4e fan trying out 5e. What should I look forward to? [Archive]

Vortling

2014-12-07, 12:40 PM

My D&D group is close to finishing up an epic level 4e campaign that we've been playing for the past few years and our DM has suggested to us that we give 5e a try. As players we've agreed to give it a run and we've started making characters for the new game. It sounds like our DM is going to run us through the starter set campaign and then we'll give an evaluation of how we like it. As a little background 4e is my favorite edition of all the editions of D&D I've played (AD&D, 3.5, 4e). However I have some concerns. First off, I recall the 3.5 to 4e switch over and the initial modules that WotC released weren't very good. Have WotC's starter modules improved this time around? Also I've heard the idea floating around forums that 5e is supposed to pull in the best of all the prior editions. Which best things have been pulled in from 4e? Did any of the great things from 4e get left out?

Spoilered a list of the things I found great about 4e

Balance: No accidental overshadowing and pretty much no intentional overshadowing either. From the DM side I like that I can set up an encounter in 10 minutes or less that can challenge the players in a variety of ways.

Clarity and Transparency: 4e was upfront about what it was trying to do and how it was trying to do it.

Roles: Dovetailing off the previous two, I like that 4e classes all clearly state what they about with the role system. No guessing what you're supposed to do with a class. I like that within a role each class is balanced to be able to do the job of its role, but each of them does it in a way that distinguishes them from the other classes in the role.

Character Customization: Following from the previous one, I enjoyed the sheer amount of character options available in 4e to all classes. I felt the at-will, encounter, daily power options worked well to give each class a host of choices to make the character play the way you wanted.

Tactical Combat: I enjoy the deep, crunchy, choice laden tactical combat of 4e. No matter what situation we were in I feel like I always felt like I had interesting choices to make with the powers my character had. I like that as a DM I can pretty much hand my players the monster stat block and the tactical combat system isn't any less enjoyable for it.

Tactical Response Time/Durability: 4e characters know when they're getting into trouble and have time to respond before they're removed from play. In the years I've played 4e, I've only seen a character dropped from full health to dying in one round once. It took the entire encounter both focus firing the character, and rolling well.

Heroics: The culmination of all the previous items, 4e characters have the competence and capabilities to be highly heroic even at the earliest of levels.

TL:DR My D&D group going to be testing out 5e. As a 4e fan, I'm looking for reasons to be excited about the change.

bloodshed343

2014-12-07, 12:53 PM

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-07, 01:05 PM

Balance: No accidental overshadowing and pretty much no intentional overshadowing either. From the DM side I like that I can set up an encounter in 10 minutes or less that can challenge the players in a variety of ways.

Clarity and Transparency: 4e was upfront about what it was trying to do and how it was trying to do it.

Roles: Dovetailing off the previous two, I like that 4e classes all clearly state what they about with the role system. No guessing what you're supposed to do with a class. I like that within a role each class is balanced to be able to do the job of its role, but each of them does it in a way that distinguishes them from the other classes in the role.

Character Customization: Following from the previous one, I enjoyed the sheer amount of character options available in 4e to all classes. I felt the at-will, encounter, daily power options worked well to give each class a host of choices to make the character play the way you wanted.

Tactical Combat: I enjoy the deep, crunchy, choice laden tactical combat of 4e. No matter what situation we were in I feel like I always felt like I had interesting choices to make with the powers my character had. I like that as a DM I can pretty much hand my players the monster stat block and the tactical combat system isn't any less enjoyable for it.

Tactical Response Time/Durability: 4e characters know when they're getting into trouble and have time to respond before they're removed from play. In the years I've played 4e, I've only seen a character dropped from full health to dying in one round once. It took the entire encounter both focus firing the character, and rolling well.

Heroics: The culmination of all the previous items, 4e characters have the competence and capabilities to be highly heroic even at the earliest of levels.

TL:DR My D&D group going to be testing out 5e. As a 4e fan, I'm looking for reasons to be excited about the change.

I absolutely suggest trying 5e, it is miles better than 3.5 even if it is a bastard son of that edition.

With that said...

1: Although not as bad as 3.5 yet, 5e is balanced around the idea that casters get versitility and striker abilities while noncasters get to have striker abilities and no versitility. So there really isn't any real balance. All classes can work versus the game but the non casters are sorely lacking unless they take caster options.

Just taking magic initiate at level 1 can insanely increase your non-caster versatility. Thorn whip alone can bring back a lot of the feel of the Warden from 4e.

2: The only real clarity is that "Ask the DM" is a core rule, but it really isn't that clear on that.

3: All (every single class) characters are strikers. Casters can have other roles like leader and controllers. Taking feats can give you defender qualities but feats are optional in 5e. Feats are awesome in 5e though. You will normally have to wait till level 4 to gain a feat.

4: Non casters are back to "I move and hit" unless they take caster choices or gain one of two defender feats... Sentinel and Polearm Master. Casters get all the real battle options. People will say Battle master fighter but compare that to a 4e fighter and it will depress you on what the battle master could have been.

5: DMG might be able to help you with this but the core 5e rules... Basically everyone has per short or long rests abilities. They aren't balanced all that well either. Short rests are 1 hour so most groups I've seen so far won't take a short rest because they feel it is too long and they don't have time. So what has ended up happening is everyone gaining /day abilities.

5 is has the best CORE mechanics I would say. Bounded accuracy and all that. I would absolutely love to transfer 4e into this system (just fix the numbers) so that all players can have interesting and awesome abilities (at least inside combat) that ran differently.

The biggest thing is that bounded accuracy means you don't have to power up your scores to win. You can play a monk with a 14 Dex and do just fine for levels 1-10. In earlier wotc editions this would make you suuuuuuuck if 14 was your primary attack stat.

NeoSeraphi

2014-12-07, 01:05 PM

Races get only bonuses to scores like in 4e, and dragonborn and tieflings are both race options.

silveralen

2014-12-07, 01:05 PM

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 01:12 PM

I recall the 3.5 to 4e switch over and the initial modules that WotC released weren't very good. Have WotC's starter modules improved this time around? Also I've heard the idea floating around forums that 5e is supposed to pull in the best of all the prior editions. Which best things have been pulled in from 4e? Did any of the great things from 4e get left out?

Spoilered a list of the things I found great about 4e

Balance: No accidental overshadowing and pretty much no intentional overshadowing either. From the DM side I like that I can set up an encounter in 10 minutes or less that can challenge the players in a variety of ways.

Clarity and Transparency: 4e was upfront about what it was trying to do and how it was trying to do it.

Roles: Dovetailing off the previous two, I like that 4e classes all clearly state what they about with the role system. No guessing what you're supposed to do with a class. I like that within a role each class is balanced to be able to do the job of its role, but each of them does it in a way that distinguishes them from the other classes in the role.

Character Customization: Following from the previous one, I enjoyed the sheer amount of character options available in 4e to all classes. I felt the at-will, encounter, daily power options worked well to give each class a host of choices to make the character play the way you wanted.

Tactical Combat: I enjoy the deep, crunchy, choice laden tactical combat of 4e. No matter what situation we were in I feel like I always felt like I had interesting choices to make with the powers my character had. I like that as a DM I can pretty much hand my players the monster stat block and the tactical combat system isn't any less enjoyable for it.

Tactical Response Time/Durability: 4e characters know when they're getting into trouble and have time to respond before they're removed from play. In the years I've played 4e, I've only seen a character dropped from full health to dying in one round once. It took the entire encounter both focus firing the character, and rolling well.

Heroics: The culmination of all the previous items, 4e characters have the competence and capabilities to be highly heroic even at the earliest of levels.

TL:DR My D&D group going to be testing out 5e. As a 4e fan, I'm looking for reasons to be excited about the change.

I haven't played the starter set adventure, so I can't speak for its quality. I can't recall hearing any complaints about it, but be warned that it can be a bit deadly.

The thing that 5e took from 4e is its tight game balance; you don't have to worry about caster supremacy like in 3e. They worked hard to make sure that each class has viable options at all times like in 4e. For the first few levels, though, things are a lot simpler; most of what you do in combat will likely be attacking. PCs are also less powerful in 5th than in 4th so if you need to play more cautiously, especially at low levels.

Individual classes still have unique roles (tank, DPS, skill monkey, blaster, healer, diplomancer), but those roles aren't labeled like they are in 4e. It is fairly easy to tell, though, what a class is built to do just by looking at it. And as before, classes with similar roles are still distinct (a barbarian plays differently from a fighter, for example).

I don't think 5e has quite the range of available powers that 4e did, but I feel like it is enough to make individual characters stand out. Barbarians get the fewest options in this regard.

Combat isn't quite as deep as in 4th, but I feel it is deep enough. You may be surprised at first by how fast it is, especially at low levels. Fights don't usually last more than 3 rounds or so, about half of what it was in 4th from what I understand. Quick, easy, and deadly are the three best words to describe combat in 5th. Your group will probably appreciate the expanded combat options provided in the DM's Guide, which will be released just two days from now.

The first 4 levels in 5th have been dubbed the "Apprentice Tier." Characters are just starting their adventures and learning the ropes. They're not capital H Heroes just yet; that has to be earned. If your group is transitioning from 4e's Epic Tier, I feel like it might be a bit jarring at first. Just know what you're getting into.

With all that said, welcome to 5th, and I hope you enjoy your stay. :smallsmile:

Vortling

2014-12-07, 01:23 PM

Okay, going off your list

Balance: 5e is about as well balanced as 4e until you hit the absolute highest levels. 9th level spells skew things a bit. Even then, it isn't as bad as 3.5 was.

Clarity: 5e is very clear about providing a simple streamlined game not bogged down by rules.

Roles: Not as clear in this edition, mainly because each class can be set up for different things. For example, a paladin is a mix of striker, defender, and leader, with feat, spell and ability allocation determining which you lean towards. Defender is a little lacking in the base game due to how AoO are handled, but the DMG has rules on marking that fix this pretty well.

Character Customization: Compared to core 4e I feel there are fewer options, but the options are more meaningful. The sheer number of feats is reduced, but each feat offers 2-3 big changes for the character rather than just a situational +1 or +2. You don't have tons and tons of powers for every class, but what variations you do have are distinct and useful.

Each class comes with a minimum 2-3 variations (wizard and cleric have a few extra) that change how the class functions substantially. Most classes have other choices beyond that (expertise, fighting style, spells), while feats and backgrounds round out the process. I've yet to find myself unable to realize a concept so far.

Tactical combat: The DMG helps here immensely. It adds things like marking, flanking, and facing to add depth, as well as more in combat options (climbing on dragons as an official maneuver for once!). Now, the system is simple enough you could add this stuff in pretty easily, but if you dislike homebrew it's there in the DMG.

Tactical response: Combat in 5e is fast and deadly. If you let yourself get surrounded or stand in the open with a handful of archers ready to fire, you can be knocked out in a single turn. In this regard it is more "tactical" than 4e, as it's easy to get overwhelmed if you aren't paying attention or actually using good team tactics.

Heroics: That depends. First level characters... feel like first level characters. Goblins are a real threat to your characters. You aren't invulnerable or invincible at any level.

So, judging by what you've said, you may not like 5e as much as 4e, though I'd suggest coming in with an open mind and looking for the things it does well. It's a very different game from 4e.

Thank you for the run down. I am attempting to keep an open mind about the changes. So it looks like 5e is making an effort on the balance front. I'll be playing a dwarf wizard in our new campaign so based off what you and prior responses said it sounds like I'll have some good options there. That said I've found in RPGs that "fast and deadly" is the opposite of what I would consider "tactical". I guess that's what they pulled in from AD&D? I remember our AD&D fights being similar and I didn't find them terribly interesting as what you rolled on your d20 often mattered more than any decisions you made in play.

Am I reading your post right in saying that several of the more tactical combat options are now optional rules in the DMG? Mostly asking because I won't be DMing for the group that is testing out 5e so I'm wondering if I'll have to ask permission to have them included vs being able to use them righ tout the gate.

As far as options go have WotC announced what their doing with further class options books? I see that classes aren't grouped by power source anymore so I assume they won't be bringing out books like martial, divine, arcane, etc power books but there was the Complete X books from 3.5 so they could do something similar there. Any word on that?

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 01:24 PM

Casters dominate this edition. Martial characters are pretty much just damage. There's no mark mechanic.

I have to disagree on these points. I've been running a game for months now, and the casters are definitely not dominating. Everyone gets a good damage output and skills for out-of-combat utility, and casters have to eat through their spell slots very quickly. Also, the DMG includes a marking mechanic.

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 01:29 PM

Am I reading your post right in saying that several of the more tactical combat options are now optional rules in the DMG? Mostly asking because I won't be DMing for the group that is testing out 5e so I'm wondering if I'll have to ask permission to have them included vs being able to use them right out the gate.

As far as options go have WotC announced what their doing with further class options books? I see that classes aren't grouped by power source anymore so I assume they won't be bringing out books like martial, divine, arcane, etc power books but there was the Complete X books from 3.5 so they could do something similar there. Any word on that?

Yes, the expanded tactics are optional, but considering that your group is just coming out of a good experience in 4th, I can't see your DM possibly saying "no" to using them.

According to Mike Mearls, they don't plan on releasing a whole bunch of splatbooks with expanded mechanical options. Rather, they want to focus on adventure modules and campaign settings. We'll probably get psionics before long, but I don't expect much else.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-07, 01:43 PM

I have to disagree on these points. I've been running a game for months now, and the casters are definitely not dominating. Everyone gets a good damage output and skills for out-of-combat utility, and casters have to eat through their spell slots very quickly. Also, the DMG includes a marking mechanic.

That's the problem, everyone is striker but casters get versatility inside and outside the battles.

It is not balanced.

Veruses the monsters anyone can come and be a striker but the casters get so many options outside of being a striker, and in the PHB, that it simply isn't fair.

On a hit a druid can move a creature 10' with a cantrip, why didn't they let noncasters hit with a damaging attack and be able to move a target. Could have made for great combat tactics but they consciously decided to not allow noncasters to have even the basic of interesting options.

Sure you can shove but that is a contest, and you deal no damage. So right there you are already falling behind one cantrip.

I hate to say this but they really did dumb down noncasters from 4e to 5e, like their model is "if you play a non-caster you must not be smart enough for options. If the DM deems you worthy or smart enough then you can use the options in the DMG".

It is quite sad really.

Giant2005

2014-12-07, 01:49 PM

That's the problem, everyone is striker but casters get versatility inside OR outside the battles.
Fixed that for you.

Casters can't do everything - they can either blow their spell slots in battle or out of battle but their spell slots are spread far too thin to try both. The truth is, they don't really get enough spell slots until mid levels (10+) to really be considered competent in or out of battle so I guess your statement would take a lot more than a one-word amendment to really be fixed.

Sartharina

2014-12-07, 01:55 PM

In play, the roles in 4e are not "Striker, Leader, Defender, Controller" - they're combinations of "Soldier, Brute, Skirmisher, Lurker, Artillery, Controller".

Shadow

2014-12-07, 01:58 PM

Don't worry Vortling. It's nowhere near as bad as SpawnOfMorbo is trying to make it sound.
Casters do indeed have more options making them more versatile, but not to the degree that he's making it out to be, and they certainly don't dominate by any means.
But, as has been stated, if your group is more tactically focused, then you'll definitely want to use many of the optional/variant rules in the DMG, because out of the gate 5e isn't very tactical at all without that stuff.

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 01:59 PM

That's the problem, everyone is striker but casters get versatility inside and outside the battles.
It is not balanced.
Versus the monsters anyone can come and be a striker but the casters get so many options outside of being a striker, and in the PHB, that it simply isn't fair.
On a hit a druid can move a creature 10' with a cantrip, why didn't they let non-casters hit with a damaging attack and be able to move a target. Could have made for great combat tactics but they consciously decided to not allow noncasters to have even the basic of interesting options.
Sure you can shove but that is a contest, and you deal no damage. So right there you are already falling behind one cantrip.
I hate to say this but they really did dumb down non-casters from 4e to 5e, like their model is "if you play a non-caster you must not be smart enough for options. If the DM deems you worthy or smart enough then you can use the options in the DMG".
It is quite sad really.

Everyone is not a striker. Paladins, Rangers, and Rogues are strikers. Barbarians, Druids, and Fighters are defenders. Bards and Clerics are leaders. Monks, Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards are controllers.

Casters are versatile, yes, but so are non-casters. The difference is that casters have to expend resources (spell slots) to use their abilities, while non-casters get to do their stuff all day long. Everyone gets the same number of skills (except for Bards and Rogues), and a spell that is cast outside of combat is a spell slot that can't then be cast in combat. Casters have to choose between damage and versatility; non-casters don't.

Fighters and Monks both get to shove enemies on a hit.

It's not a question of intelligence. Some players don't WANT to get bogged down with too many choices. Traditionally, those players have been served by the mundane classes. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-07, 02:00 PM

Fixed that for you.

Casters can't do everything - they can either blow their spell slots in battle or out of battle but their spell slots are spread far too thin to try both. The truth is, they don't really get enough spell slots until mid levels (10+) to really be considered competent in or out of battle so I guess your statement would take a lot more than a one-word amendment to really be fixed.

You can easily prepare spells for inside or outside of battle and then use all your slots as you see fit.

This isn't 3.5 where the spells you prepare are the spells you have to use in said slots. You get to prepare Level + Casting Modifier spells and you get X slots to use any of them.

So yeah you didn't fix crap. You could easily prepare battle and non battle spells as use as you see fit. If you run into different obstacles than you planed for you can blast or infiltrate or whatever you want really.

Plus some casters (wizard druid) can get spells back on a short rest so even if you had to blast before you and then you need to infiltrate... Well yeah. Plus you get every skill that noncasters get so if you don't wanna use spells to sneak it is easier than ever.

silveralen

2014-12-07, 02:03 PM

Thank you for the run down. I am attempting to keep an open mind about the changes. So it looks like 5e is making an effort on the balance front. I'll be playing a dwarf wizard in our new campaign so based off what you and prior responses said it sounds like I'll have some good options there. That said I've found in RPGs that "fast and deadly" is the opposite of what I would consider "tactical". I guess that's what they pulled in from AD&D? I remember our AD&D fights being similar and I didn't find them terribly interesting as what you rolled on your d20 often mattered more than any decisions you made in play.

Am I reading your post right in saying that several of the more tactical combat options are now optional rules in the DMG? Mostly asking because I won't be DMing for the group that is testing out 5e so I'm wondering if I'll have to ask permission to have them included vs being able to use them righ tout the gate.

As far as options go have WotC announced what their doing with further class options books? I see that classes aren't grouped by power source anymore so I assume they won't be bringing out books like martial, divine, arcane, etc power books but there was the Complete X books from 3.5 so they could do something similar there. Any word on that?

As far as fast and deadly goes, the best way to keep alive is to play smart. It's the first edition of DnD where my group has actually paid attention to cover. But I do think they could have done more here, tactically. Wizards also have the most options overall, so yeah plenty to keep you going.

Yes, you should talk to your DM about this for sure. Flanking is optional now, facing always was, and marking is optional as well. Marking being optional is one of my bigger gripes actually. Coming from 4e I imagine your DM won't mind it though.

Options are going to be released alongside adventures, not as stand alone products. The flagship of this release method is the temple of elemental evil module coming out sometime in the spring. It will consist of the DM portion, with an adventure path, new enemies, magic items, etc and a player's handbook which will have thematically appropriate options for the classes.

That's all that has been announced at least. Whether we see traditional addons as well, such as a PHB 2, class/power hand books, or even full setting guides is uncertain. The former two have been listed as unlikely or not planned, while the latter hasn't been heavily discussed and may follow the DM+adventure/player divide as other modules.

So yeah you didn't fix crap. You could easily prepare battle and non battle spells as use as you see fit. If you run into different obstacles than you planed for you can blast or infiltrate or whatever you want really.

Plus some casters (wizard druid) can get spells back on a short rest so even if you had to blast before you and then you need to infiltrate... Well yeah. Plus you get every skill that noncasters get so if you don't wanna use spells to sneak it is easier than ever.

Not to derail, but remember a big part of it is that those spells are in short supply. Wizards don't get constant spell flingage till 18+, Druids of a single variety gain half their level in slots, which means 1-2 spells.

I mean, casters aren't bringing the pain in combat consistently and doing out of combat stuff. They will either lag in combat if they rely on cantrips, or draw even in combat and out of combat.

It isn't perfect, but to be fair of the three non casting classes, 2 can grab spell casting, one is the absolute master of skills and the other two can dominate certain ability/skill checks.

So yeah, this is one of those issues that is being overblown due to worries from previous (3.x) editions.

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 02:20 PM

My advice to basically everyone is to PLAY the game and suspend all judgments until afterward. Like I said, I've been running a game for months now and the whole group is having a ball. The Rogue easily has the best sustained damage output and is the designated skill monkey. The Sorcerer loves his blasting spells, but he has to be judicious with his use of spell slots. The Cleric probably has the most options available to him, but his combat abilities are somewhat lacking. The Rogue plays like Aveline de Grande Pierre (Assassins Creed Liberation); she makes killin' stuff look easy, single-handedly taking out a dozen sentries lined up on castle battlements without breaking a sweat.

Celcey

2014-12-07, 02:31 PM

You can easily prepare spells for inside or outside of battle and then use all your slots as you see fit.

This isn't 3.5 where the spells you prepare are the spells you have to use in said slots. You get to prepare Level + Casting Modifier spells and you get X slots to use any of them.

So yeah you didn't fix crap. You could easily prepare battle and non battle spells as use as you see fit. If you run into different obstacles than you planed for you can blast or infiltrate or whatever you want really.

True, but you only have so many spells you can prepare per day.

Plus some casters (wizard druid) can get spells back on a short rest so even if you had to blast before you and then you need to infiltrate... Well yeah. Plus you get every skill that noncasters get so if you don't wanna use spells to sneak it is easier than ever.

Wizards and Druids can only get some spells back once per day if their group takes a short rest, and the highest slot they can get back is 5. Also, that's only a Circle of the Land Druid. And all classes have the option to take any skill, if they want a background that has it.

One thing that I personally like about 5e is that you're not shoehorned into being only one thing. For example, a with the Urchin background, your wizard could be a stealthy thief.

Edit: One thing though, and I don't know if this is a thing in 4e or not, but in 5e, even the lowliest creature can be dangerous at high level. You're not going to be slashing through hordes of goblins left right and center with no trouble at all, no matter what level you are.

Vortling

2014-12-07, 02:48 PM

Well I certainly didn't set out to start this sort of discussion. I know that there were a lot of people who had to try 4e before they decided they liked (myself included) it so I'm attempting to give 5e that same chance. We'll have to see how the balance shakes out for us. I will bring up the tactical stuff to our DM before we get rolling.

Hopefully the simple and deadly won't turn into frustrating. Though on that note I have another question. The character sheet and the phb have you choosing backgrounds, bonds, flaws, etc at first level. Which seems like an odd choice if the system is deadly. Wouldn't it make more sense to hold off on choosing those until you reach a more survivable level? I know when we went back and played AD&D I went in with roleplaying things like background and personality for my initial character, but after losing 2 or 3 I stopped trying as there was no time to connect before they died off.

Shadow

2014-12-07, 02:59 PM

With the currently printed adventures, for the first few levels, simple and deadly may very well turn into frustrating. The first two levels are apprentice levels. They basically exist to teach new players the game. If the players are familiar with 3.x, there isn't much reason they exist. If no one is new and learning, characters are well served by starting at level 3 (where they go from apprentice to adventurer, and usually pick a subclass). WotC endorses this philosophy, and they are the ones that named the first few levels as apprentice levels.
This isn't a houserule, it a sanctioned and even recommended way to start.
A few of the encounters will need to be beefed up slightly. I say slightly because there are encounters that will still pose a serious threat to PCs at level 3.
Basically, if you start at level 3 instead of level 1, there will only be moments rather than chapters that are deadly.
If done this way, the DM should not hand out XP per encounter and instead choose to use milestones (the first one coming when they would normally reach level 4 unless he wants to do so earlier, which means a long time at level 3).

The difference between building backgrounds at 1st level in 5e and previous editions is that you can build BGs (and subsequently entire personalities) very quickly, so connecting with them is easy, as the book gives ways to do so if you aren't feeling inspired, whereas before you had to do it all yourself.

Speaker

2014-12-07, 03:08 PM

Look forward to nothing. Everything you probably loved about 4e is non existent in 5e.

Z3ro

2014-12-07, 03:09 PM

On a hit a druid can move a creature 10' with a cantrip, why didn't they let noncasters hit with a damaging attack and be able to move a target. Could have made for great combat tactics but they consciously decided to not allow noncasters to have even the basic of interesting options.

Sure you can shove but that is a contest, and you deal no damage. So right there you are already falling behind one cantrip.

You can state this, but it's simply factually inaccurate. Almost every martial class in the game has some sort of "move the enemy" option. Barbarians get wolf totem, fighters get pushing and tripping attack, monks get open-hand technique (my favorite), paladins get thunderous smite. The only class that doesn't is rangers, who get ensnaring strike (a don't move option) instead. Most of these abilities can be accessed at very low levels. All do damage in addition to moving the target.

silveralen

2014-12-07, 03:12 PM

Look forward to nothing. Everything you probably loved about 4e is non existent in 5e.

Not true. It's very different to be sure, but many parts of 4e carried into 5e.

cobaltstarfire

2014-12-07, 03:33 PM

Hopefully the simple and deadly won't turn into frustrating.

It really shouldn't be especially if you guys were already playing with strong tactics to begin with. I'm not saying combat is a walk in the park, but so far in my experience while it may be fast and fairly simple, it's definitely still dangerous. But I actually haven't witnessed any deaths yet, just KO's, and one near death via massive damage.

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 03:38 PM

Hopefully the simple and deadly won't turn into frustrating. Though on that note I have another question. The character sheet and the phb have you choosing backgrounds, bonds, flaws, etc at first level. Which seems like an odd choice if the system is deadly. Wouldn't it make more sense to hold off on choosing those until you reach a more survivable level? I know when we went back and played AD&D I went in with roleplaying things like background and personality for my initial character, but after losing 2 or 3 I stopped trying as there was no time to connect before they died off.

I think everyone is going to have a different experience, but in the campaign I'm running a PC has been reduced to 0HP only twice. Neither time did it result in character death. Calling the combat "deadly" means that there is always a decent chance that a character is going to kick it, but doesn't mean it's a forgone conclusion.

Starsinger

2014-12-07, 03:59 PM

TL:DR My D&D group going to be testing out 5e. As a 4e fan, I'm looking for reasons to be excited about the change.

You know what a big 4e fan I am, Vort. And I'm rather enjoying 5e as a DM (I don't have much experience as a player, sadly). Also we miss you on the irc. :smallbiggrin:

Justin Sane

2014-12-07, 05:29 PM

This isn't a houserule, it a sanctioned and even recommended way to start.[Citation Needed]
Honestly curious.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-07, 05:32 PM

You can state this, but it's simply factually inaccurate. Almost every martial class in the game has some sort of "move the enemy" option. Barbarians get wolf totem, fighters get pushing and tripping attack, monks get open-hand technique (my favorite), paladins get thunderous smite. The only class that doesn't is rangers, who get ensnaring strike (a don't move option) instead. Most of these abilities can be accessed at very low levels. All do damage in addition to moving the target.

1: Not as part of the base class, you have to become caster ish (totem) to get stuff or take a horrible subclass that doesn't stack up (battle master). Monks are partial casters s a base class. Rangers and paladins are partial casters who rely on spells to do awesome things.

2: Skill contests like shove can be used by casters too.

So no, you are the inaccurate one.

Also here is what the wizard looks like if you use the non-caster's creation thoughts on them.

Because cantrips are more useful than weapons (when it comes to effects) this wizard is still more interesting than the fighter even under very similar limitations.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?386978-Double-Standard-Wizard

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 05:43 PM

1: Not as part of the base class, you have to become caster ish (totem) to get stuff or take a horrible subclass that doesn't stack up (battle master). Monks are partial casters s a base class. Rangers and paladins are partial casters who rely on spells to do awesome things.

2: Skill contests like shove can be used by casters too.

So no, you are the inaccurate one.

The Totemist Barbarian isn't even remotely "caster-ish." It gets, what, two spells that can only be cast as rituals.
Before you call the Battlemaster "a horrible subclass that doesn't stack up," try actually playing one. Come back once you've done that.
Monks are not "partial casters." One subclass gets something resembling a spellcasting progression, one gets a couple spells and supernatural abilities, and the last is all martial.
For the Ranger and Paladin, spellcasting is only half of what they do, if even that.
How many Wizards have you seen with a Strength score of 16+ and proficiency in Athletics?

But I've had enough of this tangent. What was this thread about again?

Safety Sword

2014-12-07, 05:50 PM

Dear Vortling,
As you can see, everyone has their own opinions on D&D 5E.

What you can look forward to is having adventures and learning a new game with your friends. Keep your already open mind and you'll enjoy it.

Forget the rest of the rubbish that is going on in this thread. People have their own gripes and things they champion, but overall it has little bearing on the game. Good people are what make D&D great.

Sincerely,
Safety Sword.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-07, 05:54 PM

The Totemist Barbarian isn't even remotely "caster-ish." It gets, what, two spells that can only be cast as rituals.
Before you call the Battlemaster "a horrible subclass that doesn't stack up," try actually playing one. Come back once you've done that.
Monks are not "partial casters." One subclass gets something resembling a spellcasting progression, one gets a couple spells and supernatural abilities, and the last is all martial.
For the Ranger and Paladin, spellcasting is only half of what they do, if even that.
How many Wizards have you seen with a Strength score of 16+ and proficiency in Athletics?

But I've had enough of this tangent. What was this thread about again?

Played the battle master, it doesn't compare to any caster. The only worthwhile maneuver is menecing strike, go okay ToB or 4e and then play the battle master.

My first wizard had a strength of 16 and Int of 14 and was a soldier. Was a damn good wizard too since I could cherry pick which saves to target with my spells.

Shadow

2014-12-07, 05:55 PM

[Citation Needed]
Honestly curious.

There were many, many articles and Q&As where this was stated multiple times throughout the development and playtest. Unfortunately most of them have been deleted and are missing from the archives on Wizards' site.
The closest thing I could find after a quick search for a citation was this (http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140113).
While the article doesn't spell it out nearly as completely or outright as it had been stated in the past, it will at least get the point across.

"Simpler low-level characters also make it much easier for experienced players to aid newcomers in creating and running their characters. With a few games under your belt, you can memorize almost everything a 1st- or 2nd-level character can do, especially if you steer new players toward the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue. A DM introducing new players to the game can help them make decisions without constantly referencing the rules."

<snip>

"In addition, the game's level progression assumes that 1st and 2nd level each take about one game session. That gives anyone enough time to master the basics of a class before diving into making significant character choices. For new players especially, those first game sessions can provide an understanding of the character and the campaign that creates a strong foundation for choices. For groups that like the experience of playing at 1st and 2nd level, DMs can use an optional experience progression that allows for more play at those levels. On the other hand, for experienced players who want more options for character creation than 1st-level backgrounds, the game includes rules for creating experienced 3rd-level characters right from the start.
"In terms of campaign design, adventures we publish will treat 1st and 2nd level as the DM's chance to introduce the campaign to the characters, laying out potential options before opening up the campaign at 3rd level. Those two levels can be focused on giving players a chance to get their feet wet, allowing them to understand the campaign and develop a sense of their characters' goals."

So while it wasn't specifically stated in this article (as it had been in the past), with a little reading between the lines (in addition to the knowledge of what was stated in previous articles and Q&As) you can see that they designed the system to basically start at third level unless the DM wanted to either teach newbies a bit or get players into their characters heads/style "before opening up the campaign at 3rd level."

Justin Sane

2014-12-07, 06:01 PM

snipI wasn't following the playtest, so I missed that article. Thanks.

Daishain

2014-12-07, 06:02 PM

[i]"Simpler low-level characters also make it much easier for experienced players to aid newcomers in creating and running their characters. With a few games under your belt, you can memorize almost everything a 1st- or 2nd-level character can do, especially if you steer new players toward the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue. A DM introducing new players to the game can help them make decisions without constantly referencing the rules."

Interesting, I would have put the Cleric and Wizard near the top of my list of classes to steer newbies away from. Nothing wrong with those classes of course, but they do have lots of little fiddly things to get used to paired with a critical character development decision made prior to even playing.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-07, 06:08 PM

Interesting, I would have put the Cleric and Wizard near the top of my list of classes to steer newbies away from. Nothing wrong with those classes of course, but they do have lots of little fiddly things to get used to paired with a critical character development decision made prior to even playing.

Maybe for young kids or people totally new to any sort of games...

But for the most part someone new to D&D who has played other games (including video games) can come in and understand wizards and clerics pretty easy.

They may not be optimized but they can learn the mechanics.

I really hate that they assume every new player will not grasp casters and that they made some classes specifically child-proof (so to say).

Hell I've seen 10 year olds come into games where they picked up the wizard and ran with it saying the mechanics were easier than beating their video games and such.

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 06:39 PM

Maybe for young kids or people totally new to any sort of games...
But for the most part someone new to D&D who has played other games (including video games) can come in and understand wizards and clerics pretty easy.
They may not be optimized but they can learn the mechanics.
I really hate that they assume every new player will not grasp casters and that they made some classes specifically child-proof (so to say).
Hell I've seen 10 year olds come into games where they picked up the wizard and ran with it saying the mechanics were easier than beating their video games and such.

Here's the difference between casters and non-casters: resource management. Casters have a resource (spell slots) that they need to manage effectively in order to be good at their jobs. Non-casters don't. Yes, the spellcasting mechanics are easy enough to understand, but that doesn't mean a novice will be able to look at the spell list and immediately know which spells they should take, or how often they should cast. Misreading a couple of spells or mis-managing your spell slots can ruin a caster's day. More to the point, not everybody WANTS to fiddle with a resource management mechanic when they sit down to play this game. D&D should not punish those people.

pwykersotz

2014-12-07, 07:18 PM

Maybe for young kids or people totally new to any sort of games...

But for the most part someone new to D&D who has played other games (including video games) can come in and understand wizards and clerics pretty easy.

They may not be optimized but they can learn the mechanics.

I really hate that they assume every new player will not grasp casters and that they made some classes specifically child-proof (so to say).

Hell I've seen 10 year olds come into games where they picked up the wizard and ran with it saying the mechanics were easier than beating their video games and such.

Can learn, not necessarily want to learn. One of my very good friends is incredibly smart but he hated playing a Wizard in Lost Mines. There were too many things for him to track. Essentially, he wanted to come in and game without having to spend extensive time during the week memorizing data about his character. He wanted to show up, roll dice, contribute, and roleplay. His Barbarian suits him much better now.

I really hate that it gets assumed that everyone will want to play a more complex option under the guise of being "interesting".

Sir_Leorik

2014-12-07, 07:23 PM

Here's the difference between casters and non-casters: resource management. Casters have a resource (spell slots) that they need to manage effectively in order to be good at their jobs. Non-casters don't. Yes, the spellcasting mechanics are easy enough to understand, but that doesn't mean a novice will be able to look at the spell list and immediately know which spells they should take, or how often they should cast. Misreading a couple of spells or mis-managing your spell slots can ruin a caster's day. More to the point, not everybody WANTS to fiddle with a resource management mechanic when they sit down to play this game. D&D should not punish those people.

I think the goal of the Basic Rules has been to limit the amount of resource management necessary for each of the classes. The Fighter build is the Champion, the plain-vanilla, hit something till it drops build. The Rogue build is the Thief (though they might have gone with the Assassin for the same reason) which also has few issues with resource management. The Cleric and Wizard have only one variant in the Basic rules (Life Domain and Evocation School) and the number of spells in the Basic rules were limited (at least the last time I downloaded them) for just this reason.

For players who want to optimize a powerful Wizard, 5E provides the means to do that. For players who want to make a Dwarf Fighter who swings a battleaxe and drinks beer, 5E provides the means to do that as well. For players in the middle, who want to optimize to a degree but aren't so concerned about optimization, 5E provides a means to do that.

Madfellow

2014-12-07, 07:31 PM

I think the goal of the Basic Rules has been to limit the amount of resource management necessary for each of the classes. The Fighter build is the Champion, the plain-vanilla, hit something till it drops build. The Rogue build is the Thief (though they might have gone with the Assassin for the same reason) which also has few issues with resource management. The Cleric and Wizard have only one variant in the Basic rules (Life Domain and Evocation School) and the number of spells in the Basic rules were limited (at least the last time I downloaded them) for just this reason.

For players who want to optimize a powerful Wizard, 5E provides the means to do that. For players who want to make a Dwarf Fighter who swings a battleaxe and drinks beer, 5E provides the means to do that as well. For players in the middle, who want to optimize to a degree but aren't so concerned about optimization, 5E provides a means to do that.

Yes, exactly.

MaxWilson

2014-12-07, 08:09 PM

For players who want to optimize a powerful Wizard, 5E provides the means to do that. For players who want to make a Dwarf Fighter who swings a battleaxe and drinks beer, 5E provides the means to do that as well. For players in the middle, who want to optimize to a degree but aren't so concerned about optimization, 5E provides a means to do that.

I think I might prefer to describe the middle category as "people who want to have cool toys to play with." These people do get excited over Shield Master's ability to shield you from Fireball, because that's cool, but they don't compute the expected probability of making the DX save in the first place and then weigh the relative merits of Shield Master's effective bonus HP given certain assumptions about the prevalence of Fireball-type area effects against the equivalent actual HP granted by the Tough feat.

Other people love doing that kind of stuff.

Ashrym

2014-12-08, 01:54 AM

I wasn't following the playtest, so I missed that article. Thanks.

One of the dev's added it to either the qa's or l&l articles iirc. It was a definite thing from the dev's during the playtest with a fair bit of discussion.

Apprentice tier was expanded to the first four levels since then and there is a note on starting at higher levels for experienced players (noted in the PHB and free pdf in the character creation section), but I think third level is a best practical carry-over from the original apprentice levels concept, and discussion following pdf and PHB release on the XP design to get to third level quickly.

It might take time to find related comments.

@ the OP:

5e is not 4e. If you expect a 4e remake you might be disappointed and DMG rules help build a more 4e style.

Things to look forward to are fast combats, bounded accuracy, and strong feat options.

Tactics exist like they have in previous editions but they are not the same as the 4e boardgame style of tactics and more individualized. Examples include spells like dissonant whispers or compulsion, or maneuvers tied into attacks like the battlemaster maneuvers or open hand monk flurry bonuses.

Balance is pretty good and casters most definitely do not dominate play. Spell slots are very limited compared to older editions and 5e kept the mechanics of not allowing spells to increase with caster level. The character progression charts look like a lot of dead levels for casters because of spell progression while non-casters fill in the class progression with more frequent new abilities gained.

Casters are often struggling for relevance because the typical day has more rounds than they have spell slots even at very high levels, and damage is poor compared to weapon damage options. In combat they are often spamming poor damage cantrips. Many spells simply use skills or can be replaced by skills.

Multiclassing is a close to 3e style for a lot of customization options.

There are features reminiscent of 4e but different, so welcome to 5e and I hope you enjoy it.

Celcey

2014-12-08, 07:53 PM

Another reason backgrounds are important is because they come with mechanics. Some of those mechanics may not come into play so early on, but the skills probably will.

Todasmile

2014-12-09, 03:38 AM

Strill

2014-12-09, 05:22 AM

And yet, while there is an option to play a less complex Wizard, there is no option to play a more complex Fighter.
That's what Eldritch Knight is for.

Todasmile

2014-12-09, 05:30 AM

That's what Eldritch Knight is for.

Clearly, if I wanted to be a complex character who used magic, I'd take one of the many spellcasting classes available.

If I choose Fighter, it's because I want to be a martial character. Why is it impossible to be complex and martial?

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-09, 05:39 AM

If you look at the "mundane versatility" thread, it's because people believe any extraordinary ability (a la the [Ex] tag from 3e) is basically just another way to do magic.

There's a lot of stuff I don't like about 4e, but the fact that actual mundanes had interesting options was definitely one of its major selling points.

silveralen

2014-12-09, 09:54 AM

Clearly, if I wanted to be a complex character who used magic, I'd take one of the many spellcasting classes available.

If I choose Fighter, it's because I want to be a martial character. Why is it impossible to be complex and martial?

Because they didn't feel the need to include multiple redundant systems of scaling abilities, so it was rolled into a single thing. Look at ranger for examples of abilities that don't look that magical (conjure volley, hunter mark, swift quiver) yet use spell slots. Just reskin it as martial limited use abilities.

LtDarien

2014-12-09, 10:23 AM

Pretty much the only aspect left of 4e is that casters get at-will magical attacks. And skill ranks are replaced by general proficiency. Casters dominate this edition. Martial characters are pretty much just damage. Roles aren't spelled out that we'll but it's still pretty obvious that dudes in armor with shields are meant to tank. There's no mark mechanic, though, and you only get one OA per round, so there's nothing stopping a group of goblins marching straight past you to your wizard after you use your only reaction on the first one.

There are a lot more aspects from 4e still present in 5e. They're just not as visible.

For instance:

Classes are still generally balanced against on another. No one class will completely dominate a party in all aspects of the game.
Hit Dice work much like Healing surges.
Action Economy is still a thing.
Backgrounds with mechanical benefits
Skills work the same way (you're either trained or not - no ranks)
Attack bonuses progressing equally across all levels
Allowing multiple saves to end an effect
Magic (+1, etc.) implements for Magic users
Recharge powers for Monsters
Action points and second wind are still around, in a limited capacity.
Death Saves

The primary design goal of 4e was to extend the "Sweet Spot" of 3.5 where the math just worked (levels 5-12 or so) over 30 levels. One could argue that 5e did a better job of this than 4e did.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 11:45 AM

There are a lot more aspects from 4e still present in 5e. They're just not as visible.

For instance:

Classes are still generally balanced against on another. No one class will completely dominate a party in all aspects of the game.
Hit Dice work much like Healing surges.
Action Economy is still a thing.
Backgrounds with mechanical benefits
Skills work the same way (you're either trained or not - no ranks)
Attack bonuses progressing equally across all levels
Allowing multiple saves to end an effect
Magic (+1, etc.) implements for Magic users
Recharge powers for Monsters
Action points and second wind are still around, in a limited capacity.
Death Saves

The primary design goal of 4e was to extend the "Sweet Spot" of 3.5 where the math just worked (levels 5-12 or so) over 30 levels. One could argue that 5e did a better job of this than 4e did.

Classes are not balanced with each other, they are balanced with the game. The Warlock and Bard for example are miles ahead of the Fighter and Barbarian when it comes to versatility and survival in their own ways and can pump out enough damage to keep up with the game as the fighter and barbarian does.

Noncasters are narrowly focused on killing stuff, except for the rogue which still pales in comparison to casters in versatility.

Backgrounds with mechanical effects aren't 4e specific, flaws were introduced in 3.5 which gave you a feat and fluff.

Skill system from 4e is a modified Unearthed Arcana 3.5 system and really so is 5e's.

There were spells that allowed multiple saves in 3e, though 4e really expanded on that idea. So yeah they learned a lesson and stuck with it (though with a small problem).

Action Points are from 3e.

Death saves are from 4e but the new death and dying rules (no negative HP and such) are from 5e and not from 3e or 4e that I know of.

5e has a great core concept, one that I would love to implant what I love about 4e on top of. However most of what you claim to be from 4e is actually from 3e.

http://www.d20srd.org/

Look under variant rules. Also some of them may be in 3.5 PHB 2, DMG, or perhaps Arcane Power? I forget which ones but most of 4e is 3e.

The thing that made 4e, 4e is the power system (which I feel they flubbed but got very very close).

Edit: here is the traits from unearthed arcana... They are mini backgrounds :)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#brawler

silveralen

2014-12-09, 11:55 AM

Classes are not balanced with each other, they are balanced with the game. The Warlock and Bard for example are miles ahead of the Fighter and Barbarian when it comes to versatility and survival in their own ways and can pump out enough damage to keep up with the game as the fighter and barbarian does.

Noncasters are narrowly focused on killing stuff, except for the rogue which still pales in comparison to casters in versatility.

A bard struggles to come close to a fighter or barbarian, while a warlock sits comfortably behind both and can catch up with resource expenditure.

Again, no. Non casters are nowhere near as limited as you make them out to be, and your idea of rogue is so painfully flawed it bothers me. A rogue can outperform any caster in his expertise fields all day long.

Stop trying to bias people against an edition before they (and if I had to guess, you) have even tried it.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 12:16 PM

A bard struggles to come close to a fighter or barbarian, while a warlock sits comfortably behind both and can catch up with resource expenditure.

Again, no. Non casters are nowhere near as limited as you make them out to be, and your idea of rogue is so painfully flawed it bothers me. A rogue can outperform any caster in his expertise fields all day long.

Stop trying to bias people against an edition before they (and if I had to guess, you) have even tried it.

And a caster can switch expertise fields and perform on a different level than the rogue can. For years we have seen that versatility is king of D&D. The is no different.

Just because someone can do something at-will doesn't mean their ability is on par with someone who does it X/day.

Sorry to inform you, but I've played 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e a crap ton and love them all for what they are. I also hate parts of each game. But people like you want to pretend everything is fine and classes are balanced and everything works out ok. Which isn't true. At all.

I love playing casters because of the versatility and the pure aweomness that comes along. Maybe if you played the game instead just assuming others don't then you might see what I'm talking about.

When I play noncasters I want to be awesome just like when I play casters. Not in the same ways mind you, just the same level of awesome.

There is no bias in what I say, 5e is not balanced from class to class. It has the same problem as 3.5, martials are good at low levels and then become obsolete later on. The drop off the side of the clidd isn't as bad as it was in 3.5 but it is still there.

The skill system in 5e allows casters to be just as competent in their chosen specific profession as other classes (don't have to roll higher than the rogue, just beat the DC) with the added benefits of have a ton of versatility spells with them.

Madfellow

2014-12-09, 12:47 PM

pwykersotz

2014-12-09, 12:53 PM

Spawn, I don't want to be rude, but why are you here? By that I mean, why are you here on the 5th Edition subforum? Clearly you don't enjoy 5th, and spending time here is only causing you to butt heads with the people on this forum who do enjoy it. I can understand enjoying 4th Edition; it did a few things fairly well and I always wanted to give it a try. You enjoy 4th, so you should play 4th and hang out with people who enjoy 4th. And I can understand your complaint about 5th; they took cool toys away from the non-casters. But people are still playing it and still enjoying it, and you're not in a position to say that their fun is less valid than your fun. Trying to argue otherwise with the people here is accomplishing nothing.

As someone who has been reading the threads since the beginning, I gotta say that what you perceive isn't really the case. SpawnofMorbo just likes things cracked wide open, to keep the context of D&D but in an almost GURPS-like view of all things for all classes. He dislikes what he perceives to be arbitrary restrictions but loves a lot of the things 5e brought to the table. If you want to see this in action, go read some of the threads where he debated Lokiare. :smallsmile:

Spawn, I hope I didn't misrepresent you. Just giving another perspective.

Knaight

2014-12-09, 01:16 PM

Person_Man

2014-12-09, 01:46 PM

My opinions:

Balance: 5E is very balanced at low-levels. But at mid-high levels, full casters get a lot more options. Non-full casters still remain useful. But they still get few things on par with high level spells.

Clarity and Transparency and Roles: 5E isn't particularly good at this. For example, which class should you play if you want to be the best at dealing damage? Which class should you play if you want to be the ultimate tank? There's a LOT of overlap, partly because there are so many different moving parts (Ability Scores, Backgrounds, Classes, Subclasses, Feats, Skills, Magic Items, etc).

Character Customization: 5E has tons of options. But like every previous edition of D&D, it requires a certain level of rules mastery to be meaningful. (Although a lot less so then 2E/3.X/PF). A lot of 5E customization consists of fiddly, duplicative, and/or overlapping options. For example, unless you make poor multiclass choices, most builds are likely to have pretty similar at-will damage output, with only a small number of real class options that make a true difference (Action Surge, Assassinate, Metamagic, Smite+Smite spells).

Tactical Combat/Tactical Response Time/Durabilit: 5E is terrible at this. It is geared towards simplified, quick, theater of the mind combat. 5E combat can also be very deadly, though this varies dramatically based on the DM.

Heroics: This is very subjective. But my read of 5E is that non-full casters tend to stay within the gritty/low-fantasy genre, and full casters start there but eventually ascend into reality altering high fantasy

TLDR: 5E is a very fun game, but it is very very different from 4E.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 01:48 PM

As someone who has been reading the threads since the beginning, I gotta say that what you perceive isn't really the case. SpawnofMorbo just likes things cracked wide open, to keep the context of D&D but in an almost GURPS-like view of all things for all classes. He dislikes what he perceives to be arbitrary restrictions but loves a lot of the things 5e brought to the table. If you want to see this in action, go read some of the threads where he debated Lokiare. :smallsmile:

Spawn, I hope I didn't misrepresent you. Just giving another perspective.

Man do I want to bang my head off a wall, I forgot about him... Like blocked a lot of that out of my mind. I'm probably one of the biggest fans of 5e as a whole.

I find it funny that people think I hate 5e, I just want 5e to meet the potential that it has. A few people have mentioned me hating this edition or having a negative bias. I literally laugh out loud each time.

But nah, you didn't misrepresent me at all, I hate abbitrary restrictions. Abbitrary restrictions is a poison to fantasy. When you set abbitrary restrictions you kill off fantasy, it may not be your fantasy but you kill off someone else's.

I like to reference Tolkien when it comes to this.

Just think if publishers would have never printed Tolien's work or book stores would never sell them because they broke some abbitrary rules set down by the publisher/book store. Could have been that the elves were pretty with Tolkien when everyone knows elves are short little toy makers or ugly killing machines. It could have been magic existed in the stories.

So when you set down abbitrary rules just think where D&D would be if abbitrary rules were placed on Tolkien's fantasy.

We might be getting first edition D&D and Final Fantasy 1 this year.

Person_Man

2014-12-09, 02:00 PM

I find it funny that people think I hate 5e, I just want 5e to meet the potential that it has.

I agree with you entirely.

I think some of the good will I've built up with my guides and whatnot has shielded me from some criticism here. But I tended to get shouted down a lot on the official 5E forum at the WotC website with responses similar to the (very mild and reasonable) one you got from pwykersotz. I would write a detailed post on how a specific mechanic didn't work well for me and ideas on how to fix it, and half of the people there would basically respond with WHY ARE YOU HERE IF YOU HATE 5E or DM CONTROL or YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND 5E etc. It was particularly funny to see people tell me to go back to playing 4E (because I advocated balance, clearly written rules, Healing Surges, etc) when I was/am one of the largest opponents and detractors of 4E around. (It's a fun game. I just don't think it's well suited to being a platform for the type of long running D&D campaigns I enjoy).

I love D&D like a member of my family. And like any member of my family, I support them in their adventures, but will criticize them mercilessly when they make stupid decisions.

MaxWilson

2014-12-09, 02:01 PM

As someone who has been reading the threads since the beginning, I gotta say that what you perceive isn't really the case. SpawnofMorbo just likes things cracked wide open, to keep the context of D&D but in an almost GURPS-like view of all things for all classes. He dislikes what he perceives to be arbitrary restrictions but loves a lot of the things 5e brought to the table. If you want to see this in action, go read some of the threads where he debated Lokiare. :smallsmile:

I tried GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy for a while, which works exactly the way you say here: there are "classes" of a sort but mainly as an RP guide; you can always pick abilities from another class if you are willing to pay the point cost. I like 5E far, far better precisely because the class structure is more linear: casting Ritual wizard spells comes naturally with being a wizard, and it's less efficient for someone not trained in wizardry to acquire that trait. And you simply can't pick up the Paladin "Angel of Vengeance" capstone without spending lots of time becoming everything else that comes with being a Paladin 20 as well.

I only played 4e briefly so I don't know if it was "wide-open" in that fashion, but 5E certainly isn't, and IMHO that's a good thing.

Giant2005

2014-12-09, 02:03 PM

Man do I want to bang my head off a wall, I forgot about him... Like blocked a lot of that out of my mind. I'm probably one of the biggest fans of 5e as a whole.

I find it funny that people think I hate 5e, I just want 5e to meet the potential that it has. A few people have mentioned me hating this edition or having a negative bias. I literally laugh out loud each time.

But nah, you didn't misrepresent me at all, I hate abbitrary restrictions. Abbitrary restrictions is a poison to fantasy. When you set abbitrary restrictions you kill off fantasy, it may not be your fantasy but you kill off someone else's.

I like to reference Tolkien when it comes to this.

Just think if publishers would have never printed Tolien's work or book stores would never sell them because they broke some abbitrary rules set down by the publisher/book store. Could have been that the elves were pretty with Tolkien when everyone knows elves are short little toy makers or ugly killing machines. It could have been magic existed in the stories.

So when you set down abbitrary rules just think where D&D would be if abbitrary rules were placed on Tolkien's fantasy.

We might be getting first edition D&D and Final Fantasy 1 this year.

It has nothing to do with arbitrary rules.
The only thing that I know of that you have campaigned against is that the setting isn't one that suits your tastes. You want a setting where the martial classes have superpowers but that isn't the same vision the designers of DnD had for their universe. Using your Lord of the Rings example, your desires are akin to replacing Frodo with Superman. Having Superman carry the One Ring could very well make for a good story but it isn't the story Tolkien wanted to tell and in the same vein, the setting which you want DnD to be isn't the one that the designers ever desired. You simply want a different game to what they want to give you.

brainface

2014-12-09, 02:04 PM

Backgrounds. Backgrounds are great in 5th edition, and clearly better than in fourth if I recall them correctly. Baked right into the core system, and they all allow some specific interesting roleplay quirk, like the knight's entourage, a criminal's contact, or the pirate having all their petty crimes ignored. Essentially a noble fighter and folk hero fighter should, at least, roleplay very differently, even if those differences might get blurry once combat starts. ^_^

In addition, I don't know about you but while I loved fourth edition, I didn't really care for how many +1/-2 for 1 round/attack sort of effects their were in it and previous d&d editions. Things tend to just give advantage or disadvantage in 5e.

Madfellow

2014-12-09, 02:09 PM

Clarity and Transparency and Roles: 5E isn't particularly good at this.

Character Customization: 5E has tons of options. But like every previous edition of D&D, it requires a certain level of rules mastery to be meaningful.

Tactical Combat/Tactical Response Time/Durabilit: 5E is terrible at this. It is geared towards simplified, quick, theater of the mind combat. 5E combat can also be very deadly, though this varies dramatically based on the DM.

Heroics: This is very subjective. But my read of 5E is that non-full casters tend to stay within the gritty/low-fantasy genre, and full casters start there but eventually ascend into reality altering high fantasy

I gotta disagree here. I think it's pretty easy to look at, say, the barbarian and see, "Oh, this guy's got a ton of hit points, resistance to damage, and a bonus to melee attacks. His job is to get into melee and wreck stuff." Or look at the bard and think, "Oh, he gets some weapons, some skills, and a fair bit of magic. He does a little bit of everything, doesn't he?"

Customization seems simple enough as well. Each option spells out what it gives you, and there are simple rules for getting them. If you want both Wild Shape and an Animal Companion, you know you should multiclass as a druid/ranger.

Combat is fast, yes, but not so fast that a player or party can't recover from a bad situation. Except at the lowest levels or in a particularly tough encounter, a character is unlikely to get dropped in a single turn without some opportunity for counter-play.

And a level 3 barbarian can survive a fall from orbit. Just sayin'.

Man do I want to bang my head off a wall, I forgot about him... Like blocked a lot of that out of my mind. I'm probably one of the biggest fans of 5e as a whole.

I find it funny that people think I hate 5e, I just want 5e to meet the potential that it has. A few people have mentioned me hating this edition or having a negative bias. I literally laugh out loud each time.

But nah, you didn't misrepresent me at all, I hate abbitrary restrictions. Abbitrary restrictions is a poison to fantasy. When you set abbitrary restrictions you kill off fantasy, it may not be your fantasy but you kill off someone else's.

I like to reference Tolkien when it comes to this.

Just think if publishers would have never printed Tolien's work or book stores would never sell them because they broke some abbitrary rules set down by the publisher/book store. Could have been that the elves were pretty with Tolkien when everyone knows elves are short little toy makers or ugly killing machines. It could have been magic existed in the stories.

So when you set down abbitrary rules just think where D&D would be if abbitrary rules were placed on Tolkien's fantasy.

We might be getting first edition D&D and Final Fantasy 1 this year.

I think I can see your perspective a little more clearly now. The thing to understand, though, is that most players didn't like it when WotC gave everyone the same level of depth and complexity as wizards. 5th Edition was created to appeal to as many players as possible, and as a result they had to make a lot of compromises between fanbases with different opinions on what mundane characters should look like in the new edition. Perhaps they just erred on the side of caution.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 02:15 PM

I agree with you entirely.

I think some of the good will I've built up with my guides and whatnot has shielded me from some criticism here. But I tended to get shouted down a lot on the official 5E forum at the WotC website with responses similar to the (very mild and reasonable) one you got from pwykersotz. I would write a detailed post on how a specific mechanic didn't work well for me and ideas on how to fix it, and half of the people there would basically respond with WHY ARE YOU HERE IF YOU HATE 5E or DM CONTROL or YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND 5E etc. It was particularly funny to see people tell me to go back to playing 4E (because I advocated balance, clearly written rules, Healing Surges, etc) when I was/am one of the largest opponents and detractors of 4E around. (It's a fun game. I just don't think it's well suited to being a platform for the type of long running D&D campaigns I enjoy).

I love D&D like a member of my family. And like any member of my family, I support them in their adventures, but will criticize them mercilessly when they make stupid decisions.

Thank you and yes, this.

It has nothing to do with arbitrary rules.
The only thing that I know of that you have campaigned against is that the setting isn't one that suits your tastes. You want a setting where the martial classes have superpowers but that isn't the same vision the designers of DnD had for their universe. Using your Lord of the Rings example, your desires are akin to replacing Frodo with Superman. Having Superman carry the One Ring could very well make for a good story but it isn't the story Tolkien wanted to tell and in the same vein, the setting which you want DnD to be isn't the one that the designers ever desired. You simply want a different game to what they want to give you.

Sigh, there is no reason a fantasy game can't allow a group at one table to replace frodo with superman and another table to keep frodo.

But that isn't the point.

The point is that if you play magic you get to be superman while the other guy plays frodo and the other guy has no way of becoming superman.

So it's a double standard. If you play magic you can be as fantasy as you like but if you don't play fantasy you can only be *holds up 100 mL bottle* this much fantasy.

I made a double standard wizard that is pretty close to being done. Imagine if that is all any wizard could ever become or do. Imagine how pissed off people who love playing high fantasy casters (like myself) would be if you never went above the DS Wizard and no other magic did either. Now take that and apply it to the noncasters. That is why we fight against bullcrap arbitrary rules and the idea that the game is balanced... Because we can see what potential is being wasted based on the whims of a company. If you allow noncasters to have awesome and amazing things, guess what, you can still play frodo in your game but I can play superman in mine.

And in another game frodo and superman may have an adventure together with their friend the wizard and druid.

Players should decide how awesome they want to be, not abbitrary rules that make a double standard.

Hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone.

Giant2005

2014-12-09, 02:23 PM

Sigh, there is no reason a fantasy game can't allow a group at one table to replace frodo with superman and another table to keep frodo.

But that isn't the point.

The point is that if you play magic you get to be superman while the other guy plays frodo and the other guy has no way of becoming superman.

So it's a double standard. If you play magic you can be as fantasy as you like but if you don't play fantasy you can only be *holds up 100 mL bottle* this much fantasy.

I made a double standard wizard that is pretty close to being done. Imagine if that is all any wizard could ever become or do. Imagine how pissed off people who love playing high fantasy casters (like myself) would be if you never went above the DS Wizard and no other magic did either. Now take that and apply it to the noncasters. That is why we fight against bullcrap arbitrary rules and the idea that the game is balanced... Because we can see what potential is being wasted based on the whims of a company. If you allow noncasters to have awesome and amazing things, guess what, you can still play frodo in your game but I can play superman in mine.

And in another game frodo and superman may have an adventure together with their friend the wizard and druid.

Players should decide how awesome they want to be, not abbitrary rules that make a double standard.

Hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone.

You have the option of changing the setting as much as you like - that is the beauty of games like this, it is much easier than trying to invent some kind of head-canon for Lord of the Rings for instance.
All we ask is that you acknowledge that you are asking for a completely different game to what we have been given. In DnD, supernatural power comes from magic. That is a setting staple which you just can't accept and that is perfectly okay - a lot of your ideas could very well be quite fun (I am quite a fan of the Double-Standard Wizard) but what you want doesn't have much in common with DnD.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 02:26 PM

I think I can see your perspective a little more clearly now. The thing to understand, though, is that most players didn't like it when WotC gave everyone the same level of depth and complexity as wizards. 5th Edition was created to appeal to as many players as possible, and as a result they had to make a lot of compromises between fanbases with different opinions on what mundane characters should look like in the new edition. Perhaps they just erred on the side of caution.

Actually never heard anyone complain about the complexity. The main complaint I heard is that is was too videogamey (which is, you know funny cause 3.5 got called Diablo) and that non-casters had x/day powers.

I, and friends, ran 4e fighters and warlocks in different 3.P games and players thought I we were playing obscure 3.5, ToB, or Pathfinder. We switched the attack roll stuff of course and balanced the powers but everyone loved the classes and wanted to play them...

Whenever we would show the character and the 4e PHB they would typically freak (DM would laugh since they knew what we were running) and either get super defensive or admit that 4e is no more videogamey or messed than 3.P.

Seriously, anytime I play in the homebrew allowed games the DMs ask if I'm bringing my "Wow! Character" lol

(Note: I hate WoW, seriously, can't stand playing it but I love 4e so let that blow your mind :smallamused:)

JAL_1138

2014-12-09, 02:27 PM

Agreed with Giant2005.

Running the argument to the very extreme, though, likely waaay past what you're suggesting, not being able to start the game as Pun-Pun could be argued to be an "arbitrary" restriction. Some people might want to play the Almighty. Other people might want to play a Shadowrun Decker (and have all that class' abilities work), if it's fantasy and there are no "arbitrary" rules, why can't they? Is it arbitrary to state that the tech level is too low for that?

Where do restrictions become arbitrary?

I know you're (probably) not going that far, but I feel like games need a degree of focus unless you're building completely generic systems like Hero or FUDGE that have to be limited by the DM's own (arbitrary) rules for a given campaign setting.

Imagine a supers game with a Badass Normal class. I don't think it's unreasonable to state that class shouldn't get superpowers. That's the non-EK Fighter, the non-AT Rogue. Or Batman, for that matter. There's nothing stopping Superman from using every single gadget or trick Batman uses, but if Batman could fly and shoot heat rays and punch asteroids out of orbit and lift cars barehanded without assistance from gadgets and his own cleverness, he wouldn't be Batman.

Edit: Posting from a phone, sorry for the lack of quotes and being like a full page behind the thread.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 02:32 PM

You have the option of changing the setting as much as you like - that is the beauty of games like this, it is much easier than trying to invent some kind of head-canon for Lord of the Rings for instance.
All we ask is that you acknowledge that you are asking for a completely different game to what we have been given. In DnD, supernatural power comes from magic. That is a setting staple which you just can't accept and that is perfectly okay - a lot of your ideas could very well be quite fun (I am quite a fan of the Double-Standard Wizard) but what you want doesn't have much in common with DnD.

It is not a completely different game unless you arbitrarily make up rules to make it specifically a different game.

The potential I see with 5e is not a different game.

Thank you, but I absolutely hate the double standard wizard*. It is a low fantasy move n hit (and sometimes) do interesting things. It has cantrips which make it a bit more interesting than the fighter but not by enough. It was made with abbitrary rules stating that caster can have a little bit of nice things, but not a lot. Funny enough, this caster still got more nice things than a normal fighter has.

I would never play that class with any seriousness just like I won't play the fighter for anything other than a one shot.

The missing potential from the normal wizard to the DS wizard is what is missing from the Fighter. The only reason the potential is missing is because of arbitrary rules for the sake of the crap that comes out the south end of a north bound sacred cow.

Edit: * for D&D

Giant2005

2014-12-09, 02:44 PM

It is not a completely different game unless you arbitrarily make up rules to make it specifically a different game.
But it is.
In DnD Humans can't punch through walls or whatever it is you want them to do. Not without some kind of magical ability that allows them to bypass their physical limitations.
You are describing a setting where that is no longer true - the setting you are describing is so radically different to DnD that it no longer has much at all in common. The setting you want to play in is as different from DnD as the Marvel universe is from reality.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 02:52 PM

But it is.
In DnD Humans can't punch through walls or whatever it is you want them to do. Not without some kind of magical ability that allows them to bypass their physical limitations.

Because of abbitrary rules placed upon a fantasy world to make it so.

There is no reason in a fantasy world I can't take a giant and throw him *through* a castle and have him land on the other side.

The abbitrary rules of D&D limit that potential fantasy causing the fantasy potential to be regarded as something foreign.

Physical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the physical limitations of a fighter. Just like the magical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the magical limitations of a wizard.

MaxWilson

2014-12-09, 02:53 PM

Thank you, but I absolutely hate the double standard wizard*. It is a low fantasy move n hit (and sometimes) do interesting things. It has cantrips which make it a bit more interesting than the fighter but not by enough. It was made with abbitrary rules stating that caster can have a little bit of nice things, but not a lot. Funny enough, this caster still got more nice things than a normal fighter has.

No it doesn't. Your double standard wizard is weaker than even a Champion fighter, much less an Eldritch Knight, as detailed extensively on your thread. Any powergamer who was forced to choose between a Battlemaster and your DSW would take Battlemaster every time.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 02:56 PM

No it doesn't. Your double standard wizard is weaker than even a Champion fighter, much less an Eldritch Knight, as detailed extensively on your thread. Any powergamer who was forced to choose between a Battlemaster and your DSW would take Battlemaster every time.

First off, no it isn't. (Facetious) Also, I'm so glad everyone who plays D&D is a power gamer! (/facetious)

Secondly the EK night won't get anything above cantrips.

Because magic is being held to the double standard spells from 1st level and onward are removed.

Edit: what is detailed in that thread is old and the DS wizard has been changed drastically. You wouldn't be the first to argue a point that is no longer valid (such as the Int mod to damage argument).

Giant2005

2014-12-09, 03:10 PM

Because of abbitrary rules placed upon a fantasy world to make it so.

There is no reason in a fantasy world I can't take a giant and throw him *through* a castle and have him land on the other side.

The abbitrary rules of D&D limit that potential fantasy causing the fantasy potential to be regarded as something foreign.

Physical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the physical limitations of a fighter. Just like the magical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the magical limitations of a wizard.

You keep throwing out the word arbitrary but it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Judging by the context, I am assuming this is the definition you are trying to go for: "4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported" but none of that is relevant. The creators of DnD wanted a setting where the physics were similar to our own with the addition of magic that is capable of breaking those physical boundries. They made rules to support those restrictions and did so intentionally and fairly accurately. What you are proposing is either changing that setting to the extent that it is no longer recognizable within the confines of the intended purpose or arbitrarily implementing new rules that break the physics of the setting as presented.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 03:13 PM

You keep throwing out the word arbitrary but it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Judging by the context, I am assuming this is the definition you are trying to go for: "4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported" but none of that is relevant. The creators of DnD wanted a setting where the physics were similar to our own with the addition of magic that is capable of breaking those physical boundries. They made rules to support those restrictions and did so intentionally and fairly accurately. What you are proposing is either changing that setting to the extent that it is no longer recognizable within the confines of the intended purpose or arbitrarily implementing new rules that break the physics of the setting as presented.

Physical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the physical limitations of a fighter. Just like the magical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the magical limitations of a wizard.

This my reply for all arguments of people who think only casters can have nice things.

Sartharina

2014-12-09, 03:18 PM

go read some of the threads with Lokaire (who has admittedly been quieter recently).It is very, very difficult to post when you're banned.

Madfellow

2014-12-09, 03:19 PM

Because of abbitrary rules placed upon a fantasy world to make it so.

There is no reason in a fantasy world I can't take a giant and throw him *through* a castle and have him land on the other side.

The abbitrary rules of D&D limit that potential fantasy causing the fantasy potential to be regarded as something foreign.

Physical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the physical limitations of a fighter. Just like the magical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the magical limitations of a wizard.

First off, the word is arbitrary. Second, saying a fighter can't throw a giant through a castle is not an arbitrary limitation, it's just logical (to the extent that logic can be applied to a fantasy world). If you want to be able to do that, you want to play Exalted or 4e, or possibly M&M. And by the way, a wizard can't do that either, no matter what edition you're playing.

First off, no it isn't. (Facetious) Also, I'm so glad everyone who plays D&D is a power gamer! (/facetious)

Secondly the EK night won't get anything above cantrips.

Because magic is being held to the double standard spells from 1st level and onward are removed.

Edit: what is detailed in that thread is old and the DS wizard has been changed drastically. You wouldn't be the first to argue a point that is no longer valid (such as the Int mod to damage argument).

Your tone isn't helping.

Knaight

2014-12-09, 03:19 PM

Because of abbitrary rules placed upon a fantasy world to make it so.

There is no reason in a fantasy world I can't take a giant and throw him *through* a castle and have him land on the other side.

The abbitrary rules of D&D limit that potential fantasy causing the fantasy potential to be regarded as something foreign.

Just like the arbitrary rules placed upon the world mean that modern firearms aren't available for purchase. Unless a game is going to be truly generic, it is going to be built to do particular things, which is inherently arbitrary to some extent. There are fantasy worlds where one can throw giants through a castle. There are fantasy worlds where one can't. Neither of these is inherently better than the other, and making a game specifically for one or the other is hardly a bad thing. You have games like Exalted and Mythender where you can naturally do that sort of thing with no issue because that's what the game is for, and you have games like D&D 5e where you can't because it isn't. I don't see how this is a problem.

Madfellow

2014-12-09, 03:21 PM

Giant2005

2014-12-09, 03:24 PM

Physical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the physical limitations of a fighter. Just like the magical limitations of a commoner doesn't have to be the magical limitations of a wizard.

This my reply for all arguments of people who think only casters can have nice things.

But unless there is magic involved, Fighters absolutely do have to endure the same physical limitations of a Commoner - that is what physics is. If the laws of physics were selective enough to govern Fighters and commoners differently, they aren't laws at all. The human brain isn't even capable of rationalizing such a concept which is why we invented the word magic. Magic is the term used to describe such things that the mind can't rationalize which is the category your suggested Fighter falls into. In essence you aren't describing a DnD Fighter at all, you are describing a DnD Wizard.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 03:34 PM

But unless there is magic involved, Fighters absolutely do have to endure the same physical limitations of a Commoner - that is what physics is. If the laws of physics were selective enough to govern Fighters and commoners differently, they aren't laws at all. The human brain isn't even capable of rationalizing such a concept which is why we invented the word magic. Magic is the term used to describe such things that the mind can't rationalize which is the category your suggested Fighter falls into. In essence you aren't describing a DnD Fighter at all, you are describing a DnD Wizard.

No.

In our world, if we don't have science or magic then we are bound by certain physics.

However, in a fantasy setting, this does not have to be the case. At all.

Why can giants live and dragons fly?

It comes under the same fantasy rules, fantasy makes the impossible possible. In a fantasy world it is completely possible for a Fighter who was a commoner to gain extraordinary abilities that put him far beyond the limits of normal people... Without it being magic.

In 3.5 there was a distinction between magic, supernatural, and spell like abilities. That same logic can be applied to ordinary people and extra ordinary people.

You are applying an abbitrary rule that limits other people's fantasy, the potential I see for D&D allows anyone to come to the table and play their type of fantasy character. If you want to play a champion fighter and a non magical guy wants to play a Flash like player then you have no right to tell that player to limit themselves in such a huge way. If you don't want to be over shadowed* then don't play the champion.

You are saying that something is impossible in a fantasy world because physics doesn't work that way.

Before we continue perhaps you should go look up the definition of fantasy and think about your idea of laws and impossibilities in regard to a fantasy setting.

* In the department of awesome and interesting things to nonmagically do. You will still be useful but you chose to play a class that has very little options.

Madfellow

2014-12-09, 03:45 PM

If you don't want to be overshadowed* then don't play the champion.

* In the department of awesome and interesting things to non-magically do. You will still be useful but you chose to play a class that has very little options.

Yes, exactly. That's the entire reason the Champion exists. It's simple. It's intentionally simple, for people who want to play a simple character. The Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight offer more complex alternatives for people who want more depth.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 03:54 PM

Yes, exactly. That's the entire reason the Champion exists. It's simple. It's intentionally simple, for people who want to play a simple character. The Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight offer more complex alternatives for people who want more depth.

The battle master is still low ability not-amazing compared to what the fighter could be. The battle master is a joke and their recovery mechanic is not worth the maneuver it uses.

The battle master to what can potentially be reached is the same difference between the current wizard and my DS Wizard. The DS wizard is insanely "meh" and only good for low fantasy.

EK is interesting but I don't want to play a magic knight. If I do I'll play a ranger, paladin, cleric, warlock, monk, sorcerer, or wizard. And be better at it. The EK is a partial caster, not a non caster.

What we have now is high fantasy classes and low fantasy classes living in a high fantasy world.

If the entire system was consistent then it really wouldn't be that bad, but due to the double standard it just makes it worse.

The High Fantasy (HF) Fighter doesn't have to have all the power, just make it interesting. Hell the HF Fighter doesn't have to be over powered at all. You can keep your champion fighter all you want, me having a HF fighter doesn't stop you from using the one you want.

JAL_1138

2014-12-09, 04:05 PM

What should have happened is that the Battlemaster should be the base Fighter chassis and superiority dice should be at-will or rechargeable in the same combat on a die roll (adjust damage math for other classes as needed) instead of X-uses-per-rest, with Champion and EK tacked on to THAT; and maybe longer casting times for some spells and dropping spells if damaged while casting should come back, etc.

(Granted I also have no patience for non-magically recovering from a spear to the spleen faster than a couple weeks, and would thus prefer replacing HP with Vitality/Wounds and changing all quick-healing to Vitality only. That said, such a system still massively favors the Fighter since the extra attacks, and crit range of the Champion, make them obscenely frightening (crits go to Wounds directly in most Vitality system variants, dunno how the 5eDMG version goes yet). So take my comments with a grain of salt; I prefer much more quick-and-lethal games.)

Also, if there's no limits Because Fantasy, why couldn't Aragorn just cut the ring in half with a sword stroke and end the book at Bree? Why couldn't Frodo fling the Nazgul around like a ragdoll on Weathertop?

MaxWilson

2014-12-09, 04:12 PM

The battle master is still low ability not-amazing compared to what the fighter could be. The battle master is a joke and their recovery mechanic is not worth the maneuver it uses.

As an aside: Relentless instantly goes from a joke to brokenly good if you use the Speed Factor rules from the DMG. Of course, no one would ever use the Speed Factor rules without tweaking Relentless etc. at the same time.

(Granted I also have no patience for non-magically recovering from a spear to the spleen faster than a couple weeks, and would thus prefer replacing HP with Vitality/Wounds and changing all quick-healing to Vitality only. That said, such a system still massively favors the Fighter since the extra attacks, and crit range of the Champion, make them obscenely frightening (crits go to Wounds directly in most Vitality system variants, dunno how the 5eDMG version goes yet). So take my comments with a grain of salt; I prefer much more quick-and-lethal games.)

The DMG has no Vitality vs. Health dichotomy, but it does have variants where you don't automatically heal to full on a long rest, and other variants where a Short Rest takes 8 hours and a Long Rest takes a week. There is a separate Wound system which has a small chance of inflicting permanently debilitating injuries like Lost An Eye on a crit or other damaging situation (e.g. failed death saving throw) at the DM's discretion, and a much larger chance of temporarily inflicting a debilitating condition like broken ribs.

Fwiffo86

2014-12-09, 04:16 PM

Also, if there's no limits Because Fantasy, why couldn't Aragorn just cut the ring in half with a sword stroke and end the book at Bree? Why couldn't Frodo fling the Nazgul around like a ragdoll on Weathertop?

Not enough narrative power.

Safety Sword

2014-12-09, 04:52 PM

Fwiffo86

2014-12-09, 05:13 PM

1. Thread topic is that way... way back that way.

2. I am still yet to see anyone suggest anything that "gives martial (I refuse to call them mundane, because, they're not) characters nice things".

3. If you want to see changes you need to suggests a balanced (in all senses of the word) solution.

This is just my observation. Take it how you want.

Martial characters don't need new shiny things. They work perfectly well doing what they do. Lauded as the spellcasters are, magic is still "less" reliable than hitting something with something else. They don't need more mechanics. How many different ways do you need to represent, "did i hit it or not?"

If you find that boring, don't play one. You have plenty of additional options to pursue. Attempting to add mechanics to a system that intends to be simplistic is IMO a waste of time that could be better used coming up with a good story for your players.

MaxWilson

2014-12-09, 05:27 PM

Martial characters don't need new shiny things. They work perfectly well doing what they do. Lauded as the spellcasters are, magic is still "less" reliable than hitting something with something else. They don't need more mechanics. How many different ways do you need to represent, "did i hit it or not?"

While I agree that Fighters are fantastically fun in 5E, I think this is missing the point a little bit. Wizards are just fine on the tactical grid nowadays, but in the strategic space there is still some imbalance precisely because Concentration/Limited spell slots doesn't affect that space. The reason I would pick a wizard or a druid over a fighter if I were playing a high-level 5E campaign is that there are certain fun strategies that the wizard or druid can prepare ahead of time which break the tactical game. To name three:

1.) Make a bargain with a group of hobgoblins somewhere that they'll come to your aid in exchange for gold at certain times. When you run up against something you don't think you can handle, use Sending to alert the hobgoblins and then the druid will cast Transport Via Plants to bring through 60 hobgoblin warriors to utterly crush the Drow war party that you were worried about. The hobgoblins have no incentive to betray you because you're paying them, and you're also their ride home.

2.) Buy a bag of 40 mice, and instead of feeding them to your snake, use Speak With Beasts to get them all on your side. Cast Animal Shapes and turn everybody into sparrows. Fly to their destination. Make all 40 sparrows become CR 4 Elephants. Crush the opposition, and then turn them back into mice and feed them cheese.

3.) Make a Simulacrum of the fighter (archer) to add 60 to 120 DPR to the party.

Bear in mind that all of these strategies are useful only in extremely high-powered campaigns where you're fighting things that are totally inappropriate for your CR (Deadly encounters, day after day). If you're a 15th level party fighting CR 15 threats and Medium encounters, all of these things are overkill.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 05:38 PM

Safety Sword

2014-12-09, 06:00 PM

Sadly, most noncasters in 5e are in fact mundane.

Martials, I need to start calling them martials.

Someone who can hit me with 8 effective attacks in 6 seconds with a sword whilst maintaining their defence is not mundane. That's an extraordinary ability.

And none of the previous statement has any game terms in it.

Fwiffo86

2014-12-09, 06:08 PM

Someone who can hit me with 8 effective attacks in 6 seconds with a sword whilst maintaining their defence is not mundane. That's an extraordinary ability.

And none of the previous statement has any game terms in it.

Extraordinary =/= supernatural.

Most trained fighters can hit you 8 time in 6 seconds. Some masters (especially of the martial arts) can hit you significantly more than that. They are still just mundane. Well trained mundanes, but mundanes.

Safety Sword

2014-12-09, 06:26 PM

Extraordinary =/= supernatural.

Most trained fighters can hit you 8 time in 6 seconds. Some masters (especially of the martial arts) can hit you significantly more than that. They are still just mundane. Well trained mundanes, but mundanes.

Why do martial characters require their abilities to be supernatural?

I have many years of martial arts and hand to hand combat training and I can tell you that 8 blows that can kill a man in 6 seconds is a ridiculous number.

Aside from the fact that D&D is a game and not a combat simulation, that's a pretty special ability.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-09, 06:32 PM

Why do martial characters require their abilities to be supernatural?

I have many years of martial arts and hand to hand combat training and I can tell you that 8 blows that can kill a man in 6 seconds is a ridiculous number.

Aside from the fact that D&D is a game and not a combat simulation, that's a pretty special ability.

First off, I agree that awesome martial doesn't have to be supernatural.

Not all blows are lethal in d&d, heck technically HP isn't even all meat so most attacks just wear you down and that last hit that takes you to 0 is the one that *could* kill you.

But, martials are restrained to the same physics as commoners, thus mundane.

It is quite sad but yeah.

JAL_1138

2014-12-09, 06:43 PM

As an aside: Relentless instantly goes from a joke to brokenly good if you use the Speed Factor rules from the DMG. Of course, no one would ever use the Speed Factor rules without tweaking Relentless etc. at the same time.

I actually might, but then, I'm overly fond of the idea of "stab enemy in face with weapon" being a nearly OP option and martial abilities not being X-uses-per-rest...my reasoning is, if you can still swing a greatclub the size of a tree for three hours with no penalty, you shouldn't be too tired to yell "Hit me!" or feint until you take a one-hour breather.

The DMG has no Vitality vs. Health dichotomy, but it does have variants where you don't automatically heal to full on a long rest, and other variants where a Short Rest takes 8 hours and a Long Rest takes a week. There is a separate Wound system which has a small chance of inflicting permanently debilitating injuries like Lost An Eye on a crit or other damaging situation (e.g. failed death saving throw) at the DM's discretion, and a much larger chance of temporarily inflicting a debilitating condition like broken ribs.

Drat. Vitality/Wounds was the one thing I liked from d20 Star Wars and was superior in every respect to standard HP. Guess I'll homebrew it from the d20 version; from what I gather 3e and 5e HP for PCs are nearly identical so it should translate almost wholesale in theory. Lingering Injury table looks decent (got my DMG like 5 minutes ago and it's the first thing I looked up) --it still makes the Champion Fighter a terrifying brute to go up against, but doesn't quite match that system.

silveralen

2014-12-09, 06:45 PM

First off, I agree that awesome martial doesn't have to be supernatural.

Not all blows are lethal in d&d, heck technically HP isn't even all meat so most attacks just wear you down and that last hit that takes you to 0 is the one that *could* kill you.

But, martials are restrained to the same physics as commoners, thus mundane.

It is quite sad but yeah.

Yes, because they aren't supernatural. Not being subject to the laws of physics makes you, by definition, supernatural. I'm not even kidding.

supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

You want every single character in the game to be supernatural. Not everyone wants that, nor is it really DnD.

MaxWilson

2014-12-09, 07:07 PM

Drat. Vitality/Wounds was the one thing I liked from d20 Star Wars and was superior in every respect to standard HP. Guess I'll homebrew it from the d20 version; from what I gather 3e and 5e HP for PCs are nearly identical so it should translate almost wholesale in theory. Lingering Injury table looks decent (got my DMG like 5 minutes ago and it's the first thing I looked up) --it still makes the Champion Fighter a terrifying brute to go up against, but doesn't quite match that system.

Personally, I hate the Wounds vs. Vitality meme. In my D&D-verse, adventurers get physically tougher for a physical reason: the increased life energy they carry results in greater binding energy between their fleshly components for as long as they've alive. Vampiric Touch siphons off this binding energy in a very straightforward fashion, for example, so there's nothing mysterious about how it takes ten commoners' worth of HP to fill up an archnecromancer's HP after he takes a beating: he physically has more capacity. Whenever you stab someone and do HP damage, you are physically nicking/scratching them, which is why poison takes effect. There is none of this nonsense about "you were about to scratch him but he ducked and was untouched, unless his blade was poisoned in which case he still took a superficial cut just big enough to dose him with poison but not big enough to actually hurt him in and of itself."

Treating HP as a physical quantity is a very simple and straightforward way to run HP and IMHO the only one which makes sense (i.e. is consistent with the observed behavior of the D&D ruleset). But YMMV.

Safety Sword

2014-12-09, 07:52 PM

You want every single character in the game to be supernatural. Not everyone wants that, nor is it really DnD.

This is basically where I was trying to lead to. D&D has fighters, wizards and clerics and rogues. It doesn't have superman, wizards, clerics and rogues.

Fighters have a defined role and I think in 5E they're pretty good at what they do. It's not everyone's favorite role, second favorite or even third. But it's effective at the intentional historic role of the class.

Fighters are supposed to hit things with mighty blows and block magic with their muscles. :smallbiggrin:

JAL_1138

2014-12-09, 08:12 PM

Personally, I hate the Wounds vs. Vitality meme. In my D&D-verse, adventurers get physically tougher for a physical reason: the increased life energy they carry results in greater binding energy between their fleshly components for as long as they've alive. Vampiric Touch siphons off this binding energy in a very straightforward fashion, for example, so there's nothing mysterious about how it takes ten commoners' worth of HP to fill up an archnecromancer's HP after he takes a beating: he physically has more capacity. Whenever you stab someone and do HP damage, you are physically nicking/scratching them, which is why poison takes effect. There is none of this nonsense about "you were about to scratch him but he ducked and was untouched, unless his blade was poisoned in which case he still took a superficial cut just big enough to dose him with poison but not big enough to actually hurt him in and of itself."

Treating HP as a physical quantity is a very simple and straightforward way to run HP and IMHO the only one which makes sense (i.e. is consistent with the observed behavior of the D&D ruleset). But YMMV.

It's not an either-or, he could well have taken that superficial cut anyway, poison or no. It's very easy to call those near-misses, scrapes, or bruises to explain why "cure wounds" is called what it is. Sort of like how getting punched in the gut is usually not life-threatening--you're actually hit, but it just wears you down--but what was effectively a crit killed Houdini IRL. Or how a duel to first blood could result in a bleeding scratch that'll heal up just fine but not give you an impairing injury (IRL, there was even a modified rapier tip designed to do just that), or getting thwacked with a truncheon in the arm might make it harder to maneuver a shield but not have any threat to life or limb in and of itself. That works with the idea of AC to a degree, though admittedly not a very realistic one; your armor completely absorbs the blow, and any ding to vitality represents a minor hit that got through or the effect of repeated impacts your armor didn't absorb or help you avoid.

Then again most of my gaming until very recently was done way back when the round was a minute long and abstracted to heck and back to start with, and a successful attack meant you had exchanged a series of blows, parries, and dodges, and came out ahead, so I'm a bit friendlier to the notion that some things get abstracted and some don't. I also like that it gives some types of attacks a far greater ability to maim or instantly kill with relatively little regard to level, such as beheading a sleeping target ("Sleep, the great equalizer," etc.), but again I tend to like the game to be bloodier/grittier. Probably shaped by starting roleplaying in the hilariously-lethal low levels of AD&D--die instantly at 0 HP, pray to the dice gods you don't roll a 1 for HP at first level or spend 1250+ XP worth of adventuring being terrified of squirrels and farm animals. :smallbiggrin: Like you say, it's really a YMMV area.

MaxWilson

2014-12-09, 08:26 PM

It's not an either-or, he could well have taken that superficial cut anyway, poison or no. It's very easy to call those near-misses, scrapes, or bruises to explain why "cure wounds" is called what it is. Sort of like how getting punched in the gut is usually not life-threatening--you're actually hit, but it just wears you down--but what was effectively a crit killed Houdini IRL.

If you take this viewpoint, you have a problem with Cure Wounds. Sometimes, it is a weak little spell which can heal 1 out of every 20 little tiny scratches on the Fighter's body. However, if he is unconscious and bleeding out from a gigantic gut wound (i.e. reduced to zero HP), Cure Wounds suddenly becomes a superspell which can instantly close that gut wound and get him back up on his feet... but it takes another 20 spells to cure all the minor scratches.

But yes, you can choose to simply overlook the inconsistency, and YMM very much V.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-09, 08:35 PM

First off, the word is arbitrary. Second, saying a fighter can't throw a giant through a castle is not an arbitrary limitation, it's just logical (to the extent that logic can be applied to a fantasy world). If you want to be able to do that, you want to play Exalted or 4e, or possibly M&M. And by the way, a wizard can't do that either, no matter what edition you're playing.

Your tone isn't helping.This could be done in 3e, as long as you (1) had the right abilities or (2) threw the person downwards and applied falling damage to objects. Not perfect, admittedly, but possible. Because 3e was so wide and "bloated" (as though content and choices are bad things) that anything was possible if you knew what you were doing.
In 3.5 there was a distinction between magic, supernatural, and spell like abilities. That same logic can be applied to ordinary people and extra ordinary people.
[...]
You are saying that something is impossible in a fantasy world because physics doesn't work that way.This exactly. 3.5 had the [Ex] tag for a reason; there were some things that broke standard real life physics that would function in an antimagic field. Why? Because that's just how the fantasy world worked. Some people could just do crazy things, not because of magic, but because they were awesome enough to do it. It's an incredibly important distinction that can allow non-"magical" characters to do things on par with the magical ones.
2. I am still yet to see anyone suggest anything that "gives martial (I refuse to call them mundane, because, they're not) characters nice things".You're right; they're not entirely mundane. But they're not magical either.

Yes, because they aren't supernatural. Not being subject to the laws of physics makes you, by definition, supernatural. I'm not even kidding.

You want every single character in the game to be supernatural. Not everyone wants that, nor is it really DnD.Nope; we want the world to be different such that some people can do incredible things that would break our real-life physics, without being supernatural at all. As many posters already pointed out, this is already in the books in some relatively uninteresting ways, and 3e/4e had tons of it. IIRC the designers talked about different tiers of play, and martials aren't supposed to be stuck at apprentice/heroic. So why not give them some abilities that actually evoke the feeling of being legendary?

MaxWilson

2014-12-09, 08:49 PM

IIRC the designers talked about different tiers of play, and martials aren't supposed to be stuck at apprentice/heroic. So why not give them some abilities that actually evoke the feeling of being legendary?

Look guys. You can houserule anything you want. You can give 20th level fighters Str 30,000 at your own table and I won't care. You can declare movement rates over 30 mph to be "so fast that you're invisible" (see: Dash Dash Lightning thread) and I won't care. You can let fighters transform into elephants and throw Meteor Swarms by punching things really hard and breath underwater and declare that it's "not magic," it's just wuxia-powered awesomeness, and I'll raise my eyebrows but I won't care.

While you're at it though, you should check out some other game systems, because it sounds like you might be looking for a concept which is not supported in 5E. As has been pointed out several times on this thread, nobody in 5E attains legendary levels of power and is able to break mountains or punch giants through castles. Wizards can't do it, fighters can't do it, nobody can do it. Another example: in D&D, we don't even have giants more than 1000 feet tall, let alone allow you to fight them. We don't allow you to hide under other people's hats, and we don't allow you to steal people's shadows. If you try to make a game which is about doing all of these things, you will essentially have to invent a whole game from scratch, so you might as well look around at other game systems while you're at it to see if you find mechanics that you'd like to steal--or maybe you will find a system which already has everything you're looking for.

silveralen

2014-12-09, 09:07 PM

Nope; we want the world to be different such that some people can do incredible things that would break our real-life physics, without being supernatural at all. As many posters already pointed out, this is already in the books in some relatively uninteresting ways, and 3e/4e had tons of it. IIRC the designers talked about different tiers of play, and martials aren't supposed to be stuck at apprentice/heroic. So why not give them some abilities that actually evoke the feeling of being legendary?

What you basically want is for some characters to be supernatural, but not actually be supernatural, and the rest of the characters to still be bounded by normal reality. In short, rather than breaking the laws of physics, you want the laws of physics to be different for certain characters. That's still supernatural, you are just playing with definitions.

Maybe you want to play monk? That's a non magic yet supernatural character.

The tier thing is another baseless claim. You aren't "stuck" at low tiers, and yes high level mundane characters can feel legendary. If you don't want to be Achilles, Odysseus, or Hercules (assume the variation of the 11th task is the classic one, where he stole the apples himself), as they aren't "legendary" enough for you, then you aren't going to be happy with a martial class.

JoeJ

2014-12-09, 09:09 PM

I don't know that much about 4e, but my understanding is that there were several different sources of super powers: divine, martial, arcane, etc. In 5e all those different powers have been refluffed as coming from the same source: magic. So fighters can resist damage or shoot fire from their hands by magic. Rogues can turn invisible or steal spells right out of a wizard's mind through magic. Barbarians can use magic to become superhumanly tough, or to speak with animals. Etc.

The dichotomy of martial vs. caster found in some earlier editions is now a continuum. Every class has access to magic, and even characters in a completely non-magical subclass can gain magic through racial abilities and/or feats. Equally, even single class wizards or sorcerers can learn to wear armor and wield martial weapons as a racial ability or with a feat. It's still possible to play a character that is purely martial or purely magical, but the majority of characters will fall somewhere in between.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2014-12-09, 11:44 PM

You can let fighters transform into elephants and throw Meteor Swarms by punching things really hard and breath underwater and declare that it's "not magic," it's just wuxia-powered awesomeness, and I'll raise my eyebrows but I won't care.This is a world where giant creatures aren't crushed under their own weight, large insects don't suffocate within minutes, owlbears can exist and reproduce, and there's still something outside of that physics that both can't be explained and can be analyzed and mastered enough for wizards to exist. So yeah, I expect wuxia-powered awesomeness in my games.

While you're at it though, you should check out some other game systems, because it sounds like you might be looking for a concept which is not supported in 5E. As has been pointed out several times on this thread, nobody in 5E attains legendary levels of power and is able to break mountains or punch giants through castles. Wizards can't do it, fighters can't do it, nobody can do it.Wizards get to call meteors from the sky, turn basically anything into anything else permanently, play genie for a day, and so on. That's pretty legendary to me. I'm not saying Fighters should get those abilities, but if they got some tactical options based on doing something a normal human couldn't I wouldn't bat an eye.
Another example: in D&D, we don't even have giants more than 1000 feet tall, let alone allow you to fight them.This is, honestly, more of a practical limitation of grid-based combat, but 3e had some impressively large creatures in the Epic Level Handbook (not the best example of quality game design, but it's there).
We don't allow you to hide under other people's hats,If you're geared towards it (and I don't think everyone should be able to hide in a hat so yeah), in 3.5 you could enter a creature's square, gain cover from everyone (including the creature) and hide using that cover. You could easily fluff that as hiding under the creature's hat.
and we don't allow you to steal people's shadows.Illusions would work. There are also various abilities throughout D&D that let you manipulate shadows.
If you try to make a game which is about doing all of these things, you will essentially have to invent a whole game from scratch, so you might as well look around at other game systems while you're at it to see if you find mechanics that you'd like to steal--or maybe you will find a system which already has everything you're looking for.Yeah, if I want to do off wall weird things that have a solid mechanical basis in a high-fantasy setting, then I probably want to play Dungeon World. If I want to do lots of special tactical stuff then 3e/4e might be my bag. But all those games have their own issues, so 5e can be the best fit even though it doesn't do everything I want. The solution is, of course, to complain about it on the internet. :smallsmile:
What you basically want is for some characters to be supernatural, but not actually be supernatural, and the rest of the characters to still be bounded by normal reality. In short, rather than breaking the laws of physics, you want the laws of physics to be different for certain characters. That's still supernatural, you are just playing with definitions.Nope, I'm saying that anyone could do the things X supernatural character could do, given enough training/dedication/whathaveyou.
Maybe you want to play monk? That's a non magic yet supernatural character.It's a magic character.

The tier thing is another baseless claim. You aren't "stuck" at low tiers, and yes high level mundane characters can feel legendary. If you don't want to be Achilles, Odysseus, or Hercules (assume the variation of the 11th task is the classic one, where he stole the apples himself), as they aren't "legendary" enough for you, then you aren't going to be happy with a martial class.Achilles was nearly invulnerable, and his presence determined whether an entire army was successful or not for most of the Illiad, so no, 5e martials don't get to be like him.

Hercules was half god and stronger than any man, though I will grant 5e the fact that you can wrestle a small-enough monster in this edition with relative ease (then again a level 1 character could pull it off as well).

Odysseus' journey is only legendary because of all the divine interference. Without it he would have returned home without much trouble. But yes, I would put martial characters in this category - capable and clever, but needs serious help to overcome the challenges an epic story provides.

Sartharina

2014-12-10, 12:14 AM

Why is SpawnofMorbo trying to nerf the awesomeness Commoners can achieve?

JAL_1138

2014-12-10, 12:25 AM

If you take this viewpoint, you have a problem with Cure Wounds. Sometimes, it is a weak little spell which can heal 1 out of every 20 little tiny scratches on the Fighter's body. However, if he is unconscious and bleeding out from a gigantic gut wound (i.e. reduced to zero HP), Cure Wounds suddenly becomes a superspell which can instantly close that gut wound and get him back up on his feet... but it takes another 20 spells to cure all the minor scratches.

But yes, you can choose to simply overlook the inconsistency, and YMM very much V.

I do have an issue with Cure Wounds, I just didn't get into it there. It's a bit of a thorny problem unless you take the view that HP do represent actual meat-damage like you do, and I've heard the whole Cure X Wounds be used to make a very solid argument for that view in every edition regardless of the rules (sometimes) outright saying not all HP is meat and most is near-misses and luck. Falling into lava is another facet of the same problem. HP has been an issue for me since I started in AD&D though; not a new thing for 5th.

Though I'd be fine with letting Vitality heal up on long rests or short-rests-with-hit-dice like HP currently does (except for visual indicators like a black eye or a minor, cosmetic-only scar that have zero mechanical effect) and either have Cure Wounds only cure wounds, or recover a massive amount of vitality compared to standard value for wounds (though that's on the brokenly-good side admittedly), or tweak Cure Wounds so it recovers vitality as per normal under HP but only a fraction of that in wounds. The rapid recovery for Vitality would be on the unrealistic side, but not enough to shatter verisimilitude like a greataxe to the throat of a sleeping gnome not being fatal always has for me.

That said--I wouldn't make it the main rule; Vitality wasn't exactly massively popular back when it came out, and it can drop in or be left out with minimal modifications to the game or base classes. I'd shove it in the DMG as a variant, like weapon speed, side initiative, or the different rests, as an option for grittiness (I hate that term, but it's probably accurate) to plug in if desired but that can be safely chucked aside and ignored if not. Optional rules are good--as options. While I'd rather use V/W, HP is too IconicTM to not make it the default. I like the AD&D side initiative system better in a lot of ways too, but it takes less than a page to toss that in as an option and leave individual initiative in place as the default for the vast, vast number of people that like it better.

Look guys. You can houserule anything you want. You can give 20th level fighters Str 30,000 at your own table and I won't care. You can declare movement rates over 30 mph to be "so fast that you're invisible" (see: Dash Dash Lightning thread) and I won't care. You can let fighters transform into elephants and throw Meteor Swarms by punching things really hard and breath underwater and declare that it's "not magic," it's just wuxia-powered awesomeness, and I'll raise my eyebrows but I won't care.

While you're at it though, you should check out some other game systems, because it sounds like you might be looking for a concept which is not supported in 5E. As has been pointed out several times on this thread, nobody in 5E attains legendary levels of power and is able to break mountains or punch giants through castles. Wizards can't do it, fighters can't do it, nobody can do it. Another example: in D&D, we don't even have giants more than 1000 feet tall, let alone allow you to fight them. We don't allow you to hide under other people's hats, and we don't allow you to steal people's shadows. If you try to make a game which is about doing all of these things, you will essentially have to invent a whole game from scratch, so you might as well look around at other game systems while you're at it to see if you find mechanics that you'd like to steal--or maybe you will find a system which already has everything you're looking for.

GURPS, Hero System, and Exalted spring to mind for Epic Legendary Non-Mundane Non-Casters. FUDGE/FATE could be made to do it reasonably well I think. Refluffing and tweaking the old Marvel FASERIP system could probably work very well--ignore the fact that it's a supers game; that system deserved to be expanded and genericized. The base mechanics could've worked for absolutely anything.

archaeo

2014-12-10, 12:27 AM

It's incredible to me that the martial vs. caster debate is still the raging topic of discussion here. As an attack on the purity of the system's game design fundamentals, sure, whatever. But as an actual thing that affects how the game plays in real life? I still have yet to see it, and I don't really expect it will cause the friction people think it will. The game just provides so many ways to keep martials relevant throughout the full 20 levels that it seems absurd to really worry about it.

I don't know that much about 4e, but my understanding is that there were several different sources of super powers: divine, martial, arcane, etc. In 5e all those different powers have been refluffed as coming from the same source: magic. So fighters can resist damage or shoot fire from their hands by magic. Rogues can turn invisible or steal spells right out of a wizard's mind through magic. Barbarians can use magic to become superhumanly tough, or to speak with animals. Etc.

Well, the "source" thing isn't in it so much (or really very accurate, since those sources are mostly unchanged); the real thing that 4e does is put every class on the same "power" chassis. Rehashing the arguments on whether or not that's a good thing isn't necessary, but it's worth pointing out that 5e deliberately leaves this behind in order to keep focus on its strongly class-based design.

The only honest assessment I think you can make about these editions, in my opinion, is that they're really such separate games that they share more IP in common than mechanics. It's totally reasonable to prefer one over the other, but I think a sensible gamer will admit that both systems have their merits. 4e remains totally worthy of continued play.

Todasmile

2014-12-10, 12:27 AM

This thread is going into the gutter, and it's all because of the dumbest possible misconception. It's the same misconception which gets thrown around again and again, every single time I see this thread pop up, to the point where I half think some people are intentionally posting it to sabotage the whole thing.

Someone always brings up superheroes. I am a huge supporter of the idea that martials need to be better designed, but the superhero idea is ridiculous. 5e DOES allow you to have Superman in your party - all you have to do is rule that "nearly impossible" 30 DC tasks mean things like ripping redwoods out of the ground to swing around, or punching the tops off of mountains, or using your Acrobatics skill to dodge time and stop getting older. If you, as a DM, want to run a high-power super game where your players are doing impossible tasks in epic ways, you can do it.

Your Fighter wants to be superman? Why, just tell him that all of his attacks are rending the earth asunder for miles around. Whenever he shoves an enemy, the shockwave can be heard across the world. Maybe people start commenting on the unusual weather.

It's possible. You can do it. The system supports it. It has never been what I argued or wanted. With a few tiny house rules, you can have your martials tripping Tiamat and then holding her to the ground, so please, for the love of god, stop discussing it. You're getting nowhere.

What I want is for martial characters to have the possibility of being as complex, interesting, and rewarding as casters, without being casters. I agree that, just as a Wizard can easily take on a simple, blasty role, a Fighter should be able to take on an easy, choppy role like the Champion. What I want is for the Fighter, or the Monk, or the Barbarian, or the Rogue, or any other class, to have the option to become complex as well - though similarly to others, I actually do really like where the Rogue and Monk are at right now. Generally, I argue purely about Fighters, because I have the most experience with them, and they're the ones I feel are least well-done. Barbarians also have incredibly samey, hack'n'slash combat, but I still generally have no problem with them.

In short, I just want to be able to have options beyond "I move and hit, and maybe use a maneuver". These might be in or out of combat - but probably in combat, seeing as I chose a Fighter, with some out-of-combat physical stuff. The incredible power the Fighter has in their basic attack is actually a detriment. While the basic attack should be strong, and always an option, having it be incredibly powerful really does quench a lot of opportunity.

TL;DR for this entire post: You can already make superheroes, stop talking about them, think more about improving the mechanics of the martial game.

archaeo

2014-12-10, 12:36 AM

What I want is for martial characters to have the possibility of being as complex, interesting, and rewarding as casters, without being casters. I agree that, just as a Wizard can easily take on a simple, blasty role, a Fighter should be able to take on an easy, choppy role like the Champion. What I want is for the Fighter, or the Monk, or the Barbarian, or the Rogue, or any other class, to have the option to become complex as well - though similarly to others, I actually do really like where the Rogue and Monk are at right now. Generally, I argue purely about Fighters, because I have the most experience with them, and they're the ones I feel are least well-done. Barbarians also have incredibly samey, hack'n'slash combat, but I still generally have no problem with them.

In short, I just want to be able to have options beyond "I move and hit, and maybe use a maneuver". These might be in or out of combat - but probably in combat, seeing as I chose a Fighter, with some out-of-combat physical stuff. The incredible power the Fighter has in their basic attack is actually a detriment. While the basic attack should be strong, and always an option, having it be incredibly powerful really does quench a lot of opportunity.

I mean, what you said about narrative superheroism applies just as easily to the "move and hit" problem, insofar as you can narrate those hits beautifully.

But beyond that, the base game already offers fighters and barbarians meaty in-combat mechanical options, it just does so in a way that isn't immediately obvious. In the PHB, they're already best at grappling and shoving, get to split their moves between attacks to cover more ground, and have many good opportunities for feats that further expand their toolsets. This may sound facile, but compare champion fighter to a heavily structured poem, the sort that requires all kinds of rhymes and repeated lines. While it can be nice to have a more freeing form with more "options," it's also cool to play with a restricted kit.

And then, of course, if you let martials take advantage of a lot of the DMG alternate combat actions, you expand that toolset a little more. You can make a very tactically interesting game with the DMG options, though I doubt it ever gets to 4e's level.

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-10, 12:58 AM

Yes, because they aren't supernatural. Not being subject to the laws of physics makes you, by definition, supernatural. I'm not even kidding.

You want every single character in the game to be supernatural. Not everyone wants that, nor is it really DnD.

And within a fantasy realm that doesn't have to be true. If the setting is made where it is natural that martials get amazing and awesome things... Then it isn't supernatural anymore.

You are taking a word that has a specific meaning bases on our reality and applying it to a fantasy game. Fantasy settings can change their rules and such to accomidate anything... Unless it is D&D apparently and then fa tasy has to be a strict and unyielding idea. Which you know, is the exact opposite of fantasy.

An effect that isnt natural would be ci sidered supernatural in the real world where our physics is a define law, but in a fantasy setting the defined law is what you make of it. There is absolutely nothing stopping a martial from having an awesome ability and it not be a supernatural or magic effect.

Well except for arbitrary (my phone confuses this word with two others for whatever reason) rules out in place to limit fantasy of a specific classes for no other reason than to limit them. All the while another group does not have to abide by the same rules.

Just like how giants existing is part of the natural world of d&d and is not a supernatural effect within the game, so too can be martials getting nice things.

JoeJ

2014-12-10, 01:41 AM

This is a world where giant creatures aren't crushed under their own weight, large insects don't suffocate within minutes, owlbears can exist and reproduce, and there's still something outside of that physics that both can't be explained and can be analyzed and mastered enough for wizards to exist. So yeah, I expect wuxia-powered awesomeness in my games.

You mean like fighters who can shoot energy beams out of their hands? Or run at super speed? Or summon the wind? Or dissolve the spells of their enemies? Or summon their weapon to their hand from any distance? Or teleport? Fighters can already gain all those wuxia-like abilities, and more.

Todasmile

2014-12-10, 02:52 AM

I mean, what you said about narrative superheroism applies just as easily to the "move and hit" problem, insofar as you can narrate those hits beautifully.

But beyond that, the base game already offers fighters and barbarians meaty in-combat mechanical options, it just does so in a way that isn't immediately obvious. In the PHB, they're already best at grappling and shoving, get to split their moves between attacks to cover more ground, and have many good opportunities for feats that further expand their toolsets. This may sound facile, but compare champion fighter to a heavily structured poem, the sort that requires all kinds of rhymes and repeated lines. While it can be nice to have a more freeing form with more "options," it's also cool to play with a restricted kit.

And then, of course, if you let martials take advantage of a lot of the DMG alternate combat actions, you expand that toolset a little more. You can make a very tactically interesting game with the DMG options, though I doubt it ever gets to 4e's level.

You can make "I move and attack" fun and interesting, sure. And that's great for the people who want to play Champion or Barbarian but still want a bit of meat, kind of like playing a Warlock. Having the option of a simple but powerful character should always be there.

I just wish that for the people who chose Battlemaster they had handled the maneuver system a bit better. I also sort of wish that my weapon choice and fighting style mattered beyond "oh, here's +2 to damage" or "oh, reroll 1s". I wish that my mace blows lowered speed or that my sword cuts made people bleed, or that using a greatmaul let me ignore / lower AC because at some point I'm just bashing straight through armor. Polearm Master is great - but it feels like they stopped halfway and decided not to make more.

It might be greedy, but that's one of my biggest complaints regarding martial characters, and Fighters especially. They go out of their way with 70 pages of various information on spells and everything they can possibly do, but then they just go halfway with martial stuff. The only difference between a battleaxe and a longsword is that one's an axe and one's a sword. It's sad.

Fwiffo86

2014-12-10, 09:56 AM

Well.... how about something like this....

((Warning, not thought out well Homebrew Suggestion))

Have the fighter (as this is pretty much his thing anyway) as a class ability instead of say... second wind or something else to substitute gain the following...

Superior Weapon training
Finesse weapons: When using weapons with the finesse category, the fighter can spend his reaction to gain advantage on one of his attacks that turn.

Versatile weapons: When using a weapon with the versatile property, a fighter can change his grip by spending his reaction and use the opportunity to inflict greater damage. If the fighter hits with his first attack after switching grip, he gains advantage on the damage roll.

Just quick suggestions to add weapon choice as a important tactical decision on the basis of the fighter.

Madfellow

2014-12-10, 11:15 AM

MaxWilson

2014-12-10, 09:31 PM

In short, I just want to be able to have options beyond "I move and hit, and maybe use a maneuver". These might be in or out of combat - but probably in combat, seeing as I chose a Fighter, with some out-of-combat physical stuff. The incredible power the Fighter has in their basic attack is actually a detriment. While the basic attack should be strong, and always an option, having it be incredibly powerful really does quench a lot of opportunity.

This is why I like Eldritch Knights in 5E. You get all the power of a fighter, but with an extra layer of customization that lets you take advantage of the 90+ pages in the PHB devoted to spells.

(And yes, I realize that some people, for some reason, think that makes Eldritch Knights not count as fighters. Baffling, but there you have it.)

SpawnOfMorbo

2014-12-11, 11:46 AM

The problem seems to be that some of the community wants Fighters to be Superman, when they're already at Batman levels of power. Sure Batman can't fly, but he's still a founding member of the Justice League and he can still totally kick your @$$.

Actually it isn't even that extreme, people just like making it that extreme.

Interesting and awesome doesn't have to mean superman. Also the fighter isn't Batman, batman has waaaay more plot and tools to play with.

If the fighter could, as a class feature, have things like a grappling hook shooter, batrangs that can bounce and hit multiple targets or ricochet and hit a creature, or have an item that gives them night vision... Then they would be batman.

Batman isn't high fantasy. Batman is awesome because the DM fiat is strong within the plot of the comics and movies.

The Fighter isn't even on hawkeye level of interesting or awesome, that guy didn't even have to point his bow in the right direction or hold it in the right way (seriously, its pretty funny) in the movies to hit his targets!

I used to think if you balanced each class versus the game then things would be fine, but I didn't think they would make all noncasters so... Meh.

Don't get me wrong, having a simple version of every class would be nice for new players, but that doesn't mean we can't have a high fantasy version of a class that doesn't turn into a caster.

Most people that I've talked to that wants high fantasy martials in the game are also ok with low fantasy options too.

Of course having interesting and awesome options doesn't have to mean high fantasy martials. I've seen Champion Homebrews over on other sites where the simple champion has interesting options.