfire]

Back on topic, there have been reports of issues with the binding on the PHB. While Wizards is replacing busted copies, you might want to watch out for this.

System-wise, I really like it. It seems like it takes a little bit from each edition of D&D and melds it together into a fairly well working system.

Lookout for easily smudged and faded text too...

I decided to ask wotc if I can get a replacement, because good archival ink really shouldn't be something I can smudge just by touching the page. I hope it was just bad ink in the run somewhere, otherwise that means they just picked a cheap ink that's going to fade out and such with age across the entire run.

Edit: Also after looking about some more, even a bit of moisture could potentually make the ink start smudging...I don't know if that's in any book or just some. But if you live somewhere humid or get some wet on your book I guess remember to dab not wipe.