So I played 5e last Friday with my regular group plus 2 semi-new players. I'm coming at 5e from the perspective of someone who liked a lot of things about 4e - it's not my favourite edition, that's 2e, but I liked it much more than 3e and a lot of this was because of the tactical interplay and the ability to play a fighter with interesting mechanical choices. I also like storygame stuff but I'm not sure I want to mix the two streams, D&D is its own thing and is better for it IMO.
We played at fifth level in some kind of zombie apocalypse scenario, my character was a high elf mage.
Things I liked
- Rolling for stats felt viable again, although getting STR 6 sucks :-)
- Rolling for HD but with a decent 'play it safe' option for scaredycats, yay
- Backgrounds are good game design, primarily the flavourful 'feature' powers, I hope they publish a lot more of them and that there is a way to buy new ones with feat slots
- All the little random personality trait and trinket tables are great
- Playing a wizard was fun, the new spell slot system reads strangely but makes a lot of sense in play
- Cantrips make casters more satisfying to play (although I wonder if the offensive ones are maybe too good with the level 5 damage boost)
- Ritual spells work well and give some interesting extra options
- It felt like the rules struck a nice balance between depth and lightness
- Minor actions are gone and you can combine stuff with your move, never again will a cool plan of action have to be aborted because I don't have a spare minor action to pull the relevant bit of equipment out of my backpack
Things I didn't like
- The fighter and thief in the group seemed way less effective than the 3 casters, although this may be partly due to the scenario (big clusters of blastable/turnable zombies) and partly because the people playing them were maybe less... tactically minded than the ones playing the casters. This is potentially a huge issue for me though as my main character of nearly 25 years (which I'll end up converting to 5th) is a fighter
- My roll on the trinket table gave me a candle that can't be lit, WTF am I meant to do with that. :-)
- Hitting or succeeding on a roll of 10 because of bounded accuracy just feels wrong after spending so much time playing 3e then 4e - irrational, I know
- Roll on the PHB and the rest of the options, although even the lists of feats etc that have been spoilered don't really feel like enough. So roll on PHB 2 I guess? (I don't want to see 3e/4e levels of bloat though).
- Added as an edit: Rolling damage twice for crits is bullshit, just sack up and give us double damage already!
Thanks for the review! I love this kind of info.
I'm glad to hear that the wizard spell-slot thing wasn't complex in-game. My eyes kind of glaze over whenever I read about that sort of thing.
I'm playing a Wood Elf Wizard STR 7 Pbp so I feel your pain. But the actual point is I'm playing a Wood Elf Wizard with the background acolyte and she's totally viable because of all the built in things that shape her tactics and even spell list to her actual abilities not DPR.:)
@Necrozious, it's alot like a 3x sorcerer with far more choice in my opinion. Pretty easy yet whatever you do spellwise pretty effective if you play off your party.
Quote from: Necrozius;771334Thanks for the review! I love this kind of info.
I'm glad to hear that the wizard spell-slot thing wasn't complex in-game. My eyes kind of glaze over whenever I read about that sort of thing.
Its pretty straightforward really. The slots act as a sort of pseudo-spell point system in that you can spend a higher level slot to get more oomph out of certain spells. Or to just cast the spell more times.
Magic missile for example. three 1d4 missiles base. Using a 2nd level slot to cast it adds another missile, and so on.
Passwall: Say you've used up all your 5th level slots. But you have a 6th level slot still and REALLY need passwall ASAP. Burn the 6th level slot. Boom, hole made.
The spell slot thing sounds easy mechanically but hard to swallow in terms of game reality beyond "It's magic!" I mean we used to say that about the original Vancian casting, but Gygax's gloss in the 1e DMG turns out to be flavorful, reasonably close to the literary precedent, and intelligible as an in-game "thing". I suppose 5e slots could be glossed as minor bound spirits (vaguely like Vance's sandestins) which would account for their being like individually-wrapped pouches of magical energy.
Regarding the scaredy-cat option on hit dice, if you're rolling up a sixth-level character, you're better off with the "default" about 2/3 of the time, and rolling the dice will only do better than default about a quarter of the time. (Speaking roughly and generalizing across different hit dice.)
At fifth level as in the OP you have a little better chance of getting lucky but not much. (I can't be bothered at the moment to redo the calculations.) Personally if I were playing RAW starting at 1st level then I'd roll the dice at each level unless and until I wanted to "protect" my character. Then I'd take the gimme. This sort of assumes a high-lethality game and Traveller Scout mentality: take big risks with below-average PCs until they're either dead or above-average. (In a low-lethality game, the number of HP doesn't matter anyway.)
Quote from: Arminius;771386The spell slot thing sounds easy mechanically but hard to swallow in terms of game reality beyond "It's magic!" I mean we used to say that about the original Vancian casting, but Gygax's gloss in the 1e DMG turns out to be flavorful, reasonably close to the literary precedent, and intelligible as an in-game "thing". I suppose 5e slots could be glossed as minor bound spirits (vaguely like Vance's sandestins) which would account for their being like individually-wrapped pouches of magical energy.
Regarding the scaredy-cat option on hit dice, if you're rolling up a sixth-level character, you're better off with the "default" about 2/3 of the time, and rolling the dice will only do better than default about a quarter of the time. (Speaking roughly and generalizing across different hit dice.)
At fifth level as in the OP you have a little better chance of getting lucky but not much. (I can't be bothered at the moment to redo the calculations.) Personally if I were playing RAW starting at 1st level then I'd roll the dice at each level unless and until I wanted to "protect" my character. Then I'd take the gimme. This sort of assumes a high-lethality game and Traveller Scout mentality: take big risks with below-average PCs until they're either dead or above-average. (In a low-lethality game, the number of HP doesn't matter anyway.)
I never thought you'd do a bullshit post. Color me disappointed and a bit pissed actually. Your line of reasoning matches Polaris and his stupid Mountain Dwarf Wizard: mess.
Quote from: Arminius;771386The spell slot thing sounds easy mechanically but hard to swallow in terms of game reality beyond "It's magic!"
Think of the slots as levels of wattage the mage can output into a spell.
You have enough erg in you to power a batch of small spells, or you can blow more erg to pump up that small spell and get a little more out of it, Or just waste erg on casting it at all in a pinch, Or power a more complex spell.
A caster is like a solar cell that charges at night... Plug em in and power your Matrix!
5e spell slots are, basically, spell points. Just with different quantum energies.
Actually, you could sort of imagine a wizard's spell slots as electrons in various shells...
...
Ok, it doesn't work EXACTLY, but hey.
Quote from: Will;7713945e spell slots are, basically, spell points. Just with different quantum energies.
Actually, you could sort of imagine a wizard's spell slots as electrons in various shells...
...
Ok, it doesn't work EXACTLY, but hey.
Dont cross the wizards....
Quote from: Will;7713945e spell slots are, basically, spell points. Just with different quantum energies.
Actually, you could sort of imagine a wizard's spell slots as electrons in various shells...
...
Ok, it doesn't work EXACTLY, but hey.
Yeah, it's the quantumness that needs explanation.
And that's not a bad one, actually.
I wouldn't fret about a low-STR character in a game with DEX-based melee. DEX is such a ridiculous uber-stat in 5th that you can run a fighter with low STR and do just fine.
Quote from: cranebump;771404I wouldn't fret about a low-STR character in a game with DEX-based melee. DEX is such a ridiculous uber-stat in 5th that you can run a fighter with low STR and do just fine.
Will that get nerfed with rules updates, do you think?
Quote from: cranebump;771404I wouldn't fret about a low-STR character in a game with DEX-based melee. DEX is such a ridiculous uber-stat in 5th that you can run a fighter with low STR and do just fine.
More like DEX got more things added that play off it while STR remained about the same.
Quote from: cranebump;771404I wouldn't fret about a low-STR character in a game with DEX-based melee. DEX is such a ridiculous uber-stat in 5th that you can run a fighter with low STR and do just fine.
By the math possibly but do you play or just run numbers devoid of actual situations?
Personally I chalk it up to being Basic. It might not change, but I hope it does.
Personally I'd like to have seen a bit more stat-mechanic distribution like in Fantasy Craft where all the stats matter and dump-stats are practically non-existent. But the downstream design effects required to pull that off would have probably been too much for Basic.
We'll see. I have one fighter in my game, and went Dex-finesse dual scimitar wielding desert-fighter. I haven't felt his combat ability is "too much" or "not enough". He's a total number's guy, and right now I think he's okay with how things are. We'll know more after a few more levels I'm sure.
My gut reaction is - it seems fine for now.
Having said that, I've always maintained the best stats in the world won't save your sorry ass for doing stupid shit. So stats are really kinda meh to me as a GM. If it makes you feel better as a player - I'm happy for you and hope you use them well.
Silly anecdote - I once ran Throne of Bloodstone as a one-shot. I let all my players choose a hero from the original Deities and Demigods books to play as their characters. I had one player choose Elric and another Yyrkoon (so Stormbringer and Mournblade were BOTH in play) and Cu Chulain and Raiko, and fucking Math the wizard. I ran that module RAW and slagged the whole party. Sure they fucking slaughtered MASSIVE amounts of monsters, an 800hp roided dragon (Fyrillicus - look him up) among hundreds of demons, devils and killed Tiamat... they still failed, and every single one of them due to making dumb decisions.
Quote from: cranebump;771404I wouldn't fret about a low-STR character in a game with DEX-based melee. DEX is such a ridiculous uber-stat in 5th that you can run a fighter with low STR and do just fine.
Remember also that a high strength no dexterity character can get just as much AC in heavy armor (since high strength cancels a lot of the heavy armor penalties), while using bigger dice weapons than the DEX fighter.
High dex is going to have an edge in out of combat acrobatics type stuff and in stealth, but the high str fighter is going to be doing more damage. Its a tradeoff. People seem to ignore that because of the way heavy armor works in the game, that while strength isn't that necessary for dex fighters, dex is also not very necessary for high str fighters.
Quote from: tenbones;771436Personally I chalk it up to being Basic. It might not change, but I hope it does.
Personally I'd like to have seen a bit more stat-mechanic distribution like in Fantasy Craft where all the stats matter and dump-stats are practically non-existent. But the downstream design effects required to pull that off would have probably been too much for Basic.
We'll see. I have one fighter in my game, and went Dex-finesse dual scimitar wielding desert-fighter. I haven't felt his combat ability is "too much" or "not enough". He's a total number's guy, and right now I think he's okay with how things are. We'll know more after a few more levels I'm sure.
My gut reaction is - it seems fine for now.
Having said that, I've always maintained the best stats in the world won't save your sorry ass for doing stupid shit. So stats are really kinda meh to me as a GM. If it makes you feel better as a player - I'm happy for you and hope you use them well.
Silly anecdote - I once ran Throne of Bloodstone as a one-shot. I let all my players choose a hero from the original Deities and Demigods books to play as their characters. I had one player choose Elric and another Yyrkoon (so Stormbringer and Mournblade were BOTH in play) and Cu Chulain and Raiko, and fucking Math the wizard. I ran that module RAW and slagged the whole party. Sure they fucking slaughtered MASSIVE amounts of monsters, an 800hp roided dragon (Fyrillicus - look him up) among hundreds of demons, devils and killed Tiamat... they still failed, and every single one of them due to making dumb decisions.
I was hoping for FantasyCraft with the abilities also but it would never fly for a gateway game like Dnd let alone a Dnd toolkit game like 5e. Just be happy that 5e IS a toolkit game and ignore or change what bothers you or doesn't work for your Dnd or setting or both. It's 2e modern!!! Go nuts hon.:)
Quote from: Will;7713945e spell slots are, basically, spell points. Just with different quantum energies.
Actually, you could sort of imagine a wizard's spell slots as electrons in various shells...
...
Ok, it doesn't work EXACTLY, but hey.
Yeah, You know that's an explanation that I can buy.
Quote from: Marleycat;771426By the math possibly but do you play or just run numbers devoid of actual situations?
Evidently some folks need sarcasm glasses. I said DEX is a ridiculous uber stat and it is. I can get inish, saves, AC reduction, to hit and damage from one number. I DO play the fucking game, thank you very much, but this stat stands out as glaringly overvalued next to STR, so much so I HAVE to notice it, or be a boneheaded moron. The whole finesse strain in the modern game is just a boondoggle. When DEX was primarily a ranged/defense stat, and STR the damage stat, you had more tangible trade offs. Now, you CAN'T skip DEX. It's intertwined in everything, like ivy. I'd like to see finesse removed, but that's going to have to happen in my home brew.
(And who pissed in your Cheerios, marleycat?)
Quote from: cranebump;771470Evidently some folks need sarcasm glasses. I said DEX is a ridiculous uber stat and it is. I can get inish, saves, AC reduction, to hit and damage from one number. I DO play the fucking game, thank you very much, but this stat stands out as glaringly overvalued next to STR, so much so I HAVE to notice it, or be a boneheaded moron. The whole finesse strain in the modern game is just a boondoggle. When DEX was primarily a ranged/defense stat, and STR the damage stat, you had more tangible trade offs. Now, you CAN'T skip DEX. It's intertwined in everything, like ivy. I'd like to see finesse removed, but that's going to have to happen in my home brew.
I don't see why you can't skip it tbh. Wear Heavy Armour and it doesn't apply to AC at all. If you are not proficient in Dex saves, you are not going to be making many even with DEX 20. Use Thrown weapons and non-finesse weapons, and it's never going to apply to your attacks.
The only thing you cant really mitigate is Initiative, and that's hardly the end of the world.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;771437Remember also that a high strength no dexterity character can get just as much AC in heavy armor (since high strength cancels a lot of the heavy armor penalties), while using bigger dice weapons than the DEX fighter.
High dex is going to have an edge in out of combat acrobatics type stuff and in stealth, but the high str fighter is going to be doing more damage. Its a tradeoff. People seem to ignore that because of the way heavy armor works in the game, that while strength isn't that necessary for dex fighters, dex is also not very necessary for high str fighters.
I don't believe the damage/defense trade off really offsets the utility of DEX that much, if only because of INISH and save bonus. As far as defense goes, how about a 19AC in studded leather/shield? Use a rapier and you have the same +5 dmg mod as the 20-STR fighter (because everyone will eventually have a 20 in their primary) who, to eclipse your defense would need a shield, which would thereby negate using the weapons that give him the damage advantage he longer has.
The thing is, I'm not a numbers guy, but I can spot this one, so it has to be pretty obvious. I feel compelled to remove finesse, if only to make the defense/mobility vs. Damage choice more relevant. Right now, it really isn't. Not as much as it SHOULD be, anyway.
The high dex fighter will have 19 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a rapier (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
The high strength two handed fighter will have 18 AC, and average 13.33 points of damage on a strike with a greatsword (8.33 (2d6, Great Weapon Fighting Style) + 5 (Str))
The high strength sword and board fighter will have 20 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a longsword (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Str) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
While the high dex fighter has a bonus in some situations (higher init, dex saves) the high str fighter will be able to carry significantly more equipment, be a better climber, etc.
I still see plenty of reasons to play high strength, though completely dumping dex is probably still not he BEST choice, its entirely feasible. Then again, I don't think dumping strength is the best choice either, unless you play a game where you don't bother counting your encumbrance.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;771476The high dex fighter will have 19 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a rapier (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
The high strength two handed fighter will have 18 AC, and average 13.33 points of damage on a strike with a greatsword (8.33 (2d6, Great Weapon Fighting Style) + 5 (Str))
The high strength sword and board fighter will have 20 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a longsword (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Str) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
While the high dex fighter has a bonus in some situations (higher init, dex saves) the high str fighter will be able to carry significantly more equipment, be a better climber, etc.
I still see plenty of reasons to play high strength, though completely dumping dex is probably still not he BEST choice, its entirely feasible. Then again, I don't think dumping strength is the best choice either, unless you play a game where you don't bother counting your encumbrance.
Works for me.
I often enjoy playing a strong warrior that has the dexterity of a cinderblock.
So it is good that low dexterity is not crippling.
Quote from: cranebump;771474I don't believe the damage/defense trade off really offsets the utility of DEX that much, if only because of INISH and save bonus. As far as defense goes, how about a 19AC in studded leather/shield? Use a rapier and you have the same +5 dmg mod as the 20-STR fighter (because everyone will eventually have a 20 in their primary) who, to eclipse your defense would need a shield, which would thereby negate using the weapons that give him the damage advantage he longer has.
The thing is, I'm not a numbers guy, but I can spot this one, so it has to be pretty obvious. I feel compelled to remove finesse, if only to make the defense/mobility vs. Damage choice more relevant. Right now, it really isn't. Not as much as it SHOULD be, anyway.
I gotta agree here. DEX is way too good compared to STR.
Also what's up with the fighter defensive fighting style? +1 to AC IF you are wearing armor. :confused:
I suppose the style has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing how to defend else it would be of use no matter what.
I always liked the idea of a huge, hulking brute surprising his/her foes with how fast and agile he/she is. Think the Mountain in Game of Thrones.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;771476The high dex fighter will have 19 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a rapier (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
The high strength two handed fighter will have 18 AC, and average 13.33 points of damage on a strike with a greatsword (8.33 (2d6, Great Weapon Fighting Style) + 5 (Str))
The high strength sword and board fighter will have 20 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a longsword (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Str) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
While the high dex fighter has a bonus in some situations (higher init, dex saves) the high str fighter will be able to carry significantly more equipment, be a better climber, etc.
I still see plenty of reasons to play high strength, though completely dumping dex is probably still not he BEST choice, its entirely feasible. Then again, I don't think dumping strength is the best choice either, unless you play a game where you don't bother counting your encumbrance.
I really hope they actually change Dueling.... IT should not work with a shield... IT is supposed to simulate the classic Swashbuckler Errol Flynn single rapier (or other weapon) fencer... Having it work with shield really defeats its aesthetic and makes it way too good for what it is supposed to be...
Quote from: Exploderwizard;771480I gotta agree here. DEX is way too good compared to STR.
Also what's up with the fighter defensive fighting style? +1 to AC IF you are wearing armor. :confused:
I suppose the style has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing how to defend else it would be of use no matter what.
I see it more as an armor specialty. Someone who has trained so long in armor that they know what hits they can let the armor take allowing them to leave themselves open for hits most others wouldn't.
Protection is the shield specialty
Quote from: Exploderwizard;771480IAlso what's up with the fighter defensive fighting style? +1 to AC IF you are wearing armor. :confused:
I suppose the style has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing how to defend else it would be of use no matter what.
It's to discourage you from single-dip multi-classing from Monk or Barbarian.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;771487I really hope they actually change Dueling.... IT should not work with a shield... IT is supposed to simulate the classic Swashbuckler Errol Flynn single rapier (or other weapon) fencer... Having it work with shield really defeats its aesthetic and makes it way too good for what it is supposed to be...
Bucklers were very popular for dueling. I think the problem lies in the DEX based damage bonus.
Quote from: jadrax;771490It's to discourage you from single-dip multi-classing from Monk or Barbarian.
Monk I can understand. Don't (some) barbarians wear armor?
Another thing that occurred to me as I was reading the classes last night. Because of the way proficiency bonuses work and bounded accuracy, the fighter isn't really better at hitting things with a weapon than any other class (ability scores being equal).
Multiple attacks might represent this, but it just seems odd.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;771493Don't (some) barbarians wear armor?
True, but the ones that do it wont be an issue for.
Ignoring Magic Items; an unarmored barbarian can hit AC 22; a Light Armored Barbarian can hit AC 19; a Medium Armored barbarian can hit AC 19. So it moving a 19 to a 20 is fine, a 22 to 23 is a bit over the top for a single level dip.
Note these numbers are based on the Feb 11th play-test material, and may be very wrong.
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;771487I really hope they actually change Dueling.... IT should not work with a shield... IT is supposed to simulate the classic Swashbuckler Errol Flynn single rapier (or other weapon) fencer... Having it work with shield really defeats its aesthetic and makes it way too good for what it is supposed to be...
Wasn't a lot of dueling done with a buckler or a parrying dagger? But yeah, that isn't the same thing as using a KITE shield in the other hand.
Quote from: jadrax;771472I don't see why you can't skip it tbh. Wear Heavy Armour and it doesn't apply to AC at all. If you are not proficient in Dex saves, you are not going to be making many even with DEX 20. Use Thrown weapons and non-finesse weapons, and it's never going to apply to your attacks.
The only thing you cant really mitigate is Initiative, and that's hardly the end of the world.
Just take Alertness really the bad thing about low-average dexterity are save throws vs magic but even that gets mitigated if you're a fighter at higher levels.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;771476The high dex fighter will have 19 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a rapier (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
The high strength two handed fighter will have 18 AC, and average 13.33 points of damage on a strike with a greatsword (8.33 (2d6, Great Weapon Fighting Style) + 5 (Str))
The high strength sword and board fighter will have 20 AC, and average 11.5 points of damage on a strike with a longsword (4.5 (d8) + 5 (Str) + 2 (duelist fighting style))
While the high dex fighter has a bonus in some situations (higher init, dex saves) the high str fighter will be able to carry significantly more equipment, be a better climber, etc.
I still see plenty of reasons to play high strength, though completely dumping dex is probably still not he BEST choice, its entirely feasible. Then again, I don't think dumping strength is the best choice either, unless you play a game where you don't bother counting your encumbrance.
Exactly. You ignore DEX at your peril, honestly. What separates fighters, to me, is the multi-attack, obviously. I agree that if you want big damage, go with big STR weapons. I still think, though, you come out about even if you go with mobility and such (DEX). This isn't really a bad thing, overall, but I do wish there were more cache for STR. In fact, they could drop CON right now, fold it with STR and, to me, that would do it. STR gives you attack damage saves hp's. DEX gives you attack damage saves defense inish (not to mention better stealth capability). I'd go so far as to say drop damage bonus from DEX too, if I had my druthers. Anyway, it is what it is. I have the 6 STR ranger to prove it (tough, but wiry). :-)
Like a Scottish soccer player.:D