How does combat compare to older editions?

I have browsed the character sheets that were released, I have had a quick look at the basic PDF, but it "seems" a lot less basic that I am used to.

Basic to me:
Roll initiative,
Roll to hit,
Roll damage,
Do HPs etc, move on.

This has powers and stuff, and the dreaded word "feat" is mentioned.  

How basic is it in relation to other releases?

It's pretty close. Feats are completely optional, and what feats are more compartmentalized than the dreaded feat chains of 3-4e. Whether it crosses the complexity rubicon is up to you.

In my games it ends up more like
Roll initiative.
Spellcasters equivocate.
DM yells at spellcasters.
Move around.
Roll to hit.
Roll Damage.
   - check against class abilities: sneak attack, paladin's smite, etc.
Deduct HP.
Spellcasters swear they cast the wrong spell.

That's pretty much it. Not as simple as OD&D, pretty close to 2e levels of crunch.

Cool. That answers that then!

I would throw in weapon speeds, maybe weapon versus armour type to spice things up a bit prior to anything WoTC D&D related (2E here).

Sounds ok. I mean, there are so many positive reviews coming out. Must try it.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;767421Cool. That answers that then!

I would throw in weapon speeds, maybe weapon versus armour type to spice things up a bit prior to anything WoTC D&D related (2E here).

Sounds ok. I mean, there are so many positive reviews coming out. Must try it.

Just grab the Basic PDF and take a gander - it's easy enough to scan through it quickly.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;767421Sounds ok. I mean, there are so many positive reviews coming out. Must try it.

While I'm more optimistic than you were, I'm staying cautious. I'm waiting to see what the fine-tooth-comb crowd discovers. Some of their complaints so far are whiny bullshit, but you never know...

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;767431While I'm more optimistic than you were, I'm staying cautious. I'm waiting to see what the fine-tooth-comb crowd discovers. Some of their complaints so far are whiny bullshit, but you never know...

Name a single game in the history of gaming going back to HG Wells that didn't have a billion and one nits to pick.  Look for holes and you'll find them.

Most spell attacks work the same as weapon attacks (roll d20+your ability modifier+prof bonus).  So in that case most combat goes:

1. roll initiative
2. roll to attack
3. roll damage
4. do bookkeeping (hp, etc).

So pretty much the same as B/X.  The only difference is that you don't look at an armor class table.  So it's actually one less step.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;767459Most spell attacks work the same as weapon attacks (roll d20+your ability modifier+prof bonus).  So in that case most combat goes:

1. roll initiative
2. roll to attack
3. roll damage
4. do bookkeeping (hp, etc).

So pretty much the same as B/X.  The only difference is that you don't look at an armor class table.  So it's actually one less step.

I got that sense from looking at rolling to hit. I wanted to port THAC0 over, but there is no need because the AC is the target to beat. This seems nice. Maybe it is the same as BAB, but whenever I have encountered that with 3.PF I was hideously lost with modifiers and rolling blind. I did not have a clue. 5E (or maybe 4E before it) seems to have tightened that up.

Quote from: JonWake;767458Name a single game in the history of gaming going back to HG Wells that didn't have a billion and one nits to pick.  Look for holes and you'll find them.

Oh of course, I'm well aware of that nitpicking nonsense, it's the stuff that fandom crybaby drama is built on unfortunately (and the reason I try to stay away from other fans of anything other than tabletop now). I'm looking for serious issues that would kill it, stuff on par with 7th Sea's subtle but lethal core flaws.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;767461I got that sense from looking at rolling to hit. I wanted to port THAC0 over, but there is no need because the AC is the target to beat. This seems nice. Maybe it is the same as BAB, but whenever I have encountered that with 3.PF I was hideously lost with modifiers and rolling blind. I did not have a clue. 5E (or maybe 4E before it) seems to have tightened that up.

numbers bloat was something that really turned me off of 3e/PF.  +35 or +40 total modifiers?  Screw that noise.  Bounded accuracy fixes that in a heart beat.  For one, you don't have a different BAB for each attack you make in a round for higher level fighter types.  Even at high levels, it looks something like this:

20th level fighter:
+6 prof bonus.  +5 ability bonus (assuming he max'd str at 20).  Probably a +2 weapon bonus (5e weapons don't have high + weapons like previous editions).  So that's a +13 to hit.  For every attack.  Damage is probably 1dx+7 (ability+wpn).  And that's at 20th level.

I would assume +3 max for magic items. But the point is the to hit and AC is at least soft capped it's all about the damage which makes the fighter relavent again and the wizard all about strategy not tactics again like 2e.

I reread the PDF tonight and laugh at the current Charop arguments because they still haven't understood how backloaded each class is. Please single dip into fighter and watch a pure wizard fuck you three times to Sunday with no effort. Just use Misty Step and Fireball/Lightning Bolt at will as an Evoker. With supreme control no less.

To really get the the good stuff in any particular class you need to commit to 5-6 levels. You want a good GISH? Then levels 8-12 split either way within those 4 levels (5 variations) is your sweet spot.

Now run the math against a single class character. You'll see it's basically even when you factor in number of stat bumps/feat chances each path will actually get. It's about as balanced as an actual Dnd RPG can be if your DM isn't Rain Man.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;767462Oh of course, I'm well aware of that nitpicking nonsense, it's the stuff that fandom crybaby drama is built on unfortunately (and the reason I try to stay away from other fans of anything other than tabletop now). I'm looking for serious issues that would kill it, stuff on par with 7th Sea's subtle but lethal core flaws.

That sort of thing hasn't come up with the the basic set. There are some odd choices: overnight healing is pants on head crazy, but it's intentional.

It's pretty modular, though. I've plugged in a critical hit table and slower healing, and it's made some classes better, changed the pace of fights, and probably a few trickle down effects that haven't come up yet, but it hasn't broken anything the way, say Call of Cthulhu breaks if you screw around with skill lists too much.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;767464numbers bloat was something that really turned me off of 3e/PF.  +35 or +40 total modifiers?  Screw that noise.  Bounded accuracy fixes that in a heart beat.  For one, you don't have a different BAB for each attack you make in a round for higher level fighter types.  Even at high levels, it looks something like this:

20th level fighter:
+6 prof bonus.  +5 ability bonus (assuming he max'd str at 20).  Probably a +2 weapon bonus (5e weapons don't have high + weapons like previous editions).  So that's a +13 to hit.  For every attack.  Damage is probably 1dx+7 (ability+wpn).  And that's at 20th level.

This alone would sell me on 5e.

I loathe the 3x style multiple attacks and number bloat.

The basic rules do indeed look very flexible and hackable. Everything isn't so tightly woven together like 3E & 4E does.

It looks like you can tweak healing, at-will magic, etc. without breaking the core, which is critical to game designed to be modular.

Quote from: Bill;767661This alone would sell me on 5e.

I loathe the 3x style multiple attacks and number bloat.

I was going to do a comparison between a level 20 3.x fighter and a level 20 5e fighter, but when I looked at all the crap involved in creating a level 20 3.e fighter, I said "fuck this".  Way too much work.