So, about that 5th ed...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'll admit right here: I was wrong. I didn't really even bother following the development of 5e because I was so disgusted with 4e.

I'll have to admit that it's actually a very decent system. Sure, still in development, but it's done several things very right.

First off, casters do not innately win, many of the archetypes which were so OP in 3.5 aren't nearly so overwhelming. With hard caps on stats, and most buffs being Concentration, being a 'buff-bot' doesn't really work anymore. Batman Wizard is no longer as overwhelmingly powerful, although a caster can still do battlefield control, but you can't stack DC's like you used to.

Second off, there are few 'traps'. I haven't seen any truly 'bad' abilities yet. There is no 5e equivalent to 3.5's skill-feats.

For example, I just built a lockdown build, a Paladin (Oath of Ancients) that went Polearm Mastery and Sentinel. The combination of these two make for a very effective lockdown build, his Nature's Wrath makes for a good single-target lockdown, and he also gets Ensnaring Strike and Plant Growth. Eventually, he'll get Ice Storm as well. And his aura that gives Resistance to blastomancy is pretty darn spiffy. I'm very tempted to get Great Weapon Master at level 12, because my polearm is also a great weapon. Failing that, Inspiring Leader, because temporary hit points is healing the party BEFORE they get hurt.

In short, I'm really starting to enjoy this version. It's everything 4e should have been... but wasn't.

[hymer]

I just dig the simplicity. 3.X, which is what I play most of these days, has combat become a math nightmare when approaching double digit levels, and it keeps getting worse. You have to remember all sorts of fiddly bonuses and penalties. And I like those, because most of them make sense. But the consequence of playing with all the buffs, debuffs and special options means combat slows to a crawl.
I guess I'd prefer 3.5 as a player, but 5e as DM. Kinda selfish I guess, but there it is.

[Visser3SansTheP]

I'll admit right here: I was wrong. I didn't really even bother following the development of 5e because I was so disgusted with 4e.

I'll have to admit that it's actually a very decent system. Sure, still in development, but it's done several things very right.

First off, casters do not innately win, many of the archetypes which were so OP in 3.5 aren't nearly so overwhelming. With hard caps on stats, and most buffs being Concentration, being a 'buff-bot' doesn't really work anymore. Batman Wizard is no longer as overwhelmingly powerful, although a caster can still do battlefield control, but you can't stack DC's like you used to.

Second off, there are few 'traps'. I haven't seen any truly 'bad' abilities yet. There is no 5e equivalent to 3.5's skill-feats.

For example, I just built a lockdown build, a Paladin (Oath of Ancients) that went Polearm Mastery and Sentinel. The combination of these two make for a very effective lockdown build, his Nature's Wrath makes for a good single-target lockdown, and he also gets Ensnaring Strike and Plant Growth. Eventually, he'll get Ice Storm as well. And his aura that gives Resistance to blastomancy is pretty darn spiffy. I'm very tempted to get Great Weapon Master at level 12, because my polearm is also a great weapon. Failing that, Inspiring Leader, because temporary hit points is healing the party BEFORE they get hurt.

In short, I'm really starting to enjoy this version. It's everything 4e should have been... but wasn't.

What's wrong with 4e? 5e's goal is simplicity, how is that everything 4e should have been when 4e was never trying to be that?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

What's wrong with 4e? 5e's goal is simplicity, how is that everything 4e should have been when 4e was never trying to be that?

5e is the natural successor to 3.5e. 4e is a stunted, twisted, gnarled, misshapen growth off of an unprintable expletive. 4e is pretty much 'MMO on paper', and turns everything into a bland, tasteless mush.

[Visser3SansTheP]

5e is the natural successor to 3.5e. 4e is a stunted, twisted, gnarled, misshapen growth off of an unprintable expletive. 4e is pretty much 'MMO on paper', and turns everything into a bland, tasteless mush.

5e isn't a successor, it uses 3.5's chassis and remixes things from every edition. It has a completely different playstyle and focus to 3.5 - I like 5e and 3.5 both on their own merits, but 5e is no more a successor to 3.5 than 4e is.

And bland, tasteless mush is one of the biggest complaints for 5e - they mixed everything into a simple, bland meal. One that you can spice according to taste, but has a very limited range due to lack of supplement release. 4e chose to focus on balance and tactical options at the cost of verisimilitude and simplicity - every editions has its strengths, and in comparison to 5e for example 4e has (once they got the maths right, early monsters had too little damage and too high hp) far more interesting options for characters in combat, especially martials.

[EvilestWeevil]

4e is to D&D what the prequels are to Star Wars. A lot of good ideas with poor execution.

[Visser3SansTheP]

4e is to D&D what the prequels are to Star Wars. A lot of good ideas with poor execution.

Strongly disagree, the prequels were packed edge to edge with bad ideas. And in any case, 4e executed a lot of what it wanted to do very well - martials in 4e were far more enjoyable to play than in any other edition, the 2e, 3.5 and 5e fighters are pathetic piles of tedium and ineptitude compared to the 5e fighter.

You're broadly correct - 4e made a lot of unnecessary mistakes like using the same chassis for everything, which alienated anyone who wanted a simple class, then eventually pushed essentials out the door to try to fix that and mucked it up horribly, but unlike the prequels they did get a lot of stuff correct. The problem was the things they did right tended to be inextricably linked to the things they did wrong, I'm really annoyed that they threw the baby out with the bathwater and refused to port over a lot of the 4e stuff that worked and would have fit well in 5e.

[Regitnui]

The part about 4e that 5e has adopted to great effect is more modular monsters. The average monster above CR10 no longer has a stat block that takes up half the page, and making/upgrading monsters is now doesn't also require rebuilding the entire statblock from ground zero.

[Visser3SansTheP]

The part about 4e that 5e has adopted to great effect is more modular monsters. The average monster above CR10 no longer has a stat block that takes up half the page, and making/upgrading monsters is now doesn't also require rebuilding the entire statblock from ground zero.

Legitimately the part I like least about 4e's influence - 5e has better verisimilitude than 4e does, but adopting its arbitrary statblocks and thus making PCs apparently out of an entirely different substance than the rest of the world is a huge realism killer and had the side effect of making template or nonstandard race balance basically impossible.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I'm very tempted to get Great Weapon Master at level 12, because my polearm is also a great weapon.

Inspiring Leader is a good feat, but Great Weapon Master is a great one for anyone who expects to spend a lot of time in melee combat and doesn't rely on a shield. Halbedier is one of the best weapon builds in the game, due to feat synergy, which is a nice change of pace from "Greatswords for everyone".

[gooddragon1]

I'll admit right here: I was wrong. I didn't really even bother following the development of 5e because I was so disgusted with 4e.

I'll have to admit that it's actually a very decent system. Sure, still in development, but it's done several things very right.

First off, casters do not innately win, many of the archetypes which were so OP in 3.5 aren't nearly so overwhelming. With hard caps on stats, and most buffs being Concentration, being a 'buff-bot' doesn't really work anymore. Batman Wizard is no longer as overwhelmingly powerful, although a caster can still do battlefield control, but you can't stack DC's like you used to.

Second off, there are few 'traps'. I haven't seen any truly 'bad' abilities yet. There is no 5e equivalent to 3.5's skill-feats.

For example, I just built a lockdown build, a Paladin (Oath of Ancients) that went Polearm Mastery and Sentinel. The combination of these two make for a very effective lockdown build, his Nature's Wrath makes for a good single-target lockdown, and he also gets Ensnaring Strike and Plant Growth. Eventually, he'll get Ice Storm as well. And his aura that gives Resistance to blastomancy is pretty darn spiffy. I'm very tempted to get Great Weapon Master at level 12, because my polearm is also a great weapon. Failing that, Inspiring Leader, because temporary hit points is healing the party BEFORE they get hurt.

In short, I'm really starting to enjoy this version. It's everything 4e should have been... but wasn't.

I'm lazy, tell me about the cleric. Can he still be a healbot? Is healing important? Has it become a viable strategy in combat? Can the cleric contribute decently in melee in combat without optimization while still being a healbot?

Depending on the answers I might even overlook the skill problem (I had a real problem with it when I read about it a few threads back (I still don't like it, but these answers could change my opinion about the system as a whole enough to look into it more)). I like this no traps in builds you're saying. I really like it. Let's see if it's true with your answers.

EDIT: Why didn't anyone mention the no traps as a selling point in it's defense before :/

[Visser3SansTheP]

I'm lazy, tell me about the cleric. Can he still be a healbot? Is healing important? Has it become a viable strategy in combat? Can the cleric contribute decently in melee in combat without optimization while still being a healbot?

Depending on the answers I might even overlook the skill problem (I had a real problem with it when I read about it a few threads back). I like this no traps in builds you're saying. I really like it. Let's see if it's true with your answers.

Yes, no, no, yes.

A life cleric is the best healbot, healing is not important since using your actions to prevent the damage happening instead is better, it's not a viable strategy in combat because you're burning limited resources to reactively partially undo what a monster is doing, life cleric can contribute decently in melee and is the best at healbotting though again focusing on healing has never been optimal in D&D.

[gooddragon1]

Yes, no, no, yes.

A life cleric is the best healbot, healing is not important since using your actions to prevent the damage happening instead is better, it's not a viable strategy in combat because you're burning limited resources to reactively partially undo what a monster is doing, life cleric can contribute decently in melee and is the best at healbotting though again focusing on healing has never been optimal in D&D.

1> Okay
2> Why not? And how much not?
3> Why not? And how much not?
4> How effective? Is there DR? Would I need to use spells to be effective? Could I just use a can of mace?

Why can't they make all strategies effective? Or at least mine :(

If I hit things with my mace, will I run into DR or other problems?

These answers are fair I guess. But why isn't healing important after combat?

[Visser3SansTheP]

1> Okay
2> Why not? And how much not?
3> Why not? And how much not?
4> How effective? Is there DR? Would I need to use spells to be effective? Could I just use a can of mace?

Why can't they make all strategies effective? Or at least mine :(

If I hit things with my mace, will I run into DR or other problems?

These answers are fair I guess. But why isn't healing important after combat?

DR isn't really a thing now. Resistant means you take half damage, immune means you take none, no -X. Clerics get one attack and +1d8 damage at level 8 and 14, making them capable in melee but even that falls behind cantrip damage. Assuming both maximise wisdom first, while the melee cleric maximises strength second and therefore falls behind on constitution as well as having to be in melee range the breakpoints are:

Melee cleric Caster cleric
1: +5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage DC 13, 1d8 damage
5: +6 to hit, 1d8+3 damage DC 15, 2d8 damage
8: +6 to hit, 2d8+3 damage DC 16, 2d8+5 damage
11:+7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage DC 17, 3d8+5 damage
14:+9 to hit, 3d8+4 damage DC 18, 3d8+5 damage
17:+11 to hit, 3d8+5 damage DC 19, 4d8+5 damage

And healing after combat isn't important since you can spend hit dice to regain HP. To answer why healing's never been effective: In D&D so far there have been two types of healing. Trading spell slots for HP, which uses up your turn, is incredibly dull and never requires any skill (imagine a wizard with many ways to incapacitate or kill their enemy picking the perfect fireball or polymorph based on the situation, now compare that to using your turn to burn a spell in order to increase a number) or 4e style healing where the healing is done alongside other things and doesn't use up a resource that would go towards something interesting or your standard action, which just makes X healing per fight a baseline assumption and means the game would be identical if you just took away healing and lowered monster damage.

You might enjoy it, but many players hate being a band-aid cleric and using up the thing that defines your class in order to patch up party members. As long as healing retains its current style it will never be strong enough to use as your main combat strategy since that would force cleric, druid, bard etc players into a boring pigeonhole. Solutions wise, the best I can come up with off the top of my head would be to
A: make healing an entirely separate pool like for the paladin. Nobody minds using lay on hands as a paladin, since that's what the pool of hit points is there for and it doesn't stop you using your other paladin abilities or
B: make healing stronger, but situationally. Have spells that do nothing but directly and reliably heal like cure wounds stay weak for the same reason that magic missiles with its very reliable, all purpose damage does less direct damage than other damage spells, and have healing spells follow the way other spells work and give them conditions and different uses.
Ba: Examples - spell that heals more when party member has taken damage in the last round. Spell that creates a 10' radius circle on the ground that heals those in it over the next 5 rounds. Spell that marks an enemy target and heals party members who damage that target within the next round. Spell that burns some of your HP and uses it to make a large shield of temporary HP, basically gambling that the target will be taking damage because if not you've just wasted it. Life cleric divine strike heals nearby ally for d8s instead of doing d8s of radiant damage.

[Dr. Cliché]

Legitimately the part I like least about 4e's influence - 5e has better verisimilitude than 4e does, but adopting its arbitrary statblocks and thus making PCs apparently out of an entirely different substance than the rest of the world is a huge realism killer and had the side effect of making template or nonstandard race balance basically impossible.

Couldn't agree more.

One of the things I loved about 3.5 was the options for customisation. Want a gnoll sorcerer in 3.5? Take a gnoll and add sorcerer levels. Want a gnoll sorcerer in 5th? Take a gnoll and... uh add... no, I think I make a sorcerer and add... no, that's not right either. Wait, what am I doing for hit dice again? And if you do manage to cobble something together, there's no easy way to obtain a CR. So, you either have to guess or else trawl through the monster manual in a desperate effort to find something remotely comparable.

On that note, the spell lists of many monsters seems to have been cut down to rather silly levels. As an example, here are the spells a Pit Fiend knew in 3.5:
At will—blasphemy, create undead, fireball, greater dispel magic, greater teleport, invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster, persistent image, power word stun, unholy aura;
1/day—meteor swarm.
Once per year a pit fiend can use wish as the spell.

Now let's look at the spell list for a Pit Fiend in 5th:
At will: detect magic, fireball
3/day each: hold monster, wall of fire

Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that's just pathetic?

And the worst part is that, as above, expanding its repertoire by giving it levels in sorcerer (or some other caster) is akin to pulling teeth.


Finally, what is even the point of Templates in 5th? I might as well just palette-swap my sprites for all the impact they have.


Oh, one unrelated point - I dislike monsters with immunity to nonmagic bludgeoning, slashing and piercing damage. I'm really not a fan of this sort of thing in general. I'd much rather have monsters with reliable resistance, rather than ones which have either no resistance or total immunity. As a DM, it means that I'm either sending them against a party with no way to handle them (TPK territory), or else I'm sending them against a party with magic, in which case their immunity to non-magic weapons is worthless.

[gooddragon1]

DR isn't really a thing now. Resistant means you take half damage, immune means you take none, no -X. Clerics get one attack and +1d8 damage at level 8 and 14, making them capable in melee but even that falls behind cantrip damage. Assuming both maximise wisdom first, while the melee cleric maximises strength second and therefore falls behind on constitution as well as having to be in melee range the breakpoints are:

Melee cleric Caster cleric
1: +5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage DC 13, 1d8 damage
5: +6 to hit, 1d8+3 damage DC 15, 2d8 damage
8: +6 to hit, 2d8+3 damage DC 16, 2d8+5 damage
11:+7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage DC 17, 3d8+5 damage
14:+9 to hit, 3d8+4 damage DC 18, 3d8+5 damage
17:+11 to hit, 3d8+5 damage DC 19, 4d8+5 damage

And healing after combat isn't important since you can spend hit dice to regain HP. To answer why healing's never been effective: In D&D so far there have been two types of healing. Trading spell slots for HP, which uses up your turn, is incredibly dull and never requires any skill (imagine a wizard with many ways to incapacitate or kill their enemy picking the perfect fireball or polymorph based on the situation, now compare that to using your turn to burn a spell in order to increase a number) or 4e style healing where the healing is done alongside other things and doesn't use up a resource that would go towards something interesting or your standard action, which just makes X healing per fight a baseline assumption and means the game would be identical if you just took away healing and lowered monster damage.

You might enjoy it, but many players hate being a band-aid cleric and using up the thing that defines your class in order to patch up party members. As long as healing retains its current style it will never be strong enough to use as your main combat strategy since that would force cleric, druid, bard etc players into a boring pigeonhole. Solutions wise, the best I can come up with off the top of my head would be to
A: make healing an entirely separate pool like for the paladin. Nobody minds using lay on hands as a paladin, since that's what the pool of hit points is there for and it doesn't stop you using your other paladin abilities or
B: make healing stronger, but situationally. Have spells that do nothing but directly and reliably heal like cure wounds stay weak for the same reason that magic missiles with its very reliable, all purpose damage does less direct damage than other damage spells, and have healing spells follow the way other spells work and give them conditions and different uses.
Ba: Examples - spell that heals more when party member has taken damage in the last round. Spell that creates a 10' radius circle on the ground that heals those in it over the next 5 rounds. Spell that marks an enemy target and heals party members who damage that target within the next round. Spell that burns some of your HP and uses it to make a large shield of temporary HP, basically gambling that the target will be taking damage because if not you've just wasted it. Life cleric divine strike heals nearby ally for d8s instead of doing d8s of radiant damage.

Your answers give me mixed feelings. It's enough to motivate more investigation. What's the dc in front of the damage for though?

[Visser3SansTheP]

Your answers give me mixed feelings. It's enough to motivate more investigation. What's the dc in front of the damage for though?

The DC for radiant flame. 8+prof+mod. Melee clerics tend to be behind on accuracy because while a cantrip is wisdom based a melee attack is based on strength, meaning you have to choose between weaker attacks and weaker spells.

Though it should be noted that since the SCAG came out if you multiclass or take the magical training feat you can get the booming and greenflame blade cantrips which add a free +1d8 at levels 5, 11 and 17 to your melee attack, pushing melee ahead of cantrips in damage.

[Nicodiemus]

I was raised on the red book, classic D&D, went through puberty on AD&D, and entered adulthood playing 2nd and then 3rd. Never played 3.5 or 4th, but heard stories from friends very disenchanted with 4th because, as has been said before, it tried to capitalize on the popularity of MMOs and became much more of a combat mini game. Also, from reading other threads, the bookkeeping and number of optimization choices became overwhelming, and non-optimized characters were goblin fodder.

After playing 5th for a year and a half, I'd liken it to a reboot movie. The paths for each class are reminiscent of kits from 2nd, but not so pigeon-holey, allowing for personalization that doesn't really water down the character. Rather than the laundry list of skills in 3rd, they have broad-stroked them into a manageable list. By tying progression of so many variables including skills to the proficiency bonus they made bookkeeping for leveling a much simpler task.

Scaling cantrips give casters more staying power but reduced spell slots per spell level balances them out.

Multi-classing is still a very viable thing, and gives optimizers something to geek out over (number-crunch away my friends. I'll be over here playing) but capstone abilities make you almost WANT to single class again.

And as has been said in other threads, bounded accuracy means every character can contribute, every player can have fun. I think 5e aims at being more accessible to new players while still providing enough layers to satisfy the old guard. My bet is future supplements will include some throwback campaign worlds and the nuances that made them popular. Spelljammer, anyone?

[gooddragon1]

The DC for radiant flame. 8+prof+mod. Melee clerics tend to be behind on accuracy because while a cantrip is wisdom based a melee attack is based on strength, meaning you have to choose between weaker attacks and weaker spells.

Though it should be noted that since the SCAG came out if you multiclass or take the magical training feat you can get the booming and greenflame blade cantrips which add a free +1d8 at levels 5, 11 and 17 to your melee attack, pushing melee ahead of cantrips in damage.

Read a bit. How valuable is a cleric in the healing department who specializes in healing if people just heal everything with an 8 hour rest? I might be missing something (because the SRD doesn't say all that much about some stuff).

Also, I notice lesser restoration can't restore ability damage. What kind of stuff can undead do in the ability damage department? Is ability damage common?

My impression of the game is kind of like tf2. It's balanced, but really... nice to the players. I don't know how to feel about that. Also a bit like diablo 3. Unlike diablo 2, nothing has immunity (I know you said there are immunities, it just feels a bit like that). All the stuff is balanced and everyone contributes. I'm just not clear on exactly why they have healing as a cleric role. If it's not good in combat and you don't need it at the end of the day, where exactly does it fall?

I like some parts (like how a cleric can do decent damage without heavy optimization and how the monsters aren't trying to accommodate all optimization levels with crazy amounts of HP), but I just don't know even after reading stuff. Particularly about where cleric healing is useful.

EDIT: Why aren't there any real cleric buff spells (blessing requires concentration, nothing that gives a bonus to rolls that you can just cast at the start of combat like prayer?)

[Visser3SansTheP]

Read a bit. How valuable is a cleric in the healing department who specializes in healing if people just heal everything with an 8 hour rest? I might be missing something (because the SRD doesn't say all that much about some stuff).
Somewhat. The life cleric and their target get 2+spell level extra healing per spell and nonspell healing from channel divinity, if anyone's going to healbot its a life cleric. And its not just the 8 hour rest, on a short rest you can spend hit dice to heal - so for instance a level 6 barbarian with a constitution of 18 can spend 6 hit dice and gets 1d12+4 hit points back for each one he spends. Out of combat healing's not usually a problem. The usual utility of healing spells is having healing word - when you hit 0 hp you take 3 failed death saves to die, so if you're on 15 hit points and take 40 damage you're still on 0 and a 1d4+3 healing word means you can get back up immediately. Most fights of any real difficulty in 5e have players hitting 0 and coming back constantly.


Also, I notice lesser restoration can't restore ability damage. What kind of stuff can undead do in the ability damage department? Is ability damage common?
Ability damage isn't very common at all, shadows have it but can't think of anyone else off the top of my head. Most drainy type undead instead reduce your maximum hit points until you take a long rest, the CR13 vampire for instance can bite once per round which reduces your maximum hit points by 3d6 until you finish a long rest.


My impression of the game is kind of like tf2. It's balanced, but really... nice to the players. I don't know how to feel about that. Also a bit like diablo 3. Unlike diablo 2, nothing has immunity (I know you said there are immunities, it just feels a bit like that). All the stuff is balanced and everyone contributes. I'm just not clear on exactly why they have healing as a cleric role. If it's not good in combat and you don't need it at the end of the day, where exactly does it fall?

I like some parts (like how a cleric can do decent damage without heavy optimization and how the monsters aren't trying to accommodate all optimization levels with crazy amounts of HP), but I just don't know even after reading stuff. Particularly about where cleric healing is useful.
Your impression of the game is roughly correct. Unlike Diablo II you're never going to encounter a multi shot lightning enchanted creature as a lightning sorc or instantly kill yourself because you didn't notice an oblivion knight iron maiden'd you. Resurrection doesn't cost you a level, nothing costs you XP, ability drain is gone and nothing applies negative levels, there are no save or dies and things that might confuse you like negative energy healing undead and hurting the living are gone. It's a friendlier, shinier, nicer version of D&D.


EDIT: Why aren't there any real cleric buff spells (blessing requires concentration, nothing that gives a bonus to rolls that you can just cast at the start of combat like prayer?)
You just described it. Blessing gives a huge bonus, one of the other boring things about clerics this edition is you should basically always be using your concentration to maintain blessing.

[Dr. Cliché]

My impression of the game is kind of like tf2. It's balanced, but really... nice to the players. I don't know how to feel about that. Also a bit like diablo 3. Unlike diablo 2, nothing has immunity (I know you said there are immunities, it just feels a bit like that). All the stuff is balanced and everyone contributes. I'm just not clear on exactly why they have healing as a cleric role. If it's not good in combat and you don't need it at the end of the day, where exactly does it fall?)

I know what you mean. On the one hand, it's kinda harsh if someone's character gets killed by Finger of Death or turned to stone or something. However, removing those things also removes a lot of threat from many supposedly powerful monsters. For example, there's a massive difference in perceived threat between a monster that can cast Implosion or suck out your soul, and a monster that can . . . do a bit of damage. There's an element of dread from really nasty abilities that you just don't have when the system is really nice to the players. And no amount of pretend fear can make up for that.

A more minor example, but I really dislike that stat penalties from races were removed entirely. I just always disliked this idea that player characters should never possess a single stat that's below average.

[gooddragon1]

Somewhat. The life cleric and their target get 2+spell level extra healing per spell and nonspell healing from channel divinity, if anyone's going to healbot its a life cleric. And its not just the 8 hour rest, on a short rest you can spend hit dice to heal - so for instance a level 6 barbarian with a constitution of 18 can spend 6 hit dice and gets 1d12+4 hit points back for each one he spends. Out of combat healing's not usually a problem. The usual utility of healing spells is having healing word - when you hit 0 hp you take 3 failed death saves to die, so if you're on 15 hit points and take 40 damage you're still on 0 and a 1d4+3 healing word means you can get back up immediately. Most fights of any real difficulty in 5e have players hitting 0 and coming back constantly.


Ability damage isn't very common at all, shadows have it but can't think of anyone else off the top of my head. Most drainy type undead instead reduce your maximum hit points until you take a long rest, the CR13 vampire for instance can bite once per round which reduces your maximum hit points by 3d6 until you finish a long rest.


Your impression of the game is roughly correct. Unlike Diablo II you're never going to encounter a multi shot lightning enchanted creature as a lightning sorc or instantly kill yourself because you didn't notice an oblivion knight iron maiden'd you. Resurrection doesn't cost you a level, nothing costs you XP, ability drain is gone and nothing applies negative levels, there are no save or dies and things that might confuse you like negative energy healing undead and hurting the living are gone. It's a friendlier, shinier, nicer version of D&D.


You just described it. Blessing gives a huge bonus, one of the other boring things about clerics this edition is you should basically always be using your concentration to maintain blessing.

So concentration is different (not a standard action), healing is a different role of sorts, and I think I'd use spiritual weapon rather than a mace. Dispel magic doesn't cap.

How useful is dispel magic against a boss (CR=party ECL+2 if that makes sense)? Can monsters use abilities at will, particularly dispel magic (so that spiritual weapon would be useless)?

The game is interesting. The problem is that I both like and don't like a "nicer" game. I loved that nothing was resistant in diablo 3. However, it sort of felt mundane to plug through. That's what makes me wonder about 5e. "Nicer" game, but is it boring to plug through? You can plug through a computer game. D&D 3.5 has this story element but the mechanics come out as well in intricate ways. 5e might be relying a bit much on the story element to bring out intricacies and interesting parts (the primary advantage that paper DND has against computer games in my opinion). I mean a good story is very important, but there's parts of 3.5 that are lost in this simpler approach. Some parts I don't miss. Others I do. Like more complicated spells. Or more complex class features. It's hard to pin it down, but I miss some of the complexity.

[Visser3SansTheP]

So concentration is different (not a standard action), healing is a different role of sorts, and I think I'd use spiritual weapon rather than a mace. Dispel magic doesn't cap.
Concentration is passive, but you can only concentrate on one spell at a time and can lose it due to taking damage. Spiritual weapon is kind of an as-well-as ability, it doesn't require concentration and uses your bonus action, so it's a good damage boost whatever the style of play.


How useful is dispel magic against a boss (CR=party ECL+2 if that makes sense)? Can monsters use abilities at will, particularly dispel magic (so that spiritual weapon would be useless)?
Dispel magic is often quite useful, though it varies depending on whether they cast spells or not. It can go from useless to the most useful spell in the game, context depending. Dispel magic will automatically remove dispel weapon, but almost nothing in the MM actually uses it.


The game is interesting. The problem is that I both like and don't like a "nicer" game. I loved that nothing was resistant in diablo 3. However, it sort of felt mundane to plug through. That's what makes me wonder about 5e. "Nicer" game, but is it boring to plug through? You can plug through a computer game. D&D 3.5 has this story element but the mechanics come out as well in intricate ways. 5e might be relying a bit much on the story element to bring out intricacies and interesting parts (the primary advantage that paper DND has against computer games in my opinion). I mean a good story is very important, but there's parts of 3.5 that are lost in this simpler approach. Some parts I don't miss. Others I do. Like more complicated spells. Or more complex class features. It's hard to pin it down, but I miss some of the complexity.
Hated diablo III, pre-ordered the collectors edition ASAP and excitedly played the instant it came out, within a few days I uninstalled it and haven't touched it since. And in 5e I find casters stay interesting forever, but martial classes have a tendency to become very boring thanks to returning to the early 3.5 paradigm of saying 'I make a basic attack' a couple of times a round every round for the rest of time. They pared down the game a lot and the simplicity is probably a good thing in general - fortunately if you're after choice, playing a wizard or bard or similar tends to leave you entertained forever, provided you avoid breaking the game at high levels.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Couldn't agree more.

One of the things I loved about 3.5 was the options for customisation. Want a gnoll sorcerer in 3.5? Take a gnoll and add sorcerer levels. Want a gnoll sorcerer in 5th? Take a gnoll and... uh add... no, I think I make a sorcerer and add... no, that's not right either. Wait, what am I doing for hit dice again? And if you do manage to cobble something together, there's no easy way to obtain a CR. So, you either have to guess or else trawl through the monster manual in a desperate effort to find something remotely comparable.

This particular example is easy. Take the Gnoll features from page 282 of the DMG, then build a sorcerer just like any other PC. Assign a CR/XP value as per the guide in the DMG. Maybe 20 minutes work?

But why even do that? The party is gonna see it once and murder it. They do not give a damn if it's has all the Sorcerer features. It's a gnoll who can cast spells and calls itself a sorcerer, so good enough for 1 encounter.
In this case, just flip though the monster manual to a caster near the CR you want. Tack on the most thematic Gnoll features. Add a metamagic if you really want to show it as a Sorcerer. Adjust the CR +/- 1 if you want. And done, like 5 minutes work.

[gooddragon1]

Concentration is passive, but you can only concentrate on one spell at a time and can lose it due to taking damage. Spiritual weapon is kind of an as-well-as ability, it doesn't require concentration and uses your bonus action, so it's a good damage boost whatever the style of play.


Dispel magic is often quite useful, though it varies depending on whether they cast spells or not. It can go from useless to the most useful spell in the game, context depending. Dispel magic will automatically remove dispel weapon, but almost nothing in the MM actually uses it.


Hated diablo III, pre-ordered the collectors edition ASAP and excitedly played the instant it came out, within a few days I uninstalled it and haven't touched it since. And in 5e I find casters stay interesting forever, but martial classes have a tendency to become very boring thanks to returning to the early 3.5 paradigm of saying 'I make a basic attack' a couple of times a round every round for the rest of time. They pared down the game a lot and the simplicity is probably a good thing in general - fortunately if you're after choice, playing a wizard or bard or similar tends to leave you entertained forever, provided you avoid breaking the game at high levels.

They need to print larger spell selections. Unless the SRD is only a subset.

So let's see if I've got this right

Cleric level 20
Uses Spiritual hammer to attack the tarrasque
Has blessing up
6 proficiency+5 wisdom+1d4 to the attack roll.
Needs to hit an AC 25.
Has +12 to hit minimum with bless?
13 or higher hits

40% chance to hit?

EDIT: Spiritual weapon refluffed as can of mace. As in it's a mace in a can that opens and the mace springs out and hits something then retracts like one of those extendable boxing glove punch thingies fused with a fake snake in a can.

[Visser3SansTheP]

This particular example is easy. Take the Gnoll features from page 282 of the DMG, then build a sorcerer just like any other PC. Assign a CR/XP value as per the guide in the DMG. Maybe 20 minutes work?

But why even do that? The party is gonna see it once and murder it. They do not give a damn if it's has all the Sorcerer features. It's a gnoll who can cast spells and calls itself a sorcerer, so good enough for 1 encounter.
In this case, just flip though the monster manual to a caster near the CR you want. Tack on the most thematic Gnoll features. Add a metamagic if you really want to show it as a Sorcerer. Adjust the CR +/- 1 if you want. And done, like 5 minutes work.

Why would the party member be murdering one of their own? What if the player wants a gnoll sorcerer? 3.5 had the rules, in 5e you can't unless your DM wants to homebrew a gnoll race and neuter it to put it on level with the other PCs.

[Visser3SansTheP]

They need to print larger spell selections. Unless the SRD is only a subset.

So let's see if I've got this right

Cleric level 20
Uses Spiritual hammer to attack the tarrasque
Has blessing up
6 proficiency+5 wisdom+1d4 to the attack roll.
Needs to hit an AC 25.
Has +12 to hit minimum with bless?
13 or higher hits

40% chance to hit?

EDIT: Spiritual weapon refluffed as can of mace. As in it's a mace in a can that opens and the mace springs out and hits something then retracts like one of those extendable boxing glove punch thingies fused with a fake snake in a can.

The Tarrasque is supposed to be a big pile of HP and AC. And in any case, why would you melee it? It's an int 3 creature (same intelligence as a dog in 5e, in 3.5 int 3 meant sapience but in 5e there are animals with a higher score than that) that can't fly, regenerate or use ranged attacks. There are any number of ways to kill the tarrasque that have no chance of failing or any risk involved - fly around and plink it to death or just polymorph storm and bury it, goodbye tarrasque.

[gooddragon1]

The Tarrasque is supposed to be a big pile of HP and AC. And in any case, why would you melee it? It's an int 3 creature (same intelligence as a dog in 5e, in 3.5 int 3 meant sapience but in 5e there are animals with a higher score than that) that can't fly, regenerate or use ranged attacks. There are any number of ways to kill the tarrasque that have no chance of failing or any risk involved - fly around and plink it to death or just polymorph storm and bury it, goodbye tarrasque.

Spiritual weapon is not melee :)

[Visser3SansTheP]

Spiritual weapon is not melee :)

True, but it does mean you're getting needlessly close to a creature that can be easily destroyed without ever going near it. Not that 3.5 was any better in this regard what with an allip disabling it.

[gooddragon1]

True, but it does mean you're getting needlessly close to a creature that can be easily destroyed without ever going near it. Not that 3.5 was any better in this regard what with an allip disabling it.

Meh, as long as it's AC isn't 35 or 40 :/

Well, from the reading and responses about 5e... it's something. I just don't know. On the one hand I feel like if you're going to go pencil and paper you should go "all in" (or very much in) when it comes to complexity (which is 3.5) because a computer game can simulate simplicity better and faster and with less hassle than pencil and paper can. On the other hand the simpler nature and not having to worry about not contributing/traps is appealing in some ways (which is 5e) because you don't have to play a certain amount of optimization just to contribute.

[Dr. Cliché]

This particular example is easy. Take the Gnoll features from page 282 of the DMG, then build a sorcerer just like any other PC.

Okay, gnoll was a bad example (I forgot they were on that table). In that case, what about a dragon sorcerer or a demonic warlock? Or anything else that isn't on that list?


Assign a CR/XP value as per the guide in the DMG. Maybe 20 minutes work?

This may astound you, but I'd rather not spend 10-15 minutes trawling through the MM to try and find something similar to use for CR.


But why even do that? The party is gonna see it once and murder it.

How do you know they'll murder it once? Spellcasters have plenty of escape features, and I might want to set it up as a recurring villain.


They do not give a damn if it's has all the Sorcerer features.

Please don't speak for players you've never met. They might care because it's features could be an important part of the story. They might care because they want to try and minimise damage (so, if it has red dragon heritage, they'll want to try and protect themselves from fire and have other element types to use against it).

What I will say is that they certainly won't care about features it doesn't have in the first place.



In this case, just flip though the monster manual to a caster near the CR you want. Tack on the most thematic Gnoll features. Add a metamagic if you really want to show it as a Sorcerer. Adjust the CR +/- 1 if you want. And done, like 5 minutes work.

You know, I always love it when people try and pretend that removing useful features is somehow for the better. You know I could do the same crap in 3.5, right? The difference is that I also had the option of doing it properly.

I guess it's my fault for actually trying to put time and effort into my villains. My apologies for not just making them as generic and flavourless as possible.

[JoeJ]

Okay, gnoll was a bad example (I forgot they were on that table). In that case, what about a dragon sorcerer or a demonic warlock? Or anything else that isn't on that list?



This may astound you, but I'd rather not spend 10-15 minutes trawling through the MM to try and find something similar to use for CR.



How do you know they'll murder it once? Spellcasters have plenty of escape features, and I might want to set it up as a recurring villain.



Please don't speak for players you've never met. They might care because it's features could be an important part of the story. They might care because they want to try and minimise damage (so, if it has red dragon heritage, they'll want to try and protect themselves from fire and have other element types to use against it).

What I will say is that they certainly won't care about features it doesn't have in the first place.



You know, I always love it when people try and pretend that removing useful features is somehow for the better. You know I could do the same crap in 3.5, right? The difference is that I also had the option of doing it properly.

I guess it's my fault for actually trying to put time and effort into my villains. My apologies for not just making them as generic and flavourless as possible.

You know you can add class levels to any monster you want, right?

[Visser3SansTheP]

Meh, as long as it's AC isn't 35 or 40 :/

Well, from the reading and responses about 5e... it's something. I just don't know. On the one hand I feel like if you're going to go pencil and paper you should go "all in" (or very much in) when it comes to complexity (which is 3.5) because a computer game can simulate simplicity better and faster and with less hassle than pencil and paper can. On the other hand the simpler nature and not having to worry about not contributing/traps is appealing in some ways (which is 5e) because you don't have to play a certain amount of optimization just to contribute.

The two aren't actually mutually exclusive. A 3.5 like game with no traps could easily be created - the complexity didn't help, but 3.5 wasn't full of trap options because of its breadth but because they decided that the fighter and druid were equal, as were the leadership and dodge feats. 5e's goal is simplicity, they wanted an edition that is as broad and simple as possible and have been happy to cut anything necessary in order to achieve that.

Which I wouldn't mind since 5e should nominally be very modular, but they've refused to add a lot of the stuff that should be available to slot in.


You know you can add class levels to any monster you want, right?
Not as a player I can't. In the last 3.5 game my group had I was an ambush drake totemist, even if 5e had meldshapers how am I supposed to translate that to 5e? And regarding monsters, you can as a DM but you're mashing together two separate systems that don't really connect, class levels and monsters use an entirely separate chassis in 5e so unlike 3.5 you have to shove really hard to try to make it fit.

[Dr. Cliché]

You know you can add class levels to any monster you want, right?

I know I technically can, but my point was that it's a massive pain. It's a bit like trying to add 3.5 class levels to 4th edition monsters. It's not impossible, but you'll have to do an awful lot of mackling to get it to work. You can't just neatly add levels like you can with 3.5 monsters. Instead, you have this weird thing where you end up use some bits from the class and some bits from the monster. And then of course there's the fun of trying to determine the challenge rating of what you've made.

[2D8HP]

5e is the natural successor to 3.5e. 4e is a stunted, twisted, gnarled, misshapen growth off of an unprintable expletive. 4e is pretty much 'MMO on paper', and turns everything into a bland, tasteless mush.
I have never played a MMO so I really don't get what is bad about being like them, but as a long time 0e and 1e player who has glanced at 2e and 4e, and studied 3e and 5e I'll give the nod to 5e, because from a DM's perspective 3e grew to be just too complex, and 4e is just too unfamiliar.
But from a players perspective, the balanced classes of 4e sounds good, and there is a version of the Ranger in 4e that just might be the class I most wamt to play, so I am puzzled why 4e seems to be disliked more then 3e?
As a DM I would pass on both 3e and 4e (too complex, or unfamiliar) and if I couldn't run Holmes Basic (or diluted 1e), I would choose 5e instead. But as a player however I will gladly take a seat at any table playing any edition.
Why the hate?

[JoeJ]

I know I technically can, but my point was that it's a massive pain. It's a bit like trying to add 3.5 class levels to 4th edition monsters. It's not impossible, but you'll have to do an awful lot of mackling to get it to work. You can't just neatly add levels like you can with 3.5 monsters. Instead, you have this weird thing where you end up use some bits from the class and some bits from the monster. And then of course there's the fun of trying to determine the challenge rating of what you've made.

How is it a massive pain? Add all the class features for each level except hit dice, which are based on size, and proficiency bonus, which is based on CR. Calculating the CR is no different than any other monster you've homebrewed.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Okay, gnoll was a bad example (I forgot they were on that table). In that case, what about a dragon sorcerer or a demonic warlock? Or anything else that isn't on that list?
Dragons have a variant in the MM for innate spellcasting. It is simple enough to be applied to any creature at any spellcasting level you'd like. Then adjust CR as per the guide in the DMG.
Or simply treat the monster stat block or a portion thereof as the race and build a PC on top of it. As illustrated by the table in the DMG. It's simple extrapolation.



This may astound you, but I'd rather not spend 10-15 minutes trawling through the MM to try and find something similar to use for CR.
But you'll happily spend hours building each of your NPCs? Right.
And the guide in the DMG I referenced is just a table where you reference offense and defense potential of a creature to determine CR.



How do you know they'll murder it once? Spellcasters have plenty of escape features, and I might want to set it up as a recurring villain.
Then do so. My point is the cardboard cutout of a gnoll sorcerer works great for an encounter with very little prep work. It can practically be done on the fly. But if you want to create a recurring villain, feel free to put in the effort of a full blown PC character after the fact if your players connected with the NPC in some way.



Please don't speak for players you've never met. They might care because it's features could be an important part of the story. They might care because they want to try and minimise damage (so, if it has red dragon heritage, they'll want to try and protect themselves from fire and have other element types to use against it). Yes, this is why I specifically mentioned tacking on the most thematic elements of the monster. Features which impact plot and such would be rather thematic dontcha think?


You know, I always love it when people try and pretend that removing useful features is somehow for the better. You know I could do the same crap in 3.5, right? The difference is that I also had the option of doing it properly.
Properly? The one true way! Please tell me more about how I'm doing my make-believe wrong.


I guess it's my fault for actually trying to put time and effort into my villains. My apologies for not just making them as generic and flavourless as possible.
You only need 1 distinct feature to make something memorable. If you pump out clones armies, things are gonna be bland, yes, but no one told you to do that. Use your DM powers and change the existing material to suit your purposes directly. C'est simple!

[KorvinStarmast]

Which I wouldn't mind since 5e should nominally be very modular, but they've refused to add a lot of the stuff that should be available to slot in. Refused? Uh, the game is what, 2 yrs old? There's ample time to add more things in. "Should be available" looks like your opinion.

[Visser3SansTheP]

I have never played a MMO so I really don't get what is bad about being like them, but as a long time 0e and 1e player who has glanced at 2e and 4e, and studied 3e and 5e I'll give the nod to 5e, because from a DM's perspective 3e grew to be just too complex, and 4e is just too unfamiliar.
But from a players perspective, the balanced classes of 4e sounds good, and there is a version of the Ranger in 4e that just might be the class I most wamt to play, so I am puzzled why 4e seems to be disliked more then 3e?
As a DM I would pass on both 3e and 4e (too complex, or unfamiliar) and if I couldn't run Holmes Basic (or diluted 1e), I would choose 5e instead. But as a player however I will gladly take a seat at any table playing any edition.
Why the hate?

'It's like an MMO' is a completely meaningless complaint.


Refused? Uh, the game is what, 2 yrs old? There's ample time to add more things in. "Should be available" looks like your opinion.
Two years is ample time. I'm all for taking time to ensure balance, fun and lack of trap options but the PHB still provides 98% of player options.

[gooddragon1]

I have never played a MMO so I really don't get what is bad about being like them, but as a long time 0e and 1e player who has glanced at 2e and 4e, and studied 3e and 5e I'll give the nod to 5e, because from a DM's perspective 3e grew to be just too complex, and 4e is just too unfamiliar.
But from a players perspective, the balanced classes of 4e sounds good, and there is a version of the Ranger in 4e that just might be the class I most wamt to play, so I am puzzled why 4e seems to be disliked more then 3e?
As a DM I would pass on both 3e and 4e (too complex, or unfamiliar) and if I couldn't run Holmes Basic (or diluted 1e), I would choose 5e instead. But as a player however I will gladly take a seat at any table playing any edition.
Why the hate?

MMOs aren't bad exactly. It's just that if you're going to play an MMO you might as well play it on the computer.


The two aren't actually mutually exclusive. A 3.5 like game with no traps could easily be created - the complexity didn't help, but 3.5 wasn't full of trap options because of its breadth but because they decided that the fighter and druid were equal, as were the leadership and dodge feats. 5e's goal is simplicity, they wanted an edition that is as broad and simple as possible and have been happy to cut anything necessary in order to achieve that.

Which I wouldn't mind since 5e should nominally be very modular, but they've refused to add a lot of the stuff that should be available to slot in.

It's just the way I feel about it.

Some days I like playing planetside 2 (Except that with the x64 bit update or whatever I can't anymore... I have fond memories of the railjack. Many fond memories.), other days I like tf2.

[Dr. Cliché]

How is it a massive pain?

I've already answered this. If you still don't understand then I can't help you.


Calculating the CR is no different than any other monster you've homebrewed.

Because "calculating" the CR for a homebrew monster is a massive pain. And, I'd much rather not have to go through it every time I add a class level to a monster.

Also, "calculate" feels like the wrong word. In 3.5, CR was calculated. There was a pretty straightforward table for how class levels affected monster CR. In 5th, working out CR is an endurance test as you plough through over 350 pages of monsters, trying to find one comparable to what you've made.


I have never played a MMO so I really don't get what is bad about being like them

It might relate to 4e being about combat and little else. I've heard it described as a tabletop skirmish game, rather than a roleplaying one.



But from a players perspective, the balanced classes of 4e sounds good, and there is a version of the Ranger in 4e that just might be the class I most wamt to play, so I am puzzled why 4e seems to be disliked more then 3e?

The classes in 4e were reasonably balanced, but at the cost of individuality.


Dragons have a variant in the MM for innate spellcasting.

Good for them, but that's not what I asked for.


But you'll happily spend hours building each of your NPCs? Right.

In 3.5 it didn't take my hours. That was kinda my point.



Properly? The one true way! Please tell me more about how I'm doing my make-believe wrong.

I find this amusing, given that you've been giving me that exact lecture.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

So you're just gonna ignore half of what I wrote en? Fine then. Sorry I got in the way of your complaining, please continue to vent on unabated.

[JoeJ]

I've already answered this. If you still don't understand then I can't help you.

So in some unspecified way it's not exactly what you want, and therefore it's bad. Got it.

[KorvinStarmast]

'It's like an MMO' is a completely meaningless complaint.

Two years is ample time. I'm all for taking time to ensure balance, fun and lack of trap options but the PHB still provides 98% of player options. And also SCAG and also the EE additions. To use or not as desired. I expect a few more options will arise as each season opens.

As to Bless:


Blessing gives a huge bonus, one of the other boring things about clerics this edition is you should basically always be using your concentration to maintain blessing. No, when you get spirit guardian there are a number of fine threads pointing out the advantage of using that for your concentration. In other scenarios, your Hold Person needs to be where you spend your concentration. As to "huge bonus" I'm not seeing it.

Bless (three creatures)

roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.
More allies at higher levels.

At low levels, this is a very nice boost, but it's variable. +1, +2, +3, +4. Which will it be? Don't know until the roll. I agree that a cleric who is trying to help the team will want to have this up in most combat situations. (My cleric in our previous group had it up about in about half the combats we had. Giving our barb a save boost and a boost to hit? What's not to like? )

[Dr. Cliché]

So in some unspecified way it's not exactly what you want, and therefore it's bad. Got it.

So, you can't be bothered reading people's arguments and so turn them into strawmen, got it.


So you're just gonna ignore half of what I wrote en? Fine then.

You were happy enough to ignore what I'd written.


Sorry I got in the way of your complaining, please continue to vent on unabated.

No, no, I'm sorry for not taking the time to respond to all your condescension and insults. I hadn't realised your ego was quite that fragile.

[KorvinStarmast]

Does a thread like this automatically get the tag "edition wars" applied to it? :smallcool:

Also, "calculate" feels like the wrong word. In 3.5, CR was calculated. There was a pretty straightforward table for how class levels affected monster CR. In 5th, working out CR is an endurance test as you plough through over 350 pages of monsters, trying to find one comparable to what you've made. WoTC has a download that can shorten the time spent, with this handy dandy "monsters by challenge rating" summary.

https://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MM_MonstersCR.pdf

[JoeJ]

So, you can't be bothered reading people's arguments and so turn them into strawmen, got it.

A bunch of non-specific complaints about going through the MM isn't an argument. Or even relevant to the question of adding class levels to a monster. Surely if you're going to do that you already know what monster you want to start with. Or if you don't, then you'd be paging through the MM in any edition.

[BRC]

Meh, as long as it's AC isn't 35 or 40 :/

Well, from the reading and responses about 5e... it's something. I just don't know. On the one hand I feel like if you're going to go pencil and paper you should go "all in" (or very much in) when it comes to complexity (which is 3.5) because a computer game can simulate simplicity better and faster and with less hassle than pencil and paper can. On the other hand the simpler nature and not having to worry about not contributing/traps is appealing in some ways (which is 5e) because you don't have to play a certain amount of optimization just to contribute.

Here's the thing, I don't really think the complexity of 3.5 really added that much to the game, not outside high-level character creation.

Much of 3.5's Complexity came from presenting the player with a massive list of options, 90% of which were terrible. The joy came from an experienced player navigating the tangled nest of feats, spells, and class features in order to come up with an interesting mechanical build, figure out how to get a given character concept to work, or simply make the most powerful character you can. The downside is that a new player could easily be overwhelmed by the massive list of options. Acrobatic? Sure, that sounds like a word I want to describe my character, I'll take that feat.

Now, if what you really love is the sense of ownership you get from teasing some unique superbuild out of the rules, then you're not going to get that from 5e, not yet anyway. Sure you can get some interesting Mechanical interactions (Like the Coffee Drow, or a Mounted Combat Rogue), or some very powerful character builds (Sentinel+Polearm Master). As far as getting specific character concepts to work, unless you're dealing with one of those hyperspecific Character Concepts that 3.5 had a prestige class built around (like the Combat Trapsmith), generally speaking you can make them work. The big exception off the top of my head is summoning/minion master builds, but those were always wonky.

The main difference is one of satisfaction. It is, for example, dead simple to build an acceptable Swashbuckler in 5e. I did it as a Battlemaster Fighter, some do it as Rogues, you could probably get a functional Ranger build that carries the swashbuckling flavor pretty well, and if your goal is to Play a Swashbuckler, you can have a great time.
That said, because the mechanics are so much flatter, you don't get the satisfaction that you are playing a unique Build that specifically represents your Character. My Swashbuckler Fighter, for example, was only a scant handful of choices away from being an Archery build, and in fact I went through several fights never touching my sword. I was still very much a dashing swashbuckler with a smile on my face and a feather in my hat, but the mechanics didnt' psychologically reinforce that the same way, say, a Swashbuckler 6/Dread Pirate 5 (Vs my Fighter 11) would have.

Still, I consider it a more than worthy trade off.

The one area where 5e suffers compared to 3.5 is Skills. I love the simplicity of the Proficiency system 80% of the time, but if you find your character deficient in some way, it's a pretty major investment (of a Feat) to let your character be good at something new. Plus, outside of some Rogue and Bard class features, there isn't really a way to differentiate between "Yeah, my character knows some things about Magic" and "MY CHARACTER IS A MAGIC NERD, HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE ARCANA CLUB AT MAGE COLLEGE!".

Really, in order to make your character feel special in 5e, you need to be much better about feeling the fluff of your character and viewing stats and levels as abstractions. Yes, both Aaron the Archer (Who is dex based and has proficiency in stealth) and NIGHTBLADE THE STEALTHKING OF THE SHADOWS have +8 in Stealth. But that dosn't mean you can't play Nightblade as being much sneakier than Aaron.



Edit: While in-combat healing is rarely worth it, unless you're healing somebody whose hit Zero, using Healing Words (Which don't take your full action), or healing Multiple characters, Healing is still a strong ability. There are many situations where you need to recover hit points, but don't have time for a Short Rest.


Edit: As far as Monsters go, I kind of wish they had some version of Pathfinder's Elite template. The MM is pretty heavily loaded towards low-CR monsters, so the ability to just slap a simple template on something to give it some more oomph would be nice.

[Dr. Cliché]

A bunch of non-specific complaints about going through the MM isn't an argument.

It was a very specific complaint. The fact that you choose to dismiss it does not make it any less valid.


Surely if you're going to do that you already know what monster you want to start with.

I know the monster I'm starting with, yes. But after I add class levels to it, it's CR is no longer correct. Hence, I have to instead look for other monsters with comparable stats and abilities.

[Visser3SansTheP]

A bunch of non-specific complaints about going through the MM isn't an argument. Or even relevant to the question of adding class levels to a monster. Surely if you're going to do that you already know what monster you want to start with. Or if you don't, then you'd be paging through the MM in any edition.

What about trying to play one as a player?

[JoeJ]

I know the monster I'm starting with, yes. But after I add class levels to it, it's CR is no longer correct. Hence, I have to instead look for other monsters with comparable stats and abilities.

No you don't. That's not a part of calculating CR.


What about trying to play one as a player?

Why should you be able to do that?

[BRC]

No you don't. That's not a part of calculating CR.



Why should you be able to do that?

Because D&D is about Fantasy. Wanting to play a Gnoll is no stranger than wanting to play an Elf. It's just that we've accepted Elves as Acceptable Heroic Player Race, while most settings paint Gnolls as Always Evil Vermin That Must Be Exterminated.

[Dr. Cliché]

No you don't. That's not a part of calculating CR.

Hmm, looks like you're right. Could have sworn there was a section telling you to look for a monster with similar stats and use that CR. Oh well, I hold my hands up on this one.

That said, I'm not sure the tables are much of an improvement. At the very least, it's a lot of extra faffing about that wasn't required in 3.5. And that's if you're lucky enough to be using a monster that's mainly using physical weapons. How exactly do you calculate damage-per-round for spellcasting monsters? I guess you could choose 3 blasty spells and take an average (now we're into a second layer of faffing about), but even then it seems rather dubious.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Why should you be able to do that?

Why shouldn't I be able to do that? Guy next to me is a drow, girl on the other side of the table's a dragonborn. This is a roleplaying game and previous editions were easily to easily cope with such a desire - why would any DM's reaction to wanting to play a certain class, race or way be 'why should you be able to do that'?

[NewDM]

DR isn't really a thing now. Resistant means you take half damage, immune means you take none, no -X. Clerics get one attack and +1d8 damage at level 8 and 14, making them capable in melee but even that falls behind cantrip damage. Assuming both maximise wisdom first, while the melee cleric maximises strength second and therefore falls behind on constitution as well as having to be in melee range the breakpoints are:

Melee cleric Caster cleric
1: +5 to hit, 1d8+3 damage DC 13, 1d8 damage
5: +6 to hit, 1d8+3 damage DC 15, 2d8 damage
8: +6 to hit, 2d8+3 damage DC 16, 2d8+5 damage
11:+7 to hit, 2d8+3 damage DC 17, 3d8+5 damage
14:+9 to hit, 3d8+4 damage DC 18, 3d8+5 damage
17:+11 to hit, 3d8+5 damage DC 19, 4d8+5 damage

And healing after combat isn't important since you can spend hit dice to regain HP. To answer why healing's never been effective: In D&D so far there have been two types of healing. Trading spell slots for HP, which uses up your turn, is incredibly dull and never requires any skill (imagine a wizard with many ways to incapacitate or kill their enemy picking the perfect fireball or polymorph based on the situation, now compare that to using your turn to burn a spell in order to increase a number) or 4e style healing where the healing is done alongside other things and doesn't use up a resource that would go towards something interesting or your standard action, which just makes X healing per fight a baseline assumption and means the game would be identical if you just took away healing and lowered monster damage.

You might enjoy it, but many players hate being a band-aid cleric and using up the thing that defines your class in order to patch up party members. As long as healing retains its current style it will never be strong enough to use as your main combat strategy since that would force cleric, druid, bard etc players into a boring pigeonhole. Solutions wise, the best I can come up with off the top of my head would be to
A: make healing an entirely separate pool like for the paladin. Nobody minds using lay on hands as a paladin, since that's what the pool of hit points is there for and it doesn't stop you using your other paladin abilities or
B: make healing stronger, but situationally. Have spells that do nothing but directly and reliably heal like cure wounds stay weak for the same reason that magic missiles with its very reliable, all purpose damage does less direct damage than other damage spells, and have healing spells follow the way other spells work and give them conditions and different uses.
Ba: Examples - spell that heals more when party member has taken damage in the last round. Spell that creates a 10' radius circle on the ground that heals those in it over the next 5 rounds. Spell that marks an enemy target and heals party members who damage that target within the next round. Spell that burns some of your HP and uses it to make a large shield of temporary HP, basically gambling that the target will be taking damage because if not you've just wasted it. Life cleric divine strike heals nearby ally for d8s instead of doing d8s of radiant damage.

B was done in 4E and because some parts of 4E were disliked, almost all of 4E was thrown out.

The problem with 4E was that it had long combats. So when you played it you spent most of your memorable time in combat. That memorable time was spent looking at dry rules text of your powers that you had to learn at least 1 new one per level. If you couldn't internalize all your powers in your mind, you ended up having to stop and read them each time you used them. This ended up making most players switch from role-play/story mental mode to dice/number crunching mode. Many people who dislike 4e complain about 'homogeneity' and 'sameness'. People that memorize all their powers and feats and never drop out of rp/story mode feel that the game is not 'homogenized' or had 'sameness'. Essentially what's going on is that once you remove the roleplay and story in any edition then you are left with rolling dice and crunching numbers. So of course when you are in number crunch mental mode everything seems the same. So a steep learning curve was 4e's fundamental problem. 4E had the same amount of rules as any edition for roleplaying, socialization, and exploration. It was just that everyone focused on the long combats.

WotC in their infinite wisdom did not deduce this and instead of simply removing the learning curve and keeping all the good parts of 4E, scrapped it and started over. They supposedly went back and played every edition of D&D and took the good parts and mashed them together into what is now 5E. Unfortunately they scrapped as many good things as they took, and the entirety of 5E plays like other editions levels 1-5 with casters getting 9th level spells and martials getting a few extra attacks. Is 5E perfect? Not by a long shot. It simply plays well to certain play styles and not others. A good article to read on what people find fun is: http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/. 4E was obstacle course fun. 5E is other kinds of fun.


Now, if what you really love is the sense of ownership you get from teasing some unique superbuild out of the rules, then you're not going to get that from 5e, not yet anyway. Sure you can get some interesting Mechanical interactions (Like the Coffee Drow, or a Mounted Combat Rogue), or some very powerful character builds (Sentinel+Polearm Master).

Sentinel + Polearm Master do not work together. You get one or the others opportunity attack (1 reaction), and Sentinel requires other characters or stupid monsters to activate.

[Fishybugs]

Meh, as long as it's AC isn't 35 or 40 :/

Well, from the reading and responses about 5e... it's something. I just don't know. On the one hand I feel like if you're going to go pencil and paper you should go "all in" (or very much in) when it comes to complexity (which is 3.5) because a computer game can simulate simplicity better and faster and with less hassle than pencil and paper can. On the other hand the simpler nature and not having to worry about not contributing/traps is appealing in some ways (which is 5e) because you don't have to play a certain amount of optimization just to contribute.

It's just a question of style. No game is going to make everyone happy. I played second edition, third, 3.5, and tried 4e before quitting. Hated everything about it. 5e has gotten me back in to playing for the first time since then. I like the simplicity. As a very busy professional person, it doesn't take me a lot of time to create a character and get going. I've even tried to get into a few games of 3.5 since restarting my gaming and find that even though I previously enjoyed the game, I don't want to sit and do math as a hobby.

For the people complaining about lack of variety. Relax. It's coming. You know WotC is working on developing it. It's money. Companies want money. The system is only about a year and a half old. At that point, 2E only had a rule book. We made up what wasn't available and were happy about it. (Sheesh. I sound like my grandfather.)

[JoeJ]

Why shouldn't I be able to do that? Guy next to me is a drow, girl on the other side of the table's a dragonborn. This is a roleplaying game and previous editions were easily to easily cope with such a desire - why would any DM's reaction to wanting to play a certain class, race or way be 'why should you be able to do that'?

The obvious reason is that games with a class/level system trade flexibility for simplicity by grouping abilities into packages that are (supposedly) balanced against each other. A new race needs to be balanced against all the other races, which takes effort and time. So it's back to why should it be allowed? What does this race you're considering offer that justifies the work involved?

[Regitnui]

The obvious reason is that games with a class/level system trade flexibility for simplicity by grouping abilities into packages that are (supposedly) balanced against each other. A new race needs to be balanced against all the other races, which takes effort and time. So it's back to why should it be allowed? What does this race you're considering offer that justifies the work involved?

As an example of this, and without wishing to trigger anyone, what is the difference between playing a Goliath and a half-giant, or an elf and an elan? A lot of the monster or more obscure races from previous editions can be handled by existing races refluffed or tweaked.

[Waffle_Iron]

'It's like an MMO' is a completely meaningless complaint.


Two years is ample time. I'm all for taking time to ensure balance, fun and lack of trap options but the PHB still provides 98% of player options.

AD&D was released in 1977, 2nd edition in 1989, 3rd in 2000.

That's 12 years and 11 years.

Two years is just an opener for an RPG. Trust us old grognards, there's time for content.

[Visser3SansTheP]

AD&D was released in 1977, 2nd edition in 1989, 3rd in 2000.

That's 12 years and 11 years.

Two years is just an opener for an RPG. Trust us old grognards, there's time for content.

4e was 2008, 5e was 1014. 12, 11, 8, 6, if the pattern continues 2 years is halfway through 5e's lifecycle.

[NewDM]

4e was 2008, 5e was 1014. 12, 11, 8, 6, if the pattern continues 2 years is halfway through 5e's lifecycle.

Nah, Mearls said 5E is "The final edition" and Hasbro/WotC fired 80% of the full time staff. It looks to me as if D&D is going back into hibernation like in the latter 2E days.

[Visser3SansTheP]

As an example of this, and without wishing to trigger anyone, what is the difference between playing a Goliath and a half-giant, or an elf and an elan? A lot of the monster or more obscure races from previous editions can be handled by existing races refluffed or tweaked.

A goliath is medium, a half-giant is large. An elan is psionic and truly immortal. We have a dozen subraces all of which are far more similar to each other (hello hill dwarves and mountain dwarves) than a goliath is to a giant or an elf is to an elan. And none of that lets me continue my ambush drake from 3.5.

[Visser3SansTheP]

The obvious reason is that games with a class/level system trade flexibility for simplicity by grouping abilities into packages that are (supposedly) balanced against each other. A new race needs to be balanced against all the other races, which takes effort and time. So it's back to why should it be allowed? What does this race you're considering offer that justifies the work involved?

But that's what I was protesting in the first place. You've just made my point regarding 5e's poor decisions on monster chassis for me perfectly without me having to say anything more.

[Knaight]

Why shouldn't I be able to do that? Guy next to me is a drow, girl on the other side of the table's a dragonborn. This is a roleplaying game and previous editions were easily to easily cope with such a desire - why would any DM's reaction to wanting to play a certain class, race or way be 'why should you be able to do that'?
The system isn't intended to cover everything, and while there's a core set of things that are reasonably expected because it is D&D, there are plenty of other things that aren't. Whether or not gnolls are standard enough that they should be playable is up for debate, but to use an example of a character who really doesn't need to be covered, say you wanted to play a protoss space fighter pilot? Other than previous editions being easily able to do this, the exact same defense applies.


Nah, Mearls said 5E is "The final edition" and Hasbro/WotC fired 80% of the full time staff. It looks to me as if D&D is going back into hibernation like in the latter 2E days.
Yeah, I've heard that before. It wouldn't surprise me at all if 5e ended up having a longer life cycle than has been recent, but I expect to see 6e at some point. At the very least, if WotC decides they don't want to make another game there will be a point where they can make more money selling the D&D license than keeping it around.

[gooddragon1]

...Much of 3.5's Complexity came from presenting the player with a massive list of options, 90% of which were terrible.

90% of which were not good for extreme or very high optimization. If you're playing in a lower powered group where the players and the DM have an understanding... it's a lower percentage.


Now, if what you really love is the sense of ownership you get from teasing some unique superbuild out of the rules, then you're not going to get that from 5e, not yet anyway. Sure you can get some interesting Mechanical interactions (Like the Coffee Drow, or a Mounted Combat Rogue), or some very powerful character builds (Sentinel+Polearm Master). As far as getting specific character concepts to work, unless you're dealing with one of those hyperspecific Character Concepts that 3.5 had a prestige class built around (like the Combat Trapsmith), generally speaking you can make them work. The big exception off the top of my head is summoning/minion master builds, but those were always wonky.

The ability to make hyperspecific builds is very endearing to me. This ability also flows through to things like homebrew which similarly can be much more diverse. Because you don't have to worry about breaking assumptions as much that the game holds important (as there don't seem to be as many in 3.5) without figuring out how to counterbalance what breaking those assumptions would do. When I read the buffs and magic items it seems like 5e really doesn't want to let you add to your ability scores above 20, doesn't want to let you add to your attack roll above a certain amount, and generally limits what kinds of number boosting you can do as a whole. It's a good design to keep things balanced. But it does stifle (imo) the range of homebrew you can make. I could live with that though... maybe.


The one area where 5e suffers compared to 3.5 is Skills. I love the simplicity of the Proficiency system 80% of the time, but if you find your character deficient in some way, it's a pretty major investment (of a Feat) to let your character be good at something new. Plus, outside of some Rogue and Bard class features, there isn't really a way to differentiate between "Yeah, my character knows some things about Magic" and "MY CHARACTER IS A MAGIC NERD, HE IS PRESIDENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE ARCANA CLUB AT MAGE COLLEGE!".

Interestingly, this isn't the problem I have with the skill system. I accept that if they simplify things there's going to be this sort of result. My problem is with something called "Mother may I?" But with all these nice things like not having to worry about traps (because let's face it, you still need a certain level of optimization to get by in 3.5), the magic item christmas tree necessity effect being vastly reduced, and a lot of nasty combat effects being reduced... I can stomach the "Mother may I" effect a bit better (or more accurately, ignore it for the most part).


It's just a question of style. No game is going to make everyone happy. I played second edition, third, 3.5, and tried 4e before quitting.

Hated everything about it.

Very likely not as much as I did. I doubt I can go into much detail about it, but if you were on the wotc gleemax forums you may remember a poster named PsionX who had a robot for an avatar.


5e has gotten me back in to playing for the first time since then. I like the simplicity. As a very busy professional person, it doesn't take me a lot of time to create a character and get going. I've even tried to get into a few games of 3.5 since restarting my gaming and find that even though I previously enjoyed the game, I don't want to sit and do math as a hobby.

For the people complaining about lack of variety. Relax. It's coming. You know WotC is working on developing it. It's money. Companies want money. The system is only about a year and a half old. At that point, 2E only had a rule book. We made up what wasn't available and were happy about it. (Sheesh. I sound like my grandfather.)

As for this, variety... I'd like to see how they handle printing more spells. Will clerics get their whole list? What new stuff will the get? Only time will tell.

Also, the price they pay for having certain assumptions as I mentioned above that enforce balance is that they limit design space. That or they have to be verrrrry careful about what they print.

[Visser3SansTheP]

The system isn't intended to cover everything, and while there's a core set of things that are reasonably expected because it is D&D, there are plenty of other things that aren't. Whether or not gnolls are standard enough that they should be playable is up for debate, but to use an example of a character who really doesn't need to be covered, say you wanted to play a protoss space fighter pilot? Other than previous editions being easily able to do this, the exact same defense applies

Except the fact that a previous edition that used the same chassis was able to easily cover the ground you're saying the system isn't intended to cover is a pretty big red flag. Gnolls aren't standard enough to be a player race, and they never had to be - previously, if someone wanted to play a gnoll they could easily pick one up and start play. Nowadays you need to homebrew and balance an entire new race any time someone wants to play something nonstandard.

[JoeJ]

But that's what I was protesting in the first place. You've just made my point regarding 5e's poor decisions on monster chassis for me perfectly without me having to say anything more.

Yeah, that's the difference between a point buy game and a class/level game. In the latter, option packages are supposed to be balanced by the game designers. The more they add, the less practical that becomes.

In point systems, individual abilities, considered by themselves, are supposed to be balanced with cost, but the GM is expected to play a major role in making sure entire characters are balanced against each other and against the expected challenges. So in GURPS you can play almost any kind of character you want, but what you can't do is reasonably expect to just show up at the game and play a character you created by yourself at home.

[2D8HP]

B was done in 4E and because some parts of 4E were disliked, almost all of 4E was thrown out.

The problem with 4E was that it had long combats.

WotC in their infinite wisdom did not deduce this and instead of simply removing the learning curve and keeping all the good parts of 4E, scrapped it and started over. They supposedly went back and played every edition of D&D and took the good parts and mashed them together into what is now 5E. Unfortunately they scrapped as many good things as they took, and the entirety of 5E plays like other editions levels 1-5 with casters getting 9th level spells and martials getting a few extra attacks. Is 5E perfect? Not by a long shot. It simply plays well to certain play styles and not others.

Thanks. This explains a lot. But it's more then that. While I went to 1e from Oe as soon as it came out, too many of the changes in 1985's "Unearthed Arcana" were past my comfort level (plus the new classes made the old ones seem way underpowered). And while I did get 3e, having 3.5 and 4e come out so soon afterwards left a bad taste. I feel a minimum of 10 years between editions is appropriate. While there are always possible improvements, I hope Wotc doesn't change the game too much, too soon.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Yeah, that's the difference between a point buy game and a class/level game. In the latter, option packages are supposed to be balanced by the game designers. The more they add, the less practical that becomes.

In point systems, individual abilities, considered by themselves, are supposed to be balanced with cost, but the GM is expected to play a major role in making sure entire characters are balanced against each other and against the expected challenges. So in GURPS you can play almost any kind of character you want, but what you can't do is reasonably expect to just show up at the game and play a character you created by yourself at home.

Makes sense. But doesn't obviate the fact that both 3.5 and 5e are a class/level game, and 3.5 could easily let you play a gnoll while 5e would require a DM to homebrew and balance a new race in order to play one because it decided that player characters and non player characters needed to use a completely different chassis for some reason.

[JoeJ]

Makes sense. But doesn't obviate the fact that both 3.5 and 5e are a class/level game, and 3.5 could easily let you play a gnoll while 5e would require a DM to homebrew and balance a new race in order to play one because it decided that player characters and non player characters needed to use a completely different chassis for some reason.

I would disagree that 3.5 lets you easily play anything at all. Simple, balanced character creation with few real traps for inexperienced players is not it's forte.

[PoeticDwarf]

I'll admit right here: I was wrong. I didn't really even bother following the development of 5e because I was so disgusted with 4e.

I'll have to admit that it's actually a very decent system. Sure, still in development, but it's done several things very right.

First off, casters do not innately win, many of the archetypes which were so OP in 3.5 aren't nearly so overwhelming. With hard caps on stats, and most buffs being Concentration, being a 'buff-bot' doesn't really work anymore. Batman Wizard is no longer as overwhelmingly powerful, although a caster can still do battlefield control, but you can't stack DC's like you used to.

Second off, there are few 'traps'. I haven't seen any truly 'bad' abilities yet. There is no 5e equivalent to 3.5's skill-feats.

For example, I just built a lockdown build, a Paladin (Oath of Ancients) that went Polearm Mastery and Sentinel. The combination of these two make for a very effective lockdown build, his Nature's Wrath makes for a good single-target lockdown, and he also gets Ensnaring Strike and Plant Growth. Eventually, he'll get Ice Storm as well. And his aura that gives Resistance to blastomancy is pretty darn spiffy. I'm very tempted to get Great Weapon Master at level 12, because my polearm is also a great weapon. Failing that, Inspiring Leader, because temporary hit points is healing the party BEFORE they get hurt.

In short, I'm really starting to enjoy this version. It's everything 4e should have been... but wasn't.

You're right, after 5 builds you'll see it is pretty limited but there is enough.

And 4e is amazing. Whatever you say about it

[Visser3SansTheP]

I would disagree that 3.5 lets you easily play anything at all. Simple, balanced character creation with few real traps for inexperienced players is not it's forte.

Heh. Indeed it isn't. I meant easily as in without any cost to the edition's complexity or length. A few characters in each monster entry and a couple of paragraphs explaining the rules elsewhere. Again, not being able to port any aspect of the ambush drake over even slightly is pretty annoying.

[2D8HP]

Two years is ample time. I'm all for taking time to ensure balance, fun and lack of trap options but the PHB still provides 98% of player options.
This seems like a good thing to me.
I didn't like how much 1985's Unearthed Arcana changed 1e. And I didn't like how 3.5 and 4e came so soon after 3e. And while 3e started O.K. it soon became a sprawling mess with all the supplements (way too many "feats" and "prestige classes" to have a handle on).
I really hope Wotc keeps 5e from getting too bloated. The Adventures they have published so far mostly seem good, and the supplemental backgrounds and sub-classes they have released so far seem O.K.
More Adventures and setting material is good, but rules? I hope they keep it simple instead and don't overload it as 3e/3.5 was.

[Visser3SansTheP]

This seems like a good thing to me.
I didn't like how much 1985's Unearthed Arcana changed 1e. And I didn't like how 3.5 and 4e came so soon after 3e. And while 3e started O.K. it soon became a sprawling mess with all the supplements (way too many "feats" and "prestige classes" to have a handle on).
I really hope Wotc keeps 5e from getting too bloated. The Adventures they have published so far mostly seem good, and the supplemental backgrounds and sub-classes they have released so far seem O.K.
More Adventures and setting material is good, but rules? I hope they keep it simple instead and don't overload it as 3e/3.5 was.

Why not? There's no actual downside, and 3/3.5's starting classes were horrendously imbalanced. Wizards, druids etc were way too good while fighters, monks etc were horrible - it took until 3.5 really got the hang of its release cycle to bring us the more interesting and balanced classes like the dread necromancer and crusader. 3.5 had a huge problem with publishing an enormous amount of useless material (a great many feats and prestige classes were basically worthless), but with a better eye for balance that shouldn't be a problem in 5e, we're at least due for a large book full of player options by this point.

And why keep it simple? If you don't want to use said book, don't, more options for the rest of us.

[Regitnui]

If I recall correctly, ambush drakes are essentially reptilian dragonblood hounds. No offence intended, but why do you want to play that?

[KorvinStarmast]

Nah, Mearls said 5E is "The final edition" and Hasbro/WotC fired 80% of the full time staff. Arrgh.


It looks to me as if D&D is going back into hibernation like in the latter 2E days.Or trying to avoid what happened to TSR

[Visser3SansTheP]

If I recall correctly, ambush drakes are essentially reptilian dragonblood hounds. No offence intended, but why do you want to play that?

They're a lot smarter than a dog, can fly, have a poison bite, telepathy and a breath weapon that slows (as the spell) on top of being very hardy. Not saying that's what you'd want for every character, but you can see why someone would want that, yes? Bottom of this page. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060728a)

[Dr. Cliché]

The other aspect is that some people just like weird creatures, regardless of how practical they'd be.

Personally, I've always had a soft spot for Skiurids (though I'll admit that I've never played as one). There's just something about their art that makes me smile.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/warriorsofmyth/images/e/e2/Skiurid-1-.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130419094025

[Mith]

They're a lot smarter than a dog, can fly, have a poison bite, telepathy and a breath weapon that slows (as the spell) on top of being very hardy. Not saying that's what you'd want for every character, but you can see why someone would want that, yes? Bottom of this page. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060728a)

I am not a master of homebrew, but I do not think this would be too hard to port over. There are mechanics such as Pack Tactics that can be used for racial features among other things. You may have to lose the Telepathy, or downgrade it to a language, but I do not think it is overly complicated to convert.

[gooddragon1]

The other aspect is that some people just like weird creatures, regardless of how practical they'd be.

Personally, I've always had a soft spot for Skiurids (though I'll admit that I've never played as one). There's just something about their art that makes me smile.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/warriorsofmyth/images/e/e2/Skiurid-1-.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130419094025

I think I once made a sentient spider with hands (kind of like an aranea) and played that. I was inspired by the talking spiders of exile/avernum.

[2D8HP]

Why not? There's no actual downside, and 3/3.5's starting classes were horrendously imbalanced. Wizards, druids etc were way too good while fighters, monks etc were horrible - it took until 3.5 really got the hang of its release cycle to bring us the more interesting and balanced classes like the dread necromancer and crusader. 3.5 had a huge problem with publishing an enormous amount of useless material (a great many feats and prestige classes were basically worthless), but with a better eye for balance that shouldn't be a problem in 5e, we're at least due for a large book full of player options by this point.

And why keep it simple? If you don't want to use said book, don't, more options for the rest of us.
I admit that going through a new book of options and dreaming up a min-maxed special snowflake character is fun, and I would be glad to find the"Scout" from 3e or a closer to a High Elf Sherlock Holmes build, but my fear is that with more options, characters will become more unbalanced, which as I remember from 1e is often less then fun. Plus the more options they are to keep track of, the more of a P.I. T.A. it is to DM.

[gooddragon1]

I admit that going through a new book of options and dreaming up a min-maxed special snowflake character is fun, and I would be glad to find the"Scout" from 3e or a closer to a High Elf Sherlock Holmes build, but my fear is that with more options, characters will become more unbalanced, which as I remember from 1e is often less then fun. Plus the more options they are to keep track of, the more of a P.I. T.A. it is to DM.

For the first part you just don't use the book. For the second part the DM is the one who keeps track, and thus may not allow the book if it is that way for them.

[JoeJ]

I admit that going through a new book of options and dreaming up a min-maxed special snowflake character is fun, and I would be glad to find the"Scout" from 3e or a closer to a High Elf Sherlock Holmes build, but my fear is that with more options, characters will become more unbalanced, which as I remember from 1e is often less then fun. Plus the more options they are to keep track of, the more of a P.I. T.A. it is to DM.

I don't mind having more options, but it would be a lot easier if the options designed to work together in the same setting are all in the same book. That frees up the devs to produce World Book X without worrying about whether or not something is OP when combined with one of the options in World Book Y.

[CantigThimble]

They're a lot smarter than a dog, can fly, have a poison bite, telepathy and a breath weapon that slows (as the spell) on top of being very hardy. Not saying that's what you'd want for every character, but you can see why someone would want that, yes? Bottom of this page. (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20060728a)

Basically the best way to do that practically is to get the features that look like what you want from your class(es) and then just work out the fluff independent of that. So you want flight, a poisonous melee attack, telepathy and the slow spell? Great Old One Warlock 1, Sorcerer 5, Winged Tiefling Variant. You have flight, telepathy and the ability to cast the slow spell. Hex represents the dex poison reasonably well, it adds necrotic damage and makes it harder for them to do an ability check of your choice. For the bite and such you could either ask for some basic natural weapons (they aren't much of a power boost to the character so I'd probably allow them) or take a level in monk.

This is pretty much how I would handle the whole level adjustment system in 5e, instead of getting features from the race and getting fewer levels, just take levels and retheme the RP aspects.

[T.G. Oskar]

@Visser: In essence, you're saying that you have issues with a creature that appeared around the mid-life of 3.5, that wasn't meant to be a PC race, and that it required an alteration of the Template Class that foregoes the base stats of the creature as the Ambush Drake is a creature and not a template? In fact, it doesn't follow the rules for a Racial Class (like Githzerai or Bugbear). I wouldn't use a creature whose legality as a race is iffy, considering Savage Progressions liked to play hard and fast with the rules (Eludecia, the Fiend of Possession that tacked Assassin levels to a Paladin, IIRC the vampire-werewolf mix).

The Gnoll, though...you can start by using the given ability scores in the DMG; there's a small table that details all ability score modifications for monster races (page 282), which had the Aarakocra before it was even released as a race in the EE Player's Companion. Admittedly, the DMG version and the EE version have their differences, but they're pretty minimal (they lack 1 point of Wisdom and their Dive Attack, but have +5 ft. to their base land speed), so you could work the Gnoll to something similar (drop the Int penalty, +1 to Dex, add the Bite attack, maybe keep Rampage as their special ability), then go for adding Sorcerer levels as a PC as usual.

The Monster Manual wasn't really meant to be used as a PC book, but as a strictly DM book, if you consider that the Player's Handbook had the stats for typical animal companions, familiars and mounts as an Appendix (about the only reason you'd want to check the MM, other than trying to convince the DM to play a "monster race"). It's not like it'll never be released (at least as long as they think about releasing an Eberron supplement, as two big nations are comprised almost entirely of "monsters", those being Darguun and Droaam). Certainly, that can be considered homebrew, but it's not really that complex if you think about it.

Also - the edition hasn't even reached full maturity. SCAG is the first official supplement (most likely the second if you count the EEPC). The first class outside the PHB (the Mystic) is already on its second testing iteration, and it'll take some extra time to bring it to fruition. WotC has suggested their first purely mechanical splat in a year's time - their focus is mostly on making more modules and slowly adding content alongside it. This time, they're going the really slow way, releasing content roughly once every 3-4 months. Unearthed Arcana is about the most prolific source of new content, and all of it is considered "playtest" material, so it'll take some time before it becomes official (and they've decided to interject the DMsG content every other month, so even that is drying up). Saying the edition will last less than 6 years requires explaining the reasons behind it, as usually a change of edition is decided because of a combination of content bloat and low sales. I can most likely take the latter than the former, and if the latter is a challenge, they can ramp up the former to add some extra months to the edition's life. I trust the edition will last for more than 4e, possibly approaching 3.x, and most certainly won't introduce its 3.5/Essentials equivalent until at least a year and a half after the other two editions released theirs...and that is IF they decide to do so. Consider that they're still dealing with how to fix the Ranger, something no other edition would have done (and that it took Paizo to even think about, given what they did with Unchained)...

In fact; how long has Pathfinder been in existence? Not a D&D edition, but given that it emerged almost at the same time as 4e, it must have already surpassed 3.x in years of existence. Given that 4e lasted longer than major consoles that were quickly scrapped (like, say, the PS3; the WiiU is also moving on that direction), and this edition is being accepted more, I'd say it might last longer. There's a lot of content in the PHB alone, compared to other editions (perhaps other than 4e, but that is a subjective matter)

[Dr. Cliché]

I think I once made a sentient spider with hands (kind of like an aranea) and played that. I was inspired by the talking spiders of exile/avernum.

And here was me thinking I was the only one who ever played Exile. :smallwink:

[Anonymouswizard]

most settingssocieties paint GnollsSkaven as Always Evil Vermin That Must Be Exterminated.

Just because it makes me chuckle, the above is the main source of conflict in my current RL GURPS game.

My problem with 5e is I look at it, read it, and think 'I could do this better in Fate'. Now I'm fine playing as a PC, I'm going to see if my DM will allow my Goliath Fighter 1/Cleric (nature) 2 'shaman' build in her campaign (wielding a maul and chainmail), but for running anything 5e lacks either the structure or flexibility that I'd want, and is heavily on the 'ask your GM' without any of the 'ask your players' Fate has.

On flexibility, 5e fails if I want to use anything other than it's standard magic system. In the next (homebrew) setting I want to run the only magic the PCs know of is 'The Sevenfold Way', formally 'The Eightfold Way' before the Path of Heaven failed 200 years ago (the demon powering it died, a possible plot point is discovering this and finding a new power source). Now as the system involves seven Paths with their own themetic lists of spells, and casters only being able to follow one Path, I can't run it in 5e, despite it apparently being a 'generic fantasy game' (haha, yeah, I know most of this board doesn't believe it either).

Plus, I still want to play the intelligent sword wielded by another character, where's the 5e race for that?

[Grod_The_Giant]

More Adventures and setting material is good, but rules? I hope they keep it simple instead and don't overload it as 3e/3.5 was.
Meh. I feel like most groups are much happier making up adventures and setting material than they are new mechanical options.

[Dr. Cliché]

On flexibility, 5e fails if I want to use anything other than it's standard magic system. In the next (homebrew) setting I want to run the only magic the PCs know of is 'The Sevenfold Way', formally 'The Eightfold Way' before the Path of Heaven failed 200 years ago (the demon powering it died, a possible plot point is discovering this and finding a new power source). Now as the system involves seven Paths with their own themetic lists of spells, and casters only being able to follow one Path, I can't run it in 5e, despite it apparently being a 'generic fantasy game' (haha, yeah, I know most of this board doesn't believe it either).

Could you elaborate on this?

Also, you mention Fate, but would you be able to do this in 3.5 or Pathfinder?

[KorvinStarmast]

Plus, I still want to play the intelligent sword wielded by another character, where's the 5e race for that? When you can explain how an intelligent sword is a race, there might be an answer for that. So far, you have provided a non sequitur. Since it's wielded by another character, you trade in loss of agency to the DM to loss of agency to another player ... unless you make your rolls to take her over, and cost her agency?

There are two other bits already in the books -- War Forged and Constructs -- that might fit into that concept.

I get that you want someone to grip your hilt and play with you, but I don't think that's necessarily how everyone else at the table has fun. (Though it may be, depends on the table).

[2D8HP]

Meh. I feel like most groups are much happier making up adventures and setting material than they are new mechanical options.
Very true but new mechanical options make me have to relearn they game. A little bit if there well play tested is fine, but I don't want a repeat of 1985's Unearthed Arcana which really unbalanced the game. I actually almost wish my beloved 1e AD&D didn't exist and that TSR had never separated the game into "Basic" and "Advanced", and it all remained one game we could all play (puppies and rainbows I know).
I am guessing that is what Wotc is hoping with 5e being a more generic "greatets hits" edition.
As a DM the more rules I need to remember the harder it is (I just don't have as much time anymore), but as a player lots of extra options are fun....when I am alone and not actually playing the game! When I am actually RPG'ing I want to know as little game mechanics as possible! Only what the character perceives. Yes I want to see my characters hit points, but I don't want to absolutely know the Monster's!

[Vogonjeltz]

Not as a player I can't. In the last 3.5 game my group had I was an ambush drake totemist, even if 5e had meldshapers how am I supposed to translate that to 5e? And regarding monsters, you can as a DM but you're mashing together two separate systems that don't really connect, class levels and monsters use an entirely separate chassis in 5e so unlike 3.5 you have to shove really hard to try to make it fit.

Why would your DM give the OK to a non-standard race in 3.5 and then refuse to do so for 5th edition?
In both cases playing that was entirely dependent on DM mercy.


I have never played a MMO so I really don't get what is bad about being like them

It's not necessarily that the system itself is bad (from my perspective at least), but rather that seeing that system really reminds me that I'm playing a game and completely destroys my sense of versimilitude every time.

The MMO knock is that most all the abilities were on identical timers the same way abilities are in an MMO.

So you'd have your abilities with 1 round cooldowns, and ones with 1 minutes or 2 minutes or 10 minute cooldowns, ones are off cooldown after every encounter, etc...

Basically the feel was such that it was like pressing buttons to use abilities in an MMORPG. That was an immediate turn off for me.


Why shouldn't I be able to do that? Guy next to me is a drow, girl on the other side of the table's a dragonborn. This is a roleplaying game and previous editions were easily to easily cope with such a desire - why would any DM's reaction to wanting to play a certain class, race or way be 'why should you be able to do that'?

To be fair, Dragonborn are already a standard race, as are Elves. Ambush Drakes on the other hand are both monsters and non-humanoid. Which is not dissimilar from saying you ought to be able to play as the Tarrasque or as an Otyugh.

[Anonymouswizard]

Could you elaborate on this?

Also, you mention Fate, but would you be able to do this in 3.5 or Pathfinder?

Probably not without a lot of homebrew. I could do it in GURPS, but for the same amount of effort as just writing up the required Fate stunts.

The paths are currently:
1) Path of Kings (charm-person style effects)
2) Path of Knowledge (scrying and the like)
3) Path of Death (ghosts and healing)
4) Path of Battle (physical buffs)
5) Path of Life (animal and plant spells)
6) Path of Light (illusions)
7) Path of Travelling (teleportation)
8) Path of Heaven (thought to be about wind and lightning)

Each path requires the follower to follow tenants, which if broken cause the magician to lose their powers for 24 hours. Each individual spell (stunts in the Fate version) can be cast at-will, with no daily limits.

Currently each path is provided power by one of seven demons sealed underground, although alternative power sources are theoretically possible (and required for the Path of Heavens), it's just nobody in the world has discovered a viable one (or the demons for all bar a select few).


When you can explain how an intelligent sword is a race, there might be an answer for that. So far, you have provided a non sequitur. Since it's wielded by another character, you trade in loss of agency to the DM to loss of agency to another player ... unless you make your rolls to take her over, and cost her agency.

Sorry, it was intended as a joke as I was strawmanning slightly, but I do want to play a buff-focused talking sword (who ideally has no combat skills). It's my go-to character for 'how versatile is this system', the only two I own where it works are GURPS and Fate, and it's significantly easier in the latter (high concept: magical chatterbox sword).

[CantigThimble]

Sorry, it was intended as a joke as I was strawmanning slightly, but I do want to play a buff-focused talking sword (who ideally has no combat skills). It's my go-to character for 'how versatile is this system', the only two I own where it works are GURPS and Fate, and it's significantly easier in the latter (high concept: magical chatterbox sword).

There are rules for intelligent items. It would be simple enough for a DM to declare that you were an item's personality and give it some appropriate powers from the suggestions provided. What do you want a system to provide that this doesn't cover?

[JoeJ]

Sorry, it was intended as a joke as I was strawmanning slightly, but I do want to play a buff-focused talking sword (who ideally has no combat skills). It's my go-to character for 'how versatile is this system', the only two I own where it works are GURPS and Fate, and it's significantly easier in the latter (high concept: magical chatterbox sword).

You should be able to do it in Mutants & Masterminds. Not having arms or legs would just be a complication, so you'd get a hero point every time that creates a problem for you.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You should be able to do it in Mutants & Masterminds. Not having arms or legs would just be a complication, so you'd get a hero point every time that creates a problem for you.
I actually tried to do this once. The best I came up with was absent abilities and a Variable power to represent the guy carrying you.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Basically the best way to do that practically is to get the features that look like what you want from your class(es) and then just work out the fluff independent of that. So you want flight, a poisonous melee attack, telepathy and the slow spell? Great Old One Warlock 1, Sorcerer 5, Winged Tiefling Variant. You have flight, telepathy and the ability to cast the slow spell. Hex represents the dex poison reasonably well, it adds necrotic damage and makes it harder for them to do an ability check of your choice. For the bite and such you could either ask for some basic natural weapons (they aren't much of a power boost to the character so I'd probably allow them) or take a level in monk.

This is pretty much how I would handle the whole level adjustment system in 5e, instead of getting features from the race and getting fewer levels, just take levels and retheme the RP aspects.

So instead of a draconic being with a slow breath and a huge constitution bonus who doesn't cast spells I now have a charisma boosted winged humanoid spellcaster that I still need to ask for homebrew to get the natural weapons for. You're not seeing any dissimilarities here?

[Visser3SansTheP]

Why would your DM give the OK to a non-standard race in 3.5 and then refuse to do so for 5th edition?
In both cases playing that was entirely dependent on DM mercy.
No it wasn't. In 3.5 I had the rules for how it was balanced against other races right there, same thing as if I wanted to play a gnoll or half-dragon. In 5e due to monsters using a different chassis there are no rules for it. Let me reword what you just said, same answer works for both:

"Why would your DM give the OK to playing a totemist in 3.5 and then refuse to do so for 5th edition?"

He didn't refuse, unlike 5e 3.5 has the rules for it.


To be fair, Dragonborn are already a standard race, as are Elves. Ambush Drakes on the other hand are both monsters and non-humanoid. Which is not dissimilar from saying you ought to be able to play as the Tarrasque or as an Otyugh.
No, it's really dissimilar, a Tarrasque is way too strong and dumb, if you really want to play one grab a psion and true mind switch your way in. Everything was a monster - :vaarsuvius: We are all in the monster manual somewhere, are we not? My entry lies between elemental and ethereal filcher.

It's not just ambush drakes - there are any number of things 3.5 let you play that 5e decided not to balance. Flind gnoll, baby dragon, orc, pixie, lich, kobold...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Wow, that derailed fast...

My dislike of 4e is well known and documented. It is also my personal preference. You are free to like or dislike the edition as much as you prefer to. No one is stopping you.

I like 5e because it brings balance to the table without turning everything into a bland, tasteless mush. It seriously dialed back most of the exploitative things in 3.5, and made each class a distinctive thing.

Sorcerers being amazing at metamagic-like stuff (as long as the spare spell slots hold out)? Awesome. Wizards not being able to do that, but get school-specific boosts AND being able to cast off of the entire list (assuming access to books/scrolls) is a good trade-off. Warlocks get some nifty class abilities, but in a completely different way from either of the above. Three primary arcane casters, very much different in nature, with different spell lists they can cast off of.

And the most subtle change which I literally cheered when I saw? Rope Trick has a flat duration of ONE HOUR. It is no longer a reset button. Mordinkain's Magnificent Love Shack still is, but it is a much higher level spell. So you actually have to WORK at getting a fifteen minute adventuring day rather than having it by level 5.

Monks are now a VERY viable damage class. You no longer need to play an unarmed variant swordsage just to effectively play the archetype. A part of me was tempted to make a 'Miko' build, monk dip on paladin build, just for the absurdity of seeing a guy in full plate run fast enough that he literally sprints across the surface of the water, while wielding a pike, and having an insanely high jump. Congratulations, we've just re-invented the Final Fantasy Dragoon.

[NewDM]

Why would your DM give the OK to a non-standard race in 3.5 and then refuse to do so for 5th edition?
In both cases playing that was entirely dependent on DM mercy.

It's not necessarily that the system itself is bad (from my perspective at least), but rather that seeing that system really reminds me that I'm playing a game and completely destroys my sense of versimilitude every time.

This was the main problem, mostly misunderstood by players who complained of 'sameness'. In reality each class had powers that you either had to memorize or reference during play, kind of a mini book opening moment. For those that could not memorize the 30+ powers they got throughout the game it would instantly knock them out of the imagination perspective and into the dice rolling and math perspective. Which makes everything look the same. Instead of fixing this problem they just chucked the whole edition under the bus.


The MMO knock is that most all the abilities were on identical timers the same way abilities are in an MMO.

So you'd have your abilities with 1 round cooldowns, and ones with 1 minutes or 2 minutes or 10 minute cooldowns, ones are off cooldown after every encounter, etc...

Basically the feel was such that it was like pressing buttons to use abilities in an MMORPG. That was an immediate turn off for me.

That's a mischaracterization of both MMOs and 4th edition. 4E had powers that you could use every round (at-will), once between short rests of 5 minutes or more (Encounter), and daily powers that required a long rest to recover (Daily).

MMO's have powers that have specific cool downs, triggered repeats, triggered instant cool downs, and casting times that can be interrupted.

In some ways 0E to 3E are more similar to MMO's, and in others 4E is. Sadly the only D&D MMO that is anything like an edition of D&D is DDO (Dungeons and Dragons Online) which is close to 4th edition but was based on 3.x.


To be fair, Dragonborn are already a standard race, as are Elves. Ambush Drakes on the other hand are both monsters and non-humanoid. Which is not dissimilar from saying you ought to be able to play as the Tarrasque or as an Otyugh.

Ambush drakes have a free AoE usable every 1dX rounds, flight at 1st level, and natural attacks better than many weapons. It is not a race that you could port over easily. I don't think its meant to be.

[CantigThimble]

So instead of a draconic being with a slow breath and a huge constitution bonus who doesn't cast spells I now have a charisma boosted winged humanoid spellcaster that I still need to ask for homebrew to get the natural weapons for. You're not seeing any dissimilarities here?

....Of course there are disimilarities. That's not the point. You were making a point about how 5e couldn't handle a particular concept for a character. I was pointing out a way in which it could handle that concept. It does it in a different way, every system does. If you want a concept to work, isolate the essential characteristics you want, find a way to get them and reconcile the flavor with the DM. Which is something you need to do regardless of the system, especially with a character concept this bizzare.

Oh, and I'm including whether he looks like a human or a dog under flavor, because the rules barely care about that and it's more rp than anything else.

[JoeJ]

Hmm, looks like you're right. Could have sworn there was a section telling you to look for a monster with similar stats and use that CR. Oh well, I hold my hands up on this one.

That said, I'm not sure the tables are much of an improvement. At the very least, it's a lot of extra faffing about that wasn't required in 3.5. And that's if you're lucky enough to be using a monster that's mainly using physical weapons. How exactly do you calculate damage-per-round for spellcasting monsters? I guess you could choose 3 blasty spells and take an average (now we're into a second layer of faffing about), but even then it seems rather dubious.

You calculate CR based on spell damage instead of regular attack damage if it's higher.

There is some awkwardness in recalculating CR, I'll give you that, but I don't see how else it could be done, given the hugely variable synergy between classes and monster abilities. Adding, for example, 6 level of barbarian to a storm giant is a much greater increase in power than adding those same 6 levels to a beholder.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Ambush drakes have a free AoE usable every 1dX rounds, flight at 1st level, and natural attacks better than many weapons. It is not a race that you could port over easily. I don't think its meant to be.

You guys keep making my point for me over and over. It wouldn't be remotely balanced as a LA0 race, that's obvious, so 5e has no use for it. Since they separated player and non player characters by making them use a different chassis (so apparently a player character and his younger NPC brother, despite being born to the same parents and of the same race are made out of two completely different substances) there's no real way of porting monsters over for player use and since RHD/LA proved somewhat clunky their solution was to throw their hands in the air and ignore the problem. In 3.5 you'd just grab the ambush drake and it would replace several of your class levels, though it should be noted most things also came with a level adjustment - in 5e, instead of using that or working out a more elegant system you just... can't.

[Visser3SansTheP]

....Of course there are disimilarities. That's not the point. You were making a point about how 5e couldn't handle a particular concept for a character. I was pointing out a way in which it could handle that concept. It does it in a different way, every system does.
A hodge podge of race and class abilities that kind of resemble what you want if you squint hard enough compared to just, you know, playing an ambush drake is not just 'doing it in a different way', it's demonstrably worse. You're still a humanoid and you still play nothing like the previous character - I don't remember my ambush drake having third level spells.


If you want a concept to work, isolate the essential characteristics you want, find a way to get them and reconcile the flavor with the DM. Which is something you need to do regardless of the system, especially with a character concept this bizzare.

Oh, and I'm including whether he looks like a human or a dog under flavor, because the rules barely care about that and it's more rp than anything else.
But it isn't bizarre. It took me a few minutes to make the character in 3.5, assembling a bunch of classes that kind of imitate some of the abilities is not a replacement for just playing the thing you want to play and it should be noted that the ambush drake is a symbol of the greater issue, there's no way to port over my orc warblade or merfolk dragonfire adept either.

[Malifice]

Sorry, it was intended as a joke as I was strawmanning slightly, but I do want to play a buff-focused talking sword (who ideally has no combat skills). It's my go-to character for 'how versatile is this system', the only two I own where it works are GURPS and Fate, and it's significantly easier in the latter (high concept: magical chatterbox sword).

But this is possible.

Sit down with your DM and design your PC using the intelligent items rules in the DMG. Youll have an Int, Wis and Cha, fixed HP and AC, can talk a few languages, have some senses and skills and will grant powers to another PC.

Let me know when it gets boring to play though.

[JoeJ]

But it isn't bizarre. It took me a few minutes to make the character in 3.5, assembling a bunch of classes that kind of imitate some of the abilities is not a replacement for just playing the thing you want to play and it should be noted that the ambush drake is a symbol of the greater issue, there's no way to port over my orc warblade or merfolk dragonfire adept either.

Or my old Villains & Vigilantes character who could run at Mach 24.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Or my old Villains & Vigilantes character who could run at Mach 24.

Not sure what that's got to do with the characters I just named.

[NewDM]

You guys keep making my point for me over and over. It wouldn't be remotely balanced as a LA0 race, that's obvious, so 5e has no use for it. Since they separated player and non player characters by making them use a different chassis (so apparently a player character and his younger NPC brother, despite being born to the same parents and of the same race are made out of two completely different substances) there's no real way of porting monsters over for player use and since RHD/LA proved somewhat clunky their solution was to throw their hands in the air and ignore the problem. In 3.5 you'd just grab the ambush drake and it would replace several of your class levels, though it should be noted most things also came with a level adjustment - in 5e, instead of using that or working out a more elegant system you just... can't.

Yes. I'm basically tolerating 5e until they realize they threw a relatively large (albeit slightly smaller than 3.x) customer base under the bus and come out with "D&D: Tactics" or at least a decent rules supplement that adjusts the game for tactical grid play.

However as a DM I would never allow a player to play something like the above in a game even with level adjustment, its just too powerful and versatile. While there are rules for it, that thing was never meant to be played as a character.

[JoeJ]

Not sure what that's got to do with the characters I just named.

You were talking about converting characters from an entirely different game. So was I.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Yes. I'm basically tolerating 5e until they realize they threw a relatively large (albeit slightly smaller than 3.x) customer base under the bus and come out with "D&D: Tactics" or at least a decent rules supplement that adjusts the game for tactical grid play.
They already have that - the designers keep going on about theatre of the mind, but 5e is designed 100% for grid play, no rules to help with TotM whatsoever. Try Edge of the Empire or 13th Age if you want an RPG designed for theatre of the mind, everything in 5e uses measurements like a 10 foot radius. Only problem is they made things like flanking and attacks of opportunity pointless, so now mobility is far less tactical so tactical play as a whole suffers.


However as a DM I would never allow a player to play something like the above in a game even with level adjustment, its just too powerful and versatile. While there are rules for it, that thing was never meant to be played as a character.
How is it in any way too powerful or versatile? If you're a caster you only take the first level and it's not an amazing caster race, or you aren't a caster and casters are stronger than you are and you're basically swapping class levels for equivalent features. To get the full benefits you need to take all 7 levels which while decent is about as strong as just taking 7 class levels in a tier 4 class.

[Visser3SansTheP]

You were talking about converting characters from an entirely different game. So was I.

Villains and vigilantes is a lot further from 5e D&D than 3.5 D&D is. Hell, those last two use the exact same chassis.

[NewDM]

They already have that - the designers keep going on about theatre of the mind, but 5e is designed 100% for grid play, no rules to help with TotM whatsoever. Try Edge of the Empire or 13th Age if you want an RPG designed for theatre of the mind, everything in 5e uses measurements like a 10 foot radius. Only problem is they made things like flanking and attacks of opportunity pointless, so now mobility is far less tactical so tactical play as a whole suffers.

Its 'compatible' with grid play, but it loses much of the tactical value that 3.x and 4e had. I tried 13th age, it was a warmed over 3.x with some novel mechanics completely meant for TotM (it didn't even have move speeds). I'm just going to wait for a tactical grid version of D&D. Might be 1 year, might be 10.

Flanking is an optional rule. Attacks of opportunity are only given when moving out of a threatened area. Much less tactical. I mean moving around an enemy being the equivalent of difficult terrain and losing 20 feet of movement to disengage from an enemy would have been much more tactical, but they just threw it all out and went with goblin conga lines and using your action to avoid opportunity attacks.


How is it in any way too powerful or versatile? If you're a caster you only take the first level and it's not an amazing caster race, or you aren't a caster and casters are stronger than you are and you're basically swapping class levels for equivalent features. To get the full benefits you need to take all 7 levels which while decent is about as strong as just taking 7 class levels in a tier 4 class.

Flight at 1st level, natural armor, unarmed attacks equal to some weapons, etc...etc...
Flight is a limited 5th level ability, given to PHB character permanently at 14th level. Natural armor is a limited duration 2nd level spell. unarmed attacks that deal decent damage are monk features, and that's just with what you've said in this thread. I haven't even looked at the actual write up for 3.5E. Way overpowered.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Its 'compatible' with grid play, but it loses much of the tactical value that 3.x and 4e had. I tried 13th age, it was a warmed over 3.x with some novel mechanics completely meant for TotM (it didn't even have move speeds). I'm just going to wait for a tactical grid version of D&D. Might be 1 year, might be 10.
Isn't that exactly what 4e is?


Flanking is an optional rule. Attacks of opportunity are only given when moving out of a threatened area. Much less tactical. I mean moving around an enemy being the equivalent of difficult terrain and losing 20 feet of movement to disengage from an enemy would have been much more tactical, but they just threw it all out and went with goblin conga lines and using your action to avoid opportunity attacks.
Yep. Tactics would be too complicated, a fighter should enjoy doing nothing but mashing the attack button between 1 and 8 rounds every round for the rest of the campaign.


Flight at 1st level, natural armor, unarmed attacks equal to some weapons, etc...etc...
They get 15ft (poor) at 3 and 30ft (poor) at 5, start with no natural armour and gain it over levels 2-6. If you want all that it's going to cost you many levels.


Flight is a limited 5th level ability, given to PHB character permanently at 14th level. Natural armor is a limited duration 2nd level spell. unarmed attacks that deal decent damage are monk features, and that's just with what you've said in this thread. I haven't even looked at the actual write up for 3.5E. Way overpowered.
You're kidding, right? Several races start with unlimited flight from level 1, and unlike those races you're trading 7 class levels for those benefits. And you're comparing 3.5 stuff to 5e stuff here - a 3.5 wizard would be overpowered as hell in 5e, when you port a wizard over from 3.5 you use the 5e wizard, you don't just bring the 3.5 wizard straight into the campaign. You'd want to use the 5e ambush drake for which, unlike the 3.5 version, there are no rules for using as a player.

[NewDM]

Isn't that exactly what 4e is?

Somewhat. 4e was a good first attempt at a tactical ttrpg. I'm going to have to wait for another edition or a rules supplement to enjoy the tactical aspects again. Mostly if its not supported no one plays it.


Yep. Tactics would be too complicated, a fighter should enjoy doing nothing but mashing the attack button between 1 and 8 rounds every round for the rest of the campaign.

Hey now, they get to flex muscles for social interaction too right?


They get 15ft (poor) at 3 and 30ft (poor) at 5, start with no natural armour and gain it over levels 2-6. If you want all that it's going to cost you many levels.


You're kidding, right? Several races start with unlimited flight from level 1, and unlike those races you're trading 7 class levels for those benefits.

Those classes are also labeled "Beta test, do not use, they will break the game." as are all unearthed arcana articles. I'm talking 5e now by the way.

15 ft. of flight each round at 1st is super strong. It takes you out of the range of any melee enemies. You can plink away with ranged attacks or cantrips until the things are dead. It turns a moderate encounter into a non-encounter.

It also allows you to bypass most environmental challenges like walls, pits, or anything that needs jumping.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Those classes are also labeled "Beta test, do not use, they will break the game." as are all unearthed arcana articles. I'm talking 5e now by the way.
Aarakocra and variant tieflings both get unlimited flight at 50 and 30 feet respectively and have been published.


15 ft. of flight each round at 1st is super strong. It takes you out of the range of any melee enemies. You can plink away with ranged attacks or cantrips until the things are dead. It turns a moderate encounter into a non-encounter.

It also allows you to bypass most environmental challenges like walls, pits, or anything that needs jumping.
Again you get that at third, this was in 3.5 and races in 5e already have that ability.

[Knaight]

Yes. I'm basically tolerating 5e until they realize they threw a relatively large (albeit slightly smaller than 3.x) customer base under the bus and come out with "D&D: Tactics" or at least a decent rules supplement that adjusts the game for tactical grid play.

Making a game aimed at a group you're not in is not throwing you under the bus, particularly when things like the SRD still exist for previous editions.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Making a game aimed at a group you're not in is not throwing you under the bus, particularly when things like the SRD still exist for previous editions.

It's more that they went for generic and bland and modular, but haven't come out with many of the spices and additions that they should have by this point. There are many areas 5e could cover but hasn't, tactical play being one of them.

[Knaight]

It's more that they went for generic and bland and modular, but haven't come out with many of the spices and additions that they should have by this point. There are many areas 5e could cover but hasn't, tactical play being one of them.

They went for minimalist, sure. I wouldn't call it generic - D&D is very clearly made to do a very specific thing, and it still only does that well - and while they could release lots of rules variants that cause it to play differently, there's also plenty of reasons not to do that. One of them would be the whole idea of keeping variability across tables under control, which matters a great deal for a number of people, NewDM included. Another is that even variant rules have some mechanical cost attached to learning and remembering them, and that there's a point past which it isn't worth it.

[Visser3SansTheP]

They went for minimalist, sure. I wouldn't call it generic - D&D is very clearly made to do a very specific thing, and it still only does that well - and while they could release lots of rules variants that cause it to play differently, there's also plenty of reasons not to do that. One of them would be the whole idea of keeping variability across tables under control, which matters a great deal for a number of people, NewDM included. Another is that even variant rules have some mechanical cost attached to learning and remembering them, and that there's a point past which it isn't worth it.

True, but it's not just rules I'm talking about. You'll notice playing as a wizard involves a lot more tactical play than playing as a barbarian does, because a wizard has access to a lot more interesting tools than a barbarian. Right now we have simple casters, simple martials, complex casters and a big gap where complex martials should be. Class informs play, and classes like the 4e fighter and warlord would enable those who want options rather than raw power to play at the same table as the guy who is content to only be able to directly take and receive damage.

[Regitnui]

Plus, I still want to play the intelligent sword wielded by another character, where's the 5e race for that?

The what? :smallconfused: I might be coming in late there, but what? Honestly, that sounds like an incredibly niche test for 'flexibility', like a chiropractor demanding that their clients bend 90 degrees like a chair before they're declared healthy. It might be an interesting role play, but ehh... I don't see the fun for a long campaign.


I get that you want someone to grip your hilt and play with you, but I don't think that's necessarily how everyone else at the table has fun. (Though it may be, depends on the table).

Isn't that what incubi/succubi are for?:smallbiggrin:

[Dr. Cliché]

You calculate CR based on spell damage instead of regular attack damage if it's higher.

Yeah, but which spells do you use? Do I base it off Cantrips for consistency sake? Do I base if off his highest level spell, even though he can only cast it once (which doesn't really seem right if you're trying to estimate damage-per-round)? And what about if the spell you use is AoE? Do I assume that it hits multiple players (thereby doubling or tripling the damage)? If so, how many am I to assume I can get?



There is some awkwardness in recalculating CR, I'll give you that, but I don't see how else it could be done, given the hugely variable synergy between classes and monster abilities. Adding, for example, 6 level of barbarian to a storm giant is a much greater increase in power than adding those same 6 levels to a beholder.

Could it not be based, like it was in 3.5, on whether the levels you add directly improve the monster's strengths? e.g. Adding levels of fighter (or other melee class) to a melee monster resulted in a greater increase in CR than adding those same levels to a caster monster. The same goes for stacking sorcerer levels onto a monster who already cast as a sorcerer, compared to adding them to a cleric or melee monster.

The current system just seems really long-winded and unintuitive. I can understand using all these tables when you're trying to create a monster from scratch, but when you're just adding a few class levels to a monster, it seems like there really should be a simpler way to obtain a CR.

[CantigThimble]

A hodge podge of race and class abilities that kind of resemble what you want if you squint hard enough compared to just, you know, playing an ambush drake is not just 'doing it in a different way', it's demonstrably worse. You're still a humanoid and you still play nothing like the previous character - I don't remember my ambush drake having third level spells.


But it isn't bizarre. It took me a few minutes to make the character in 3.5, assembling a bunch of classes that kind of imitate some of the abilities is not a replacement for just playing the thing you want to play and it should be noted that the ambush drake is a symbol of the greater issue, there's no way to port over my orc warblade or merfolk dragonfire adept either.

Perhaps I can make this point another way. Say I want to port over my 5e oath of ancients paladin to 3.5. Specifically, I want a holy warrior with a rules enforced code of conduct similar to the OoA, the ability to spend spell slots spontaneously on a prepared list or to deal bonus damage after I hit with an attack and auras of save buffing and magic resistance. Oh, and I want him to be a functional character with exclusively str and cha as his chosen attributes.

You probably COULD make this in 3.5 but it would be very, very messy and nothing so simple as taking 7 levels in a core class. (Especially taking into account the need to be the right tier of character for the campaign.) Systems do things in different ways and demanding that everything work about the same in every edition is not going to end well.

[Anonymouswizard]

You should be able to do it in Mutants & Masterminds. Not having arms or legs would just be a complication, so you'd get a hero point every time that creates a problem for you.

I've put M&M into the 'kind of' territory, as it can do it, but not well.


But this is possible.

Sit down with your DM and design your PC using the intelligent items rules in the DMG. Youll have an Int, Wis and Cha, fixed HP and AC, can talk a few languages, have some senses and skills and will grant powers to another PC.

Let me know when it gets boring to play though.

Sorry, I know I can do it using a mix of homebrew and non-player rules, I just like to try doing it with PC creation rules. It's really not going to be fun in anything less narrative than Fate.


They already have that - the designers keep going on about theatre of the mind, but 5e is designed 100% for grid play, no rules to help with TotM whatsoever. Try Edge of the Empire or 13th Age if you want an RPG designed for theatre of the mind, everything in 5e uses measurements like a 10 foot radius. Only problem is they made things like flanking and attacks of opportunity pointless, so now mobility is far less tactical so tactical play as a whole suffers.

What I've found helps with theatre of the mind versus grid play is if it uses zones instead of distances. So you might be in zone A with the orcs and you can all attack each other, but not the goblin in zone C (who has a bow and can attack you).

[KorvinStarmast]

Monks are now a VERY viable damage class. You no longer need to play an unarmed variant swordsage just to effectively play the archetype. A part of me was tempted to make a 'Miko' build, monk dip on paladin build, just for the absurdity of seeing a guy in full plate run fast enough that he literally sprints across the surface of the water, while wielding a pike, and having an insanely high jump. Congratulations, we've just re-invented the Final Fantasy Dragoon. While that could be great fun, the MAD might get in the way a little bit with the minimum Charisma score to multiclass as a paladin/monk. (If one is in point buy). But it could be great fun. (Dexish paladin build, two weapon fighting to fold in with Monk using two short swords as monk weapons?

[Dr. Cliché]

Monks are now a VERY viable damage class. You no longer need to play an unarmed variant swordsage just to effectively play the archetype.

Depends how you look at it.

Monks have improved, sure. But, what if you'd prefer to play a Swordsage?

Rolling a lot of classes into one might help make the base class more interesting, but it als means you lose out on more specialised classes.

[Arial Black]

There are rules for intelligent items. It would be simple enough for a DM to declare that you were an item's personality and give it some appropriate powers from the suggestions provided. What do you want a system to provide that this doesn't cover?

I did this in 2E no problem; it's just a matter of perspective.

Some high level fighters have an intelligent sword. I played an intelligent sword who has a high level fighter.

No actual rules are changed, just make sure that your wielder's save has little chance to beat the sword's ego.

It would work just as effectively in 5E. The hard part is convincing your DM to let you start with an intelligent weapon!

[Yuki Akuma]

Monks have improved, sure. But, what if you'd prefer to play a Swordsage?

Then you play... any path that isn't Open Hand? And even then, Open Hand is pretty similar to that one judo-based discipline...

Monks can use weapons, you know.

[Dr. Cliché]

Then you play... any path that isn't Open Hand?

That's not a swordsage. Not even close. It is, at best, a monk with access to one or two swordsage abilities.

[Visser3SansTheP]

Then you play... any path that isn't Open Hand? And even then, Open Hand is pretty similar to that one judo-based discipline...

Monks can use weapons, you know.

Weapons aren't really relevant to being a swordsage, unarmed worked just as well as short swords. I assume he's talking about things like desert wind and shadow hand - even a shadow monk doesn't really play like a shadow hand swordsage. Good job on monks overall though, four elements obviously excluded.

[Xetheral]

They went for minimalist, sure. I wouldn't call it generic - D&D is very clearly made to do a very specific thing, and it still only does that well - and while they could release lots of rules variants that cause it to play differently, there's also plenty of reasons not to do that. One of them would be the whole idea of keeping variability across tables under control, which matters a great deal for a number of people, NewDM included. Another is that even variant rules have some mechanical cost attached to learning and remembering them, and that there's a point past which it isn't worth it.

(Emphasis added.) I get the sense that the concern over table variability usually only applies to those tables using the same options. Skill DC variability from one table to the next is a common complaint, for example, but I've not seen anyone complain about the fact the optional flanking rules create differences from table to table. (Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I haven't seen it.)

From my own perspective, modularity is great, because campaign expectations can be set with a series of simple "switches". Rules open-ended enough that they will necessarily be interpreted wildly differently from table to table (e.g. 5e's notoriously-vague stealth rules) instead lead to an inability to form campaign expectations without detailed topic-specific discussion.

I entirely agree that there is a mechanical cost involved in including variant rules, and that at some point it becomes too much. However, I don't think 5e is anywhere close to that point.

[Anonymouswizard]

The what? :smallconfused: I might be coming in late there, but what? Honestly, that sounds like an incredibly niche test for 'flexibility', like a chiropractor demanding that their clients bend 90 degrees like a chair before they're declared healthy. It might be an interesting role play, but ehh... I don't see the fun for a long campaign.

Eh, it's simple, if I can make the intelligent sword I can probably also make a supercomputer, and so the system is very flexible, A+. If not I try for some sort of mythic animal (I've probably used some of the same powers to let my sword have limited interaction with the world), if I can that's awesome and decently flexible, B. If not, I'll try for an out there humanoid, like a psionic elf who can kill people by teleporting them onto the moon, and if it works, a nice C. D&D 5e currently gets a D for flexibility, and it's a rare game to get an E. Not that low flexibility is inherently bad, the game I'm writing is about a D, maaaaybe a C if I ever get around to designing some aliens for the setting.

[Regitnui]

While that could be great fun, the MAD might get in the way a little bit with the minimum Charisma score to multiclass as a paladin/monk. (If one is in point buy). But it could be great fun. (Dexish paladin build, two weapon fighting to fold in with Monk using two short swords as monk weapons?

I remember 3.5 having a specific feat for letting monks and paladins multiclass to the other.


Eh, it's simple, if I can make the intelligent sword I can probably also make a supercomputer, and so the system is very flexible, A+. If not I try for some sort of mythic animal (I've probably used some of the same powers to let my sword have limited interaction with the world), if I can that's awesome and decently flexible, B. If not, I'll try for an out there humanoid, like a psionic elf who can kill people by teleporting them onto the moon, and if it works, a nice C. D&D 5e currently gets a D for flexibility, and it's a rare game to get an E. Not that low flexibility is inherently bad, the game I'm writing is about a D, maaaaybe a C if I ever get around to designing some aliens for the setting.

Explained like that, sure, but if the system's meant to model (say) naval combat, when the players are individual ships, you're not going to judge it on how well it let's you play a loading crane or a cannon, are you?

[Anonymouswizard]

Explained like that, sure, but if the system's meant to model (say) naval combat, when the players are individual ships, you're not going to judge it on how well it let's you play a loading crane or a cannon, are you?

No, I don't test if a system isn't meant to be flexible. Reading through 5e I can tell that intelligent swords aren't intended, but for something like GURPS, M&M, or Fate that is supposed to be generic I'll give it a test.

Again, that point wasn't actually serious, it was supposed to show that I was strawmanning a bit and to tell you to not look at the specifics.

[NewDM]

Eh, it's simple, if I can make the intelligent sword I can probably also make a supercomputer, and so the system is very flexible, A+. If not I try for some sort of mythic animal (I've probably used some of the same powers to let my sword have limited interaction with the world), if I can that's awesome and decently flexible, B. If not, I'll try for an out there humanoid, like a psionic elf who can kill people by teleporting them onto the moon, and if it works, a nice C. D&D 5e currently gets a D for flexibility, and it's a rare game to get an E. Not that low flexibility is inherently bad, the game I'm writing is about a D, maaaaybe a C if I ever get around to designing some aliens for the setting.

Being able to teleport an enemy to the moon (or high enough to die from falling damage) is not flexibility. Its bypassing the rules of combat to spite the ability of other characters to participate. Its just broken, unless it takes as long to teleport them as it does for another character to defeat them normally.

[2D8HP]

Yes. I'm basically tolerating 5e until they realize they threw a relatively large (albeit slightly smaller than 3.x) customer base under the bus and come out with "D&D: Tactics" or at least a decent rules supplement that adjusts the game for tactical grid play.

I feel for you man (grew up in 1970's California, don't harsh my mellow).
While for some reason I bought many other RPG's after playing "Basic", "Original", and "Advanced" (1e), "Unearthed Arcana" and then 2e were just bridges I wouldn't cross. I got caught up in the excitement and bought 3e (and a lot of it's supplements) but when 3.5 and then 4e came out so soon I felt cheated.
While I have played a lot of other RPG's just the name Dungeons and Dragons calls to me.
I like 5e better then 3e/3.5 (I am still deciding if I like it better then other versions), but if I had invested in 4e I would feel hosed that 5e came out so soon. Yes they are ways to make D&D more to my taste then 5e currently is, but really 10 years is the minimum I want to see between editions. If Wotc (or whoever owns D&D in the future) does keep "updating" D&D, I hope they publish a lot more conversion material. But with so much of the older stuff available as PDF's, and so much of the new rules free online it's hard for me to fault what the remnant of Wotc is doing now.

[JoeJ]

Yeah, but which spells do you use? Do I base it off Cantrips for consistency sake? Do I base if off his highest level spell, even though he can only cast it once (which doesn't really seem right if you're trying to estimate damage-per-round)? And what about if the spell you use is AoE? Do I assume that it hits multiple players (thereby doubling or tripling the damage)? If so, how many am I to assume I can get?

AFB, but I think it's supposed to be whichever spells it's most likely to use in an encounter. About AoE, you'll have to look in the book because I don't remember.


Could it not be based, like it was in 3.5, on whether the levels you add directly improve the monster's strengths? e.g. Adding levels of fighter (or other melee class) to a melee monster resulted in a greater increase in CR than adding those same levels to a caster monster. The same goes for stacking sorcerer levels onto a monster who already cast as a sorcerer, compared to adding them to a cleric or melee monster.

The current system just seems really long-winded and unintuitive. I can understand using all these tables when you're trying to create a monster from scratch, but when you're just adding a few class levels to a monster, it seems like there really should be a simpler way to obtain a CR.

There are so many different possible synergies that I really don't think there's a simple way that gives better results than simply guessing would. OTOH, the game isn't going to break if you get a few CRs wrong, so I wouldn't get too worried about it.

[Regitnui]

, the game isn't going to break if you get a few CRs wrong, so I wouldn't get too worried about it.

Your players might, though.

[2D8HP]

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

[KorvinStarmast]

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!Amen. I no longer have that box, but I did manage to save the cover and the blue book. (The dice were low quality and I don't think I have them anymore).

[Knaight]

Amen. I no longer have that box, but I did manage to save the cover and the blue book. (The dice were low quality and I don't think I have them anymore).

That is one of the things that has undeniably improved. Dice manufacturing standards are so much nicer now, even for cheapo dice. Things like the Gamescience dice are amazing compared to the old school dice for anything that doesn't have exactly six sides.

[JoeJ]

Your players might, though.

Nah. Considering how crude of a ballpark CR is in the first place, a little more variation doesn't matter.

[Anonymouswizard]

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

I shall list my number one problem with D&D:

-If I want a game with more 'summon and command' magicians D&D sucks at it. The only game I own where it's really a presented character type is Anima: Beyond Fantasy, although my favourite Fate magic system is exactly this (Voidcalling from the Fate System Toolkit). D&D spent really go into it, the closest it gets is the binder.

Other than that, I don't have major complaints about every edition, they let you play what's on the cover (metaphorically speaking for 3.X). I have other systems I'll use when I want a different type of game or world.