5e Saving Throws

[Tonden Ockay]

There is one thing that I'm not sure that I like about 5e.

The Saving Throws System

Here is what I mean and please correct me if I am wrong which I kind of hope that I am :).

Level 20 Wizard with a 20 INT casts a spell on a level 20 Warrior with a 12 INT

The Wizard gets a base of 8, +6 for level, and a +5 for INT, which equals 19

So the Warrior needs a total of 19 to save right?

Ok the Warrior gets +6 for his level and a +1 for this INT right? So he would have a +7 and would need to roll a 12 to save right?



I am just asking because a level 20 2e Warrior would only need to roll a 4. Plus if he his the Wizard before he can cast the spell is lost.


I hope I'm doing something wrong because that is a big difference.

[Slipperychicken]

A few things:

There's no class called "Warrior". The closest classes are "Fighter" and "Barbarian".
The "+X for level" you're talking about is the Proficiency bonus. It only applies to things which the creature is proficient with.
A character only adds his proficiency bonus to a saving throw if he's proficient with it. Rogues, Druids, and Wizards are proficient with intelligence saves. Other classes would either need a class feature or the Resilient feat.



You are correct that a level 20 character with proficiency in intelligence saves and an Int of 12 would have a +7 for his intelligence saves. This gives him a 45% chance to pass a DC 19 intelligence save. That becomes 20.25% with disadvantage, and 69.75% with advantage.

However, bear in mind that DC 19 is near the upper limit for a spellcaster's save DCs. It requires both maximum level (20) and maximum intelligence (20).


[EDIT: Also bear in mind that the type of save varies with the spell. The majority of mind-related spells currently call for wisdom saves. There currently almost no spells, effects, or monsters which call for intelligence saves, although we expect more intelligence saves to come up when the psionics book comes out.]

[hymer]

It's much worse, I'm sorry to inform you. The fighter isn't proficient in Intelligence saves, so he only gets 1d20+(int modifier). He'd have to roll 18 to make that save.

Edit: Shadowmonk'ed.

[kaoskonfety]

Which save the fighter is making will vary with he spell - 2 quick examples to show the 2 extremes:

Assuming Con save they are proficient so: Stat bonus (say +5) + Prof bonus(6 at level 20) + die roll - 11+d20 saving just over half the time

Assuming Dex save they are NOT proficient so: Stat bonus (say +0 on a str/con focus monkey) + die roll - 0+D20 - you are gonna fail most of the time

Hope this helps

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

The Wizard's DC is 8 + 6 + 5 = 19, correct.

But depending on what spell he uses and therefore what save he targets, the Fighter will have to save on one of STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS or CHA.

If it's STR or CON, which the fighter has high stats and is proficient, the save will be 1d20 + 6 + 4 or 5. He needs to roll 9 or 10 to save.

If the wizard targets something the Fighter isn't proficient and has low stats in (Say he dumped CHA, for example), then he's have a much harder time. It becomes 1d20 -1. He needs to roll 20 to save.

[Knaight]

As has been stated, it's substantially worse. With that said, it's also pretty easy to fix - add double proficiency to good saves, and proficiency to bad saves.

[pwykersotz]

Do remember though, you're comparing these things in a vacuum. Late game (which is the basis for your comparison) is filled with needs and opportunities to synergize, both with existing class features and with party features. But yes, it is technically possible it could be as bad as the character needing to roll an 18 on the die to save against a powerful wizard. It is equally possible that they roll with advantage and a +5 (or more). And that's the bad save. Buffed characters with proficient saves only fail on VERY low rolls.

[Galen]

As has been stated, it's substantially worse. With that said, it's also pretty easy to fix - add double proficiency to good saves, and proficiency to bad saves.
That's too much. Good saves will be passed all the time, basically. Fighter, high Con (+5), +12 from levels, will have +17. He only needs not to roll a 1 to pass that DC 19 save.

As a compromise, may I suggest half-proficiency to bad saves, and leave good saves as they are?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

As has been stated, it's substantially worse. With that said, it's also pretty easy to fix - add double proficiency to good saves, and proficiency to bad saves.

That's a "Fix"? Now the fighter saves against the max level Wizard's spells on any roll but a 1 for his good saves. And he has nearly a 1 in 3 chance to save on his dump stat. I think you've swung things too far the other way.

[Mr.Moron]

That's a "Fix"? Now the fighter saves against the max level Wizard's spells on any roll but a 1 for his good saves. And he has nearly a 1 in 3 chance to save on his dump stat. I think you've swung things too far the other way.


It depends. OP wanted 4+ saves across the board. Even 1/3 is higher fail chance than he was looking for. This might be a good patch if someone's looking to have save effects in general be very unreliable.

[dancrilis]

Fighters can also reroll saves if they want with indomitable.

Frankly I think the current system seems to be fine - yes if the Wizard ambushes the fighter he might cripple them with a single spell (kindof the point of being a Wizard) - however the fighter might also very well kill the wizard in one round of combat if he wins initiative (kindof the point of being a Fighter).

[Tonden Ockay]

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of not having to use a chart for saving throws and I like the thoughts of making each stat count. However this imo just plan out sucks about 5e. You would think the higher the level you go the better your saves git. Yet this isn't the case because at level 20 you will be fighting things closer to your level not a bunch of level ones.

Shoot lets use a level 1 Wizard with 18 INT vs level 20 Fighter with 12 INT just for kicks.

Wizard base of 8 +2 for level +4 for INT = 14

The 20 level Fighter would have +1 for INT and may be a +6 so he would need to get a 13 or 7 vs a level 1 Wizard. This is still worse then 2e who only needed a 4 to save at level 17 I think.

I just wish I knew there thoughts in making 5e saves so much harder.

[Person_Man]

Late game (which is the basis for your comparison) is filled with needs and opportunities to synergize, both with existing class features and with party features.

This.

Lets not forget the existence of class abilities, spells, feats, and magic items. It is assumed that players will devote some of these resources to improving their Saving Throws and/or work as a team to improve their defenses, and if they don't, they're choosing to optimize other things which will make them awesome in other ways.

Conversely, if you jigger the base math to make it easier for high level players to pass Saving Throws, then well optimized players can make themselves functionally immune to the vast majority of effects that require them.

[kaoskonfety]

As has been stated, it's substantially worse. With that said, it's also pretty easy to fix - add double proficiency to good saves, and proficiency to bad saves.

K... I'm going to disagree with 'the saving throw system needs a fix' - it works fine in a party environment for its intended purpose. Yes your fighter sucks at shaking off charms and your wizard cannot break a grapple.

Who cares? The wizard can dispel and counter charms and if your wizard is in a grapple instead of the fighter you have other problems.

Dump stat in Charisma so your save sucks? You made that choice. You could have a decent charisma and double or triple the chances of you not falling for the attack (and been maor sexy) - but you wanted more +1's on your damage - and thats also fine.

Double prof bonus/prof bonus on all saves is comparable to giving prof bonuses to AC's - it looks like it works stand alone but messes up alot of the balance elsewhere, and you REALLY don't want the bad guys getting it.

Rather than change the core mechanic and doubling prof bonus in your natives saves, I'd suggest making the Saving throw feat more attractive and offer 2 good saves for the feat instead of the one good save and stat boost? now for 1 feat you can be 'good' at all 3 "common" saves (provided you didn't dump Wisdom off at the docks with cement shoes, even then, not TOO awful...)

[mephnick]

The save spells aren't as harsh now anyway. I mean, sure it sucks being blinded or dominated, but your party should be able to make up for it somehow. There are no save or dies. Counterspelling is actually an option now. By level 20 you should have some practice playing tactically as a team.

[Knaight]

That's too much. Good saves will be passed all the time, basically. Fighter, high Con (+5), +12 from levels, will have +17. He only needs not to roll a 1 to pass that DC 19 save.

As a compromise, may I suggest half-proficiency to bad saves, and leave good saves as they are?
Monsters can get above that DC 19 save just fine though. A 30 stat is +10 to save difficulty on its own, and monsters can have proficiency bonuses above +6. Plus, good saves will only be passed all the time at really high levels, at lower levels a +2 goes to +4 or a +3 to +6, neither of which are close to guarantees.


That's a "Fix"? Now the fighter saves against the max level Wizard's spells on any roll but a 1 for his good saves. And he has nearly a 1 in 3 chance to save on his dump stat. I think you've swung things too far the other way.
If the goal is something more like 2e saves? Absolutely, and I still maintain that the effect is overstated because monsters aren't being looked at enough here.


It depends. OP wanted 4+ saves across the board. Even 1/3 is higher fail chance than he was looking for. This might be a good patch if someone's looking to have save effects in generally be very unreliable.
Exactly. This is the end goal, doubling gets towards it.

[Tonden Ockay]

This.

Lets not forget the existence of class abilities, spells, feats, and magic items. It is assumed that players will devote some of these resources to improving their Saving Throws and/or work as a team to improve their defenses, and if they don't, they're choosing to optimize other things which will make them awesome in other ways.

Conversely, if you jigger the base math to make it easier for high level players to pass Saving Throws, then well optimized players can make themselves functionally immune to the vast majority of effects that require them.



Rather than change the core mechanic and doubling prof bonus in your natives saves, I'd suggest making the Saving throw feat more attractive and offer 2 good saves for the feat instead of the one good save and stat boost? now for 1 feat you can be 'good' at all 3 "common" saves (provided you didn't dump Wisdom off at the docks with cement shoes, even then, not TOO awful...)

I for one did want to play with the "optional" feats and I like to play worlds where magical items are rare. So what do you have to say about this kind of campaign. After all they said the feats are optional and the game mechanics was designed so you didn't have to have magical items.

[calebrus]

There are some fairly important parts that you're missing.

1) Most spells target one of the big three (Con/Dex/Wis). Spells which target the other three are fairly rare in comparison.
2) Every class gets proficiency in one of the big three (Con/Dex/Wis) and one of the little three (Str/Int/Cha), and each class' proficiency is different. In combination with the previous point, this means that AoE or multitarget spells will probably not take out an entire group of melee players.
3) Many of the melee classes have some feature built in that helps alleviate some of this. Berserkers can't be charmed or frightened while raging, and some Bear Totem Warriors have advantage against every type of damage except psychic . Fighters can reroll a saving throw multiple times per day, and have more opportunities to grab a feat like Resilient. Monks eventually become proficient with every saving throw. Paladins add their Cha bonus to every saving throw (and any allies within 10' gain the benefit as well). Rogues eventually gain proficiency with Wis saves and also have more opportunity than most to grab a feat like Resilience.
Rangers are literally the only "melee" class that doesn't gain some benefit in this area, and they are much better as archers than in melee usually.

It really isn't as big a deal as some people make it out to be. But if you wanted to do something about it, I suggest the house rule that our table uses:
If you multiclass, at level 3 of the secondary class, you gain half proficiency (rounded down) with the minor save from that class (str/int/cha). At level 6 of the secondary class you gain half proficiency with the major save from that class (con/dex/wis). If you already have proficiency with that saving throw, no other benefit is gained. These multiclass save proficiencies only apply to your second class to reach 3rd and 6th level, respectively. If you have a third class to reach these levels, no benefit is gained.
So full proficiency to your first class' saves. Half proficiency to your second class' saves, but only after reaching certain levels with the class.

Or you could simply allow half proficiency (rounded down) to non-proficient saves across the board.

[Tonden Ockay]

Is the goal for 5e is not not make your save most of the time?

Is it meant for you to only save once in a while when you get a lucky roll?

Due to spells doing less damage, Players having more HPs, and no save vs death spells that they feel player's don't need to make saves but yet they still wanted to give you a chance if you got lucky?

[Mr.Moron]

Is the goal for 5e is not not make your save most of the time?

Is it meant for you to only save once in a while when you get a lucky roll?

Due to spells doing less damage, Players having more HPs, and no save vs death spells that they feel player's don't need to make saves but yet they still wanted to give you a chance if you got lucky?

The assumption seems to be if it's a save you're good at you should have something around an even shot at it, while your bad saves are things that you're only going to shrug off if you're lucky.

I don't mind that kind of approach, but obviously tastes vary.

[dancrilis]

I think the Fighter has less to worry about from the enemy Wizard doing 19d6+40 damage with a disintegrate on a failed save (and nothing on a passed one), than he has to worry about the enemy Assassin doing 44d6 with a short bow with a failed save (and 22d6 on a passed one).

One of those does average 106.5 damage (not enough to kill the average Con 10 fighter at level 20), the other does average 154 damage (enough to kill a Con 12 fighter).

And that is with the Fighter having good Con saves - those without them are in even more danger.

[Tonden Ockay]

I think the Fighter has less to worry about from the enemy Wizard doing 19d6+40 damage with a disintegrate on a failed save (and nothing on a passed one), than he has to worry about the enemy Assassin doing 44d6 with a short bow with a failed save (and 22d6 on a passed one).

One of those does average 106.5 damage (not enough to kill the average Con 10 fighter at level 20), the other does average 154 damage (enough to kill a Con 12 fighter).

And that is with the Fighter having good Con saves - those without them are in even more danger.

WoW 44d6 this just sounds OP. For someone who never played past 2e.

[Tonden Ockay]

in 2e a Fighters saves at level 17+ was

3 5 4 4 6 that would be an average of 4.4

Now we have players doing 44d6 and Fighters saves are no where close to this good.

What is the 44d6 save vs DEX? If so a STR CON fighter is screwed.

[Tonden Ockay]

I have to say I'm not liking the sounds of the high Damage that seems to be going on in 5e. What happen to keeping the numbers down. Did they forget to do that when it came to damage?

[Oscredwin]

Monsters can get above that DC 19 save just fine though. A 30 stat is +10 to save difficulty on its own, and monsters can have proficiency bonuses above +6. Plus, good saves will only be passed all the time at really high levels, at lower levels a +2 goes to +4 or a +3 to +6, neither of which are close to guarantees.

Ok, you're using PC rules to generate monster saves. The monster rules chart caps save DCs at 23, and that's at CR30. You can have stronger DCs (there are ways in the rules to get save DCs up to 8+9+10 = 27, which is passed on a 15 or higher with a 20 stat and prof) but now we're talking about the most powerful attack from the most powerful monster of the game. The whole fight is about avoiding being hit by that attack while still doing damage.

Save DCs above 18 should be used sparingly and carefully, they push some characters off the d20 which is a big warning sign. But how many such DCs are there preloaded in the game?

[dancrilis]

What is the 44d6 save vs DEX? If so a STR CON fighter is screwed.

It is against CON - but that just means that classes without CON (and likely less hit points than a fighter) are going to be unhappy with the DM for sending Assassins after them.

It is also only a single attack that has to catch the Fighter (or whoever) somewhat unprepared - but Assassin's are good at that.

It is also in my example 44d6+10 (I forgot that bit above so even better and averaging 164).
This is based on a non-magical shortbow and non-magical arrow, compared to Disintegrate cast as a 9th level spell.

Edit:
Corrected the +20 to a +10.

[calebrus]

I have to say I'm not liking the sounds of the high Damage that seems to be going on in 5e. What happen to keeping the numbers down. Did they forget to do that when it came to damage?

He's using the most extreme examples imaginable (a level 20 rogue with a specific subclass that attacks from hidden once on the first round of combat and has surprise, and a level 9 spell of which he only gets one). And he's using player vs player examples, but monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs.
It really isn't as bad as it looks. The sky is not falling.

[Kurald Galain]

I have to say I'm not liking the sounds of the high Damage that seems to be going on in 5e. What happen to keeping the numbers down. Did they forget to do that when it came to damage?

There never was a "keeping the numbers down" with regard to damage. From the beginning, the design principle was that all numbers barely scale with level, except for damage and hit points.

[kaoskonfety]

I for one did want to play with the "optional" feats and I like to play worlds where magical items are rare. So what do you have to say about this kind of campaign. After all they said the feats are optional and the game mechanics was designed so you didn't have to have magical items.

I suppose I'd say,
In the absence of feats why are any of your stats dump stats? Why are any of your main save stats under 14, or 16?

You can quite reasonably as a human start with all stats 13/14 on point buy. and still have 2 stats at 20 by level 20. Or all 15/16+. As a fighter you can do slightly better than this even. Do these stack up to the 20 int level 20 wizards DC? No, but the number you need to roll is no longer 20, its in the 15-17 range.

2nd edition fighter has a save 4+ at the high end yes, saves really were the fighter "trick" - but how many things at that point were imposing -5 or greater penalties on that save (you the hearty fighter has a good chance, the wizard was doomed)? Those that weren't were save or die forever with no chance at being resurrected and other similar cripple effects. Or dragon fire and you take half damage... and are dead anyway (unless you are the fighter HP!) cause **damages**.
The fighter was the unyielding, scarred front liner who shrugged nearly everything off. The wizard got cloud kill and fireball but was squishy.

The systems look the same at a glance and feel the same in several places. But the underlying design ideas are drastically different. Saying "I used to have a 4+ save and want one now" is not reasonable against an optimized caster - mostly because that optimized caster cannot win with you blowing one save on a single 2nd level spell, now you get a save when it hits you, and another save on your next action... and the next.... and this is not counting other fighter type character save tricks.

[Oscredwin]

That assassin who's doing 174 average damage has a CR of 22, and is kind of a wuss at that. Sure, he'll kill one character, but then the cleric revives the fighter and the wizard and rogue take half his HP. Now he doesn't have a way to SA (no friends and a 20 wizard taking a fight seriously should be able to keep him from hiding) and will die shortly.

[calebrus]

I said it in another thread and I'll say it again here, Tonden.
2e was always my favorite edition, hands down, by far.
That was true until 5e was released. Now I'm sold.
Give it a shot. As a 2e player, you'll almost certainly be happy with it. I can damn near guarantee it.

[Slipperychicken]

Also, I think it bears mentioning that many powers are save-ends, allowing additional saves each round.

That means a failed save in 5e isn't as disastrous as a failed save in 3.5. The former might screw you over for one turn, while the latter would take you out of the fight entirely.

[Kurald Galain]

I suppose I'd say,
In the absence of feats why are any of your stats dump stats? Why are any of your main save stats under 14, or 16?

...because with straight 16s in all your stats, your odds of making a non-proficient save at high level are still pretty bad?

A 12 or a 16 is only a 10% difference. If your saves suck with a 12 wisdom, they're not suddenly going to be excellent with a 16 wisdom.

[Tonden Ockay]

There never was a "keeping the numbers down" with regard to damage. From the beginning, the design principle was that all numbers barely scale with level, except for damage and hit points.

Why is this? If you keep down the Damage then you can keep down the HPs. Which would be less dice rolling and smaller numbers to work with, keeping everything simple.

[dancrilis]

He's using the most extreme examples imaginable (a level 20 rogue with a specific subclass that attacks from hidden once on the first round of combat and has surprise, and a level 9 spell of which he only gets one). And he's using player vs player examples, but monsters don't follow the same rules as PCs.
It really isn't as bad as it looks. The sky is not falling.

This is all true.

You would expect the Assassin to get that attack more often than not - it does require a little prep, but Rogue abilities (and the Assassin specific abilities), should make that not an issue.

I think the rules actually work fairly well - the classes are good at what they do, any class can easily win against any other assuming that they get to take advantage of there abilities and catch the other one unprepared.

You expect the master sniper to beat the master martial artist across an open field - however in close quarters you would expect the reverse to be true.

[calebrus]

Why is this? If you keep down the Damage then you can keep down the HPs. Which would be less dice rolling and smaller numbers to work with, keeping everything simple.

It's about perception and satisfaction. Just like in MMOs where your attack does thousands of damage, or hundreds o thousands. It's not about simplicity. It's about the perception that you are getting *better* over time, and because players like to see big numbers rather than small ones.

[Kurald Galain]

Why is this? If you keep down the Damage then you can keep down the HPs. Which would be less dice rolling and smaller numbers to work with, keeping everything simple.

Because if (in addition to attacks and defense) you also keep damage and HPs down, then there's not really any point to having levels any more. Many players like it if a level-10 character is much stronger than a level-1 character.

[Tonden Ockay]

I suppose I'd say,
In the absence of feats why are any of your stats dump stats? Why are any of your main save stats under 14, or 16?

You can quite reasonably as a human start with all stats 13/14 on point buy. and still have 2 stats at 20 by level 20. Or all 15/16+. As a fighter you can do slightly better than this even. Do these stack up to the 20 int level 20 wizards DC? No, but the number you need to roll is no longer 20, its in the 15-17 range.

2nd edition fighter has a save 4+ at the high end yes, saves really were the fighter "trick" - but how many things at that point were imposing -5 or greater penalties on that save (you the hearty fighter has a good chance, the wizard was doomed)? Those that weren't were save or die forever with no chance at being resurrected and other similar cripple effects. Or dragon fire and you take half damage... and are dead anyway (unless you are the fighter HP!) cause **damages**.
The fighter was the unyielding, scarred front liner who shrugged nearly everything off. The wizard got cloud kill and fireball but was squishy.

The systems look the same at a glance and feel the same in several places. But the underlying design ideas are drastically different. Saying "I used to have a 4+ save and want one now" is not reasonable against an optimized caster - mostly because that optimized caster cannot win with you blowing one save on a single 2nd level spell, now you get a save when it hits you, and another save on your next action... and the next.... and this is not counting other fighter type character save tricks.

Point buying in 5e

you start with a base of 8 and have 27 points to spend. It will cost you 9 points for one 15 or 5 points for a 13. So you could have:

15,15,15,8,8,8

or

13,13,13,13,13,10

Fighters will get up to a +14 to stats by level 20 while a Cleric will get up to a +10 to stats by level 20.

Not every one wants to play a human.

[dancrilis]

That assassin who's doing 174 average damage has a CR of 22, and is kind of a wuss at that. Sure, he'll kill one character, but then the cleric revives the fighter and the wizard and rogue take half his HP. Now he doesn't have a way to SA (no friends and a 20 wizard taking a fight seriously should be able to keep him from hiding) and will die shortly.

Just to correct myself above it is 164 damage (forgot that the critical will only double the dice, not the static value).

The flip side a level 20 DM assassin that attacks the party as a group is likely doing it wrong, wait until they are at town - likely separate maybe sleeping and wipe them out.
But at that stage you can assume that the DM is finished with the game and might hate the players, such a game will likely not have gotten to level 20.

[Bubzors]

Another thing people have mentioned that I want to reiterate is that your fighter isn't alone. He has a party of other PCs that can help him. I'm AFB but off the top of my head:

-the paladin aura that gives his charisma to saves. That's a possible additional +5
-bard uses bardic inspiration go help
- the wild sorcerer uses bend luck
-the fighter had enhance ability cast on him
-diviner wizard changes the roll so the roll passes

And I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting right now. Also this is not including any magic items that may help. So yea, maybe the wizard gets the fighter to fail one save, then the rest of the party comes in to help and he is back in the fight the next round. Not nearly as bad as it looks on paper

[Tonden Ockay]

Because if (in addition to attacks and defense) you also keep damage and HPs down, then there's not really any point to having levels any more. Many players like it if a level-10 character is much stronger than a level-1 character.

You could go up a d6 ever 5 levels or something that would still be better then level one. It doesn't need to be 44d6.

Plus the more damage you can do the stronger they make the creatures so you really not getting better.

That is why I think most people who play video game are retarded ok so you get 10 more levels and do xxxxx more damage ok so what because the creatures your now fighter are tougher and hit harder as well so what was the point?

I do not play D&D to become powerful. I play it for the story, so I do not need or care to have high numbers.

[Kurald Galain]

You could go up a d6 ever 5 levels or something that would still be better then level one.

Or you could choose to play only levels 1 through 5, while other people choose to play levels 1 through 20. That way you only go up 4d6 over your entire career, whereas other people still have the option for more than that.

It is generally better for sales to not aim a game only at one particular playstyle, after all.

[Tonden Ockay]

I like a lot of things that 5e brings to the table. However I'm not liking the high HPs and high damage its reminding my a lot of World of Warcraft.

There is no reason to give high hps and damage. Again going 1d6 to say 4d6 is still better without going as far as 44d6. Sorry I will never be a fan of high HP or Damage. That is what turns me off when it comes to most video games now days.

[calebrus]

You could go up a d6 ever 5 levels or something that would still be better then level one. It doesn't need to be 44d6.

Once again, that was such an amazingly extreme example that you'll never see it in actual play.
A level 20 rogue gets 1d6+dex mod weapon, +10d6 sneak attack, for a total of 11d6+dex.
He was using a level 20 Assassin rogue, from hiding, with surprise, only on the first round of combat, with the best poison in the entire game (12d6).... and he was using what is arguably (and confirmed to be) an incorrect interpretation of the poison rules to allow that poison to double on a crit (it doesn't).
So really, that 44d6 example, should have been 22d6+dex (once again, with the above stipulationsm) +12d6 save for half. Which is slightly above *half* of what he's implying it to be.
Every other round afterward, and every other attack afterward that doesn't roll a natural 20, will be 11d6+dex (one quarter what he's proposing).

I'll repeat, thew sky is not falling.

On forums you get examples of the worst case scenario (and usually peppered with inaccuracies as well, like in this case) that don't actually happen in play. Don't sweat it. He's making you afraid of something that you have no need to be afraid of.

[dancrilis]

If it makes it any better it is actually (22d6)*2 - I just simplified.

On the power level I think a lot of that comes from it being that Goblins should not be only slightly less tough than ancient Dragons.

There is also the enjoyment of having a high level character decide to 'relax' by solving an issue that they are well beyond -
High level party over hears about a Dire Wolf terrorising the village they are in.
PC1: 'Ah a dire wolf, I remember back when one of those tore through the us - we were lucky so survive, hahaha'.
PC2: 'Ha remember PC3 defecated when the second one arrived'.
PC1: 'They were a good lad - pity about what happened with him and that Medusa'.
PC4: 'Ah enough of that - she was alright, they should be happy together'.
PC1: 'Split the damn party is what she did - no adventuring its dangerous - of course its bloody dangerous. But I suppose all they best to them'.
PC5: 'Hey, hey ... I have a cunning plan - lets hunt the Dire Wolf, relive old times?'.
PC2: 'Do we have time?'.
PC4: 'Think so not due in the city for a month for the coronation - she'll allow PC3 out of her sight for a Dire Wolf'.
PC1: 'Get the band back together - I like it. Lets hunt that wolf'.

That wouldn't happen unless you were sufficiently more powerful than the Dire Wolf to laugh it off.


with the best poison in the entire game (12d6)
What?
I was using no poison. Simple non-magical arrow and simple non-magical bow.
Assassin short bow 1d6+5. Sneak attack +10d6. Crit (from the level 3 assassin) doubles dice. 22d6+5. Death Strike - double the damage, (22d6+5)*2.
If you want to include the poison it becomes (36d6+5)*2 - average 262 damage.

[Kurald Galain]

I'll repeat, thew sky is not falling.

What is the save DC on a falling sky, though?

[calebrus]

Stop using the most extreme case you can imagine that will literally NEVER be seen in play (because monsters and PCs use different rules).
He will literally never see that scenario at the table, and you're using it in a way that will deter him from ever even trying the system.

He came here to alleviate some of his concerns about how things look on paper, and you're giving the most extreme PvP example you can imagine, which will literally never occur.
You are not helping.


On forums you get examples of the worst case scenario (and usually peppered with inaccuracies as well, like in this case) that don't actually happen in play. Don't sweat it. He's making you afraid of something that you have no need to be afraid of.

With your explanation of Death Strike, the innaccuracy is now not that poison crits, but that the PCs will face a level 20 assassin rogue who sets up an insta-gib against one of them. Remember, monsters and PCs use different rules. No monster has 20 levels of rogue and the assassin subclass.

[Oscredwin]

You could go up a d6 ever 5 levels or something that would still be better then level one.

The problem there is that that's actually much harder to balance. If you get more options as you level, but never outdamage your level 1 character using default attack then things like fireball (same damage as magic missile, just more area) and dual wielding (attack twice, double damage, or much more reliable damage), then you may get actions that get around your intended limits, look at how XbowX and Polearm Master are the best feats because they allow you to get an extra attack with bonuses. If everyone's damage is going up from 10/round to 50/round giving characters an extra 5-10 damage from optimization isn't such a big deal. If everyone stayed at 10/round unless they did this one cool trick, in which case it would double, everyone would need to do that trick (whether or not that trick was intended to be so effective by the designers). If it's only 20% of damage, it becomes good but not mandatory.

[dancrilis]

Stop using the most extreme case you can imagine that will literally NEVER be seen in play (because monsters and PCs use different rules).
He will literally never see that scenario at the table, and you're using it in a way that will deter him from ever even trying the system.
It is fairly likely to be seen in play if an Assassin is in the party - it will just be pointed at the enemy. Also I didn't use an extreme example - Dex 20 Assassin is likely fairly standard for a level 20 Assassin (which is itself an extreme example), but high level characters were being discussed from the first post.



You are not helping.
I am also not the one that misrepresented what someone else was saying by including bits that were simple not present and than accusing the person of applying those made up bits incorrectly - with the added bit of accusing them of being inaccurate.

And for all I know his DM and his party style likes to use human antagonist parties using the standard PC rules, or likes PvP or whatever - the initial concern was effectively on Wizard vs Fighter, and the assumed power of spells, I wanted to highlight that this was not really a concern given how the system is designed.

[Tonden Ockay]

I like playing campaigns where there are different factions. So my groups do fight a good amount of NPC's.

[calebrus]

I like playing campaigns where there are different factions. So my groups do fight a good amount of NPC's.

Yeah, but by the time you get to level 17 you'll have a grasp of the mechanics.
And the party will only fight against a level 19 assassin rogue if you want them to.
And that assassin will only set up an insta-gib against the party if you want him to, and if the PCs don't notice it first.
And even if all of the above does indeed come about, it takes one PC out in the first round (just like many, many other monsters can do with good rolls under the right circumstances) and then it's done.
And then the party is fighting a rogue, probably 4 on 1 or so.
It's nowhere near as game breaking as he's trying to make it sound.

[Tonden Ockay]

So you couldn't do like a full party of NPCs vs the PC's?

Back in 2e they would have encounters in Dark Sun adventures where 6 PCs of level 3 took on 13 level 1 NPCs.

[calebrus]

So you couldn't do like a full party of NPCs vs the PC's?

Back in 2e they would have encounters in Dark Sun adventures where 6 PCs of level 3 took on 13 level 1 NPCs.

Sure you could, but once again, that was a worst case scenario, where the DM is actively TRYING to kill a PC by pitting them against a level 19+ assassin rogue from ambush. It will kill one character, and then if/when the PCs win the day, that character will be raised.
He's making it sound like a normal occurrence.
It's a corner case, it requires DM intent, and it only works once in combat, and even then only if he surprises the PCs.

[obryn]

So you couldn't do like a full party of NPCs vs the PC's?

Back in 2e they would have encounters in Dark Sun adventures where 6 PCs of level 3 took on 13 level 1 NPCs.
5e isn't 2e. It will be good at different things than 2e is good at, and has different fundamental assumptions.

I think this fight could work, but I wouldn't personally use fully-statted NPCs considering 5e has much more complicated characters than 2e does. A Level 1 Fighter in 1e wasn't too far different from a 1 HD creature. A Level 1 Fighter in 5e has a few options, on the other hand, and possibly a feat.

[Tonden Ockay]

5e isn't 2e. It will be good at different things than 2e is good at, and has different fundamental assumptions.

I think this fight could work, but I wouldn't personally use fully-statted NPCs considering 5e has much more complicated characters than 2e does. A Level 1 Fighter in 1e wasn't too far different from a 1 HD creature. A Level 1 Fighter in 5e has a few options, on the other hand, and possibly a feat.

So what your saying is 5e would be the better core rule mechanics for a world with different NPC factions fighting each other?

[calebrus]

So what your saying is 5e would be the better core rule mechanics for a world with different NPC factions fighting each other?

Absolutely.
The default setting has a mechanic in place for this (http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/story/factions) already.

[Mr.Moron]

So you couldn't do like a full party of NPCs vs the PC's?

Back in 2e they would have encounters in Dark Sun adventures where 6 PCs of level 3 took on 13 level 1 NPCs.

Here's the thing you don't have to build NPCs as actual characters. Just assign them abilties and numbers for hit points, ac, attacks, saves etc... that make them do what they need to do to interact in the party how you want. NPCs especially in D&D-style combat are basically mechanics objects for players to interact with.

You can use existing monsters & challenges as guideline to what sorts of numbers are appropriate. So long as the mechanics the players are interacting with feel like credible representations of who that NPC is supposed to be it doesn't matter that the mechanics inside that object don't conform to any particular build rules.

For example the stats for an Ogre (or something roughly in-line with it) work perfectly fine for Jaro, Champion Fighting Man. Maybe with a slight adjustment to intelligence, or the value used on strength checks or whatever.

[dancrilis]

I like playing campaigns where there are different factions. So my groups do fight a good amount of NPC's.

While I started on AD&D I never played it that much - but from what I remember of it 5th ed has more of the feel of it than 3rd of 4th did - and I would say that so far 5th is certainly better than either 3rd or 4th.

The emphasis is placed on the DM and the PCs and the game/story they want to run/tell - so if you trust your DM and other PCs than I think you would be able to pick it up easily and have a lot of fun.

There are items in it that make combat fairly quick - but death is not necessary, most attacks that kills can instead simply know someone out at attackers option.

Things like this should help the DM keep characters alive for capture (if they accidentally send something beyond the party against them), while also allowing more PCs to capture rather than kill enemies without having to cripple themselves against a powerful foe (such as a mind controlled PC) to do so.

If you get concerned about rules (saves, assassins, whatever) you and your group can simple change them or adopt your game to minimise them.

For story pieces and low magic I would recommend taking a flick through the DMG as it does encourage rewards such as titles, and blessings of the gods, and status in organisations.



It's nowhere near as game breaking as he's trying to make it sound.
As a note this is incorrect - I don't believe it is game breaking for a class that is entirely around a single idea (lots of immediate damage - tapered off after that) to be good at that idea.

The reason that I mentioned it to you was effectively as a contrast to how you seemed to regard high saves DCs being negative towards frontline fighters - it doesn't matter who you are in the group if you run up against something you are not prepared for it can be very dangerous, but it likely should be.

Annoying the wizard faction can of course result in nasty consequences - but no more than annoying the thieves guild, or the fighters lodge etc (to choose simplistic factions). Which might very well play nicely with your factions approach.
Q: Why hasn't the strongest faction simply won?
A: Because strength can mean different things and an all out war leave no guaranteed winners.

This might allow for a more story based intrigue game than simply assuming that mass-murder is the best solution.

[Tonden Ockay]

What I want out of an RPG core game mechanic is

Very Basic
Streamlined
Quick easy to use
Low numbers
Plug and play options
Balanced Classes

[Ralanr]

On forums you get examples of the worst case scenario (and usually peppered with inaccuracies as well, like in this case) that don't actually happen in play. Don't sweat it. He's making you afraid of something that you have no need to be afraid of.


Mind if I use that in my signature? Cause that is golden right there.

[calebrus]

The reason that I mentioned it to you was effectively as a contrast to how you seemed to regard high saves DCs being negative towards frontline fighters - it doesn't matter who you are in the group if you run up against something you are not prepared for it can be very dangerous, but it likely should be.

I neither said nor implied that. I said not to worry about it, and have the same thoughts on it as you do. You're thinking of someone else on this one.

My point is that the numbers you're giving you are skewed and reasonably unrealistic, and they're painting a picture which colors the entire thing in a negative light, where these are corner cases and should not be used as examples.


What I want out of an RPG core game mechanic is

Very Basic
Streamlined
Quick easy to use
Low numbers
Plug and play options
Balanced Classes

All 5e is missing is the low numbers. The numbers for HP and damage increase as you level. But those numbers stay fairly balanced.
(1 from 15) or (300 from 2000), 15% is 15%, no matter what the numbers actually are.

[dancrilis]

What I want out of an RPG core game mechanic is

Very Basic
Streamlined
Quick easy to use
Low numbers
Plug and play options
Balanced Classes

I think you will get that more or less - the 22d6*2 is in terms of dice the extreme option (Rogues only, and particularly Assassins), most people will not be rolling significantly more dice at high levels then low ones.

On balanced classes I think that this needs to be considered in line with what balance means, they are balanced (for the same level) but that does not mean that the tactics for all classes are the same (obviously I would hope).

Someone might correct me but I don't think the system has a best or worst class or even tiers really, but that is not to say someone at your table won't figure out how to put together a combo that is not fair (but I imagine that AD&D had the same issue).


I neither said nor implied that. I said not to worry about it, and have the same thoughts on it as you do. You're thinking of someone else on this one.
Sorry, I should have been clearer in what I was saying - I quoted you but was still directing the comment at Tonden Ockay, you mentioned that I was trying to make it sound game breaking which I was correcting for their benefit.

[calebrus]

you mentioned that I was trying to make it sound game breaking which I was correcting for their benefit.

He wants smaller numbers and you're throwing out a corner case where a specific rogue under a specific circumstance will throw out (22d6+dex)*2, and you don't see how he might will definitely see this as game breaking?

That same level 19+ rogue will do 11d6+dex damage, once per round, for the rest of the combat. Stop tossing 44d6 around like it's normal.
The damage that a rogue deals will be approximately on par with that of a fighter of the same level, with surprise during the first round of combat being the exception.

[Tonden Ockay]

I All 5e is missing is the low numbers. The numbers for HP and damage increase as you level. But those numbers stay fairly balanced.
(1 from 15) or (300 from 2000), 15% is 15%, no matter what the numbers actually are.

I understand it is still 15% its just for my taste I would rather have the 1 to 15. I'm just not a fan of imo over the top numbers. There just really isn't any point to bloat numbers other then to make people think they are better then they are.

[Tonden Ockay]

He wants smaller numbers and you're throwing out a corner case where a specific rogue under a specific circumstance will throw out (22d6+dex)*2, and you don't see how he might will definitely see this as game breaking?

That same level 19+ rogue will do 11d6+dex damage, once per round, for the rest of the combat. Stop tossing 44d6 around like it's normal.
The damage that a rogue deals will be on par with that of a fighter of the same level, with surprise during the first round of combat being the exception.

Question from someone who has played 2e don't you think having a class do 11d6+dex every round is a bit much? Lets just have half as many HPs and only do 5d6+dex

[calebrus]

Question from someone who has played 2e don't you think having a class do 11d6+dex every round is a bit much? Lets just have half as many HPs and only do 5d6+dex

It makes no difference to me. You want smaller numbers. I don't really care because 15% is 15%.
It's just a different mindset, but the bottom line is the same.

[dancrilis]

He wants smaller numbers and you're throwing out a corner case where a specific rogue under a specific circumstance will throw out (22d6+dex)*2, and you don't see how he might will definitely see this as game breaking?

That same level 19+ rogue will do 11d6+dex damage, once per round, for the rest of the combat. Stop tossing 44d6 around like it's normal.
The damage that a rogue deals will be on par with that of a fighter of the same level, with surprise during the first round of combat being the exception.

Hence the reason I followed up with:


I don't believe it is game breaking for a class that is entirely around a single idea (lots of immediate damage - tapered off after that) to be good at that idea.

The reason that I mentioned it to you was effectively as a contrast to how you seemed to regard high saves DCs being negative towards frontline fighters - it doesn't matter who you are in the group if you run up against something you are not prepared for it can be very dangerous, but it likely should be.


For that matter the Assassin might very well not have even the 11d6 in later rounds and could easily be dropped to 1d6 if they have not planned the ambush carefully enough - or have the presence of mind to flee and regroup.

The entire point (as mentioned) was to contrast with spells to indicate that the save system affects all classes effectively equally.

[Tonden Ockay]

It makes no difference to me. You want smaller numbers. I don't really care because 15% is 15%.
It's just a different mindset, but the bottom line is the same.

I'm just not a fan of bloated numbers is all.

[Tonden Ockay]

Will it help by not using feats?

I would like to keep it as simple and streamlined as possible.

[calebrus]

Will it help by not using feats?

I would like to keep it as simple and streamlined as possible.

I would actually recommend not using feats.
There will be enough differences moving from 2e to 5e that feats will just make it more complicated. Without feats, your game will feel much more like what you're used to. You can eventually offer the option after you get a feel for the system, but I would recommend starting without them in your particular case.

[pwykersotz]

No feats definitely helps keeping things both simple and streamlined. It's just fewer character options.

Now you have me wondering how to get 5e to accommodate 0 HP scaling (always getting 1 maxed HD + Con mod) or mid HP scaling (1/2 growth or similar) without breaking all the damage dealing powers and escalations. I do so love these experiments...

[dancrilis]

Will it help by not using feats?

I would like to keep it as simple and streamlined as possible.

Short answer yes.

I would be more inclined to remove multi-classing - the archetypes of each class already offers a reasonable amount of control on the direction of your characters, and I think that some of the multi-class options are less balanced then they could be.

But removing both (or either) shouldn't overly negatively impact the game and would streamline some items a bit.

[Tonden Ockay]

No feats definitely helps keeping things both simple and streamlined. It's just fewer character options.

Now you have me wondering how to get 5e to accommodate 0 HP scaling (always getting 1 maxed HD + Con mod) or mid HP scaling (1/2 growth or similar) without breaking all the damage dealing powers and escalations. I do so love these experiments...

The PHB shows you could do

1d12 or 7
1d10 or 6
1d8 or 5
1d6 or 4

I was thinking of giving my players the choce of taking the set number or roll.

[Tonden Ockay]

I would be more inclined to remove multi-classing - the archetypes of each class already offers a reasonable amount of control on the direction of your characters, and I think that some of the multi-class options are less balanced then they could be.

But removing both (or either) shouldn't overly negatively impact the game and would streamline some items a bit.

I do feel multi-classing is a bit powerful in 5e, more so then 2e

[calebrus]

I do feel multi-classing is a bit powerful in 5e, more so then 2e

It is and it isn't.
Both systems have their pros and cons.
In 5e multiclassing, you don't need to wait for your levels to equalize before using the features from the previous class, which is nice.
But in 2e, the human's dual classing ability (which is the equivalent here), you don't need as much XP to level the second class, so it gates caught up faster, and eventually can theoretically get more levels because of this.
It's not more powerful, per se, it's just different.

2e multiclassing, on the other hand, is something akin to gestalt (from 3e), which is insanely powerful by comparison, and has no 5e counterpart (at least, not yet). The only thing that kept 2e multiclassing from being ridiculously OP was the fact that your HP didn't scale fast enough due to the way it was designed.

[Tonden Ockay]

Yes 2e Dual can be more powerful if done right. However you cant use your old class until you pass it in level. Oh and you cant go back and add more levels to your old class.

[Chronos]

The only time I ever saw anyone actually using dual-classing in 2e was by taking a single level of one class and then immediately switching to another. Which was kind of cheesy, because it didn't actually cost you anything. But if you want a similar effect in 5e, you can do it via backgrounds. Instead of a one-level thief dip, you can take the Criminal background. Instead of a one-level fighter dip, you can take the Soldier background, and so on.

[JAL_1138]

The other idea with 5e numbers is to be able to provide a wider spread of threats. The only way to keep low-level monsters from being able to utterly swarm you in 2e was for them to make you unhittable as your AC increased, otherwise a dozen Orcs would chew a Fighter to pieces in one round due to low hit points. Likewise, if huge horrible high-level monsters didn't have ludicrous AC, you'd just swarm them with henchmen for a one-round kill. Now a few dozen Orcs can hit the Fighter several times and be a threat, but he can survive it with luck, skill, and higher hit points; and a big bad beastie can last a while against a village with torches and pitchforks but needs to take it seriously and can be driven off (with luck and a lot of casualties), whereas in 2e it would be nigh-untouchable to a bunch of peasants--there'd be no point to rallying the townsfolk since nobody could hit the thing. Your AC doesn't get so ludicrously high (or low, in 2e terms) that you can't be hit by lower-level enemies, but you can survive the hits now and it'll take more of them to kill you.

It's also a more forgiving buffer against accidental TPKs--you can fine-tune the range of damage to HP better since there are more points on the scale, like measuring with a yardstick marked in 1/8" increments instead of just inches.

I like the lower, more compressed numbers from 2e too, but they didn't just do it for LOLZ HIGH NUMBERS AR LEET GUD and it works better in practice than it can look on paper.

Edit: Also, personally, I have a crapload of dice, just a ridiculous quantity of polyhedrals, and I have to admit I'm looking forward to rolling fistfuls of the li'l things at a time.

[obryn]

What I want out of an RPG core game mechanic is

Very Basic
Streamlined
Quick easy to use
Low numbers
Plug and play options
Balanced Classes
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Rules_Cyclopedia_cover.jpg

Not sarcasm. It's the tightest-designed edition of D&D, with surprising depth for a "basic" line, and it hits all your points.

e: Or you could try Dungeon World. It's great, too.

[Tonden Ockay]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Rules_Cyclopedia_cover.jpg

Not sarcasm. It's the tightest-designed edition of D&D, with surprising depth for a "basic" line, and it hits all your points.

e: Or you could try Dungeon World. It's great, too.







What is it based off of 2e?

[JAL_1138]

It's the tightest-designed edition of D&D


I can't fully second this since I don't have Rules Cyclopedia, but since it's an extension/revision of B/X and BECMI (I assume mostly similar to them other than layout and tweaks, and not having the I part of BECMI) that doesn't sound like a stretch at all. I picked up the box sets for those on ebay recently and there's a lot of good design ideas in there. Aaron Allston wrote RC, right? He's an entertaining novelist too if it's the same guy.

EDIT: Tonden, you may know this already, but D&D used to be split into "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" before 3rd edition. WotC dropped "D&D" as a product and shaved the "A" off "AD&D" in their edition numbering. After "White Box" OD&D, the original, there were several "basic" editions without the "Advanced" in the name. They started with Holmes Basic (sometimes called "bluebook"); then Moldvay Basic + Cook & Marsh Expert ("B/X"); then Mentzer Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortals ("BECMI"); then Rules Cyclopedia. They're technically a different game than AD&D. They were originally meant to be an intro product to Advanced, but very quickly became their own thing with different rather than just stripped-down rules. I haven't read Holmes or RC yet, but the rulebooks for B/X and BECMI are great reads so I'm inclined to think Obryn may be right.

[obryn]

What is it based off of 2e?
Nope; as JAL_1138 said, it's the alternate game line that ran simultaneously with AD&D 1e back in the late 70's/early 80's. The RC was a compilation of the BECMI line, which shares common background with the AD&D line, and is fairly compatible with it.

If you can't get a copy - and it is pretty darn expensive, second-hand - Dark Dungeons (http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/darkdungeons.html) is a very faithful retro-clone, with a few small tweaks like using a "Target 20" system instead of to-hit tables.*

At its core, it's much simpler than AD&D (1e or 2e), but that helps focus it really, really nicely. And it's a complete D&D game in a single book; that's pretty great.


I can't fully second this since I don't have Rules Cyclopedia, but since it's an extension/revision of B/X and BECMI (I assume mostly similar to them other than layout and tweaks, and not having the I part of BECMI) that doesn't sound like a stretch at all. I picked up the box sets for those on ebay recently and there's a lot of good design ideas in there. Aaron Allston wrote RC, right? He's an entertaining novelist too if it's the same guy.

EDIT: Tonden, you may know this already, but D&D used to be split into "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" before 3rd edition. WotC dropped "D&D" as a product and shaved the "A" off "AD&D" in their edition numbering. After "White Box" OD&D, the original, there were several "basic" editions without the "Advanced" in the name. They started with Holmes Basic (sometimes called "bluebook"); then Moldvay Basic + Cook & Marsh Expert ("B/X"); then Mentzer Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortals ("BECMI"); then Rules Cyclopedia. They're technically a different game than AD&D. They were originally meant to be an intro product to Advanced, but very quickly became their own thing with different rather than just stripped-down rules. I haven't read Holmes or RC yet, but the rulebooks for B/X and BECMI are great reads so I'm inclined to think Obryn may be right.
Yep, Aaron Allston was the guy behind the compilation. :smallsmile: Same dude!



* I love Target 20. It is basically 2e's THAC0, but backwards. You roll a die and add your attack bonus, and then the DM adds your enemy's AC to that total. If it adds up to 20 or better, you hit. It's mathematically identical, since your attack bonus is the same as 20-THAC0. Addition tends to be faster and easier than subtraction, and it keeps everything really simple on the player side.

[JAL_1138]

Yep, Aaron Allston was the guy behind the compilation. :smallsmile: Same dude!

I read pretty much all his Star Wars EU books, they were some of the better ones. Not quite the Thrawn Trilogy, but always fun.



* I love Target 20. It is basically 2e's THAC0, but backwards. You roll a die and add your attack bonus, and then the DM adds your enemy's AC to that total. If it adds up to 20 or better, you hit. It's mathematically identical, since your attack bonus is the same as 20-THAC0. Addition tends to be faster and easier than subtraction, and it keeps everything really simple on the player side.

I always did THAC0 as "THAC0 - (roll+bonuses) = Highest AC you could hit on that roll," so if your THAC0 was 10 and you rolled a 15 with a +1 for specializing and a +1 sword, you'd get 10 - (15+2) = hit AC -7 or anything worse. Keeps you from needing to know enemy AC to figure out what your roll has to be and keeps the DM from needing to do math. Subtraction is less intuitive though.

[Psikerlord]

Don't get me wrong I like the idea of not having to use a chart for saving throws and I like the thoughts of making each stat count. However this imo just plan out sucks about 5e. You would think the higher the level you go the better your saves git. Yet this isn't the case because at level 20 you will be fighting things closer to your level not a bunch of level ones.

Shoot lets use a level 1 Wizard with 18 INT vs level 20 Fighter with 12 INT just for kicks.

Wizard base of 8 +2 for level +4 for INT = 14

The 20 level Fighter would have +1 for INT and may be a +6 so he would need to get a 13 or 7 vs a level 1 Wizard. This is still worse then 2e who only needed a 4 to save at level 17 I think.

I just wish I knew there thoughts in making 5e saves so much harder.
It works both ways however. Fighter tries to knock the mage with shield bash bonus action, DC 14 str save from the wizard... good luck. Then once knocked prone, fighter action surge for 2 attacks at adv. Bye bye wizard.

[ProphetSword]

To the OP, Tonden Ockay:

For about a week now, I have been following your threads both here and at Dragonsfoot. You seem to keep expecting 5e to be 2e or to work as 2e, an edition that many of us loved but that has been out of print for almost 15 years. During that time, RPG mechanics have modernized and changed. There will never be another 2e; because modern players don't want those kinds of antiquated systems that include THAC0 and Saving Throw tables (those that do are part of the old school movement and play those kinds of games). D&D has moved on, but you seem to be trying to stick the 5e circle into 2e's square hole.

And you are suggesting changes without having even played the game even one time. A great many people on these boards will tell you that the game plays a lot more elegantly than it reads. You need to quit comparing it to past editions. It is similar to 2e in tone and rulings, but the system is based on the d20 system, and a lot of players firmly believe that, while 3rd edition had lots of issues, it fixed a lot of the limitations and mechanical quirks of the TSR era of AD&D.

5e is one of the easiest versions of D&D to play, outside of the old BASIC D&D. You are suggesting a lot of changes across your many threads (both here and there) that would require you to completely change the game from the foundation upward. It would be easier to just stick with 2e.

Here is my suggestion to you: Either let go of 2e and embrace 5e, or go back to 2e. You are not going to find happiness until you do one of these two things. You should run a couple of games of 5e (or, better yet, play in a session or two with an experienced DM so you can see what it's like from the player's side), and then decide how you feel about things. Changing things without having actually played the game is going to introduce a lot of problems.

Best of respects to you, my friend. I hope you find the game you are looking for.

[Tonden Ockay]

When we played 2e I just told my players if you have a

19 Thaco its like a +1 to hit
18 Thaco its like a +2 to hit
17 Thaco its like a +3 to hit
18 Thaco its like a +4 to hit

and so on.

I have always been good with numbers so as the DM in my head I just always looked at it as

If a player had a total of 11 with his roll and pluses to hit it = AC 9
12 would = AC 8

And I just always new in my head that 21 = -1 AC or 25= -5 AC

I made it as easy on my players as I could because for me to do the math in my head was easier for me. It seemed some people had a hard time with the Thaco system so I just made it easy for them.

[Tonden Ockay]

It works both ways however. Fighter tries to knock the mage with shield bash bonus action, DC 14 str save from the wizard... good luck. Then once knocked prone, fighter action surge for 2 attacks at adv. Bye bye wizard.

See I don't like all this bonus action and action surge crap. What happen to keeping it simple?

[Tonden Ockay]

a few years back I started rewriting AD&D 2nd Edition converting it to a d20 system.

Initiative

* Option # One (d20 system)

The initiative roll determines who acts first in any give combat round. At the beginning of each round all players roll a 20-sided die (1d20) and subtract their weapon speed factor or casting time from the result rolled. The player with the higher overall result goes first.


Example: a player using a long sword (speed factor of 6) rolls a 16 on a 1d20 then subtracts 6 for the long sword would have an overall result of 10 (16 - 6 = 10). If the DM had a lower result for the attacking NPC/creature then the player would go first for that round.

( OR )

* Option # Two (Old d10 system

The initiative roll determines who acts first in any give combat round. At the beginning of each round all players roll a 10-sided die (1d10) and add their weapon speed factor or casting time to the result rolled. The player with the lower overall result goes first.

Example: a player using a long sword (speed factor of 6) rolls a 5 on a 1d10 then adds 6 for the long sword would have an overall result of 11 (5 - 6 = 11). If the DM had a higher result for the attacking NPC/creature then the player would go first for that round.


Attacking

Automatic Misses and Hits

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit.

Attack Bonus

Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is:
Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty

BAB or Base Attack Bonus

A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combinations thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types.


Damage

When your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal. Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures.
Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Minimum Damage

If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of damage.

Strength Bonus

When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Off-Hand Weapon

When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only ½ your Strength bonus.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed

When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1½ times your Strength bonus. However, you don’t get this higher Strength bonus when using a light weapon with two hands.

Multiplying Damage

Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.

Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied.

Ability Damage

Certain creatures and magical effects can cause temporary ability damage (a reduction to an ability score).


Armor Class

Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It’s the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you. Your AC is equal to the following:
10 + armor bonus + shield bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you’re wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC.
Sometimes you can’t use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can’t react to a blow, you can’t use your Dexterity bonus to AC. (If you don’t have a Dexterity bonus, nothing happens.)

Other Modifiers

Many other factors modify your AC.

Enhancement Bonuses
Enhancement effects make your armor better.

Deflection Bonus
Magical deflection effects ward off attacks and improve your AC.

Natural Armor
Natural armor improves your AC.

Dodge Bonuses
Some other AC bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. These bonuses are called dodge bonuses. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses. (Wearing armor, however, does not limit these bonuses the way it limits a Dexterity bonus to AC.) Unlike most sorts of bonuses, dodge bonuses stack with each other.

Touch Attacks
Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.


Hit Points

When your hit point total reaches 0, you’re disabled. When it reaches -1, you’re dying. When it gets to -10, you’re dead.\

Speed/Movement

Movement tells how far a character can move in any given round. Character can move 10 times their base movement speed in feet per round if they forgo all attacks. If a character wishes to move and attack in the same round they can only move 5 times their base movement speed in feet and still attack..
Example: a character who has a base movement speed of 12 could move 120 feet per round (base movement 12 x 10 = 120) when forgoing all attacks for that round. If that same character wants to move and attack in the same round then they could only move 60 feet and still attack.


Saving Throws

When players are subject to an unusual or magical attack, they get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a BSB (Base Save Bonus) based on their class, and level.

BSB or Base Save Bonus
A saving throw modifier derived from character class and level. Base save bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes. Base save bonuses gained from different classes, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

Rolling Saving Throws
To make a saving throw, a player rolls a 20-sided die (1d20). Then add their BSB (Base Save Bonus) to the roll and the result must be equal to or greater than the character’s saving throw target number. The number a character needs to roll varies depending upon the character’s class, level, and what they are trying to save their self from.

Saving Throw Types
There are two different saving throw tables one for AD&D 2nd and older editions. The other is for D&D 3.0 and newer editions.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2dllxsn.png

AD&D 2nd Edition and older Saving Throw Categories

Save vs. Penalization, Poison, and Death Magic: This is used whenever a character is affected be a paralyzing attack (regardless of source), poison (of any strength). Or certain spells and magical items that otherwise kill the character outright (as listed in their descriptions). This saving throw can also be used in situations in which exceptional force of will or physical fortitude are needed.

Save vs. Rod, Staff, or Wand: As its name implies this is used whenever a character is affected by the powers of a rod, staff, or wand, provided another save of higher priority isn’t called for. This saving throw is sometimes specified for situations in which a character faces a magical attack from an usual source.

Save vs. Petrification or Polymorph: This is used any time a character is turned to stone (petrified) or polymorphed by a monster, spell, or magical item (other than a wand). It can also be used when the character must withstand some massive physical alteration of his entire body.

Save vs. Breath Weapon: A character uses this save when facing monsters with breath weapons, particularly the powerful blast of a dragon. This save can also be used in situations where a combination of physical stamina and Dexterity are critical factors in survival.

Save vs. Spell: This is used whenever a character attempts to resist the effects of a magical attack, either by a spellcaster or from a magical item, provided no other type of saving throw is specified. This save can also be used to resist an attack that defies any other classification.

D&D 3.0 and Newer Saving Throw Categories

Fortitude: These saves measure your ability to stand up to physical punishment or attacks against your vitality and health. Apply your Constitution modifier to your Fortitude saving throws.

Reflex: These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks. Apply your Dexterity modifier to your Reflex saving throws.

Will: These saves reflect your resistance to mental influence as well as many magical effects. Apply your Wisdom modifier to your Will saving throws.

Automatic Failures and Successes
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on a saving throw is always a failure (and may cause damage to exposed items; see Items Surviving after a Saving Throw). A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a success.


Class Progression Tables

http://i50.tinypic.com/y2mgm.png

I made the Saving Throws table close to the same chances you would have to pass in 2e.
I also added 3e saves as well so you could use 3e creatures if you wanted. Well that was the thought behind it any way.

I wasn't done with i, but I kept hearing how 5e was like old school 2e with 3e mechanics. So I thought I could save my self the work and just play 5e instead of finishing my 2e/d20 game.

[Tonden Ockay]

It still used a saving throw table which it didn't care for.

It still had different XP charts for each class which I didn't care for as well.

But it was still 2e just using a d20 system.



Hey I like d20 over Thaco my self. But your right I'm not a fan of boated numbers. I was hoping 5e was a very simple basic core roles that if you wanted all the bells and whiles you could add them but if not then you can play with just the basic rules. However it would seem that a lot of you who played 3e and new have a different idea of basic rules now then I do. Basic to me is you swing a sword and I cast a spell Basic. Not a bunch of fancy attacks or number shows.

I see what you all are trying to say. I'm too old school minded. All the younger games of today are used to power gamer World of Warcraft bloated numbers game (look at me look at me). I guess I'm just older then I like to think I am.

[Person_Man]

Nope; as JAL_1138 said, it's the alternate game line that ran simultaneously with AD&D 1e back in the late 70's/early 80's. The RC was a compilation of the BECMI line, which shares common background with the AD&D line, and is fairly compatible with it.

If you can't get a copy - and it is pretty darn expensive, second-hand - Dark Dungeons (http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/darkdungeons.html) is a very faithful retro-clone, with a few small tweaks like using a "Target 20" system instead of to-hit tables.*

At its core, it's much simpler than AD&D (1e or 2e), but that helps focus it really, really nicely. And it's a complete D&D game in a single book; that's pretty great.

You can buy a pdf of the Rules Cyclopedia on drivethrougrpg for under $10. Its also on Scribd and other similar websites which let you read lots of books for a monthly subscription, where you can also sometimes read books for free as part of a preview.

Also, there's something like a bazillion fantasy heartbreaker clones of basic D&D out there, and most of them are free.

It's not hard to find your ideal version of D&D. It exists on the internet somewhere. The challange is convincing three of your friends to learn a new set of rules and play it with you.

[obryn]

Hey I like d20 over Thaco my self. But your right I'm not a fan of boated numbers. I was hoping 5e was a very simple basic core roles that if you wanted all the bells and whiles you could add them but if not then you can play with just the basic rules. However it would seem that a lot of you who played 3e and new have a different idea of basic rules now then I do. Basic to me is you swing a sword and I cast a spell Basic. Not a bunch of fancy attacks or number shows.

I see what you all are trying to say. I'm too old school minded. All the younger games of today are used to power gamer World of Warcraft bloated numbers game (look at me look at me). I guess I'm just older then I like to think I am.
5e core is significantly more complicated than 2e or RC core. And frankly, I'm not a big fan of it. (Although I think it's worlds better than 3.x and its immediate spawn.)

Honestly - knowing your preferences - I can't begin to imagine why you'd spend $100-$150 on the three core books of 5e when it seems like you'd be a lot happier with 2e.

So instead, I'll recommend you pick up the Rules Cyclopedia or one of its retro-clones and give it a gander. :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

Why is this? If you keep down the Damage then you can keep down the HPs. Which would be less dice rolling and smaller numbers to work with, keeping everything simple.

Low Fantasy vs. High Fantasy. Some players like "realistic" roleplaying games, where getting hit with an ax two or three times is almost certain death, because that's what would happen in real life. Other players like "heroic" roleplaying games, where they can pretend to be Legalos and wade through an army of orcs without fear. D&D tries to accommodate both.

[Tonden Ockay]

To the OP, Tonden Ockay:

For about a week now, I have been following your threads both here and at Dragonsfoot. You seem to keep expecting 5e to be 2e or to work as 2e, an edition that many of us loved but that has been out of print for almost 15 years. During that time, RPG mechanics have modernized and changed. There will never be another 2e; because modern players don't want those kinds of antiquated systems that include THAC0 and Saving Throw tables (those that do are part of the old school movement and play those kinds of games). D&D has moved on, but you seem to be trying to stick the 5e circle into 2e's square hole.

And you are suggesting changes without having even played the game even one time. A great many people on these boards will tell you that the game plays a lot more elegantly than it reads. You need to quit comparing it to past editions. It is similar to 2e in tone and rulings, but the system is based on the d20 system, and a lot of players firmly believe that, while 3rd edition had lots of issues, it fixed a lot of the limitations and mechanical quirks of the TSR era of AD&D.

5e is one of the easiest versions of D&D to play, outside of the old BASIC D&D. You are suggesting a lot of changes across your many threads (both here and there) that would require you to completely change the game from the foundation upward. It would be easier to just stick with 2e.

Here is my suggestion to you: Either let go of 2e and embrace 5e, or go back to 2e. You are not going to find happiness until you do one of these two things. You should run a couple of games of 5e (or, better yet, play in a session or two with an experienced DM so you can see what it's like from the player's side), and then decide how you feel about things. Changing things without having actually played the game is going to introduce a lot of problems.

Best of respects to you, my friend. I hope you find the game you are looking for.


I'm starting to think your right.

I never played 3e or 4e and never want to. I don't like anything about them other then, any race can be any class, same XP chart, armor goes up, and BAB instead of Thaco. Most of the other things just adds more to the game and slows it down imo.

The main thing I like about 5e is casters get more spells at the start yet not as many at higher level, and some spells were taking out all together.

If you combined these things with 2e for me you would have the perfect game hehe.

I have the 5e players handbook, but I might just get the 2e PDF's and play that again. However from everything I have heard and read so far it does seem like 5e took a step back from 3e. I just don't think it took a far enough step back for me. I guess since I didn't play 3e and 4e I didn't become used to the bloat of the game so to me coming straight from 2e, 5e just feels bloated.

[Tonden Ockay]

Low Fantasy vs. High Fantasy. Some players like "realistic" roleplaying games, where getting hit with an ax two or three times is almost certain death, because that's what would happen in real life. Other players like "heroic" roleplaying games, where they can pretend to be Legalos and wade through an army of orcs without fear. D&D tries to accommodate both.

I understand we are all different and have different likes. I was just reading all the sites saying that 5e had a 2e feel using 3e mechanics. They claimed you could plug and play optional rules like feats to make the game more like 3e or not and keep the game simple. I just see that people who have been playing the newer editions since I quit have a different idea of simple.

Its a little like when I was living in Germany and got used to driving 90 to 120 mph all the time for 3 years. Then when I came back home 65mph felt like I could get out and walk. However the speed limit used to be 55mph there and they had just raised it so people from home thought it was fast. If you get used to the fast life it becomes the norm.

I never got used to 3e or 4e.

[Person_Man]

I understand we are all different and have different likes. I was just reading all the sites saying that 5e had a 2e feel using 3e mechanics. They claimed you could plug and play optional rules like feats to make the game more like 3e or not and keep the game simple. I just see that people who have been playing the newer editions since I quit have a different idea of simple.

Its a little like when I was living in Germany and got used to driving 90 to 120 mph all the time for 3 years. Then when I came back home 65mph felt like I could get out and walk. However the speed limit used to be 55mph there and they had just raised it so people from home thought it was fast. If you get used to the fast life it becomes the norm.

I never got used to 3e or 4e.

So you're saying 5E is not simple enough for you? Fair enough. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position for a variety of reasons.

But I would observe that although classes were quite simple in AD&D, the rules themselves were pretty complicated. You often had to find and consult a specific chart to resolve an action, you rolled initiative every round and everything was modified by a speed factor which could change every round, spells had all sorts of fiddly restrictions and drawbacks, there wasn't a unified resolution mechanic (unlike 3E/4E/5E, which has 1d20+modifers with high rolls being good for almost everything but damage), and so on.

So while it was a lot easier to just pick up a copy of AD&D, make a character, and start playing in 5ish minutes or less, it was much harder to DM a game of AD&D, which is why so many people ended up ignoring rules they didn't understand or like or using the Basic Cyclopedia or whatnot.

[charcoalninja]

It works both ways however. Fighter tries to knock the mage with shield bash bonus action, DC 14 str save from the wizard... good luck. Then once knocked prone, fighter action surge for 2 attacks at adv. Bye bye wizard.

Just thought I'd point out but the Shove action isn't a save, it's an opposed skill check of STR(athletics) vs. Str(athletics) or Dex(acrobatics) so all anyone needs to do to have a defense against shield bashing is be proficient in one of those skills.

[Tonden Ockay]

So you're saying 5E is not simple enough for you? Fair enough. I think that's a perfectly reasonable position for a variety of reasons.

But I would observe that although classes were quite simple in AD&D, the rules themselves were pretty complicated. You often had to find and consult a specific chart to resolve an action, you rolled initiative every round and everything was modified by a speed factor which could change every round, spells had all sorts of fiddly restrictions and drawbacks, there wasn't a unified resolution mechanic (unlike 3E/4E/5E, which has 1d20+modifers with high rolls being good for almost everything but damage), and so on.

So while it was a lot easier to just pick up a copy of AD&D, make a character, and start playing in 5ish minutes or less, it was much harder to DM a game of AD&D, which is why so many people ended up ignoring rules they didn't understand or like or using the Basic Cyclopedia or whatnot.

This is true. But I will be playing with the same people I used to play with back in the day and out of 5 of us only 1 ever played past 2e. So for most of us 2e is what we know and are used to. I was just hoping 5e was 2e using the d20 systems that had plug and play addons to make it feel more like 3e if you wanted it to. However everyday that passes I am finding out this is not the case. It wold seems its not 2e at all and more of a some what watered down 3e.


If I had my perfect game it would

use a simple core combat
No bonus/surge actions or what not just simple straight forward core rules system.
have low HP's/Damage
as few charts as possible
a little more balanced classes then 2e does.
the 5e casters spell system so you have more spells at low level with less at end game.
able to plug an pay what addons you want like 2e non weapon proficiencies, d20 skill system or a feat system for people who like that kind of thing.

I really like low numbers so I do like the idea of low BAB that 5e has over 2e Thaco system.

Well that is just me dreaming any way.

[Tonden Ockay]

Is there any way to strip the combat down in 5e and make it more simple without braking the classes and making them unbalanced?

No feats
No skills
No bonus/surge actions

Just we roll to see who goes first and you hit I cast combat round over? Or would this make some classes more powerful then others?

[Tonden Ockay]

If so I could have my cake and eat it too so to speak :)

[Kurald Galain]

If I had my perfect game it would

Sounds to me like you're looking for a straightforward rules-light system, not for any recent version of D&D. There's plenty of those available on the internet, for free.

[Tonden Ockay]

Can you point me to just like what I am looking for?

[ProphetSword]

I was just hoping 5e was 2e using the d20 systems that had plug and play addons to make it feel more like 3e if you wanted it to.

That's exactly what 5e is. Your problem seems to stem from the fact that the base d20 system is different from the TSR-era version of AD&D. Do you see the contradiction there? You are getting exactly what you are asking for, a 2e-like game in the d20 system, but rejecting it at the same time because it's not completely 2e.




If I had my perfect game it would

use a simple core combat


5e has pretty simple combat. At last night's session (4 hours long), my party delved into a duergar dwarf lair to rescue someone, and fought 6 battles...each lasting around 10-15 minutes. 5e is so fast and easy, I rarely have to reference the books while running it. It can't get much simpler than that.



No bonus/surge actions or what not just simple straight forward core rules system.


What is your issue with bonus or surge actions? I'm trying to understand, since it doesn't break the game or make it that hard.



have low HP's/Damage


You're really caught up on this numbers thing. I don't understand it at all. I could just as easily create an RPG where you get 200 health every time you level, and weapons do 100 per hit, and you would still be dead in four hits at 2nd level. You should really stop worrying about the numbers. 5e is extremely well balanced. Whether you die in two hits because you took 7 damage or you took 70, the end result is the same.



as few charts as possible


5e has you covered, there.



a little more balanced classes then 2e does.
the 5e casters spell system so you have more spells at low level with less at end game.


Check.



able to plug an pay what addons you want like 2e non weapon proficiencies, d20 skill system or a feat system for people who like that kind of thing.


Feats and skills aren't that tough to grasp and they don't break the game as is.



I really like low numbers so I do like the idea of low BAB that 5e has over 2e Thaco system.


Not directly related:

Explain to me why you like lower numbers without using the term "realistic." Because there is nothing more "realistic" about taking 6 points of damage or taking 60 points of damage or taking 600 points of damage. In real life, you don't take "points of damage," so the abstract doesn't matter. You are convincing yourself that lower numbers = better, but that is not the case at all.

[Myzz]

Or in order to keep numbers low, just play at lower levels...

Hit level 10... time to retire...

of course you wouldn't be taking on any dragons or anything...

as far as rolling tons of dice and such... I played shadowrun prior to 3e's release so the numbers of dice never really seemed that bad. As pointed out earlier in the thread, 2e had bloat at high levels too... just in unhittable AC by lower level stuff. The LOADS of dice will only be seen by high level rogues with lots of sneak attack dice and hard hitting poisons with lots of dice, due to the doubling of dice rolled from the ability Assassinate. Outside of that there's not a ton of dice rolling except in big spells (From my current experience).

In regards to spellcasting and multiclassing/dualclassing... This edition lets you get those higher level slots you'd have missed in earlier version, but at the expense of not having double your lower level slots. 10 Wiz/10 Cleric has exactly the same slots as a 20 wiz or a 20 cleric... but the 10/10 only knows spells up to 5th level (although he has 9th level slots) and can only use those slots higher than 5th to beef up his spells of level 1-5...

Its definitely interesting... personnally I like having a ton of the lower level stuff for utility purpose... atm thats out the window!

I'd say find a game and just jump in and play a few sessions of 5e, give it an honest try then see what ya think. If its still not for you, then find one of these retro games peeps are talking about. There are some issues I have with 5e design... but for me it seems almost all those issues revolve around poor editing from the differing playtest versions to the final version. Those can all be resolved by the DM Fiat, so finding out how your DM runs those points of contention becomes fairly important. Or as the DM get a feel for what others in the community (these boards and others) think about those issues... And then adjudicate as you feel fit!

[Tonden Ockay]

What is your issue with bonus or surge actions? I'm trying to understand, since it doesn't break the game or make it that hard.

In 2e I rolled a d10 to see who went first, d20 to attack, then a d8 for a long sword round over.

In 5e it looks like I would be rolling more dice and having more going on in a round with the feats/skills/bonus/surge action/attacks. Which only adds to a combat round. Having to know more rules and the rounds taking longer.

It sounds like a lot more of if this happens you can use X skill or if this happens you can use X feat. Oh you get this bonus action or surge. It all adds to the combat round.

So it doesn't sounds like much of a simple streamlined combat system to me. Now to someone coming form 3e, 4e, or Pathfinder is may seem really simple and streamlined. I'm starting to guess this is why here are people that don't like any thing past 2e because they add more to the combat round. I could be wrong I am only guessing.


I may still try 5e at least once but its not what I thought it was going to be.

[Myzz]

In 2e I rolled a d10 to see who went first, d20 to attack, then a d8 for a long sword round over.

In 5e it looks like I would be rolling more dice and having more going on in a round with the feats/skills/bonus/surge action/attacks. Which only adds to a combat round. Having to know more rules and the rounds taking longer.

It sounds like a lot more of if this happens you can use X skill or if this happens you can use X feat. Oh you get this bonus action or surge. It all adds to the combat round.

So it doesn't sounds like much of a simple streamlined combat system to me. Now to someone coming form 3e, 4e, or Pathfinder is may seem really simple and streamlined. I'm starting to guess this is why here are people that don't like any thing past 2e because they add more to the combat round. I could be wrong I am only guessing.


I may still try 5e at least once but its not what I thought it was going to be.

in 2e you had more than one attack in a round... thats more dice right there.

Action Surge = 1 extra attack once (per short rest. Then you get a second one at level 17)

Don't pick Battlemaster or Rogue if you don't want those extra dice... Champion is probably right up your ally..

[calebrus]

I was just hoping 5e was 2e using the d20 systems that had plug and play addons to make it feel more like 3e if you wanted it to. However everyday that passes I am finding out this is not the case. It wold seems its not 2e at all and more of a some what watered down 3e.

Did you ever play 3e or 4e?

I'll answer your PM here as well, as it kind of applies to what I was going to say anyway.

Here's the scoop.
2e, in my humble opinion, had the best *feel* to the game. That's why it was always my favorite edition. Not because of the mechanics, but because of the *feel* of the game.
There weren't a million rules about every single little thing that needed to be looked up whenever someone tried something. The power was in the DM's hands to make judgement calls about how to adjudicate most actions. They didn't try to spell out every little detail of everything, creating contradictions and nonsensical/counter-intuitive rules.
It had a few things like that (such as THAC0 being counter-intuitive), but all in all it was pretty solid in that regard.
Some things were more complicated than they needed to be, but overall the game *felt* really good.

3e made major, sweeping changes. They tried to make rules for every single little situation, no matter how small. Combat became about who knew the rules best. Many things became needlessly complicated, and more things became contradictory/nonsensical/counter-intuitive. The role that the DM played in making judgement calls to adjudicate things was tempered because there were now rules about every single thing that you could think of. This put more power into the players hands, which is why players loved it. They felt more in control and less at the whims of the DM.
Overall the system worked better for the players.
It worked better, but it didn't *feel* as good.

4e took an entirely different direction that some people love and others hate. I despised it. But I recognize that some of the things that they added/changed were actually really good ideas.

Now we have 5e.
5e took the best parts from each of the different systems and combined them into one, cohesive game, kind of like what you were trying to do with your 2e/d20 conversion, only it does it amazingly.
The parts of 4e that were really good (even if the system as a whole was garbage) were retained.
The core system is indeed a watered down 3e, but without the needless bloat of rules for every single thing imaginable, so players like it because it plays the same way that their favorite edition did.
The rules leave room for the DM to make rulings about things, so the game plays/flows/feels like 2e did, so DMs like it because it flows very well.

It took all the best parts of previous editions and combined them to create a single edition that is greater than the sum of its parts. It's not perfect, but no RPG ever is.

You were looking for a 5e that was 2e with the d20 system, but you don't want a watered down 3e. That second part creates a contradiction.
That's what a watered down 3e is. It's a D&D game using the d20 system that *feels* like 2e did.
That's exactly what 5e is.
Like 3e, it *works* better than 2e did, while retaining the great *feel* that 2e had, and even sprinkles a few of the really good ideas that 4e had into the recipe.
And that's exactly why it has surpassed 2e and become my favorite edition to date.

[dancrilis]

... watered down 3e.


I would say distilled myself, they have in fact taken a lot of the excess 'water' out of it.

[ProphetSword]

In 2e I rolled a d10 to see who went first, d20 to attack, then a d8 for a long sword round over.


Actually, a lot of combat rounds in 5e for a character can amount to moving up to a creature, rolling a d20 to hit, and rolling a d8 for a long sword. Round over. That hasn't changed at all.



In 5e it looks like I would be rolling more dice and having more going on in a round with the feats/skills/bonus/surge action/attacks. Which only adds to a combat round. Having to know more rules and the rounds taking longer.


Bonus actions don't always occur. When they do, they're usually not that big of a deal. I don't see how having a bonus attack with an off-hand weapon is any different than using a two-weapon fighting style in 2e to do the same thing. In this case, we know that bonus actions are restricted to just one per turn, so it keeps abuse from happening. I mean, do you believe that bonus actions are flying every turn for every character? Because that's just not true at all.

Skills only come up when an action dictates it. If a person chooses to use a skill instead of an attack (for example, to use their Athletics to jump over a pit) as their action, why does it matter? You're rolling a d20 to attack or you're rolling a d20 to do the Athletics check. In both cases, you're rolling to reach a specific number to determine success or failure. But you don't see a ton of skill use during combat anyway (except sometimes Stealth and Perception if a rogue is using the ability).

Arguing that attacks add more rolls to the game is nonsense. 2e had characters making multiple attacks. That isn't new. Just like 2e, only certain classes even get that.

Feats rarely add rolls. If you'd played the game, you'd realize that.

And despite us telling you that combats only take 10-20 minutes, you still seem to believe that there's a ton of stuff going on. But, based on what? Because you haven't experienced the game yet.



It sounds like a lot more of if this happens you can use X skill or if this happens you can use X feat. Oh you get this bonus action or surge. It all adds to the combat round.


Exactly. It SOUNDS like a lot more of it is happening. Until you sit down and actually play it a couple of times, you're only theorizing.




I may still try 5e at least once but its not what I thought it was going to be.

If you go in with that attitude, it won't be.

What would it take to convince you otherwise? Does someone need to run a session for you? Maybe some of us here could get together online and run a game. You can play with us so that you can see how it all works and get the experience of people who have actually worked with the system. Then, you can stop theorizing and see the game at work.

[JAL_1138]

In 2e I rolled a d10 to see who went first, d20 to attack, then a d8 for a long sword round over.

In 5e it looks like I would be rolling more dice and having more going on in a round with the feats/skills/bonus/surge action/attacks. Which only adds to a combat round. Having to know more rules and the rounds taking longer.

It sounds like a lot more of if this happens you can use X skill or if this happens you can use X feat. Oh you get this bonus action or surge. It all adds to the combat round.

So it doesn't sounds like much of a simple streamlined combat system to me. Now to someone coming form 3e, 4e, or Pathfinder is may seem really simple and streamlined. I'm starting to guess this is why here are people that don't like any thing past 2e because they add more to the combat round. I could be wrong I am only guessing.


I may still try 5e at least once but its not what I thought it was going to be.

Try it. Please. I'm not exactly in the same boat as you since I did try 3rd and 4th, but I did hate them for slowing things down to a crawl and/or overcomplicating the game, as well as losing the feel of AD&D, so we're in some agreement there. I'm a 2e nut, same as you, I even say "back in my day, you dagnabbed whippersnappers" to people in the gaming group when they forget to prod something with a 10ft pole or a first-level wizard annoys common housecats with impunity. 5th looks more complex than 2e on paper because of the extra actions but it really isn't--the rules for resolving them are simple. The opportunity attacks in practice are closer to 2e's "retreat at 1/3 speed or get whacked by the monster" (despite being a different rule and system) than the "nobody ever moves until the other thing is dead because OAs" thing from 3rd or 4th. It clearly owes a lot to 3rd and a little to 4th in some aspects--3rd in that it's d20-ish, 4th in the rests and death saves--but until you've seen how quickly it moves in combat firsthand, it looks like it will take longer than it does. The actions in combat are more varied than they used to be, but it's not like 4th where people stand around going "Ok, do I do 2d6 plus this effect or 2d10 plus the other effect but it's a daily power and I only have a couple but the other one is an encounter power and I only have a couple or I could do 1d10 with an at-will but it targets Fort and..." and stretch the fight out. 5e moves, and it moves fast.

And it really is simple, believe it or not. ProphetSword and I may have argued a bit in the other thread about the finer fiddly bits of 2e vs 5e but I think the assessment here is 100% spot on. I haven't had to crack open the PHB more than once in a combat yet, and not at all in most. I knew exactly what my character could do at any point in the fight and had zero trouble deciding except for occasional moments of "do I run up and stab it in the face, trip it and let Fighty McFighterson stab it in the face, or hang back and cast a spell in its face...hmm, it looks bigger'n me, think I'll just stab it in the face this time." And then either the monster dies in a few minutes or I do. It's a little more survivable thanks to the removal of save-or-dies, a *little* insulation against swingy monster damage rolls, and the death saves, but it's still not hard to get killed. "Back in my day, we died like flies and we liked it, these dagnabbed whippersnappers nowadays don't know how good they've--oh snap, the thief just got dropped, someone heal him quick, I'm out of spells--aaaand he's dead. Roll new character."

Watch the Escapist videos of some complete newbies to 5th (aka the editorial staff) taking on the starter dungeon, Lost Mine of Phandelver. It shows you how quick a fight flows for complete and utter beginners to the system who are distracted by trying to make good internets. I think if you approach it as a new edition rather than a retroclone, play it or watch it being played, it won't disappoint. I tend to believe in giving things a shot, at least.

Like I said earlier, B/X and BECMI also lead me to think Obryn's onto something with Rules Cyclopedia, and I'd say to give that a shot too. No reason not to if you can find the rules somewhere for a reasonable price--try everything! Trying things is good. :smallsmile: Then you know from experience rather than from assumption. If I can find enough grognards willing to try it in my neck of the woods I'm going to see if I can get a B/X game together myself; if I do I'll report back on it compared to 2e and 5e.

[Tonden Ockay]

[QUOTE=calebrus;18885986
You were looking for a 5e that was 2e with the d20 system, but you don't want a watered down 3e. That second part creates a contradiction.
That's what a watered down 3e is. It's a D&D game using the d20 system that *feels* like 2e did.
That's exactly what 5e is.
Like 3e, it *works* better than 2e did, while retaining the great *feel* that 2e had, and even sprinkles a few of the really good ideas that 4e had into the recipe.
And that's exactly why it has surpassed 2e and become my favorite edition to date.[/QUOTE]


I understand what you and others are saying. I guess from someone who has played the other editions it would look that way.

But being someone who hasn't ever played the other editions and never dealt with things like
players having control
rules heavy
Feats
Class jumping
Less freedom as a DM
Longer combat

a 2e game using the d20 system would be just changing Thaco to a BAB and changing AC to go up instead of down.
Use the one stat chart system instead of all the different stat charts that 2e has.
Throw in the 5e advantage/disadvantage system if you like.
Keep all the 2e classes and races.


This is my take on things so far from all the people I have talked with or read about.

People who liked 2e but played 3e and may be even 4e are the ones that like 5e. Because most players who moved on to 3e never wanted to go back (Players had so much options/power/say). So the next best thing now days is 5e. It seems it tries to give both groups what they want (a middle ground if you will).

However people that never played 3e or 4e or did and didn't like them are the people who do not care for 5e.

I could be wrong but that is just what it seems like so far.

[calebrus]

People who liked 2e but played 3e and may be even 4e are the ones that like 5e. Because most players who moved on to 3e never wanted to go back (Players had so much options/power/say). So the next best thing now days is 5e. It seems it tries to give both groups what they want (a middle ground if you will).

I always wanted to go back.
Our group trades off who GMs and what game we're paying every few months. That way nobody gets burned out on GMing.
More often than not, when my turn came, I always tried to get the table to play 2e.
I'd run a 2e game for a few months. Then we'd vote and Will would take over and we'd play World of Darkness for a few months. Then we'd vote and Justin would take over and we'd play Pathfinder for a few months (and I'd suffer through it). Then we'd vote and they would want me to continue my game, etc etc etc.
Campaigns take forever this way, but everyone seems to enjoy it and if the GM can't make it for whatever reason we could still play.

I have since changed my game to 5e, and haven't regretted it at all.
I especially love how easy it is to convert both 2e modules and 3e adventure paths to function for 5e with minimal effort involved.

[ProphetSword]

However people that never played 3e or 4e or did and didn't like them are the people who do not care for 5e.

I could be wrong but that is just what it seems like so far.

That's a wide generalization that isn't true. Just read some of the threads over at Dragonsfoot. You'll find plenty of long time AD&D players who never liked 3e or 4e who love 5e. Some of them never played those editions either.

Some people like AD&D better. No crime in that, I guess.

The problem is, a lot of those people who are hating on 5e have also never played it. Their hate is unwarranted; because all they did was glance at the rules and decided it didn't look like D&D. They're wrong, though. It's definitely D&D. And it's good D&D.

[McBars]

I understand what you and others are saying. I guess from someone who has played the other editions it would look that way.

But being someone who hasn't ever played the other editions and never dealt with things like
players having control
rules heavy
Feats
Class jumping
Less freedom as a DM
Longer combat

a 2e game using the d20 system would be just changing Thaco to a BAB and changing AC to go up instead of down.
Use the one stat chart system instead of all the different stat charts that 2e has.
Throw in the 5e advantage/disadvantage system if you like.
Keep all the 2e classes and races.


This is my take on things so far from all the people I have talked with or read about.

People who liked 2e but played 3e and may be even 4e are the ones that like 5e. Because most players who moved on to 3e never wanted to go back (Players had so much options/power/say). So the next best thing now days is 5e. It seems it tries to give both groups what they want (a middle ground if you will).

However people that never played 3e or 4e or did and didn't like them are the people who do not care for 5e.

I could be wrong but that is just what it seems like so far.

As someone who cut his RPG teeth on 2e, I'm surprised at some of your issues with 5e.

I loved 2e because it was my first RPG experience. I hated it b/c of the unwieldy system it used (THAC0, the save chart, the way spellcasting worked, crappily balanced classes, non-weapon proficiencies).
I loved 3e for the character options. I hated 3e for the character options, feat chains, crappily balanced classes, skills, and how combat ground to a halt.
I love 5e because it takes the things I love about 2 & 3e, and cuts out MUCH of the horsedung that bothered me.

It is not rules heavy; 1st time RPGers can be playing within 30 m. I'm extremely lazy and have little patience for extensive, rules-heavy systems and 5e is a delight for me.
The feats are wonderful; give nice, play-relevant customization options without necessitating having 3 splat books open at once
Class jumping is a weird thing. I attribute that to the people who play rather than the system. I personally hate MCing and especially dipping.
Combat is sleek & streamlined. Easy to adjudicate and most importantly, fun.
MUCH better balance of classes, far superior to 2e and 3e in that respect
...most of all, 5e puts power back in the hands of the DM which is a GREAT thing imo.

The system requires you to track 7 attributes: The 6 ability scores and Proficiency bonus. That's it. That's all.

If you know those 7 figures, you know the modifiers for ANY roll. w

In fact, I'd argue that if you understand the following, you understand 99% of the system and can adjudicate 99% of gameplay:
-Ability score modifiers & Proficiency Bonus
-Advantage/Disadvantage
-Player Actions: 1 Action, 1 Move, 1 Bonus Action, 1 Reaction per round

Personally I found that to be far less to track than the mechanics of 2e, AND those aforementioned facets of 5e mechanics are the SAME for every character regardless of class, in contrast to 2e. (That was something about 2e that drove me CRAZY, particularly the foolish save system.)


I'd urge you to play 5e. It really hits those notes you claim to want it to. That said, it sounds like you are just trying to build a case for not playing.

[Tonden Ockay]

Ok ok like I said I got the PHB. I will make it a point to try and read through it as much as I can this weekend.

I will be meeting with my old group a week from Sunday. They all wanted to play 2e but a few weeks ago I talked them into giving 5e a try. At that time I had a different idea on what I thought 5e was. Any way I will do as you all asked, my group and I will give 5e a shot.

[calebrus]

The latest vid from PAX Prime (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLZ_Pl2pApA) will show you 5e in action (and there are tons of other vids around if you want to see more).
Just remember that this particular game is for the audience, which means there is a lot of exposition, inter-combat RP, jokes, general screwing around, applause, interactions with the audience, and all sorts of things which slow down play very, very significantly.
Perkins also plays his games very loosely (allowing things that the rules disallow) following the Rule of Cool.

But in it, you see examples of advantage, saving throws, combat, RP, yada yada yada. You see a session being played, so you can see it in action.

[JAL_1138]

However people that never played 3e or 4e or did and didn't like them are the people who do not care for 5e.

I could be wrong but that is just what it seems like so far.

If I've given the wrong impression somehow, my apologies...2e nut, hated 3rd, hated 4th, and really like 5th, here. Quite a bit. I do like 2e better, true, probably mostly for nostalgia reasons, but Fifth is a close second to Second for me--and it can get new players in easier and build a wider current player base than D&D has had in a long time, which is great too.

I played just enough games of 3rd to quit it because I really didn't like the system and feel whatsoever, and I played 4th for a bit until I decided I'd rather not play at all than put up with that system any longer. Then 5th hit, and it's a great second-best to 2e that I really like playing and that I want to see do well and stick around.

"Second-best" is not at all an insult to 5e from me. I'm not saying the other one's bad by saying I like one a little better. For an analogy, I like The Empire Strikes Back a little better than A New Hope, but they're both great. Same deal here. (3rd and 4th are the Prequel trilogy and the Holiday Special, respectively, in this analogy :smalltongue: ) And unless you're running out of a published module (in which case it's basically a dead heat), 5e's probably the easier to DM of the two because of class and monster balance, plus the guidelines and mechanics to fine-tune encounters to a greater degree to avoid both TPKs and complete cakewalks.


Edit: For a more accurate but less broadly-applicable analogy, I like my banged-up, quirky, modded-up '70s Hagström Viking guitar a little better than my '02 Strat, but the Strat is a fine instrument I also really enjoy playing, that frankly functions smoother with fewer quirks, wonks, and issues to work around (it ends up being the one I take to gigs more often).

[Tonden Ockay]

3rd came out in 2000?

I was watching this video on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgNRe76o4_8) and the person who had played D&D the longest had only been playing it for about 15 years. So they started playing a year before 3rd came out may be? All the others started in 3.5 or 4e.

[JAL_1138]

3rd came out in 2000?

I was watching this video on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgNRe76o4_8) and the person who had played D&D the longest had only been playing it for about 15 years. So they started playing a year before 3rd came out may be? All the others started in 3.5 or 4e.

Yes, 3.0 was released sometime in 2000, I forget exactly when. 3.5 came out in '03. 4th came out in '08, Pathfinder in '09. Without having seen the vid myself, I still would note that starting while one edition was in production does not necessarily mean that's the one they started with or the only ones they've played; there are still people playing 1e and even White Box to this day.

[obryn]

Can you point me to just like what I am looking for?
I did up thread.
http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/darkdungeons.html

[Knaight]

Is the goal for 5e is not not make your save most of the time?

Is it meant for you to only save once in a while when you get a lucky roll?

Due to spells doing less damage, Players having more HPs, and no save vs death spells that they feel player's don't need to make saves but yet they still wanted to give you a chance if you got lucky?
The goal is to make your good saves fairly frequently but with a real chance of failure, and to make your bad saves fairly infrequently, but with a real chance of success.


Why is this? If you keep down the Damage then you can keep down the HPs. Which would be less dice rolling and smaller numbers to work with, keeping everything simple.
It's a character scaling mechanic. At first level the damage and HP numbers are both comparatively small (You can approach 20 if you roll an 18, stick it in Constitution, pick a race with a constitution bonus and an HP bonus, and have a class with maximum hit dice), then they both go up as the primary way of character improvement. For the most part there isn't all that much dice rolling,


What I want out of an RPG core game mechanic is

Very Basic
Streamlined
Quick easy to use
Low numbers
Plug and play options
Balanced Classes
Honestly, I see this list and I think "not D&D" - particularly if balanced characters and not balanced classes are wanted, and you can scrap the class system entirely. Give Warrior Rogue and Mage (http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/) a shot, look into Savage Worlds, investigate Chronica Feudalis, find a Fudge (http://www.fudgerpg.com/goodies/fudge-files/core/FUDGE-1995-Edition-%28PDF%29/) build that suits you (Blood Sweat and Steel is exactly this, but it's still in development). The ones linked are both free, even.


See I don't like all this bonus action and action surge crap. What happen to keeping it simple?
The action stuff is fairly simple. Action surge is a particular ability that Fighters get at level two, which lets them take two actions effectively once per fight (it's rest based). Bonus actions are just a codification of one small thing that you can do while also doing other things.

5e is no more complex than 2e. There are a lot of games that are less mechanically crunchy than it, and if you're looking for simplicity first and foremost, give one of them a shot. Warrior Rogue and Mage in particular probably covers exactly what you're looking for if these are the standards of simplicity you want and you still want something particularly D&D based.

[Tonden Ockay]

Honestly, I see this list and I think "not D&D" - particularly if balanced characters and not balanced classes are wanted, and you can scrap the class system entirely. Give Warrior Rogue and Mage (http://www.stargazergames.eu/games/warrior-rogue-mage/) a shot, look into Savage Worlds, investigate Chronica Feudalis, find a Fudge (http://www.fudgerpg.com/goodies/fudge-files/core/FUDGE-1995-Edition-%28PDF%29/) build that suits you (Blood Sweat and Steel is exactly this, but it's still in development). The ones linked are both free, even.



I skimmed over the first few pages and I like what I have read so far.

However I will give 5e a shot first.

[Psikerlord]

Just thought I'd point out but the Shove action isn't a save, it's an opposed skill check of STR(athletics) vs. Str(athletics) or Dex(acrobatics) so all anyone needs to do to have a defense against shield bashing is be proficient in one of those skills.

sorry yeah i was thinking of trip maneuver