TheRPGSite

I'm sure others will post more. I'm trying to codify while running 5e as my current campaign with a group of entirely new players, half of which have never gamed with me before. I'm currently using the PHB with pulling some supplementary fluff from the 2e Calimport book, and the 2e Calimshan fluff-splat.

My primary complaint is the Fighter class.

I feel the Fighter is still neglected and not fully realized in lieu of all the definition of the class. I find all the class is really bringing to the table is extra attacks - ironically which other classes can simulate with their own abilities and narrow the gap in effectiveness while retaining all of their own baked-in abilities.

Let me be clear here - I do not advocate nerfing other classes for the sake of the Fighter. I'm wanting the Fighter, in terms of what the class is supposed to represent, to stand out in that arena. Do they? Sort of. Early on they're quite solid, but I can see the old cracks developing.

Case in point - I happen to have a Fighter who is a two-weapon guy (scimitars) - his claim to fame is he can attack, even at 3rd level, four times in one round with a use of his ability. My other player is running a Priest of War - and can do the same thing (more or less) and do it more often.

Now this is just mechanical finagling, and certainly isn't representative of a massive problem with the game. Rather to me it represents a problem that has been extant since 3e - BASED on how other classes have progressed mechanically vs. the Fighter. And it's rearing its head here - namely, the assumption is the Fighter will be "balanced" based on itemization. For some this isn't an issue. For me it is. I'm of the opinion that Fighters are a binary necessity in a class-based system. Either it stands to be the melee badass or it doesn't need to exist. There is no half-way. While people split hairs over the differences between a Ranger and a Barbarian - it will always come down to a couple of "iconic" abilities - like Rage, or Chosen Enemy (respectively) but meanwhile both classes will have a LOT of overlap, or for many GM's be essentially the same.

The Fighter is poorly described and becomes poorer as everyone demands their respective melee-schtick be given full-class treatment. Swashbuckler? Knights? Mounted Archer? etc. Not that this has happened - but as written in the PHB Fighters are still saddled with lackluster mechanical options. GRANTED - they're better than 3e or 4e, but I was wanting more meat on the bones of it. Is it a deal-breaker? No. But I'm banking on the DMG letting me pull this out of the fire before I do a re-write. If I do a re-write, I'll add more fighting styles (or beef up what's there via Feats) and fold in the sub-classes into the main class, and create more specialist sub-classes on my own.

Itemization As Balance - They flattened out the power-curve. But this legacy of balancing out classes (see Fighter) by itemization is generally silly. Is it a deal-breaker? No.

Inspiration System - Let's just flesh it out to be Aspects and call it a day? I'm already one-step away from just removing this mechanic and/or replacing it with slightly modified Aspects rules.

Nothing here is a dealbreaker to me. Just observations that I know I'll either be fixing with the DMG or houseruling. I find the spellcasting thus far to be very nice.

Have you read all the Fighter sub-classes, or just the one in Basic?

I am guessing you have not read all the stuff in the PHB for the Fighter.

Let the war priest have his 10% better damage per round. He stuck sitting in a temple on going "OMMMM" on a Saturday night while my fighter is drinking beer and enjoying the wenches.

The referee does not enforce the roleplaying then a lot of things about any edition of D&D, except perhaps 4e, becomes out of whack.

I run OD&D with Majestic Wilderlands supplement in several campaigns since 2009. There are some obvious choices that are clearly superior choices in terms of mechanics. The elf has no downside. For example my elves are immune to disease, are immortal and never die (they resurrect automatically after a period of time).

So why doesn't everybody play elves?

Because humans form the dominant society. PC Elves are outsiders and it comes across in my roleplaying of NPCs. The players feel like the outsiders their characters are even when they treated positively in-game. Always standing out in a crowd and treated as a figure of legend. Then when they are in lands dominated by elves another set of complications arise.

And believe or not, sometime players don't like being so visible in the campaign world. So wind up playing a human as the next character.

Complaints?

Well, I houserule death saves and healing rates.  I understand why they're there, but not my preferred style.  

While I've never been big on sorcerers, I would have like to have just a regular one, and not one that has to be either wild magic or draconic ancestry

The fighter issue isn't going anywhere unless the fighter class regains it's position as being the very best at combat period.

Once the decision has been made that all classes have to contribute more or less equally in combat the fighter no longer has reason for being.

 When everyone can contribute to combat on a semi-equal level then the fighter becomes this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ur9Ps5lqmc).


"Oh. You fight. How charming.Do you know how many party members we have that can fight AND do something else cool." :p

I'm currently reading through the PBH and there's been a few things that have made me arch an eyebrow, but I'm not done reading it yet.  More importantly- I have not yet played it, so I can't say what's what at this point.  

I'd like to try it at some point:)

Quote from: estar;778440The referee does not enforce the roleplaying then a lot of things about any edition of D&D, except perhaps 4e, becomes out of whack.

This has been my experience.

Do you have the PHB yet? Because a 3rd level fighter can do a lot more than two-weapon fighting.

At minimum: likely doing 1d6+4/1d6+4 with two scimitars at +5 to hit all the time, has second wind between each short rest, can attack three times once between each short rest, and either doubles the crit range, has four maneuver dice and artisan tools, or casts a couple of spells.

A war priest could fight with two scimitars at +4 (once a day at +10 for one) and do 1d6+2/1d6 (3 times a day this would change to 1d6+2). Six spells a day and cantrips.

Same number of skills and same armor.

So fighter is better fighter all the time. Cleric is better caster all the time. Same at exploration and roleplaying skill wise. Seems about right to me.

Edit: corrected number of attacks from action surge per Sacrosanct below.

Edit: fighter has more hit points also, probably +2 a level for an extra 6. And next level will get a +1 more to hit and damage (both scimitars) as well.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;778442The fighter issue isn't going anywhere unless the fighter class regains it's position as being the very best at combat period.

Once the decision has been made that all classes have to contribute more or less equally in combat the fighter no longer has reason for being.

I think this is an accurate observation.  

Quote from: Kravell;778448Do you have the PHB yet? Because a 3rd level fighter can do a lot more than two-weapon fighting.

At minimum: likely doing 1d6+4/1d6+4 with two scimitars at +5 to hit all the time, has second wind between each short rest, can attack four times once between each short rest, and either doubles the crit range, has four maneuver dice and artisan tools, or casts a couple of spells.

A war priest could fight with two scimitars at +4 (once a day at +10 for one) and do 1d6+2/1d6 (3 times a day this would change to 1d6+2). Six spells a day and cantrips.

Same number of skills and same armor.

So fighter is better fighter all the time. Cleric is better caster all the time. Same at exploration and roleplaying skill wise. Seems about right to me.

Edit: fighter has more hit points also, probably +2 a level for an extra 6. And next level will get a +1 more to hit and damage (both scimitars) as well.

I don't think this is accurate.  Remember, you can only ever do one bonus action per round total.  That means, if you're attacking dual weapons and get a second attack with the off hand weapon as a bonus action, doing action surge does not grant an additional bonus action.  That's how it's worded anyway.  So at first level, using action surge gets you a total of 3 attacks if you use both of your actions as attack actions.  2 normal attacks, and one bonus action attack.

Quote from: estar;778440Let the war priest have his 10% better damage per round. He stuck sitting in a temple on going "OMMMM" on a Saturday night while my fighter is drinking beer and enjoying the wenches...

I don't think it's that new a concept, but I like it, and that's what some of my house rules are going to emphasize for my setting: Fighters are the most socially acceptable class. Why?

• Clerics are religious miracle workers. It can be hard to relax and be yourself around someone with a direct line to the gods.
• With that should come some specific social and religious obligations.


• Magic Users are weirdos who mess with the fabric of reality. Few like them, even less trust them, and in my game, they're all marked/mutated in some way.
• Rogues are killers and criminals.

Only fighters are the most "normal" and approachable. Even if you don't rate a level or bonus, everyone can identify with and understand picking up something sharp/heavy, and swinging it in the direction of danger.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;778454I think this is an accurate observation.  



I don't think this is accurate.  Remember, you can only ever do one bonus action per round total.  That means, if you're attacking dual weapons and get a second attack with the off hand weapon as a bonus action, doing action surge does not grant an additional bonus action.  That's how it's worded anyway.  So at first level, using action surge gets you a total of 3 attacks if you use both of your actions as attack actions.  2 normal attacks, and one bonus action attack.

You are correct, thanks for catching that. I fixed my post to read three attacks not four. However, with fighting style the off hand attack still does an extra 3 damage every round in addition to the 1d6. With bounded accuracy that is a big increase in power over an adventuring day at low levels.

Quote from: tenbones;778432I feel the Fighter is still neglected and not fully realized in lieu of all the definition of the class. I find all the class is really bringing to the table is extra attacks - ironically which other classes can simulate with their own abilities and narrow the gap in effectiveness while retaining all of their own baked-in abilities.

Let me be clear here - I do not advocate nerfing other classes for the sake of the Fighter. I'm wanting the Fighter, in terms of what the class is supposed to represent, to stand out in that arena. Do they? Sort of. Early on they're quite solid, but I can see the old cracks developing.

Have you read the sub-classes? The Battle Master(?) has a list of something like 15 distinct combat maneuvers, of which he learns three at level 3, two more at level 7, etc. I read it and thought nobody can complain about fighters being a simple class by default anymore.

Quote from: Kravell;778459You are correct, thanks for catching that. I fixed my post to read three attacks not four. However, with fighting style the off hand attack still does an extra 3 damage every round in addition to the 1d6. With bounded accuracy that is a big increase in power over an adventuring day at low levels.

OH, I wasn't trying to invalidate your entire post or anything.  I personally think the 5e fighter has a lot to offer.

My halfling fighter with shield master and heavy armor master feats?  He's a total blast to play.  I certainly don't feel like he's being shortchanged.

Criticisms:

I don't like the selection of backgrounds on offer. While each is well-developed, there aren't many of them and they're not to my taste. Where's the explorer, outlaw, or tomb robber? They're too heavy on sophisticated social niches, and not enough on gritty roles.

Cleric domains don't include darkness or death. So not only is WotC presuming good PCs, but I don't even have the means to create an evil cleric NPC.

Too many drow. There are more drow illustrations in the PHB than elf illustrations! So the lore says they're extremely rare, but half of players will choose them as the elvish sub-race? Does not compute. Are the Drizz't novels really that popular?

Druids get shapechange at 2nd level. Do not like. I prefer old-school druids, where shapechanging was a high-level ability, rather than a run-of-the-mill default power. They should have offered one shapechanging sub-class and one conventional druid (forest guy with animal friends). But I'm guessing videogames have fostered the assumption of druids as shapechangers.

There's simply too much for me to explain verbally at the table, and most of my group does not buy or read rulebooks. WotC desperately needs to put out a quick start or summary. They keep saying they want D&D to be a game you can make a character with in 15 minutes, but how in fuck can you do that with one book at the table with this many options?

Quote from: Haffrung;778460nobody can complain about fighters being a simple class by default anymore[/I].

I think I am one of the few people out there who just likes a simple fighter:)

Fighter have the chance to get 7 feats compared to 5 for everybody else and your have the Battlemaster that can get 9 out of 16 possible maneuvers and use a feat to get 2 more for a total of 11 seperate knacks. And then you have the Eldritch Knight which mixes in spellcasting and at 10th level basically ripped off FantasyCraft's Rune Knight ability of you hit somebody and your next spell gives disadvantage to your opponent's save throw.

They are the only class that can ever get more then 2 attacks also. So that War Cleric is nice but by level 5 not so good...by level 11 see ya.:)

There are issues with 5e but Fighter isn't it. I would say my big issue is rate of healing.

@Haffung, Death Domain will be in the DMG and yes it is implicit that it's expected as NPC use only unless DM says ok. A Drow Cleric with Trickery domain is about as close to a Darkness domain as you can get currently though.

QuoteDruids get shapechange at 2nd level. Do not like. I prefer old-school druids, where shapechanging was a high-level ability, rather than a run-of-the-mill default power. They should have offered one shapechanging sub-class and one conventional druid (forest guy with animal friends). But I'm guessing videogames have fostered the assumption of druids as shapechangers.

You really need to read the rules. They did pretty much what you ask. The Circle of Land Druids can shapechange but only into CR 1 creatures maximum and not combat capable ones at that. Circle of the Moon gets that ability and it caps out a CR 6 and both have limited duration. So you have two distinct types of Druids going on without counting the variety of Circle of Land types there are.

Quote from: RunningLaser;778468I think I am one of the few people out there who just likes a simple fighter:)

You can still have a simple fighter - take the Champion sub-class.

Oh yeah, I don't like they way sneak attack is applied.  Any rogue worth his salt can figure out how to get it on nearly every attack, and half the time it's not even sneaking.

I also don't like how proficiency with tools works either.  All you add is your prof bonus.  That means the thief who is proficient gets a +2 bonus while the fighter who never used theives tools gets no modifier at all.  I would like PCs with proficiency get a bigger bonus over those who don't have it.

Quote from: Haffrung;778465There's simply too much for me to explain verbally at the table, and most of my group does not buy or read rulebooks. WotC desperately needs to put out a quick start or summary. They keep saying they want D&D to be a game you can make a character with in 15 minutes, but how in fuck can you do that with one book at the table with this many options?

Free D&D Basic pdf.

Quote from: Haffrung;778465Too many drow. There are more drow illustrations in the PHB than elf illustrations! So the lore says they're extremely rare, but half of players will choose them as the elvish sub-race? Does not compute. Are the Drizz't novels really that popular?

Drow are hugely popular outside of D&D, probably a third to a half of the characters I saw for WoW were Drow.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;778475I also don't like how proficiency with tools works either.  All you add is your prof bonus.  That means the thief who is proficient gets a +2 bonus while the fighter who never used theives tools gets no modifier at all.  I would like PCs with proficiency get a bigger bonus over those who don't have it.

Rogues have Expertise.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;778475Oh yeah, I don't like they way sneak attack is applied.  Any rogue worth his salt can figure out how to get it on nearly every attack, and half the time it's not even sneaking.

I also don't like how proficiency with tools works either.  All you add is your prof bonus.  That means the thief who is proficient gets a +2 bonus while the fighter who never used theives tools gets no modifier at all.  I would like PCs with proficiency get a bigger bonus over those who don't have it.

Then we get into the numbers bloat again but I understand the view because it's too finicky. And Rogues and Bards have Expertise so even if a Fighter is proficient (which they can be quite easily) Rogues can be ridiculously awesome at it.

Quote from: Kravell;778477Free D&D Basic pdf.

That's 110 pages and it only covers the four core classes.

I'm talking about a quick-reference to be used at the table. The kind available for virtually every tabletop game outside of RPGs. There's a example of a couple hundred fan-made summaries here (http://www.orderofgamers.com/games/).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;778442The fighter issue isn't going anywhere unless the fighter class regains it's position as being the very best at combat period.

Once the decision has been made that all classes have to contribute more or less equally in combat the fighter no longer has reason for being.

 When everyone can contribute to combat on a semi-equal level then the fighter becomes this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ur9Ps5lqmc).


"Oh. You fight. How charming.Do you know how many party members we have that can fight AND do something else cool." :p

For those that asked - yes I have the PHB. Yep, I've read all of the sub-classes, at length. Yep I'm aware of what a 3rd level Fighter dual-wielding can do. Check! on all of the above. I'm also extrapolating out what I want from the class, as the GM in context of my games, I don't generally like to load my games full of magic-items in general, and I like keeping magic in terms of casters rare and mysterious - just like it says in the PHB. Not everyone has access to everything "just because".

So I think, ExploderWizard - you are SPOT ON.

The conceit of the Fighter should be

#1) Fighters are like Spec Ops badasses. They're highly trained killers. They know how to dismember people, creatures, things in melee and are the best at it. Period.

#2) Fighters should have a plethora of means to do the the nasty, but not be limited to just one way of doing it. But conversely they should have options to hyperspecialize in a "style" and be dominant at that style above all other classes.

So this mean supporting the class with more styles, more means of specializing in styles, more maneuvers (not necessarily tied to an in-game economy) that will allow them more flexibility in how they slaughter people/things.

I would never suggest other melee characters can't fight in similar styles. I'm saying a Fighter as a class should excel beyond them in measurable ways - otherwise get rid of the class altogether.

I'm not saying the Fighter class is barren or even simple. I'm saying it's not as beefy as it (subjectively) should be based on how I want Fighters to be.

Fighters, imo, aren't just "warriors" - they're heroes, killing machines, weapons masters, juggernauts of destruction. Even with the the Feats, and the maneuvers granted by the Battlemaster, they are on par with other melee guys who don't need to fiddle with their round-by-round mechanics to justify how they do what they do. It's more work for negligible gain and so-so output.

Everything else is just background (and as pointed out - right now that's not a very good selection.

I give Backgrounds and Feats a pass. Because we all know more books will come out that will flesh those out. Healing? I'm on the fence. Thus far it hasn't been a problem. But I'm eyeballing that DMG and its Vitality system... eyeballing it hard.

Quote from: Haffrung;778489I'm talking about a quick-reference to be used at the table. The kind available for virtually every tabletop game outside of RPGs. There's a example of a couple hundred fan-made summaries here (http://www.orderofgamers.com/games/).

I always make a quick reference guide for my group when I'm GMing a new game. Not only does the guide help the players grasp the rules, writing it helps me familiarise myself with them.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778500I always make a quick reference guide for my group when I'm GMing a new game. Not only does the guide help the players grasp the rules, writing it helps me familiarise myself with them.

Do your players bother reading the full rules, then?

I'd love to see an RPG where the Player's Handbook is a two-page distillation of the Guide for Rules Lawyers, and the example of play is a comic book.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778500I always make a quick reference guide for my group when I'm GMing a new game. Not only does the guide help the players grasp the rules, writing it helps me familiarise myself with them.

I do as well. But it would be nice if I could just download something for free and send it to my players. Ideally, they should be customized for each class. And that takes time.

Quote from: Haffrung;778527I do as well. But it would be nice if I could just download something for free and send it to my players. Ideally, they should be customized for each class. And that takes time.

Peruse the G+ D&D Next group (https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/101509275664581560702).  People post these sort of guides all the time.

With D&D, I had always the impression that the system has to address so many different playstyles and prefernces that the system just cannot provide all of these as many of these are contradicting each other.
That's what house rules are for, and, like with any other incarnation of this game, I cannot see myself to use it without houserules. It's not truly your game until you have adapted it to your preferences. So, house rule away. If anything, the fifth edition seems a lot more adaptable than its WotC predecessors, which I consider to be its greatest strength so far.


Now, I don't have the PHB yet, so my ideas are solely based on the public pdf version, but my gut feelings say:  In the case of "fighters aren't badass enough", I would suggest something simple, like allowing fighters to take 2 instead of 1 path.
Also - or alternatively - reintroduce Weapon Specialisation, maybe in the classic way (+1 to attack, +2 to damage) as a bonus feature for fighters. I would also allow that one for Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins (maybe at later levels) to increase the difference between the more and less martially inclined classes.

I also think that Sneak Attacks do too little and are too easy to achieve as they are written right now (for my personal aesthetics, I'd like them to be more exclusive and challenging to pull of, so that their use becomes more rewarding), and I still think that the lack of a way to interrupt spellcasters during their casting process is a ghastly ommission that need to be fixed for me to truly enjoy the game. Everybody has their pet pieves, that's just normal. The interesting question is, what you are going to do about it.

Quote from: Beagle;778540With D&D, I had always the impression that the system has to address so many different playstyles and prefernces that the system just cannot provide all of these as many of these are contradicting each other.
That's what house rules are for, and, like with any other incarnation of this game, I cannot see myself to use it without houserules. It's not truly your game until you have adapted it to your preferences. So, house rule away. If anything, the fifth edition seems a lot more adaptable than its WotC predecessors, which I consider to be its greatest strength so far.
.

Oh, I agree.  Keep in mind my "complaints" are all really minor compared to the whole.  Sort of like complaining that you got a shell in your bowl of oatmeal.

Speaking of, I have another one ;)

potions of healing.  I don't like rolling d4s unless I have to.  So why have a potion of healing 2d4+2 when you can just do 1d8+2?  I'd much rather roll the d8.  Greater potion of healing is the same way.

Sacrosanct:
Or would it really kill them to make it just 2d6?

Being all futsy fancy with dice annoys me.

Quote from: stuffis;778524Do your players bother reading the full rules, then?

Never. Unless they're also going to be DMing the game themselves, of course.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778553Never. Unless they're also going to be DMing the game themselves, of course.

I'll read up about the classes I like but that other stuff is for the DM. Let someone else be the rules lawyer.

No compliants here! I like the way they didn't include Dragonborn, Warlocks or Tieflings - if you see what I mean.

I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the Armor rules and the Dex modifier bit. I've tried to rationalize it as well as I can but it's still bugging me.

Quote from: Endless Flight;778565I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around the Armor rules and the Dex modifier bit. I've tried to rationalize it as well as I can but it's still bugging me.

Meh, they just going with armor as DR really. Wear heavy armour? Get hit but mostly harmlessly and have the same armour protection as a person in half plate with a superior DEX while being specifically trained in that type of armor to world class level. Not very confusing for a game that isn't granular about most things.

Quote from: Marleycat;778574Meh, they just going with armor as DR really. Wear heavy armour? Get hit but mostly harmlessly and have the same armour protection as a person in half plate with a superior DEX while being specifically trained in that type of armor to world class level. Not very confusing for a game that isn't granular about most things.

It's not confusing to me, I just don't really understand why they did it. DR is fine but every time I've seen it used it's in conjunction with defense and dexterity being used. Personally, I like Defense/DR better than Armor Class.

Quote from: Endless Flight;778578It's not confusing to me, I just don't really understand why they did it. DR is fine but every time I've seen it used it's in conjunction with defense and dexterity being used. Personally, I like Defense/DR better than Armor Class.

It is a bit odd I guess but I can rationalize it so it's fine by me.

Quote from: Marleycat;778609It is a bit odd I guess but I can rationalize it so it's fine by me.

Same here. I'm enjoying what I have now. But before I start full-blown redoing things, I'm going to wait for the DMG. Otherwise I run the risk of Fantasy Crafting the shit out of 5e...

Quote from: tenbones;778621Same here. I'm enjoying what I have now. But before I start full-blown redoing things, I'm going to wait for the DMG. Otherwise I run the risk of Fantasy Crafting the shit out of 5e...

That's what I had the impression of in your prior posts.:)

Fantasy Craft is cool to read, but aye yai yai, is it dense.

I don't like the race design.

I don't like some features, like proficiencies, that are cultural elements enforced on all of a certain race. I don't like the use of subraces in the very basic version of the rules. I don't like that they used the 4ed version of the tiefling. And I don't like either version of the human features.

I hope to be able to fix this. I already saw a homebrewed planescape Tiefling that looked perfectly balanced.


Other than that, I'm happy so far.

There could be more backgrounds, but I've already got about 20 homebrewed almost ready to go, so that's not an issue.

It seems weird, given that they did the whole Backgrounds thing, that they kept with the whole 'all elves use longswords' stuff.

If I had been involved, I probably would have forked it over to Cultural Affinity as a background-like extra widget. It's kind of annoying to have to do that myself.

Quote from: Haffrung;778465Criticisms:

I don't like the selection of backgrounds on offer. While each is well-developed, there aren't many of them and they're not to my taste. Where's the explorer, outlaw, or tomb robber? They're too heavy on sophisticated social niches, and not enough on gritty roles.

Scholar or Outlander, Criminal, Scholar or Criminal.

QuoteCleric domains don't include darkness or death. So not only is WotC presuming good PCs, but I don't even have the means to create an evil cleric NPC.

DMG

QuoteThere's simply too much for me to explain verbally at the table, and most of my group does not buy or read rulebooks. WotC desperately needs to put out a quick start or summary.

You mean like this one (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/basicrules)?

Overall I'm really happy with it. The only thing that makes me nervous is the obscene HP inflation which will make it harder for me to use the shelf-full of three-ring binders full of shit I've written for my campaign over the past 25 years (Most of it using Moldvay Basic, BECMI, and/or Labyrinth Lord AEC). Do I just double the monster HP? Judge it monster by monster?

"Pedanticisms"

Action Surge is Not A Bonus Action. Unless PHB created errata, as per July 2014 .pdf, Action Surge is thus:

"On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and possible bonus action." (Basic 5e, p. 25.)

On top of = the previous is being added to the next.
Possible = may or may not be (present).

Also Proficiency Bonus can't stack or be modded by the same function repeatedly:

"Your proficiency bonus can't be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. If circumstance suggests [otherwise][...] nevertheless add it only once, multiply it only once, and halve it only once." (Basic 5e, p. 7)

This was important to my misunderstanding of Tools. Herbalism Kit tool proficiency is just an alternative source to get PB for Medicine or Nature checks related to herbs and their uses (or even weird ability checks like CON for lengthy preparation). It cannot stack PB. It is mandatory to create antitoxin or potions of healing.

My main gripe is the lack of my favorite DCC isms.  Dwarves should smell gold (and have Disadvantage at swimming, duh)
also, here's my Warrior

Fighter Archetype: Warrior
At 3rd Level the Deed Die replaces Proficiency in Combat = d4(2), d6(3), d8(4), d10(5), d12(6)
Deed Die adds to Attack and Damage rolls
If a Warrior hits with a Deed Die roll of 3+ he can use a Bonus Action to perform a Mighty Deed!
Mighty Deeds of Arms are same as BattleMaster's Maneuvers; all are available

Quote from: Marleycat;778625That's what I had the impression of in your prior posts.:)

Whattaya, psychic?

Even with all the general criticisms (and let's be honest, there is no system that's perfect) - I'm still digging 5e. I suspect I'll be able to fine tune the system to get the kinda game I want. My criticisms of the Fighter class while important to me, is very easily fixable via a number of possibilities.

At least all this isn't like we were tpk'd by a flumph, it's too hard!

+1

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;778679Overall I'm really happy with it. The only thing that makes me nervous is the obscene HP inflation which will make it harder for me to use the shelf-full of three-ring binders full of shit I've written for my campaign over the past 25 years (Most of it using Moldvay Basic, BECMI, and/or Labyrinth Lord AEC). Do I just double the monster HP? Judge it monster by monster?

Good baseline is 2-3x hitpoints and ramp up attack damage as appropriate.

Quote from: tenbones;778705Whattaya, psychic?

Even with all the general criticisms (and let's be honest, there is no system that's perfect) - I'm still digging 5e. I suspect I'll be able to fine tune the system to get the kinda game I want. My criticisms of the Fighter class while important to me, is very easily fixable via a number of possibilities.

I agree, I'm excited to see the DMG. They already stole the Rune Knight's knack and have a W/V system, a spell point system, downtime system, attunement....

A

Quote from: Opaopajr;778688"Pedanticisms"

Action Surge is Not A Bonus Action. Unless PHB created errata, as per July 2014 .pdf, Action Surge is thus:

"On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and possible bonus action." (Basic 5e, p. 25.)

On top of = the previous is being added to the next.
Possible = may or may not be (present).

Also Proficiency Bonus can't stack or be modded by the same function repeatedly:

"Your proficiency bonus can't be added to a single die roll or other number more than once. If circumstance suggests [otherwise][...] nevertheless add it only once, multiply it only once, and halve it only once." (Basic 5e, p. 7)

This was important to my misunderstanding of Tools. Herbalism Kit tool proficiency is just an alternative source to get PB for Medicine or Nature checks related to herbs and their uses (or even weird ability checks like CON for lengthy preparation). It cannot stack PB. It is mandatory to create antitoxin or potions of healing.

Action Surge works differently for EACH fighter subclass so yes and EK could attack then use Shocking Grasp, action surge and either do the exact same or teleport and attack...or other options. You get TWO seperate actions with ALL that allows. It's the reason why it's tied to using an Action Surge. So yes an 18th level EK could...attack then use shocking grasp, teleport and drop a Fireball on everyone. Or just be a Bladesinger at level 10. Everyone at that level is scary as they should be. Understand at 10th level an EK forces disadvantage for any spell they throw after they hit somebody with a physical attack? This means they can use any cantrip and attack in melee and any spell and attack by 18th level with no issue? Especially if they take Warcaster and Spell Sniper.

Edit: I figured this out after lurking the discussions at TBP and the WotC boards about the EK and why give them the capability to attack and use cantrips at 7th level yet let Valor Bards use any spell at 14th while an EK has to wait until 18th level? I forgot they do FantasyCraft Rune Knight's knack at 10th level.... if they hit you they put you at disadvantage until the end of your next round for ANY spell they use. And we are talking a full fighter that can drop a fireball and stab you in melee, rinse and repeat as needed without disadvantage for  attacks. It's not quite that way but by RAW it's against your save and at that level disadvantage isn't a death sentence just a gamble if you want to risk a big move in melee.

Interestingly Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Cone of Cold and 3-4 nice cantrips don't seem to be ranged spell attacks.....

Quote from: Durn;778692My main gripe is the lack of my favorite DCC isms.  Dwarves should smell gold (and have Disadvantage at swimming, duh)
also, here's my Warrior

Fighter Archetype: Warrior
At 3rd Level the Deed Die replaces Proficiency in Combat = d4(2), d6(3), d8(4), d10(5), d12(6)
Deed Die adds to Attack and Damage rolls
If a Warrior hits with a Deed Die roll of 3+ he can use a Bonus Action to perform a Mighty Deed!
Mighty Deeds of Arms are same as BattleMaster's Maneuvers; all are available

DCC's 'Mighty Deeds' are fun because they don't just pull off a list... they're pretty much anything the Player can justify to the GM. So they're about imaginative use of the environment/situation.
Is that how 5e's Battlemaster works?

Wild Magic seems to be only thing that even begins to approach DCC's wacky/dangerous spells.

Quote from: Simlasa;778718DCC's 'Mighty Deeds' are fun because they don't just pull off a list... they're pretty much anything the Player can justify to the GM. So they're about imaginative use of the environment/situation.
Is that how 5e's Battlemaster works?

Wild Magic seems to be only thing that even begins to approach DCC's wacky/dangerous spells.

Not even close. You throw a spell it works just fine it seems and you roll a D20 and if you roll a 1 you get a surge. And you can use Tides of Chaos to alter your's or other people's die rolls once a day and unless the DM says roll on the surge table and then it automatically refreshes. If not it's fine.

Quote from: Haffrung;778465There's simply too much for me to explain verbally at the table, and most of my group does not buy or read rulebooks. WotC desperately needs to put out a quick start or summary. They keep saying they want D&D to be a game you can make a character with in 15 minutes, but how in fuck can you do that with one book at the table with this many options?

Use Basic? It has less options but that's precisely what you need for a quickstart.

In my book, if a player desperately wants the extra options but don't want the start of the game to be delayed by more than 15 minutes, they can either come early to make their character before everyone else arrives or buy their own PHB.

This is not really a criticism of 5E, but of a game mechanic that gives me an ulcer.

Was playing 5E yesterday, GM is excellent; enjoying the game.

But hating the Inspiration mechanic. Or more specifically, the 'doling out roleplay rewards' part of it.

If Inspiration was something you got once per adventure with out the 'doling out' I would love it.

But 5E kicks ass, and I got a chance to read a phb and the Warlock looks like it will become my favorite class.

Quote from: Bill;778798But hating the Inspiration mechanic. Or more specifically, the 'doling out roleplay rewards' part of it.

If Inspiration was something you got once per adventure with out the 'doling out' I would love it.

The wording in the PHB about Inspiration is rather weird. It presents it as a core rule rather than an optional rule, but then gets all vague about it...

Quote from: PHBYour DM can choose to give you inspiration for a variety of reasons. Typically DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way. Your DM will tell you how you can earn inspiration in the game.

So basically it's a standard part of the game but it's entirely up to the DM when it's given out. If the DM wants to give it out as a roleplay reward they can, but if the DM prefers to give it out once per adventure they can do that too.

I'd have much preferred it if the wording encouraged the group to discuss when it should be given while discussing the style of game they want to play, rather than implying that it's purely on the DM's whim.

The rogue's second story class feature overlaps some of the Athletics feat, making it a weak choice for that class but still the only way to get some of its benefits. Annoying.

The rogue's assassin archetype has an ability to create a false identity that you should be able to roleplay out without a mechanical lock on doing so. Annoying. Also, the imitation ability from the same archetype is bound to cause arguments with its vagueness, but I'm less worried about that.

Huh, I just noticed the Old One pact for Warlocks would be perfect for simulating the Inspired of Riedra in Eberron without psionics. Neat.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;778812The wording in the PHB about Inspiration is rather weird. It presents it as a core rule rather than an optional rule, but then gets all vague about it...



So basically it's a standard part of the game but it's entirely up to the DM when it's given out. If the DM wants to give it out as a roleplay reward they can, but if the DM prefers to give it out once per adventure they can do that too.

I'd have much preferred it if the wording encouraged the group to discuss when it should be given while discussing the style of game they want to play, rather than implying that it's purely on the DM's whim.

When I run 5E I will probably find a compromise of a sorts. let the players set goals as a group that allows them to have a say, and grab a reward if they achieve their goals.

Inspiration I like the idea but I'm totally against giving people extra experience just because they may have done a totally cool thing. With that said I'm disappointed in the Wild Sorcerer and the mechanic in general. It's too easy and they did a far better job of it in 4e. Heck, the way they did sorcerers in general is too bland. They should have 2-3 spells a level unique to them and/or their subclass.

Quote from: Warthur;778796Use Basic? It has less options but that's precisely what you need for a quickstart.

A 110 page book is neither a quick start or a summary.

I'm talking about two things here: an aid to make PHB character generation faster and easier, and an aid to summarize the rules used in play. And by summarize I mean compact point form on a sheet or two of paper. Currently, WotC offers neither.

Quote from: Warthur;778796In my book, if a player desperately wants the extra options but don't want the start of the game to be delayed by more than 15 minutes, they can either come early to make their character before everyone else arrives or buy their own PHB.

As it stands, a player is going to need a couple hours with the PHB just to skim through each race, class, sub-class, and background. There's no reason a summary of each of those elements and the powers, proficiencies, etc available to them can't be covered in three double-sided sheets of 8 1/2 x 11. As it is, I expect I'll spend seven or eight hours doing that work myself. And frankly, that's work WotC should be doing if they're really serious about making the game more accessible and faster to get into.

But the more I read forums the more I'm coming to the realization that maybe D&D can't break out of its hardcore market. If existing hobbyists aren't able to understand simple and ubiquitous (in other tabletop genres) features like rules summaries, WotC has a huge challenge on their hands breaking into the casual gamer market. Because most of those growing ranks of tabletop gamers they're targeting are not going to read 110 pages rule books. Period. The keener in the group - the DM - will. But most gaming group I've come across has a keener or two and a bunch of casuals.

Frankly, I think even the hidebound RPG industry understands the value of true rules summaries. They seem to understand other fundamental principles of technical writing and document design. But I suspect there's a strong aversion in the industry to publishing rules summaries out of fear of losing sales of the printed books. That would explain why 95 per cent of GM screens lack most of the essential elements one would hope to find in a quick-reference sheet.

Another criticism:

Cure disease. Paladins can cast it at 2nd level, using a fraction of their daily lay on hands HP. So goodbye diseases. And then at 3rd level they get immunity disease as a class ability, when they're effectively immune to disease already with lay on hands.

House rule: All diseases have a CL. 10 for mild, 15, for serious, 20 for virulent. To cure disease, Paladins (and anyone else) must make a spellcasting check against the disease CL. The person doing the curing can only make one check per disease per afflicted person in his lifetime.

Quote from: Haffrung;778835But the more I read forums the more I'm coming to the realization that maybe D&D can't break out of its hardcore market.

I'm a bit over halfway through reading the rules and I agree with you here.

Quote from: Bill;778798This is not really a criticism of 5E, but of a game mechanic that gives me an ulcer.

Was playing 5E yesterday, GM is excellent; enjoying the game.

But hating the Inspiration mechanic. Or more specifically, the 'doling out roleplay rewards' part of it.

If Inspiration was something you got once per adventure with out the 'doling out' I would love it.

But 5E kicks ass, and I got a chance to read a phb and the Warlock looks like it will become my favorite class.

Y'know? I'm with you on this. This is basically a very weak attempt at doing Aspects from Fate. Valid criticism. Personally, I think if a GM is an Aspects hater - you could drop this rule entirely without impacting the game. If you LIKE Inspiration as a concept... just go full blown Aspects and don't dick around.

Why do people dislike the Inspiration mechanic? Not everybody is going to want to roleplay their character that much, and it gives those people an excuse to do so.

Actually, I kind of LIKE 'light Aspects.'

There's not a lot of dicking around with yet another point pool, just... short and sweet.

Quote from: Haffrung;778836Another criticism:

Cure disease. Paladins can cast it at 2nd level, using a fraction of their daily lay on hands HP. So goodbye diseases. And then at 3rd level they get immunity disease as a class ability, when they're effectively immune to disease already with lay on hands.

You can cure disease only a few times a day.

Something could just keep giving you disease until you run out. And if it is a fast acting disease then you are in possible big trouble.

Someone mentioned Contagion? I dont see it in the playtest or basic?

Quote from: RunningLaser;778842I'm a bit over halfway through reading the rules and I agree with you here.

I think in order to slow-cook the 5e idea into the market, they went the route they did with Basic.

Honestly, you could *easily* create a Basic Lite from the PDF, it would just take a little finagling. The system isn't so bound together to preclude that.

I think they overshot the market of the "hardcore" OSR crowd by a hair. Or three.

I'll put it this way - I don't think it would be any more difficult to houserule Basic *down* than it will be for me to houserule the "Advanced" rules to where I want them. Probably a lot less. And I'm lazy and very very busy, so I don't wanna do any more work than I have to - just like the next person, but I suppose it's about what one sees in the system as to whether it's worthwhile.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;778848Why do people dislike the Inspiration mechanic? Not everybody is going to want to roleplay their character that much, and it gives those people an excuse to do so.

A whole lot of folks just play as themselves... what's wrong with that? They might stand up and jump through hoops to get Inspiration but that doesn't mean they're going to suddenly enjoy roleplay. Why add mechanical bits to fix what ain't broke?

Quote from: tenbones;778851I'll put it this way - I don't think it would be any more difficult to houserule Basic *down* than it will be for me to houserule the "Advanced" rules to where I want them. Probably a lot less. And I'm lazy and very very busy, so I don't wanna do any more work than I have to - just like the next person, but I suppose it's about what one sees in the system as to whether it's worthwhile.

I've been looking at it and seeing a lot more fiddly bits than I'd like... with those bits being things things I'm not that enamored of anyway. I could tweak it... but my list of tweaks pretty much turns it into some other OSR game that's already out there. So why bother?
I know Feats are optional... but I'd like to ditch Skills. If I want to play a Skill-based game I'm gonna go with BRP. The uber-healing and massive HP accumulation... don't want those either... and pretty quick I'm back at some older version or LotFP or somesuch, and maybe stealing the ad/disad dice.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;778848Why do people dislike the Inspiration mechanic? Not everybody is going to want to roleplay their character that much, and it gives those people an excuse to do so.

Because it rewards you, frex, for playing Tyrion Lanister well by giving you points you have to use by roleplaying G.R.R. Martin.

Quote from: Bill;778798This is not really a criticism of 5E, but of a game mechanic that gives me an ulcer.

Was playing 5E yesterday, GM is excellent; enjoying the game.

But hating the Inspiration mechanic. Or more specifically, the 'doling out roleplay rewards' part of it.

If Inspiration was something you got once per adventure with out the 'doling out' I would love it.

But 5E kicks ass, and I got a chance to read a phb and the Warlock looks like it will become my favorite class.

Why is the Warlock so badass?

Quote from: Omega;778850Someone mentioned Contagion? I dont see it in the playtest or basic?

It's in the PHB.

QuoteContagion
5th-level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Component: V, S
Duration: 7 days
Your touch inflicts disease. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, you afflict the creature with a disease of your choice from any of the ones described below.
At the end of each of the target's turns, it must make a Constitution saving throw. After failing three of these saving throws, the disease's effects last for the duration, and the creature stops making these saves. After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease, and the spell ends.
Since this spell induces a natural disease in its target, any effect that removes a disease or otherwise ameliorates a disease's effects apply to it.
Blinding Sickness. Pain grips the creature's mind, and its eyes turn milky white. The creature has disadvantage on Wisdom checks and Wisdom saving throws and is blinded.
Filth Fever. A raging fever sweeps through the creature's body. The creature has disadvantage on Strength checks, Strength saving throws, and attack rolls that use Strength.
Flesh Rot. The creature's flesh decays. The creature has disadvantage on Charisma checks and vulnerability to all damage.
Mindfire. The creature's mind becomes feverish. The creature has disadvantage on Intelligence checks and Intelligence saving throws, and the creature behaves as if under the effects of the confusion spell during combat.
Seizure. The creature is overcome with shaking. The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity checks, Dexterity saving throws, and attack rolls that use Dexterity.
Slimy Doom. The creature begins to bleed uncontrollably. The creature has disadvantage on Constitution checks and Constitution saving throws. In addition, whenever the creature takes damage, it is stunned until the end of its next turn.

Note, there is some weirdness here. Firstly, no monsters are immune to disease that we have sen so far. Skeleton, Zombie, Air Elemental, Imp, this works on all of them. There is also no rules for how the Contagion is spread naturally.

It all feels a bit half baked, like they threw it in at the last minute. Hopefully there is more info in the DMG.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778854Because it rewards you, frex, for playing Tyrion Lanister well by giving you points you have to use by roleplaying G.R.R. Martin.

Basically this. I'm not against the Inspiration Mechanic. In fact in my game I try to encourage it - but it has to "matter".

If someone tells me their character is a "Greedy bastard" in char-gen, just because they re-sell loot they stole for high markup doesn't mean anything to me (since they'd do that anyhow). If they dive into a sewage tank to get a fucking copper-piece some guy accidentally drops... ding!

I want some strong intention behind it. But then I maintain, at this point you may as well be using Aspects. Which is pretty flexible and you can make it crunchy or lite as you need for your game. OR not use them at all.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778855Why is the Warlock so badass?

I am not sure how powerful they are, but what I like is the classic flavor of the Warlock; I like the 'get power from an entity with strings attached' concept.
 
Some cool stuff in the book, like an 'Infernal' warlock gets burning hands and command as level one spells.

I always liked 3X warlocks and they have the 'Invocations' essentially warlocks (If I read it properly) get less high level spells but more powers.

Quote from: tenbones;778863Basically this. I'm not against the Inspiration Mechanic. In fact in my game I try to encourage it - but it has to "matter".

If someone tells me their character is a "Greedy bastard" in char-gen, just because they re-sell loot they stole for high markup doesn't mean anything to me (since they'd do that anyhow). If they dive into a sewage tank to get a fucking copper-piece some guy accidentally drops... ding!

I want some strong intention behind it. But then I maintain, at this point you may as well be using Aspects. Which is pretty flexible and you can make it crunchy or lite as you need for your game. OR not use them at all.

This is the reason I can't stand this type of mechanic.

The more subtle aspects always get screwed over. Even when the gm does not mean to.

Quote from: tenbones;778851I think in order to slow-cook the 5e idea into the market, they went the route they did with Basic.

Honestly, you could *easily* create a Basic Lite from the PDF, it would just take a little finagling. The system isn't so bound together to preclude that.

I think they overshot the market of the "hardcore" OSR crowd by a hair. Or three.

I'll put it this way - I don't think it would be any more difficult to houserule Basic *down* than it will be for me to houserule the "Advanced" rules to where I want them. Probably a lot less. And I'm lazy and very very busy, so I don't wanna do any more work than I have to - just like the next person, but I suppose it's about what one sees in the system as to whether it's worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot in 5th that I like, but I am more of a "simple is better" type of player.  Not saying that 5th is similar to Hackmaster 5th, but I got the same vibe (moreso from HM5) in that it seems really cool, but maybe a bit much for our table.

I'm glad to see that the WoTC crew made 5th a simpler game than 4th, especially 3rd, but so far it's not looking like the game that we will play (although I'd like to try it- cause that's always where the rubber meets the road), and that's ok.  I wish nothing but great things for it though:)

Our group plays a very loosey-goosey 1st edition.  I could definitely see merit in stripping the rules back, or cribbing ideas from it for other games.

This is one reason I've gravitated toward Dungeon World.

If you want some mechanical heft to 'I'm a greedy bastard,' you can have a special move for it.

Like:
Greedy bastard
Whenever you are trying to get one over on someone for your gain and their probable loss, you gain an additional element to a successful Parley:
* They think it's their idea
* You seem trustworthy
* You seem gullible

I don't think 5E is too complicated. I do think WotC needs to do a better of job of helping casual players learn and access the mechanics.

With the sub-classes being so different, there are effectively 36 classes in the PHB. With sub-races, there are 12 races. And 10 backgrounds. That's a lot options to parse. Which is fine. But they need a better way to present those options than "here's 160 pages to read."

The game mechanics are not all that hard. But they're hard enough that they can't be explained verbally at the table in 15 minutes. And only dedicated hardcores will memorize them within the first couple sessions. So a quick reference is essential. Not the fluff. Not the text. But the hard mechanics in concise point-form.

Quote from: Haffrung;778872I don't think 5E is too complicated. I do think WotC needs to do a better of job of helping casual players learn and access the mechanics.

With the sub-classes being so different, there are effectively 36 classes in the PHB. With sub-races, there are 12 races. And 10 backgrounds. That's a lot options to parse. Which is fine. But they need a better way to present those options than "here's 160 pages to read."

The game mechanics are not all that hard. But they're hard enough that they can't be explained verbally at the table in 15 minutes. And only dedicated hardcores will memorize them within the first couple sessions. So a quick reference is essential. Not the fluff. Not the text. But the hard mechanics in concise point-form.

How do you know all this, the PHB hasn't even been released yet and your making statements on whats in it?

Quote from: CRKrueger;778855Why is the Warlock so badass?

1. Flavor-the background fluff is awesome.
2. Flexible-they can be a Gish or heavy magic depending on pact.
3. Patron abilities-walking story hooks and no two warlocks of the same pact are remotely the same if they have a different patron with the reverse being true also.
4. AEDU done right basically.

Quote from: flyingcircus;778876How do you know all this, the PHB hasn't even been released yet and your making statements on whats in it?

PHB has been available since August 7th/8th. If you preordered from Amazon's competitor or your FLGS is a WPN store.:)

Quote from: CRKrueger;778855Why is the Warlock so badass?

1. Flavor-the background fluff is awesome.
2. Flexible-they can be a Gish or heavy magic depending on pact.
3. Patron abilities-walking story hooks and no two warlocks of the same pact are remotely the same if they have a different patron with the reverse being true also.
4. AEDU done right basically.

Quote from: flyingcircus;778876How do you know all this, the PHB hasn't even been released yet and your making statements on whats in it?

On Friday, my FLGS had 200 of them on the shelf. I've been reading it for three days now.

Quote from: Haffrung;778888On Friday, my FLGS had 200 of them on the shelf. I've been reading it for three days now.

Really, I thought this wasn't suppose to be released until the 19th of August?

Son of a Bitch, where's your store located!?  I want one now.

Quote from: Haffrung;778465Criticisms:

I don't like the selection of backgrounds on offer. While each is well-developed, there aren't many of them and they're not to my taste. Where's the explorer, outlaw, or tomb robber? They're too heavy on sophisticated social niches, and not enough on gritty roles.

I want more backgrounds too.

Fortunately, they seem really easy to come up with.  For instance, some guy (Courtney Campbell) made these:  Gravedigger background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5e-backgrounds-gravedigger.html), Prostitute Background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5e-backgrounds-prostitute.html), Inventor Background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5e-backgrounds-inventor.html), Bravo background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5e-backgrounds-bravo.html), Prisoner Background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/07/on-5e-backgrounds-prisoner.html), Torturer Background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5e-backgrounds-torturer.html), Winter Solider background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5e-backgrounds-winter-soldier.html), Farmer background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-5e-background-farmer.html), Ratcatcher background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/07/on-5e-backgrounds-ratcatcher.html), etc..

Quote from: flyingcircus;778893Really, I thought this wasn't suppose to be released until the 19th of August?

Son of a Bitch, where's your store located!?  I want one now.

Calgary, Canada. Preferred stores all over North America have had the PHB since Friday.

Having just picked up Hoard of the Dragon Queen, I have one more complaint about the PHB.  I wish the pages of the PHB were like those in HotDQ and not glossy.  The text is easier to smudge on glossy paper.  That paper stock in HotDQ is top notch.

One way to quickly create more backgrounds is to use two. Take half of the stuff from each.

Quote from: Bill;778865I am not sure how powerful they are, but what I like is the classic flavor of the Warlock; I like the 'get power from an entity with strings attached' concept.
 
Some cool stuff in the book, like an 'Infernal' warlock gets burning hands and command as level one spells.

I always liked 3X warlocks and they have the 'Invocations' essentially warlocks (If I read it properly) get less high level spells but more powers.

So what's the string?  The skin looks colorful, and it has different powers apparently, but are there mechanical limitations, drawbacks or whatever based on type of patron or pact? Without a quid pro quo, the pact is just origin story for your superhero, right?

Quote from: CRKrueger;778939So what's the string?  The skin looks colorful, and it has different powers apparently, but are there mechanical limitations, drawbacks or whatever based on type of patron or pact? Without a quid pro quo, the pact is just origin story for your superhero, right?

There sure will be when I gm, but I have only had a quick read of the warlock from someone else' phb. My phb is on the way from Amazon.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778939So what's the string?  The skin looks colorful, and it has different powers apparently, but are there mechanical limitations, drawbacks or whatever based on type of patron or pact? Without a quid pro quo, the pact is just origin story for your superhero, right?

The actual write up leaves it to the DM but it's entirely possible to make the Patron a huge deal. Basically anything goes because it's not based on alignment like the Paladin in 0-2e games or clerics and God's in older games. The Patron's are likely evil except for some of included in the Feylord pact of course but fae in and of themselves usually don't have a concept of good/evil as humans understand it.

Mechanically they're AEDU with Evocations that can allow access to other spells/abilities being either at will or once a day. And other's to ramp up their EB or pact weapon or ritual spell use+extra cantrips. So alot of flexibility.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778939So what's the string?  The skin looks colorful, and it has different powers apparently, but are there mechanical limitations, drawbacks or whatever based on type of patron or pact? Without a quid pro quo, the pact is just origin story for your superhero, right?

As far as I can tell 5e is all carrot and no stick, mechanically speaking, in the character class department.  I give them props for the considerations they ask of the player in the "Creating a " section for each class. For the Warlock they ask the player to work with the DM to figure out how the pact works with the "adventuring career" and mention that your partron may drive your adventures or might just ask for little favors along the way.

Even for the Paladin, though, there's only a sidebar about the kind of mild penance a Paladin might undertake if they find themselves violating their oath, and only if they are really, really naughty may the DM maybe, might think of making them switch classes or the like.

Quote from: jadrax;778861... Firstly, no monsters are immune to disease that we have sen so far. Skeleton, Zombie, Air Elemental, Imp, this works on all of them. There is also no rules for how the Contagion is spread naturally.

...

1) Really? You would allow undead to contract a natural disease? Do Air Elementals have biological systems? How do you contract a disease without flesh, blood and waste systems? It doesn't explicitly state that chairs are immune to disease either... use your best judgement.

2) Most players don't want to deal with disease and it's spread. It falls under the  "not fun" category. Just use a favorable CON save for the players and a more "realistic" one for NPCs and go from there. Watching a village suffer from the plague is enough to nail the theme home in most cases.

Quote from: trechriron;7790221) Really? You would allow undead to contract a natural disease? Do Air Elementals have biological systems? How do you contract a disease without flesh, blood and waste systems? It doesn't explicitly state that chairs are immune to disease either... use your best judgement.

Yeah, trying to inflict disease on a Fire Elemental is not going to fly while I am the DM.

It is just interesting that in a game that specifically lists what things are immune to, (chairs are not a creature btw, so are strictly speaking explicitly immune to Contagion), they have not put Disease on that list.

Quote from: CRKrueger;778939So what's the string?  The skin looks colorful, and it has different powers apparently, but are there mechanical limitations, drawbacks or whatever based on type of patron or pact? Without a quid pro quo, the pact is just origin story for your superhero, right?

Everyone in my group is terrified to play a Warlock in my game because of the "string".

As a context-hog, "You want Cthulhu to be your patron? SURE. Let's talk about the nature of this pact..."

As an aside, since my game is in Calimshan, I'm writing up some rules for Warlocks to have pacts with the Genie Lords of Efreet/Dao/Marid/Djinn clans (I might write up the Jann as a playable race too). But since they allow for Fey-pacts... why not the Genies? right? RIGHT?

Edit: as for the game having no mechanical stick for the bags of carrots. Heh, I don't need a mechanical stick. My GM fist strikes like fucking Mjolnir... only it feels delicious. But the effect is pretty nasty.

Quote from: tenbones;779053My GM fist strikes like fucking Mjolnir... only it feels delicious. But the effect is pretty nasty.

Just like the brass monkey!

Quote from: tenbones;779053As an aside, since my game is in Calimshan, I'm writing up some rules for Warlocks to have pacts with the Genie Lords of Efreet/Dao/Marid/Djinn clans (I might write up the Jann as a playable race too). But since they allow for Fey-pacts... why not the Genies? right? RIGHT?

That does sound very cool. Good idea for DCC Patrons as well.

Quote from: jadrax;779035Yeah, trying to inflict disease on a Fire Elemental is not going to fly while I am the DM.

It is just interesting that in a game that specifically lists what things are immune to, (chairs are not a creature btw, so are strictly speaking explicitly immune to Contagion), they have not put Disease on that list.

Unless and until we get definitive errata, I will be ruling that anything immune to the "poisoned" condition is also immune to the diseases (and resulting conditions) imposed by contagion. That takes care of undead, elementals, most constructs and fiends.

Since the plain language of the spell says nothing about being contagious, I won't assume it is, though I might, in a rare instance, use that feature as a plot development.

Quote from: tenbones;779053Everyone in my group is terrified to play a Warlock in my game because of the "string".

As a context-hog, "You want Cthulhu to be your patron? SURE. Let's talk about the nature of this pact..."

As an aside, since my game is in Calimshan, I'm writing up some rules for Warlocks to have pacts with the Genie Lords of Efreet/Dao/Marid/Djinn clans (I might write up the Jann as a playable race too). But since they allow for Fey-pacts... why not the Genies? right? RIGHT?

Edit: as for the game having no mechanical stick for the bags of carrots. Heh, I don't need a mechanical stick. My GM fist strikes like fucking Mjolnir... only it feels delicious. But the effect is pretty nasty.

Why not? I would love to see a writeup for an easy way to adapt to sorcerer bloodlines.

Quote from: tenbones;779053Everyone in my group is terrified to play a Warlock in my game because of the "string".

As a context-hog, "You want Cthulhu to be your patron? SURE. Let's talk about the nature of this pact..."

As an aside, since my game is in Calimshan, I'm writing up some rules for Warlocks to have pacts with the Genie Lords of Efreet/Dao/Marid/Djinn clans (I might write up the Jann as a playable race too). But since they allow for Fey-pacts... why not the Genies? right? RIGHT?

Edit: as for the game having no mechanical stick for the bags of carrots. Heh, I don't need a mechanical stick. My GM fist strikes like fucking Mjolnir... only it feels delicious. But the effect is pretty nasty.

Sounds great; the 'Strings' are what make it fun.

But haven't you heard? The GM is supposed to have no power and just dispense candy to the players!

Quote from: Bill;779188Sounds great; the 'Strings' are what make it fun.

But haven't you heard? The GM is supposed to have no power and just dispense candy to the players!

Oh, to have players at my table say that to me. I'll hand them my "candies" alright...

"That is the biggest Tootsie-Roll I've ever seen. What's that smell?"

Why does the spell Aid not grant temporary Hit Points instead of that clunky " Each target's hit point maximum and current hit points increase by 5 for the duration"?

Why does the Way of the Four Elements Monk entry deserve a few paragraphs to explain how her spell-like abilities work, but the earlier Way of Shadow Monk does not?

Why the fuck aren't the schools listed next to the spells in the grand list, at least for wizards?

That disease thing really bugs me. They haven't mentioned it in the DMG PDF yet either, at least not in the monster entries where I might have expected it ("unless stated otherwise, all undead are immune to diseases"). I mean, I'm totally comfortable with "rulings not rules" as a paradigm, but how about some consistency? This game keeps alternating between firm guidelines and airy handwaves at random.

I've thumbed through a friend's copy, fresh from Gen Con, and to be honest I like it way more than I ever expected to. I am very much looking forward to playing it and hell, who knows, perhaps even running it some day.

I haven't really given it the attention it's due but right off the bat I already have one complaint.

Where is my demon summoning spell?

There are spells to summon animals, elementals and even celestials. Angelic hordes, come forth!

True, not 5e-specific, lots of great games (include ACKS, my favorite D&D hack) commit the same grievous omission. And like ACKS, 5e is probably easy to fix, using conjure celestial as a template so our Clerics, Warlocks and Wizards can call forth the hosts of Hell to do their bidding, as seen in, I don't know, every other fantasy book ever?

Another minor complaint on my part is that there's no good familiar option for the Warlock whose pacts is with the Great Old Ones. Sure, Infernal pacts can get Imp, and Fey pacts the Pseudodragon. But I think we're a tiny eldricht horror short of a complete familiar ensemble. Also easy to fix, I think, maybe one of these mini-beholders whose name escapes me.

Quote from: The Butcher;781272I've thumbed through a friend's copy, fresh from Gen Con, and to be honest I like it way more than I ever expected to. I am very much looking forward to playing it and hell, who knows, perhaps even running it some day.

I haven't really given it the attention it's due but right off the bat I already have one complaint.

Where is my demon summoning spell?

There are spells to summon animals, elementals and even celestials. Angelic hordes, come forth!

True, not 5e-specific, lots of great games (include ACKS, my favorite D&D hack) commit the same grievous omission. And like ACKS, 5e is probably easy to fix, using conjure celestial as a template so our Clerics, Warlocks and Wizards can call forth the hosts of Hell to do their bidding, as seen in, I don't know, every other fantasy book ever?

Another minor complaint on my part is that there's no good familiar option for the Warlock whose pacts is with the Great Old Ones. Sure, Infernal pacts can get Imp, and Fey pacts the Pseudodragon. But I think we're a tiny eldricht horror short of a complete familiar ensemble. Also easy to fix, I think, maybe one of these mini-beholders whose name escapes me.

Seriously, who wouldn't want a little gibbering mouther to perch on their shoulder? I'm willing to sign a petition.

Quote from: The Butcher;781272I haven't really given it the attention it's due but right off the bat I already have one complaint.

Where is my demon summoning spell?

Well, they don't even have death and darkness clerical domains in the PHB (even 2E had those), so I assume the 'dark divine' stuff will be in the DMG, or in a future player supplement.

Quote from: jadrax;778861Note, there is some weirdness here. Firstly, no monsters are immune to disease that we have sen so far. Skeleton, Zombie, Air Elemental, Imp, this works on all of them. There is also no rules for how the Contagion is spread naturally.

It all feels a bit half baked, like they threw it in at the last minute. Hopefully there is more info in the DMG.

I think the "natural disease" is in there so that you can use cure disease on it, the diseases themselves don't seem to be natural diseases as they explicitly attack an attribute. Contagion seems the wrong word, since there is no indication they can be spread, or that the diseases are anything other than magical.

Quote from: trechriron;7790221) Really? You would allow undead to contract a natural disease? Do Air Elementals have biological systems? How do you contract a disease without flesh, blood and waste systems? It doesn't explicitly state that chairs are immune to disease either... use your best judgement.

If you go with a spirit theory of disease, then there is no reason an air elemental or vampire can't be possessed by a disease. In which case "cure disease" is a specialized type of exorcism.

Quote from: Mistwell;778898Prisoner Background (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2014/07/on-5e-backgrounds-prisoner.html)

I am not a number! I am a free man!

I dunno, I like the idea of zombies, skeletons and oozes being carriers of deadly diseases. They aren't really affected by them, but their attacks (especially bites and other messy moves) could infect their victims.

Quote from: Necrozius;781453I dunno, I like the idea of zombies, skeletons and oozes being carriers of deadly diseases. They aren't really affected by them, but their attacks (especially bites and other messy moves) could infect their victims.

Yup. Some undead being carriers would be quite cool.

Regardless, I don't need a rule to tell me a skeleton can't catch the flu.

Quote from: Bill;781475Regardless, I don't need a rule to tell me a skeleton can't catch the flu.

Yes. I like how this edition is putting the power back into the DM's hands. The only thing I want to see is whether they have an optional system of serious injury with slower healing. I'd like injuries to last longer in certain campaigns. That's not to say I want the characters to suffer in every game, just that in some campaigns it might add something.

I like the idea of the core game being a "simple syrup" for fantasy gaming. There should be a lot of different options to make the game play differently in different settings. I hope that's the direction they went with things. The DMG PDF doesn't really indicate that, but maybe the actual book will have some good stuff in it.

I'm amused at the idea of this slimy skeleton attacking the party, the party flipping out about what kind of variant acid skeleton the GM is throwing at them and it turns out Bob the Skeleton just has a bad flu...

Quote from: Will;781495I'm amused at the idea of this slimy skeleton attacking the party, the party flipping out about what kind of variant acid skeleton the GM is throwing at them and it turns out Bob the Skeleton just has a bad flu...

Or is just freaking slimy because it was laying in muck for 20 years...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;781499Or is just freaking slimy because it was laying in muck for 20 years...

On that note, I really confused my players once with moss-covered skeletons that crawled out of large funerary urns in a watery temple. They had no idea what this "new" kind of Undead was, and they gave them the creeps. They were just run-of-the-mills skeletons.

See also: fiery runes hovering over the heads of charred and blackened walking corpses. Suddenly, players are scared of zombies again!

I have managed to scare dnd players with moss, and meenlocks. They are a somewhat rare monster, so that helps. But its the Moss that scared people.

Crawling through a narrow cavern, single file, hearing strange noises, the characters are also being attacked unknowingly by the meenlocks psionic powers that cause fear.

I described the moss that covered the caverns as very eerie, oddly colored, and seems to move a bit when you look away.

By the time the meenlocks hiding in moss covered side tunnels clawed and paralyzed the front and last character in the single file tunnel, they were already freaked out just from touching the moss.

The survivors ended up finding the townspeople they were searching for in a cavern, covered with moss and half turned into meenlocks.

So the players now thought the moss would turn them into meenlocks.

The moss was harmless.

Quote from: Bill;781585I have managed to scare dnd players with moss, and meenlocks. They are a somewhat rare monster, so that helps. But its the Moss that scared people.

Crawling through a narrow cavern, single file, hearing strange noises, the characters are also being attacked unknowingly by the meenlocks psionic powers that cause fear.

I described the moss that covered the caverns as very eerie, oddly colored, and seems to move a bit when you look away.

By the time the meenlocks hiding in moss covered side tunnels clawed and paralyzed the front and last character in the single file tunnel, they were already freaked out just from touching the moss.

The survivors ended up finding the townspeople they were searching for in a cavern, covered with moss and half turned into meenlocks.

So the players now thought the moss would turn them into meenlocks.

The moss was harmless.

scaring PCs with mundane shit is easy :)

as you enster the cave you hear a high pitched voice singing. After a few moments you can start to pick out odd word and you realise it sounds like the old Kadesh nursery rhyme "The King of the Hollow Hill" a fun ditty about how all the lord's armies are destroyed when he takes them to conqueur the Hollow Hill.

There in the middle of the cave sits a little girl, maybe 4 or 5 years old. She clutches a raggedy old bear in one hand and on the floor round her are a couple of dozen carved wooden soldiers. She seems to be bashing them occassionly with the teddy as she sings.

.....

now how many PCs won't be bricking themselves at this point :)

Quote from: Necrozius;781545On that note, I really confused my players once with moss-covered skeletons that crawled out of large funerary urns in a watery temple. They had no idea what this "new" kind of Undead was, and they gave them the creeps. They were just run-of-the-mills skeletons.

See also: fiery runes hovering over the heads of charred and blackened walking corpses. Suddenly, players are scared of zombies again!

One of my players was cursed to be followed around by a skeleton. It didnt do anything. It just followed her around at about 5ft trailing. It was a former death cultist who annoyed Death.

So she hung a lantern in its chest.

Ever so often the group would get jumped by bandits or such and along would amble this eerie apparition with this lantern in its chest. Followed by "WTF is that?"  "Keep it away from me!" "Dont let it touch you!"

Or the group meeting a batch of skeletons... stopping dead in their tracks when they noticed something weird - and asking me...

"Why do the skeletons have coins in their eye sockets?"

One of my favorites is to have animated skeletons going around the dungeon re-setting traps.

Quote from: David Johansen;782048One of my favorites is to have animated skeletons going around the dungeon re-setting traps.

That sounds like a job for a small dedicated magical construct, or some kind of kobold-derived specialist undead. Hmm...

I already noted elsewhere that I'll be ruling that I'm limiting Contagion spell by treating it as a "poisoned" condition, and that creatures with immunity to poison are also immune to disease.

I'm also concerned about True Polymorph. As I read the spell, you can transform a creature which has no CR (such as another party member) into any creature having a CR that is equal to or lesser than the target's "level."

That would mean that a 15th level wizard could turn the party's 15th level rogue into a CR 15 monster (permanently, if he concentrates for an hour) which would supposedly be a "worthy challenge" for the entire 15th level party. So with one spell, you nearly double the party's power.

Seems to me that PCs and NPCs without assigned CRs should be construed as having a CR no higher than their level minus 2.

How different is 5e CR?

Because in 3e, yeah, a CR 15 monster is a threat to a level 15 party of 4, because it's assumed the odds will be 4:1 and the party will win but take some hits.

Quote from: Saplatt;782100That would mean that a 15th level wizard could turn the party's 15th level rogue into a CR 15 monster (permanently, if he concentrates for an hour) which would supposedly be a "worthy challenge" for the entire 15th level party. So with one spell, you nearly double the party's power.

Bare in mind if you stats are permanently changed, that means no more leveling or indeed other possible advancement. So I cannot see anyone realistically doing it to a PC.

Quote from: Will;782102How different is 5e CR?

Because in 3e, yeah, a CR 15 monster is a threat to a level 15 party of 4, because it's assumed the odds will be 4:1 and the party will win but take some hits.

From what I can tell, (reading from the Basic DMG guidelines on Wizard's website) it's virtually the same. An equivalent CR is supposed to pose a "worthy threat" to the party. No one necessarily dies, but it's a nasty fight.

"Hard" encounters will often take one or more PCs out of the fight and have small chance of killing someone.

"Deadly" encounters entail a substantial chance of defeat and/or character death.

Comparing monster experience points to the encounter difficulty chart, A CR equivalent monster generally poses a "medium" challenge to a party of four characters.

Quote from: jadrax;782104Bare in mind if you stats are permanently changed, that means no more leveling or indeed other possible advancement. So I cannot see anyone realistically doing it to a PC.

They don't have to make it permanent. It can have a duration for as little as an hour, but with a concentration requirement. (Of course you do have to protect your wizard to avoid concentration being broken, but the Wizard has plenty of other things he can do.) This also gives the party tremendous versatility because the polymorphed form can be chosen according to the needs and circumstances.

Also, I suspect that CR 19 and 20 monsters are probably a lot more powerful than level 19 and 20 PCs, and if you can't advance a character beyond level 20 in any event, a preferable capstone for some people might be a CR 19 or 20 monster.

What's more powerful? A 20th level Fighter or a CR 20 Pit Fiend?

Quote from: Saplatt;782111What's more powerful? A 20th level Fighter or a CR 20 Pit Fiend?

Phone breaking image.

Spoiler

(http://i.imgur.com/qmSZduz.jpg)

In raw combat, the Pit Fiend is probably better but more limited. Outside of combat, you would rather be the Fighter any day of the week.

Quote from: jadrax;782112Phone breaking image.

Spoiler

(http://i.imgur.com/qmSZduz.jpg)

In raw combat, the Pit Fiend is probably better but more limited. Outside of combat, you would rather be the Fighter any day of the week.

I don't know man.  A 26 STR and 24 CHA could get you a pretty good seat at the show.

Quote from: jadrax;782104Bare in mind if you stats are permanently changed, that means no more leveling or indeed other possible advancement. So I cannot see anyone realistically doing it to a PC.

Simmilar to when my bard was killed, reincarnated by a druid and ended up a gnoll and unable to level thereafter so retired him aside from a Gan Con event where he was selected from a group of applicants to explore some area under Greyhawk.

Or the oft mentioned magic user reincarnated as an otter.

Quote from: Saplatt;782113I don't know man.  A 26 STR and 24 CHA could get you a pretty good seat at the show.

Oddly the spell doesnt say if you get the non physical powers of the form too...

I assume yes. But both polymorph spells themselves do not really say so.

Quote from: Saplatt;782100I'm also concerned about True Polymorph. As I read the spell, you can transform a creature which has no CR (such as another party member) into any creature having a CR that is equal to or lesser than the target's "level."

That would mean that a 15th level wizard could turn the party's 15th level rogue into a CR 15 monster (permanently, if he concentrates for an hour) which would supposedly be a "worthy challenge" for the entire 15th level party. So with one spell, you nearly double the party's power.

I would just hope that the new bonds and ideals would make players doubt their characters' willingness to become monsters.  If the character is willing to make the sacrifice, play it for all it's worth, and CRs be damned.

Current concerns being discussed elsewhere (unsure what I think of them):

The Contagion spell is unclear as to when its negative effects kick in and under certain readings can cripple legendary monsters more effectively than any other spell.

The beastmaster ranger's companion is less useful than equivalent level animal summoning spells.

I've also seen complaints on that other site about the game's emphasis on rulings. They want clear, concise rules about everything so that the GM can't just wing it.

I'm assuming that these people are also not fans of Fate, * World and other collaborative games that are rules-light. That or they just can't trust a GM who runs D&D. They just CAN'T.

Quote from: Necrozius;782495I've also seen complaints on that other site about the game's emphasis on rulings. They want clear, concise rules about everything so that the GM can't just wing it.

I'm assuming that these people are also not fans of Fate, * World and other collaborative games that are rules-light. That or they just can't trust a GM who runs D&D. They just CAN'T.

And either their GM's suck ass due to inexperience, or they're really wanting to play an elaborate boardgame/skirmish-game/wargame, as opposed to an RPG.

I can slap a name on my favorite Knight when I play chess, and call it "Roleplaying" all I want...

Quote from: Necrozius;782495I've also seen complaints on that other site about the game's emphasis on rulings. They want clear, concise rules about everything so that the GM can't just wing it.

Let me guess: "Because what am I paying for when I buy a game? I shouldn't have to do any work  that's what I pay the designers for!"

Quote from: Necrozius;782495I'm assuming that these people are also not fans of Fate, * World and other collaborative games that are rules-light. That or they just can't trust a GM who runs D&D. They just CAN'T.

You don't get it. The loose, improvisational approach of DungeonWorld is a hip and sophisticated way to generate awesome fantasy stories around a table. But loose and improvisational D&D is just an excuse for DM tyranny and sloppy, lazy design on the part of the publishers.

Quote from: Haffrung;782510Let me guess: "Because what am I paying for when I buy a game? I shouldn't have to do any work  that's what I pay the designers for!"

Actually, the most common reason I've heard is, "I want clear rules and don't want to have to rely on the DM coming up with something I might not agree with."  

And then they act like they're doing the DM a favor: "Besides, that way the DM doesn't have to stress about decisions either because everything is there."


My question is, if that's the case, why play with a DM at all?  Why not stick to a computer game if you are so adverse to another human being making a decision at some point?


The answer is simple: If you don't like the game your DM is running, DM yourself.  Or shut up and deal with it.  I hate Monday Morning DMs who refuse to actually DM themselves.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782514The answer is simple: If you don't like the game your DM is running, DM yourself.  Or shut up and deal with it.  I hate Monday Morning DMs who refuse to actually DM themselves.

Agreed. It's basically a volunteer position that enables the hobby to happen at all. Don't like the way a game is run? Step up and do it yourself. Nobody gets paid to DM and you don't need a license either.

I'm a fan of the middle ground, and I suspect a lot of those people have never played a really really rules light system.

I used to run games where there pretty much were no rules. Tell me what you attempt, I tell you what happens. And I'd just... make shit up.

It was lots of fun, but it was also WEARYING to GM. I began to see the appeal of rules so that the GM didn't have to work so hard to make a consistent set of rulings.


And, of course, there's the other extreme. Rules so Byzantine and internested and mammoth that you pull one thread and FIBBER MCGEE'S CLOSET.


Ah well. Me, I love it.

Personally its a non-factor and I really don't give a shit.  I really like the new edition and can care less about every ones quibbles over the Fighter, my group finds the class to be just fine for our play style as I really don't have any power gamers or min-maxers in my group anymore, which suits me fine.  Really tired of hearing edition wars, class wars and what not, every time D&D hits someones table, somebody finds something to bitch about, who gives a shit!?  If you don't like the way the fighter works, get on your computer and re-write the class for your game group and print it out for them, problem solved.  Otherwise quit bitching.

Quote from: Will;782521It was lots of fun, but it was also WEARYING to GM. I began to see the appeal of rules so that the GM didn't have to work so hard to make a consistent set of rulings.

Yeah, I have moved to a more rules-heavy approach (or rather, from extremely rules-light to rules-medium) because I didn't want virtually every resolution in the game to be a judgement call on my part. Because that can be as wearying as looking everything up in a book.

Quote from: Necrozius;782495I've also seen complaints on that other site about the game's emphasis on rulings. They want clear, concise rules about everything so that the GM can't just wing it.

I'm assuming that these people are also not fans of Fate, * World and other collaborative games that are rules-light. That or they just can't trust a GM who runs D&D. They just CAN'T.

"Cant" wing it?

I really don't get that. I mean, isn't a huge part of a gm's job to wing pretty much everything about the campaign world?

Are we talking about a mindset where it's heresy if the gm gives an Ogre a +1 to hit instead of applying an official template or literally adding a fighter level....

But is ok if the gm decides a hoard of Ogres invade your town and pound you to paste?


The 'Can't' part befuddles me :)

Quote from: Necrozius;782495I've also seen complaints on that other site about the game's emphasis on rulings. They want clear, concise rules about everything so that the GM can't just wing it.

I'm assuming that these people are also not fans of Fate, * World and other collaborative games that are rules-light. That or they just can't trust a GM who runs D&D. They just CAN'T.

I find lack of GM trust to pretty much sit at the core of most of the system-wonks that make up 4e's remaining base. It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

Quote from: LibraryLass;782598I find lack of GM trust to pretty much sit at the core of most of the system-wonks that make up 4e's remaining base. It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

Absolutely. It's actually quite sad.

Quote from: LibraryLass;782598I find lack of GM trust to pretty much sit at the core of most of the system-wonks that make up 4e's remaining base. It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

Nailed it.

Why in the flying-flarb would you play with a GM you didn't trust?

DUH???

So crap on a system because of completely external reasons. Yeah that sounds like the 4e crowd. People who think this way like being the Kings of their own shitheap. I say, dig in, boys/girls - there's plenty to shovel your way.

Quote from: LibraryLass;782598It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

Maybe they are just too selfish to take turns being the audience for and facilitator of someone else's fun?

Also I role played the heck out of my red gingerbread man token in a game of Candyland yesterday. I was high fiving the other tokens and stopping to eat the candy while making loud munching noises. Huffing and puffing when I had to do a double color long move. The whole shebang.

This  (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?352977-Character-Concepts-you-cannot-make-in-5E/page2)thread just got necro'd at ENWorld, but illustrates the point extremely well.

Lokaire, in typical fashion, bitching about not having codified rules for every single character concept.  Mistwell wins in one, but Lokaire's response nails the point home for the sort of personality we're talking about (people who want rules for everything)

Quote from: mistwellI can create any character concept I desire with 5e.

Because the rules are not the game.

When you learn this, you will probably enjoy all versions of D&D more.

Quote from: lokaireWhen you realize you are paying WotC for nothing (because the rules are not the game) maybe you'll wake up and stop buying D&D products.

Until then the mechanics are the game, because everything else can be had without buying a single D&D product.

That's the kind of person you're dealing with here.  It's not just about assuming all DMs are unfair.  It's this weird mentality that if every rule isn't covered, somehow you're being cheated out of your money for buying the product.  That any time the DM makes a ruling, that's something the developers should have provided because you paid for the product.

Truly amazing, in a scientific "let's observe this creature in its natural habitat" sort of way.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;782633This  (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?352977-Character-Concepts-you-cannot-make-in-5E/page2)thread just got necro'd at ENWorld, but illustrates the point extremely well.

Lokaire, in typical fashion, bitching about not having codified rules for every single character concept.  Mistwell wins in one, but Lokaire's response nails the point home for the sort of personality we're talking about (people who want rules for everything)




That's the kind of person you're dealing with here.  It's not just about assuming all DMs are unfair.  It's this weird mentality that if every rule isn't covered, somehow you're being cheated out of your money for buying the product.  That any time the DM makes a ruling, that's something the developers should have provided because you paid for the product.

Truly amazing, in a scientific "let's observe this creature in its natural habitat" sort of way.

Is it any surprise these sorts of bitter fucks are reluctant to DM, and seem to have trouble finding a decent group to play in? At this point, I don't even understand what the appeal of D&D is to these folks. Back in 1991 they didn't have many other options. But today there are so many other ways they could be getting their OCD geek on.

WTF is a "defender Wizard" in terms of the concept?

To me a concept is "Character name, background, reason for being at this location for this campaign set in world "

Why did I just read that asinine thread? I almost lost a Sanity point...

Quote from: tenbones;782661WTF is a "defender Wizard" in terms of the concept?

Obviously a defender Wizard a Wizard who defends people. Duh. :rolleyes:

Of course this is in contrast to an offender Wizard who offends people or who wears a stylish one-piece after having been been convicted of one or more offenses. ;)

Quote from: jibbajibba;781791scaring PCs with mundane shit is easy :)

Yup, as easy as showing them a pile of bodies, with some equipment, might be treasure, covered in maggots... or are those rot grubs?

Quote from: LibraryLass;782598I find lack of GM trust to pretty much sit at the core of most of the system-wonks that make up 4e's remaining base. It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

TBH, I feel much the same way about people who complain about GM awarded bennies and other rewards for Roleplaying with no defined method of awarding them, but people do that here all the time.

Different people want different levels of rules for different parts of the game. Some people want the rules to cover as much as possible so that they can focus on the nonrules parts of the games, some want it to cover just enough to have a base frame.

No one is really wrong about it, and I find the mudslinging in both directions to be a bit silly.

(Personally, I prefer light framework games, but I can understand why others would want more structure)

Quote from: tenbones;782661WTF is a "defender Wizard" in terms of the concept?

To me a concept is "Character name, background, reason for being at this location for this campaign set in world "

Why did I just read that asinine thread? I almost lost a Sanity point...

Char op and char comparison threads are like peeking into another dimension. This is how they read to me:

Poster 1: "Anyone else think the Gank Dweomer Slash is underpowered? It can only jazz its caps on a daily matrix. Why would someone ever take it over a Thrush Blade Topper, who has every bit of jazz max as the Gank, but can also bottle like a Shell Captain?

Poster 2: "I know, right? While your Gank Dweomer Slash (or any Dweomer ganking build, really) is capped on fungibles, a Thrush Blade Topper, or even a basic all-strike Thrush Blade, will be kill-shotting mobs every two rounds without even bottling a daily. And it only gets worse past 14th level, when bottling ramps up area soakage even better than any of the blanket flat-block classes. Why the fuck didn't the devs catch this in playtesting?"

Quote from: Haffrung;782675This is how they read to me:

So it is not only me. :)

Nice characterization too.

I find that sort of discussion is like being stuck at a cocktail party in between two guys in the same Fantasy Football league who insist on talking non-stop about their teams. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Haffrung;782675Poster 1: "Anyone else think the Gank Dweomer Slash is underpowered? It can only jazz its caps on a daily matrix. Why would someone ever take it over a Thrush Blade Topper, who has every bit of jazz max as the Gank, but can also bottle like a Shell Captain?

Poster 2: "I know, right? While your Gank Dweomer Slash (or any Dweomer ganking build, really) is capped on fungibles, a Thrush Blade Topper, or even a basic all-strike Thrush Blade, will be kill-shotting mobs every two rounds without even bottling a daily. And it only gets worse past 14th level, when bottling ramps up area soakage even better than any of the blanket flat-block classes. Why the fuck didn't the devs catch this in playtesting?"

:rotfl:

So fucking full of win!!!!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;782679:rotfl:

So fucking full of win!!!!

It truly is a thing of literary beauty.

Quote from: Bren;782685It truly is a thing of literary beauty.

It perfectly nailed what D&D conversations looked like to me after I returned to the game after a long hiatus.

That was fucking beautiful Haffrung.

Quote from: Bill;782529"Cant" wing it?

I really don't get that. I mean, isn't a huge part of a gm's job to wing pretty much everything about the campaign world?

Are we talking about a mindset where it's heresy if the gm gives an Ogre a +1 to hit instead of applying an official template or literally adding a fighter level....

But is ok if the gm decides a hoard of Ogres invade your town and pound you to paste?


The 'Can't' part befuddles me :)

There are some wildly different styles of GMing. Some are total wing-o-ramas. Some are totally mechanical. And everything in between and beyond. And there are some players and GMs who just love a totally random game. Roll on tables. etc. Random everything.

Some GMs just cannot make stuff up. They may be really good at describing things and running modules. But freeform is some Lovecraftian horror that incurs sanity loss. This has been a known fact since nearly the get-go.

Then you have the players who for god unknown reasons just despise the GM making anything up. "Magic Tea Party" "Mother May I" and other derogatory terms used and especially mis-used.

Some take that to the Nth degree. What else is new?

As a DM, I think it's important to stick to the rules often, mostly because they're easier to reference, the game remains consistent, and so everyone's on the page. Rules, however vast, don't cover everything and often completely by-pass common sense (like lava dealing d6's of damage, WTF??). In those specific circumstances, It's imperative for the DM to get in and deal with the situation to the best of his or her ability. Many times everyone at the table is fine with the ruling, other times not everyone satisfied. That short of shit is to be expected though.

If you can sit at the table with people and trust that the person running the game is out to have a good time and not just at you or your characters expense, then I'm sure 99.9% of the time it doesn't matter if there's a specific rule for something OR if the DM just "wings it". If it's for the betterment of the game and people are having fun, who cares? Now if you have someone who can ONLY have fun when the RAW is placed first and foremost on EVERY single instance of the game, then there will probably be problems. It's unavoidable unless you screen players prior to games starting. And in those instances, you talk with the guy after the session and see if the group is right for him/her.


BTW, in honestly answering the question "What is a Defender Wizard", it's deciding to use a Wizard class to better defend his allies through spells and maybe his staff or dagger. Wizards, for the most part, are terrible at this in most of the editions I know save multiclassed Wizards/Duskblades (v3.5) or Wizards/Swordmages (4E).

Quote from: Bren;782685It truly is a thing of literary beauty.

It reminds me so much of WOW/MMO talk "builds," and yes it is a think of terrible, disturbing, mind-warping, sanity-devouring, beauty.

Quote from: LibraryLass;782598I find lack of GM trust to pretty much sit at the core of most of the system-wonks that make up 4e's remaining base. It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

I guess a lot of them are engaged in organised play where you have no idea who the DM is going to be until you turn up.
I can see that if you are trying to create a large perpetual world with a range of DMs and many players geogrpahically dispersed you might well want to codify the rules more.

It reminds me of teaching in the UK after they enforced the national Curriculum and Ofsted. The effect definitely restricted the better teachers and school from offering a varied and enriched curriculum but it also curtailed the very worst schools and awful teachers that were very very poor.

These dense systems do the same thing.

As an aside I don't really have an issue at all with ruling everything. Since starting play in Singapore I have run my heartbreaker whic has no written rules and just a singel core mechanic. I have added some rules in detail which I did write down, like Mass combat, or the space combat rules that became a stand alone game. But usually I ad lib the rules, the NPCs, the plot and the setting as we go. Pretty simple really, but not really rules lite more rules consistent so I don't need to be too creative with stuff

Quote from: Haffrung;782675Poster 1: "Anyone else think the Gank Dweomer Slash is underpowered? It can only jazz its caps on a daily matrix. Why would someone ever take it over a Thrush Blade Topper, who has every bit of jazz max as the Gank, but can also bottle like a Shell Captain?

Poster 2: "I know, right? While your Gank Dweomer Slash (or any Dweomer ganking build, really) is capped on fungibles, a Thrush Blade Topper, or even a basic all-strike Thrush Blade, will be kill-shotting mobs every two rounds without even bottling a daily. And it only gets worse past 14th level, when bottling ramps up area soakage even better than any of the blanket flat-block classes. Why the fuck didn't the devs catch this in playtesting?"

Holy crap yes. I got so frustrated on Pathfinder forums finding stuff like this as the focus of Character threads ("what do you MEAN that you didn't pick this esoteric build for your Sorcerer Bloodline!? I wouldn't let you play at my table...").

EDIT: I quit playing Pathfinder because of the prevalence of this mentality of people I'd talk to. Er, also because I'd found games more to my liking, but anyway...

Quote from: jibbajibba;782777I guess a lot of them are engaged in organised play where you have no idea who the DM is going to be until you turn up.
I can see that if you are trying to create a large perpetual world with a range of DMs and many players geogrpahically dispersed you might well want to codify the rules more.

Sure you might, but you should do that either in a separate game aimed at organized play and tournaments or at least in a separate supplement aimed at organized play. You should not co-op the core rules of a system originally intended for home play with a group of friends with such rules as that stifles play for those who have no need to worry about only being able to play with a potluck DM in a one-size and playstyle fits all set piece adventure.

Quote from: RandallS;782803Sure you might, but you should do that either in a separate game aimed at organized play and tournaments or at least in a separate supplement aimed at organized play. You should not co-op the core rules of a system originally intended for home play with a group of friends with such rules as that stifles play for those who have no need to worry about only being able to play with a potluck DM in a one-size and playstyle fits all set piece adventure.

  Tell it to Gary Gygax. :)

  Wasn't AD&D conceived in part as a way to do tournaments and organized play, and as a replacement for OD&D? This is not exactly a new issue.

Quote from: Haffrung;778836Another criticism:

Cure disease. Paladins can cast it at 2nd level, using a fraction of their daily lay on hands HP. So goodbye diseases. And then at 3rd level they get immunity disease as a class ability, when they're effectively immune to disease already with lay on hands.

House rule: All diseases have a CL. 10 for mild, 15, for serious, 20 for virulent. To cure disease, Paladins (and anyone else) must make a spellcasting check against the disease CL. The person doing the curing can only make one check per disease per afflicted person in his lifetime.

I don't really think Paladins should cure disease; feels more like a cleric power to me, and only some clerics.

But its a legacy of 1E dnd where paladins were immune and could cure disease.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;778848Why do people dislike the Inspiration mechanic? Not everybody is going to want to roleplay their character that much, and it gives those people an excuse to do so.

"Excuse" to roleplay!

ArrrrghHHHH!!!!!    :)

Quote from: LibraryLass;782598I find lack of GM trust to pretty much sit at the core of most of the system-wonks that make up 4e's remaining base. It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

I hate builds that are about 'being uber' (I don't mind builds that make some sort of sense and are for a cool theme, not raw power)

But I do think some system mastery/buildmongering is not about trust, but about being allowed to be uber.

Many gm's ban splattbooks, or freak out when an uber build is unleashed.

Sometimes the buildmeister just wants to show off and use his awesome build.

While I agree it can be about trust, I think it can also be about being allowed to run amok.

Quote from: Haffrung;782675Char op and char comparison threads are like peeking into another dimension. This is how they read to me:

Poster 1: "Anyone else think the Gank Dweomer Slash is underpowered? It can only jazz its caps on a daily matrix. Why would someone ever take it over a Thrush Blade Topper, who has every bit of jazz max as the Gank, but can also bottle like a Shell Captain?

Poster 2: "I know, right? While your Gank Dweomer Slash (or any Dweomer ganking build, really) is capped on fungibles, a Thrush Blade Topper, or even a basic all-strike Thrush Blade, will be kill-shotting mobs every two rounds without even bottling a daily. And it only gets worse past 14th level, when bottling ramps up area soakage even better than any of the blanket flat-block classes. Why the fuck didn't the devs catch this in playtesting?"

I nominate this post for "Post of the Year"

Epic!!!



Now how do I learn to 'Bottle like a Shell Captain'?  That sounds cool.

Haffrung, you just nicely summarised my nr. 1 reason for moving here. Every other well visited forum seems to have been taken over by this kind of useless discussion.

So, I finally got my hands on the book (hooray for having an actual FLGS in town). On first skimming, I love it. Great art, nice layout, and most importantly, cool rules.

I can even stomach and work with most of the halfling artwork. So that is one concern down.

However, I can not stand the entire chapter on races. It's even worse than I thought. Drow as iconic elves and way to many hardcoded setting elements in the stats. I'll propably write a new one of my own entirely.

So much for my homebrew players guide fitting on one double page.

Quote from: Gold Roger;782848Drow as iconic elves and way to many hardcoded setting elements in the stats. I'll propably write a new one of my own entirely.

Same here. Luckily, they're written as Dark Elves (Drow), so they could, in theory, just be a stand-in for dark elves in general.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;782810Tell it to Gary Gygax. :)

  Wasn't AD&D conceived in part as a way to do tournaments and organized play, and as a replacement for OD&D? This is not exactly a new issue.

Yes, AD&D was " conceived in part as a way to do tournaments" (organized play came much later) but it was not a replacement for OD&D. OD&D continued to be published long after all three AD&D books were out and only stopped onced the "revised version" of OD&D (B/X) was out. (O)D&D was intended by Gygax remain the game for people who wanted to do it their way.

Quote from: RandallS;782853Yes, AD&D was " conceived in part as a way to do tournaments" (organized play came much later) but it was not a replacement for OD&D. OD&D continued to be published long after all three AD&D books were out and only stopped onced the "revised version" of OD&D (B/X) was out. (O)D&D was intended by Gygax remain the game for people who wanted to do it their way.

   Do we have a citation for that? My formative introduction to the hobby's history was Lawrence Schick's essay in Heroic Worlds, which gives the strong impression that TSR only kept OD&D in print as long as it did because of demand, and only maintained the Basic/Advanced split under legal pressure from Dave Arneson. I am open to correction; after all, that's one source that's twenty years old at this point, even if it was from someone involved in the early days of TSR.

Quote from: Haffrung;782675Char op and char comparison threads are like peeking into another dimension. This is how they read to me:

Poster 1: "Anyone else think the Gank Dweomer Slash is underpowered? It can only jazz its caps on a daily matrix. Why would someone ever take it over a Thrush Blade Topper, who has every bit of jazz max as the Gank, but can also bottle like a Shell Captain?

Poster 2: "I know, right? While your Gank Dweomer Slash (or any Dweomer ganking build, really) is capped on fungibles, a Thrush Blade Topper, or even a basic all-strike Thrush Blade, will be kill-shotting mobs every two rounds without even bottling a daily. And it only gets worse past 14th level, when bottling ramps up area soakage even better than any of the blanket flat-block classes. Why the fuck didn't the devs catch this in playtesting?"

   Because, of course, arguments about the hirsuteness of female dwarves and the proper calculations for the dimensions and impact of a fireball are so much more high-minded and accessible to the average player. ;)

Quote from: RandallS;782853Yes, AD&D was " conceived in part as a way to do tournaments" (organized play came much later) but it was not a replacement for OD&D. OD&D continued to be published long after all three AD&D books were out and only stopped onced the "revised version" of OD&D (B/X) was out. (O)D&D was intended by Gygax remain the game for people who wanted to do it their way.

I started with Holmes Basic in '79, and other than the odd copy of Eldritch Wizardry or Gods, Demigods, and Heroes at the hobby store, I never came across OD&D. I certainly never saw the original boxed set with the three brown books. The AD&D PHB came out shortly after Holmes, and from that point forward OD&D may as well have not existed. I didn't see any OD&D books or anyone playing OD&D. And my community had a lot of well-stocked hobby stores and a thriving player-base.

Whatever Gygax originally intended, he had pretty clearly changed his mind by 1980.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;782862Do we have a citation for that? My formative introduction to the hobby's history was Lawrence Schick's essay in Heroic Worlds, which gives the strong impression that TSR only kept OD&D in print as long as it did because of demand, and only maintained the Basic/Advanced split under legal pressure from Dave Arneson. I am open to correction; after all, that's one source that's twenty years old at this point, even if it was from someone involved in the early days of TSR.

There's quite a bit of scource material on this. I don't have time this afternoon to hunt up a lot of it, but two of Gary's columns in The Dragon magazine are the earliest public discussion of this that I remember:

Dungeons & Dragons: Where is it Going? (Gygax, The Dragon #22 Feb 1979, pp 28-29)

From the Sorcerer's Scroll: D&D, AD&D, and Gaming (Gygax, The Dragon #26 June 1979, pp 28-30)

Quote from: Haffrung;782869I started with Holmes Basic in '79, and other than the odd copy of Eldritch Wizardry or Gods, Demigods, and Heroes at the hobby store, I never came across OD&D. I certainly never saw the original boxed set with the three brown books. The AD&D PHB came out shortly after Holmes, and from that point forward OD&D may as well have not existed. I didn't see any OD&D books or anyone playing OD&D. And my community had a lot of well-stocked hobby stores and a thriving player-base.

OD&D books were easily available into the early 1980s in San Antonio -- at Waldens and B. Daltons yet. They sold right along side the AD&D books.

Quote from: Bill;782815Now how do I learn to 'Bottle like a Shell Captain'?  That sounds cool.

Everyone who's anyone is bottling like a Shell Captain, Bill.

Well, got my PHB last week and heres a few observations...

The book has one, possibly two minor binding flaws, the backing on the back has a prominent wrinkle in it and I am not sure, but it feels like it was bound a little offset. Someone over on RPGG reported a different sort of misbinding and pages are actually coming loose.

On a positive note the book feels sturdy and survived UPS's best efforts to destroy it. The book was shipped in an open package... WTF??? and on opening it had sufferred severe warping of the pages from moisture or humidity. But a week later and the pages are about 99% flat again.

Art looks good. But these are some of the most gawd awful looking halflings I've seen rendered in a while. And two elf pics just look off one way or another. I note ALOT of poor cropping of art throughout. Nothing serious really. But ugh thats alot of pics clipped off at the sides or bottoms.

Minor gripe. I kinda wish they had at least sectioned the cantrips off from the morass of spells for every class all together in one go. Alphabetical at least.

So aside from the minor binding and minor art quirks, not bad really.

The Halflings...

I have a player who described his halfling as essentially a fey-looking mini-elf kind of like the art in 3e. When we got the PHB... holy shit the laughter.

The kicker is that *all* of the halfling art is that old Hobbit-pastiche with a jolly face and HUGE head, all looking decidedly unadventurous. We're still laughing about it. My player insists that his character doesn't look like that. I let it slide - but everytime a halfling NPC shows up in the game, everyone starts giggling as I describe them pretty much how they are in the book.

I have a feeling the Kender will look more like what he imagined halflings should look like.

Halflings in my game world all look like Jeff Dee's halflings.

Quote from: tenbones;783080The kicker is that *all* of the halfling art is that old Hobbit-pastiche with a jolly face and HUGE head, all looking decidedly unadventurous. We're still laughing about it. My player insists that his character doesn't look like that. I let it slide - but everytime a halfling NPC shows up in the game, everyone starts giggling as I describe them pretty much how they are in the book.

My opinion is that they don't look "hobbity" enough. They need better proportionality, though they can be plump. They also need oversized, bare feet with hair on them.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;783091Halflings in my game world all look like Jeff Dee's halflings.

Those guys are much closer to what I'm talking about. This guy from an Easley sketch is more my style though:

(http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7zclaaBYT1ro2bqto1_500.jpg)

Yeah, the halflings are drawn really strangely, for whatever reason.

I'm week 6 into my 5e Campaign. And I have nothing I'm complaining about that isn't simply because the DMG and the assumed support content hasn't arrived. Ruleswise... I'm pretty solid.

When we're complaining about how big the halfling melons are in the art as a criticism (and granted to the halfling lovers out there it might be a downer) - I think it's a pretty fine start to 5e.

Oh one more criticism.

The index at the back is printed it damn microfiche. Jeebus thats a tiny font!
And why are class perks given their own entries? Dont the classes entry themselves kinda do that? Bloats the index a bit.

I got the PHB yesterday afternoon and devoured it. Really fucking cool, and the warlock is highly intriguing.

I could have really used a mark on the spell lists to help me find rituals, though, and I really hope there are some online lists at some point.

Also, I feel a bit annoying left in the lurch with no magic items. And no tanglefoot bag??

Quote from: Will;783437I could have really used a mark on the spell lists to help me find rituals, though, and I really hope there are some online lists at some point.

I wonder if it would "break" the game to allow just about any spell to be cast as a ritual, if it made sense? I just really like that idea...

Quote from: Will;783437I got the PHB yesterday afternoon and devoured it. Really fucking cool, and the warlock is highly intriguing.

I could have really used a mark on the spell lists to help me find rituals, though, and I really hope there are some online lists at some point.

Also, I feel a bit annoying left in the lurch with no magic items. And no tanglefoot bag??

Here  (http://5espellbook.azurewebsites.net/SpellIndexFilter)you go

Awesome! Thanks!

Quote from: Omega;783368Oh one more criticism.

The index at the back is printed it damn microfiche. Jeebus thats a tiny font!
And why are class perks given their own entries? Dont the classes entry themselves kinda do that? Bloats the index a bit.

I have to whine about this, too. I know, I'm getting older, I should just keep the reading glasses handy....but I don't have this problem reading textbooks, and I read plenty of those.

Surely WotC knows the D&D fanbase is a bit older than it was 30 years ago?

Quote from: Will;783437I got the PHB yesterday afternoon and devoured it. Really fucking cool, and the warlock is highly intriguing.

I could have really used a mark on the spell lists to help me find rituals, though, and I really hope there are some online lists at some point.

Also, I feel a bit annoying left in the lurch with no magic items. And no tanglefoot bag??

I, for one, am pleased as punch that there are no magic items in the PHB. A+++

Sadly, I'm also in the aging eyes category and the index is hard for me to read without strong light.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;783482I, for one, am pleased as punch that there are no magic items in the PHB. A+++

Sadly, I'm also in the aging eyes category and the index is hard for me to read without strong light.

This website is hard for me to read without strong right, let alone the PHB Index!

Quote from: Omega;783368And why are class perks given their own entries? Dont the classes entry themselves kinda do that? Bloats the index a bit.

It might happen that class perks are mentioned in the rules without mentioning the class it is derived from.
Or sometimes in the future we might get classes that recycle class perks from previously published classes.
Or there might be a multiclass NPC in an adventure who has all the perks listed without mentioning which class they are derived from.

This could all be cases where I think indexing them might be beneficial. Even if WotC doesn't do such a plunder, a 3PP or homebrewer might, and then the PHB could help to track down the class perk descriptions.

I'm really enjoying D&DV, and overall I really like it. But this thread gives me an excuse to bitch, so I'll bitch.

1) Grotesque HP inflation.

2) Giant blocks of tedious hack-written "Flavor text" to describe each race and class. Jesus Christ. Trees died for this.  

3) Simpler than the last two editions but still could have been simpler. The Starter Set felt weirdly..."Dense" and didn't seem newcomer-friendly to me. The cleric's character sheet looked like one of those pop-art projects where they try to squeeze the whole text of Joyce's Ulysses onto a Dublin travel poster or something. The eighties versions of Basic have never been surpassed in newbie-friendliness. No one has ever even come close to them, actually.

4) Eye-raping "Ye Olde High Fantasie" fonts.

5) Full color. Yeah, yeah, I know. I recently had lunch with a dude about an RPG project I'm working on and when discussing print options he utterly dismissed B&W RPG products as Something Decent and Normal People Just Don't Do In Public Anymore. It's the industry standard now, but I still find black text on white easier to read and use (Highlight, photocopy bits for play aides, etc.). RPGs are not fucking coffee table books. The fact that the industry has chosen that direction over at-the-table utility makes me suspect a substantial percentage of buyers never actually play the games.

6) Odd 4E-inspired monster stat blocks with lots of extraneous text. It should read: "Short Sword +4 (1d6+1)" instead of "Action: Short Sword warggle-blargle something +4 useless text Russian novel something 1d6+1".

7) The cover is an ugly mass of red blobs. Some of the interior art was far superior.

8) What is the deal with everyone using javelins?

I think the "HP inflation" is a cosmetic mechanical factor and non-issue. Some of these monsters hit pretty fucking hard. Those HP will get whacked down pretty fast. Same goes for PC damage output.

Of course there's more ways to beat things so...


I'm glad someone else brought up the Index... my old eyes are actually straining to read that shit. I put my glasses on during the game and I had to read it at almost arm's length... blerg.

Here's another minor peeve. Subclass names. Especially the Fighter's.

Battle Master sounds like a He-Man supporting character whose toy no one bought and now somewhere in Mexico there's a whole landfill of Battle Master action figures, like the old E.T. Atari game. I'd use Warlord or Marshal.

Champion is, um, okay, I guess; I mean, I wish I could do better, but I can't think of anything right now for the go-getter, front-line, die-with-your-boots-on Fighter ("Meat Shield" doesn't sound terribly tempting as far as class choices go).

Eldricht Knight is a mouthful, and because of the overuse of "eldricht horror" to describe Mythos beasties, makes me think of a suit of armor with an icky tentacled sanity-blasting alien monster inside. Which would be a cool monster, BTW. Is anyone writing this down? :D Anyway, I'd use Swordmage. Yeah, it's one of these agglutinative nouns from 4e people might hate but I'm fine with it. Again, it's no frills and crystal clear.

Quote from: Necrozius;783438I wonder if it would "break" the game to allow just about any spell to be cast as a ritual, if it made sense? I just really like that idea...

Here's a guy kindasorta trying to work out such a thing: Games With Others blog (http://gameswithothers.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-wizard-did-it-concept-beyond.html)
Actually he's going further and proposing a system for rituals that can go beyond the established spell list.

Quote from: Vargold;783484This website is hard for me to read without strong right, let alone the PHB Index!

Try ctrl ++ to enlarge the text?

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;7835041) Grotesque HP inflation.

2) Giant blocks of tedious hack-written "Flavor text" to describe each race and class. Jesus Christ. Trees died for this.  

7) The cover is an ugly mass of red blobs. Some of the interior art was far superior.

8) What is the deal with everyone using javelins?

1: I thought this too at first. But as has been shown in other threads. The HP inflation actually levels off at a point and is close to AD&D levels in some respects.

2: Theres alot of dross in there. Not just the story exerps. I dont mind the ercerps overly. They are mostly a paragraph or so. I think they could have chosen a few more evocative  entries though.

7: I think it would have done better as the DMG cover and the green dragon battle from the Starter as the PHB cover.

8: Cheaper? Lighter? Fewer moving parts? :o

My overwhelming impression and criticism? Everyone is a spell caster.

"Drop the 4e powers, guys. They weren't popular, just give everyone MAGIC!"

Everyone now has spells or powers. (Rogue "Blindsense". Really? Really?? Gamist BS "My spidey sense is rolling initiative...") I know you can probably "turn it all off" and play a low magic setting with it, but I can only imagine the self-entitled butt hurt coming from players whose expectations do not marry with that idea.

This, for me is the biggest disappointment coming from reading the system.

Classes that can cast spells:
Bards
Clerics
Druids
Paladins
Rangers
Sorcerers
Warlocks
Wizards

Classes that can't cast spells:
Barbarian (no, wait... Spirit Seeker has rituals)
Fighter
Monk (no, wait... they have Ki magical energy)
Rogue

Not a spell caster edition though. No.

Rogues have the arcane trickster option and Fighters have eldritch knight.  Both are very much spellcasters.

Quote from: Necrozius;783438I wonder if it would "break" the game to allow just about any spell to be cast as a ritual, if it made sense? I just really like that idea...

No especially if you limit it to prepared spells and not the spellbook.

I wrote up my campaign house rules as the Majestic Wilderlands in 2009. The supplement was for Swords and Wizardry a OD&D clone.

Among other things spell casting classes can cast any spell they have in a spell book or know as a 10 minute ritual. For a cost of 10 sp times the spell level squared. You had to keep track of the amount of ritual components you had, in sp. In the supplement I explained that you can make this GP instead. A ritual components weighed 1 pound per 100 GP/sp worth.

In combat time it didn't make a difference.

Dungeon crawling/exploration time rated in turn it was useful especially for clerical healing. Except there was some tension with trying to get everybody healed while I am rolling for wandering monsters. Players also used it to cast the various detection spells.

For overland travel in days it amounted to 5e's long rest when there was a cleric in the party.

The net effect is that it gave a slightly higher magic feel to my campaign than straight Swords & Wizardry. There is still resource juggling with limited components. Utility spells got cast a lot more. Once in a blue moon a combat spell got cast as a ritual.

I see no reason why the effect wouldn't be similar in 5e.

One thing I was pleased with that my adoption of the ritual system for OD&D explained nicely why Chanmail wizards had unlimited fireballs and lightning bolts.

Quote from: estar;783623

Quote from: Necrozius;783438I wonder if it would "break" the game to allow just about any spell to be cast as a ritual, if it made sense? I just really like that idea...

No especially if you limit it to prepared spells and not the spellbook.

The one area where that would lead to trouble is the Warlock with Pact of the Tome and the Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation. (I must know, since that is the one mechanical bit I have been ogling the most since I got my PHB, and would be the one I would be most eager to play... :p )
When it gets limited to spells actually known, and both the pact and the invocation becomes practically useless.

Quote from: The Butcher;783555Here's another minor peeve. Subclass names. Especially the Fighter's.

Battle Master sounds like a He-Man supporting character whose toy no one bought and now somewhere in Mexico there's a whole landfill of Battle Master action figures, like the old E.T. Atari game. I'd use Warlord or Marshal.

Champion is, um, okay, I guess; I mean, I wish I could do better, but I can't think of anything right now for the go-getter, front-line, die-with-your-boots-on Fighter ("Meat Shield" doesn't sound terribly tempting as far as class choices go).

Eldricht Knight is a mouthful, and because of the overuse of "eldricht horror" to describe Mythos beasties, makes me think of a suit of armor with an icky tentacled sanity-blasting alien monster inside. Which would be a cool monster, BTW. Is anyone writing this down? :D Anyway, I'd use Swordmage. Yeah, it's one of these agglutinative nouns from 4e people might hate but I'm fine with it. Again, it's no frills and crystal clear.

I can get irritated by words. It's not really a big deal, but the 'Sharpshooter' Feat feels misnamed to me.  -5 to hit, +10 damage, no extra aiming or anything.
I though sharpshooters were more accurate, not less. And may even take time to aim.

The beast master ranger's need to use her action to make the animal companion attack is going to be a serious let down for a lot of players when they start reading the class they were initially eager to play. It's one of the gamy-est things left in 5e so far, and is problematic when you have to think about hirelings and mundane trained animals - why don't they need action commands to do basic things like attack?

Still, I'm not convinced the class feature is actually bad. Yeah it compares poorly to animal summoning spells, but if you compare it to the 3rd level fighter champion ability to improve crits (which the animal companion was designed to be equivalent to in power) it actually looks pretty good and creates a lot of tactical considerations. Stick the pet next to ranged attackers and spellcasters for example.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;783649The beast master ranger's need to use her action to make the animal companion attack is going to be a serious let down for a lot of players when they start reading the class they were initially eager to play. It's one of the gamy-est things left in 5e so far, and is problematic when you have to think about hirelings and mundane trained animals - why don't they need action commands to do basic things like attack?

Still, I'm not convinced the class feature is actually bad. Yeah it compares poorly to animal summoning spells, but if you compare it to the 3rd level fighter champion ability to improve crits (which the animal companion was designed to be equivalent to in power) it actually looks pretty good and creates a lot of tactical considerations. Stick the pet next to ranged attackers and spellcasters for example.

I don't have a feel for how this will work in 5E yet, but one of the things a detest about 3X/Pathfinder is overly powerful, and overly numerous summons, companions, etc...

So I hope 5E handles it more to my preferences.

4E tried to handle that but went too far and kinda gimped companions and summons.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;783649The beast master ranger's need to use her action to make the animal companion attack is going to be a serious let down for a lot of players when they start reading the class they were initially eager to play. It's one of the gamy-est things left in 5e so far, and is problematic when you have to think about hirelings and mundane trained animals - why don't they need action commands to do basic things like attack?

Still, I'm not convinced the class feature is actually bad. Yeah it compares poorly to animal summoning spells, but if you compare it to the 3rd level fighter champion ability to improve crits (which the animal companion was designed to be equivalent to in power) it actually looks pretty good and creates a lot of tactical considerations. Stick the pet next to ranged attackers and spellcasters for example.

Of everything in 5e so far, Ranger Beast-Masters seems to be the least thought out.

There is no way to get some of the obvious iconic creatures (Bear, Tiger) at all, which seems made to disappoint people, and the having to give up your action thing just seems a bad deal compared to paying a henchman.

You may well be better of buying a war-trained Bear, and being a Fighter (Battle Master) with the Animal Handling skill - which can't be right.

Quote from: jadrax;783656You may well be better of buying a war-trained Bear, and being a Fighter (Battle Master) with the Animal Handling skill - which can't be right.

Real pros hire Commoner Henchmen for 2sp per day - with Club +2 (1d4) some of them are bound to get through the Armor Class eventually, and probably won't live to actually see payday.

And not forget the Paladin of the Ancient Oath once he gains the Find Steed spell. One character concept that immediately popped into my head was a Gnomish Hide-clad Princess Mononoke rip-off that rides on a wolf into battle :D

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;783620Everyone now has spells or powers. (Rogue "Blindsense". Really? Really?? Gamist BS "My spidey sense is rolling initiative...") I know you can probably "turn it all off" and play a low magic setting with it, but I can only imagine the self-entitled butt hurt coming from players whose expectations do not marry with that idea.

Why would you try to run a low magic, low-powered game without getting players onboard first? Contradicting expectations is a legitimate complaint if you sell a campaign as by-the-book 5E and then pull a bait-and-switch, it's down to the GM to control expectations from the get-go by being clear about what they're going for.

Quote from: Warthur;783674Why would you try to run a low magic, low-powered game without getting players onboard first?

I didn't take him as meaning that at all, no bait n switch... just that running that sort of game is going against the expectations and desires of a lot of DnD Players... to where you WILL have to warn them going in... and maybe not get any Players at all.
Same as I expect you'll have to if you claim you're running DnD but only intend to use Basic with the optional bits turned off. Still RAW... but 'What? NO FEATS?!!!"
I kind of expect the norm of 5e will be to assume all optional bits are turned on.

Quote from: Skyrock;783629The one area where that would lead to trouble is the Warlock with Pact of the Tome and the Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation. (I must know, since that is the one mechanical bit I have been ogling the most since I got my PHB, and would be the one I would be most eager to play... :p )
When it gets limited to spells actually known, and both the pact and the invocation becomes practically useless.

With the Book of Ancient Secrets I would just allow any spell to be copied in there and they can only be cast as rituals. The key again to my Majestic Wilderlands that rituals take ten minutes and require a cost in components.

My suggestion is for a referee who wants a more liberal selection of rituals but restrict them further from what I do for the Majestic Wilderlands.

Quote from: Simlasa;783689I didn't take him as meaning that at all, no bait n switch... just that running that sort of game is going against the expectations and desires of a lot of DnD Players... to where you WILL have to warn them going in... and maybe not get any Players at all.
Same as I expect you'll have to if you claim you're running DnD but only intend to use Basic with the optional bits turned off. Still RAW... but 'What? NO FEATS?!!!"
I kind of expect the norm of 5e will be to assume all optional bits are turned on.

This.

Playing it real low-key and having someone turn up on game night ready to have all the bells and whistles, even after going over it all. (hypotheticals etc)

All that being said, I still want to own the PHB, MM and DMG for the sake of having them. Weird.

Ok. Probably not so much a criticism as just me missing something simple...

But WHERE are the Skill Proficiencies actually described in the PHB???

Quote from: Omega;783942Ok. Probably not so much a criticism as just me missing something simple...

But WHERE are the Skill Proficiencies actually described in the PHB???

Under the Abilities, starting on page 175.

Thanks. That explains why I missed it then. I read abilities and moved on without parsing the skills embedded in each entry.

Quote from: Omega;783948Thanks. That explains why I missed it then. I read abilities and moved on without parsing the skills embedded in each entry.

No problem, they should have been in the index, somehow.

The terse explanation of skills make it very easy for an eye trained with 3e and 4e to skip over. ;)

Quote from: Will;783953The terse explanation of skills make it very easy for an eye trained with 3e and 4e to skip over. ;)

"I'll remember that if I ever get 3rd or 4th" he said with shudder of eldrich dread.

My main point of criticism is the layout of the new D&D website.
I'll admit the previous site was a bit of a maze you'd navigate to find certain articles or downloads but at the Daiy.aspx was filled and you had several articles each week.

On the new site you have to scroll for miles, just to get past the header, and then every article is a page wide image that points to another flash/java/shockwave thingy.

I hope when there is more substance to 5e, the website will become a bit more accessible. And they bring the 2 magazines back.

Critcism: natural healing is too fast. I'd have rather seen a default system more like AD&D, with what we have as a variant healing system. This issue might be mitigated in the DMG.

Quote from: LibraryLass;782598I find lack of GM trust to pretty much sit at the core of most of the system-wonks that make up 4e's remaining base. It utterly perplexes me why anyone would play with someone they don't trust to be fair and reasonable.

My 4e players seem to trust me ok. I recently explained my completely-non-RAW skill DC system to them, with no complaints.
OTOH I do have trouble with Pathfinder, eg I got a complaint recently that the PCs were below RAW Wealth-By-Level.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;784048Critcism: natural healing is too fast. I'd have rather seen a default system more like AD&D, with what we have as a variant healing system. This issue might be mitigated in the DMG.

You can houserule that.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;784100You can houserule that.

I know, but having longer healing as a house rule will seem like a "screw you" to some players since it's not in the PHB. I'd fight for it, but I'm not thrilled that that fight is likely to happen in the first place.

Quote from: S'mon;784071My 4e players seem to trust me ok. I recently explained my completely-non-RAW skill DC system to them, with no complaints.
OTOH I do have trouble with Pathfinder, eg I got a complaint recently that the PCs were below RAW Wealth-By-Level.

Same here, I have pretty much the trust of my group and we've been happily enjoying 4th Edition since 08'. The only differences is that, as a DM, it's easier for me to adjudicate things because referencing stuff is a lot easier PLUS I have an idea of the impact on allowing things and how that interacts with the game like the Action Economy. In the TSR days, it was far more common for DMs (IMO anyways) to just throw out DCs and checks and stuff without really undestanding the math behind it.

For example, playing as a 1st level fighter in an AD&D game (back in 98') I wanted to attack 3 goblins who surrounded me. He gave me some serious penalties that, in the end, helped make me miss all three attacks. Had I of known how strong the penalty was prior to making that decision, I would not have done that. Now-a-days, it's easier to assign a DC based on actions that sorta fall in the range of the action economy.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;784101I know, but having longer healing as a house rule will seem like a "screw you" to some players since it's not in the PHB. I'd fight for it, but I'm not thrilled that that fight is likely to happen in the first place.

You can rule how you wish, but my bad design comment was a bad joke.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;784048Critcism: natural healing is too fast. I'd have rather seen a default system more like AD&D, with what we have as a variant healing system. This issue might be mitigated in the DMG.

Nooooooooo! AD&D's healing system of 1 hp per day regardless of level is dreadful :) Farmers returning to perfect health in a few days, while mighty heroes need to convalesce for months.

The "healer" feat seems too useful. To the point of needing one of the non casters to be a healer. 1 hp for stabilization? That fixes the healer not being able to help themselves if they are KOed. And the 1d6+4+level between short rests? It's almost healing economy breaking.

Am I crazy an it's not that overly useful at lower levels?

Quote from: Monster Manuel;784101I know, but having longer healing as a house rule will seem like a "screw you" to some players since it's not in the PHB. I'd fight for it, but I'm not thrilled that that fight is likely to happen in the first place.

Not if you make it reasonable or base it off existing editions versions.

1/day + CON bonus/week & full heal in 1 month if it goes that long.

Or

Half your HD type +/- CON bonus/penalty per day and full heal in one week.

etc.

And remind the players that the DMG is going to give you MUCH more brutal methods as RAW so theyd better take this nice friendly method of yore while they can. heh-heh-heh...

I'm not too wild about the healing myself, but, honestly, if you make healing a slog, then you absolutely mandate you must have a cleric in the party.

Let's see, right now, a party goes from devastated to perfectly healed in one day.

If you make up "non magic" healing rules, well, the healing rules from the cleric will STILL take a party from devastated to perfectly healed in, what, 2 days, maybe 3, even at low level?

For your rules to be meaningful, then your non-magic healing rules will need to be twice that (recovering from sword wounds knocking a hero down to 1 hp aren't credibly going to take less than 4 days, I think). It could even be a week or more, depending on the rules you'll have to make up on your own...rules that will be criticized, and will become irrelevant, because, you know, your players will just get the message that they frickin' better have a cleric in the party, or else their recovering time will be double OR MORE without a cleric.

So, you may as well not bother. It makes it possible to at least consider not having a cleric in a party, and you don't have to waste time making up new rules nobody will like, or care about after a few levels at best.

Quote from: Mostlyjoe;784117The "healer" feat seems too useful. To the point of needing one of the non casters to be a healer. 1 hp for stabilization? That fixes the healer not being able to help themselves if they are KOed. And the 1d6+4+level between short rests? It's almost healing economy breaking.

Am I crazy an it's not that overly useful at lower levels?

At lower levels its pretty potent as it can bring most PCs close to full HP in one go. 6-11 at level 1. 7-12 at 2, 8-13 at 3 and 9-14 at 4 which is where you are likely to get it.

If anything it gets weaker at the higher levels since it doesnt scale. It is allways 1d6+4+level.

IE: at level 10 thats 15-20 HP recovered. A level 10 Warlock for example could have 53 + upwards of + 30 HP on a good CON set up and using the average instead of rolling. (64 + 30 for a Fighter). Still pretty usefull. But it starts to fall behind gradually.

Keep in mind that the cost of a feat is not negligible. You are giving up a +2 to a stat, when ability points matter a -lot-.
And only variant human write up gets a first level feat.

So... yeah, it -should- be pretty useful.

Quote from: Will;784128Keep in mind that the cost of a feat is not negligible. You are giving up a +2 to a stat, when ability points matter a -lot-.
And only variant human write up gets a first level feat.

So... yeah, it -should- be pretty useful.

Yeah. It doesn't appear to be out of line with other feats. Then again, it seems that everyone has a feat they think is more awesome than the rest :)

I've posted my proposed healing rules here:

Variant: Immersive Healing (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30515)

This is too fast for my taste.

I need a very simple alternative; such as:

No healing at all from short rests, and replace daily healing with level plus con bonus per week.

Any suggestions?
Completely healed after 8 hours does not feel right to me.

Magic healing would be able to heal you normally.

You know, you could just assume that healing from Rests is magical...

And that, unless you are stripped naked or lost on a desert island with no supplies, you will be able to have the wands of lesser vigor/regenerative stones/whatever to ensure it.

Quote from: Will;784194You know, you could just assume that healing from Rests is magical...

And that, unless you are stripped naked or lost on a desert island with no supplies, you will be able to have the wands of lesser vigor/regenerative stones/whatever to ensure it.

In a magic heavy setting that sounds fine.

Not gonna happen in Dark Sun.

I just find slowing down naturally healing too much causes it to be "you either have a cleric/healer in your party, or don't expect to do anything more than once a month".

When a healer can heal the party to full from near death in a couple of days at most, taking months to heal naturally just means no one will ever heal naturally.

Granted, I think that the rules as is might be a bit too fast, but going to far the other way can be really troublesome.

Quote from: Bill;784191This is too fast for my taste.

I need a very simple alternative; such as:

No healing at all from short rests, and replace daily healing with level plus con bonus per week.

Any suggestions?
Completely healed after 8 hours does not feel right to me.

Magic healing would be able to heal you normally.

Sounds fine. It will make other healing like Second Wind and Cure Light Wounds more powerful, but I expect that won't be an issue for you.

Be careful when using any prewritten modules as it will assume a higher healing rate.

Finally, I do not that you don't quite fully heal after 8 hours. You only get half your Hit Dice back, so your ability to recover the next day is impaired if you have been pushed to the limit.

Quote from: Mostlyjoe;784117The "healer" feat seems too useful. To the point of needing one of the non casters to be a healer. 1 hp for stabilization? That fixes the healer not being able to help themselves if they are KOed. And the 1d6+4+level between short rests? It's almost healing economy breaking.

Am I crazy an it's not that overly useful at lower levels?

My answer is basically, "Yeah, but so what?"  Healing more quickly between fights, less downtime, someone gets to get back into the action, the healer gets to feel useful...what's the downside, really?  Plus you're (probably) not getting it until 4th level anyways, and you're giving up attribute points/other feats to get it.  It's a pretty major investment, so shouldn't it be useful?

I too was skeptical about the rapid healing rate in 5E, but on further reflection think it needs only two tweaks to be quite good. It is true that some form of HP recovery facilitates play — I love old forms of D&D, but was always a fan of the basic concept of 'healing surges'. The 5E RAW are a bit over the top, but I think work well with the following two changes:

1) the long-rest recovery simply gives you back your pool of HD, it doesn't recover any HP.

2) Any critical hit or any wound that drives you to 0 HP or strikes you when already at 0 HP is a 'major wound' that heals slowly and doesn't benefit from the healing-surge style recover.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;784048Critcism: natural healing is too fast. I'd have rather seen a default system more like AD&D, with what we have as a variant healing system. This issue might be mitigated in the DMG.

I'm thinking change to
(a) Must spend hit dice to regain hp and
(b) HP can go negative, die at negative hp = max hp. And healing of hp doesn't 'start from zero'.
(c) Regain a certain number of hit dice per overnight rest - I think I'd go with full hit dice recovery; but half would work well too. Edit: May 1/2 with a 6 hour rest, all with a 12 hour rest.

Even with full dice recovery it could take 3-4 days to heal up a badly wounded PC. I think (b) especially is a good way to make the game much grittier without greatly increasing lethality.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;784253I just find slowing down naturally healing too much causes it to be "you either have a cleric/healer in your party, or don't expect to do anything more than once a month".

When a healer can heal the party to full from near death in a couple of days at most, taking months to heal naturally just means no one will ever heal naturally.

Granted, I think that the rules as is might be a bit too fast, but going to far the other way can be really troublesome.

I don't consider these things troublesome. I think that healing from near death should be an ordeal in a certain style of campaign, and magical healing should be miraculous. Sure, the party has access to it every day, but the rest of the world doesn't need to.

I liked S'mon's suggestion for a heroic but not over-the top campaign, but I'll be using my Immersive rules for any low fantasy or gritty games I run, once they're finished. That is, unless Wizards has a better system in the DMG.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;784451I liked S'mon's suggestion for a heroic but not over-the top campaign.

Thanks - yes, that's the feel I was going for. It's not realistic to heal from near death to healthy in 3-4 days, but neither does that have quite the immersion-breaking effect of 4e D&D's heal-to-full-in-6-hours.