Quote from: Sacrosanct;693294The internet reaction is largely that of not liking it (big surprise there).  The sheet was from a fan during a contest and that one won.  My submission?  I blank college ruled sheet.

I did not win, obviously

It took me a second looking at the supplied sheet to see where it all was. It was a little confusing to my eye. But, I do kind of like it. The Icons kind of confuse me, but then I have issues with icons to begin with.


However, my litmus test for any game these days is how easy character creation can be filled out by hand. Usually I like to fill it out on a single side of a College ruled Notebook page. I'll go front and back if needed, but if a character takes up a second page or more, then Character creation is just not going to work for me.

Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;693051I posted the content of the original post to a friend of mine. I wasn't around RPing between about 1995 and 2006, so I missed out of 3.x and the introduction of Pathfinder, but he commented thus:


How does this curmudgeonly assessment stack up against the experiences in and out of play for other people? I have not really touched 5E playtest, but it looks nice in places.

If you want a game that hews closely to TSR D&D mechanically and ignores changes to the game incorporated in the WotC era, then Next is probably not for you. However, you can easily play a game that feels like TSR era D&D with Next. No need for minis. Fast character generation (though not as fast as B/X D&D). Fast combat (though again, not as fast as B/X).

But without knowing what, in particular, your friend hates about WotC era D&D, it's impossible to compare his assessment to my own experiences with Next.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;693317It took me a second looking at the supplied sheet to see where it all was. It was a little confusing to my eye. But, I do kind of like it. The Icons kind of confuse me, but then I have issues with icons to begin with.


However, my litmus test for any game these days is how easy character creation can be filled out by hand. Usually I like to fill it out on a single side of a College ruled Notebook page. I'll go front and back if needed, but if a character takes up a second page or more, then Character creation is just not going to work for me.

Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....

Jeeze, I still use index cards.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;693317It took me a second looking at the supplied sheet to see where it all was. It was a little confusing to my eye. But, I do kind of like it. The Icons kind of confuse me, but then I have issues with icons to begin with.


However, my litmus test for any game these days is how easy character creation can be filled out by hand. Usually I like to fill it out on a single side of a College ruled Notebook page. I'll go front and back if needed, but if a character takes up a second page or more, then Character creation is just not going to work for me.

Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....

The basic version, from the previous packet (yes, I know my bonuses aren't right)

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;693317Making my first 5e character this weekend, it took one sheet front and back... It was a VERY crowded front and back, but it fit. Something I was NEVER able to accomplish with 4e (unless it was an Essentials character), and 3.x took Front, back and Front of another to do....

At what level, and what class? Other than writing out every spell by hand that my character had in full... I can't imagine using more than the front side of a sheet for a character in 5e.

(Also, what is the obsession with making multipage character sheets that everyone has when making official sheets. When I make custom sheets, fitting everything on the front of one page is my goal)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693332The basic version, from the previous packet (yes, I know my bonuses aren't right)

I have always used the rule that if equipment is not written on your sheet, then you lost it somewhere.  That etc, etc wouldn't work.  

Quote from: Old One Eye;693372I have always used the rule that if equipment is not written on your sheet, then you lost it somewhere.  That etc, etc wouldn't work.  

He has TWO etc! Those items have got to be useful for something.

Fighter, page 23 of the Classes document.

Great Weapon Fighting

When you miss a target with a two-handed melee weapon, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your strength modifier.

This is one of the basic weapon fighting styles you choose at level 1.

OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?

Quote from: Benoist;693538Fighter, page 23 of the Classes document.

Great Weapon Fighting

When you miss a target with a two-handed melee weapon, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your strength modifier.

This is one of the basic weapon fighting styles you choose at level 1.

OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?

Aye, that's weird. You cannot miss with a claymore . Must be why Scots rule the world...

Quote from: TristramEvans;693539Aye, that's weird. You cannot miss with a claymore . Must be why Scots rule the world...

Now before people jump on me, it's just what I happened to be interested in when popping the Classes doc open: I looked a bit at the Barbarian, got honestly bored to tears by the impersonal, dry, mechanical descriptions (irrelevant at this point since it's just a playtest doc), though I was intrigued by the Totem Warrior path (oh, hello, Arcana Evolved!), and decided to jump to the class I'd play by default in a new D&D game: the fighter. It's a first level possible choice.

That's how I just stumbled on it.

Quote from: Benoist;693538OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?

My google fu didn't come with any answer from Wizards or other site. I assume this relate to the fact that in D&D that a roll is not consider a single swing of the weapons but the result of a round worth of fighting.

The designer are assuming that with training a two handed weapon will always do some damage in a six second combat round.

The closest analog I can think of is that in GURPS if you are wearing flexible armor you can take a small amount of damage from a crushing blow even though would otherwise be absorbed by the DR.

The big disconnect I find with these things that people have a very hard time NOT equating the throw of the die with a single sword blow.

Quote from: Benoist;693538Fighter, page 23 of the Classes document.

Great Weapon Fighting

When you miss a target with a two-handed melee weapon, the target still takes damage from the weapon. The damage equals your strength modifier.

This is one of the basic weapon fighting styles you choose at level 1.

OK. Why does the weapon do damage on a miss? What's the thinking behind this, and how does it relate to the weapon being two-handed?

This is how I look at it.  We all agree that combat is a series of strikes and parries all rolled up into one attack roll, right?  Especially us old school guys where a single round of combat was a minute long.  So we know that a single attack roll isn't just one attack, and things like AC and hit points represent not just a physically successful wound, but deflections, fatigue, skill, etc.  I mean, plate mail doesn't help you avoid being hit any more than any other armor, but absorbs and deflects the worst of the blow.

So with a 2-handed heavy weapon, even if your attack roll misses, represents that even if the target blocked the blow, it has so much force that it still impacts that target's hit points.  Sort of like if you used a shield to block a two-handed axe.  You might have blocked the attack, but you're still going to have some sort of impact to your shield arm.

And it's not very much damage, in comparison to the normal damage of the weapon to reflect this.

I will add that my guess it was added to make the use of two handed weapons more attractive. In AD&D and OD&D+Greyhawk, two handed weapons had a nice modifier against those wearing armor in addition to higher damage.

It not like there isn't precedent for 2H weapons for having something extra beyond doing more damage. Nor it's without historical accuracy as 2H weapons became more popular when people starting wearing plate in medieval combat.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693543This is how I look at it.  We all agree that combat is a series of strikes and parries all rolled up into one attack roll, right?  Especially us old school guys where a single round of combat was a minute long.  So we know that a single attack roll isn't just one attack, and things like AC and hit points represent not just a physically successful wound, but deflections, fatigue, skill, etc.  I mean, plate mail doesn't help you avoid being hit any more than any other armor, but absorbs and deflects the worst of the blow.

Yes. I'm following, and I agree to some extent, with the caveat that it also could mean that there was no contact at all during the pass of arms during the round.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;693543So with a 2-handed heavy weapon, even if your attack roll misses, represents that even if the target blocked the blow, it has so much force that it still impacts that target's hit points.  Sort of like if you used a shield to block a two-handed axe.  You might have blocked the attack, but you're still going to have some sort of impact to your shield arm.

OK. So that means it assumes there is a contact or block made during the round. This is potentially problematic to me, because it basically breaks the abstraction and implies that there's ALWAYS contact when you try to hit something with a two-handed weapon and you're specialized with it.

Quote from: estar;693545I will add that my guess it was added to make the use of two handed weapons more attractive. In AD&D and OD&D+Greyhawk, two handed weapons had a nice modifier against those wearing armor in addition to higher damage.

It not like there isn't precedent for 2H weapons for having something extra beyond doing more damage. Nor it's without historical accuracy as 2H weapons became more popular when people starting wearing plate in medieval combat.

There's no doubt to me that the decision to do this was motivated by the game aspect first, to make the specialization into a two-handed weapon style worthwhile in terms of damage output/rules. It's just that these type of things annoy the fuck out of me.

It's no biggie: since it isn't a default move/attack for the fighter, I could always play something else. But that alone would make me NOT play a two-handed specialist in a D&D Next game, and I'll be honest and say I'd cringe inside if one such specialist would show up in the game and do constant damage like this, though I probably wouldn't pip a word about it while playing (because that's neither here nor there, I'm here to play, not bitch at the rules I don't like).