TheRPGSite

I hope to start a 5e D&D campaign from first level in the next month.  I've got the three core books and have read most of each.  Been playing D&D for over thirty years, although I skipped 4e.  The more stream-lined approach of 5e really appeals to me, especially the elegance of advantage/disadvantage.

For those of you that have actually played 5e, is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?  I have a few ideas, but I don't want to start the thread by biasing it in one direction.  Thanks.

The numbers of HP are much higher in comparison to most editions of D&D, and that takes a little getting used to.

If anyone in the party is a spellcaster, you should have at least two PHBs at the table.

However, that said, my players love the fuck out of this edition and so far the campaign has gone swimingly so I can't really say anything "Isn't working".

Overall satisfied with 5e.

My biggest issue in RPG rulesets is pointless or time-wasting stuff, not abusive stuff.

Inspiration is stupid. You're either in a group where it's forgotten or everyone is trying to cheese it.

The medicine skill doesn't earn its keep as readily as many of the others do. You have to get a lot more creative to squeeze it into useful situations. I suppose that appeals to certain players, but most people will just forget about it.

The beast master ranger turns players off. Whether it is actually balanced and useful isn't the issue, I'll never find out because no one wants to test one once they see the system for it.

The Contagion spell is either purely a storytelling tool or the best big monster killer in the game depending on how you interpret it, and there is plenty of ambiguity as to how to interpret it. I'm all for broadly written rules and GMs making rulings to keep things going, but this one is a bridge too far.

NOTE: My 1000th post. Minor celebration. *Confetti*

the players


seriously, to echo above, not a fan of inspiration.  encourages metagaming, imo.  Also not a huge fan of attack rolls with half the spells.  With spell slots being the fewest of any edition, making all attack spells require a to hit roll (or save), means many miss and are thus wasted.

CR for monsters is pretty meaningless in practice.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;806919the players


seriously, to echo above, not a fan of inspiration.  encourages metagaming, imo.  Also not a huge fan of attack rolls with half the spells.  With spell slots being the fewest of any edition, making all attack spells require a to hit roll (or save), means many miss and are thus wasted.

I feel similarly.  The baseline game is too pew-pew for my tastes. I would prefer to have less frequent casting, but with each casting having a bigger impact.

That being said, I like the overall game so well that I've been able to repress my disgruntlement in that regard.

Magic is still too powerful, damagewise and there's still too much of it at low levels.

I got rid of cantrips, increased melee damage for non-spell guys and treated personality mechanics as optional.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;806926I feel similarly.  The baseline game is too pew-pew for my tastes. I would prefer to have less frequent casting, but with each casting having a bigger impact.

That being said, I like the overall game so well that I've been able to repress my disgruntlement in that regard.

well, yeah.  In spite of my complaints, I love playing it.

The low numbers to level to 1st and 2nd levels don't work for me. The ability to get back all your hit points during a long rest also doesn't work for me. The DMG has some options for that. I may keep the long rest rule and go with lingering injuries on a failed death check of 5 or less.

I've been coming around to 5th as of late.  The only quibble that I have so far is about the physical product itself- I don't care for the binding on the books.  It's pretty much perfect bound with hardcover- not sure how long it will hold up.

Quote from: misterguignol;806924CR for monsters is pretty meaningless in practice.

"CR" means ?

I'm assuming those aren't Traveller-style credits in place of gold coins.

Quote from: Matt;806941"CR" means ?

I'm assuming those aren't Traveller-style credits in place of gold coins.

Challenge Rating!!

Quote from: Zak S;806927Magic is still too powerful, damagewise and there's still too much of it at low levels.

I got rid of cantrips, increased melee damage for non-spell guys and treated personality mechanics as optional.

Wouldn't getting rid of cantrips pretty much cripple spellcasters at low levels? That's all they have outside of two spells per day.

Personal opinion: Almost all of 5e works, its more whether it works at your table/in your current campaign.

I'm cutting inspiration and also cutting features from my current campaign. Inspiration cause I just don't see a need for it, and the background features because it doesn't make sense for the campaign. Most of them make no sense for a caravan travel across 5 countries/3 continents, they are too regional.

Where are you going to find a temple to your faith to stay at in a the middle of the arctic? What good are your criminal contacts when you are in a nation halfway around the world with a wildly different culture and very little contact with your home. That being said, I'll probably bring features back in a campaign that is set in a more local area.

The good thing is that... 5e just doesn't fall apart if you take scissors and glue to it. So cut what you don't like, paste in what you do like, and roll with it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;806946Wouldn't getting rid of cantrips pretty much cripple spellcasters at low levels? That's all they have outside of two spells per day.

When you factor in rituals (and even if you don't), that's more spells per day than wizards got in days of yore, so "crippled" isn't the word I'd use.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;806951When you factor in rituals (and even if you don't), that's more spells per day than wizards got in days of yore, so "crippled" isn't the word I'd use.

All I've played is the starter set so far and the only wizard spell that's a ritual is Detect Magic when you start off. You can probably pick more rituals if you made the character from hand though.

Now, these adjustments are based on my personal tastes, which I have projected upon the people I play with. I guess their relevance are debatable, but for me, these are relatively easy fixes that greatly enhance the game (which I already find very enjoyable).

My impression was that unlimited cantrips mostly banalizes and cheapens magic, reducing its awesomeness by making it too mundane for my taste. As a fix, I suggested to introduce a limit on cantrips (for now, we use relevant ability score+proficiency bonus) and let casters refresh that pool on a short rest.
In practice, this works okay, Cantrips are still a valid tool, but they are a more precious resource and are less likely to get wasted on trivial actions.

Another thing that for my taste greatly increase the game's intuitveness and, as a result, accessibility and tension creation abilities is a vitality/wound system like the 3e optional rule. We treat "normal" hitpoints as Endurance, and each character also has a reservoir of Health equal to their Constitution score. All "normal" hits are just treated as light injuries, bruises, superficial cuts and so on; they just do ordinary damage to Endurance/Hitpoints. All "serious" hits (those who beat the AC by 10 or more and all crits) directly deal Wound damage.  Once Endurance is gone, all additional damage goes directly to Health; with a Health of 0, the usual death save minigame is triggered (also, they gain a lingering wound from the DMG table). Characters who have taken Wound damage gain a level of exhaustion each for bein damaged at all/have lost half or more of their Health/have 3 or less Health left. This exhaustion doesn't go away until the wounds are healed. Endurance is regained like ordinary hitpoints, Health is regained with a successful Constitution save (DC 15, medical treatment grants advantage) for each long rest. Healing magic give one point of health per spell level, but each character can only be healed with magic once per long rest.
I think this is an almost obligatory change. It actually doesn't change the concrete gameplay that much,  but the whole concept of damage and injuries becomes so much more concrete and accessible. The whole argument what hitpoints could represent is basically over.

And, a comparatively minor one: being grappled or tangled prevents the use of spells with a somatic component. That one is just a very odd ommission.

Quote from: Beagle;806956And, a comparatively minor one: being grappled or tangled prevents the use of spells with a somatic component. That one is just a very odd ommission.

All it takes to count as "grappled" in 5E is just a hand on your shoulder forcing you around.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;806958All it takes to count as "grappled" in 5E is just a hand on your shoulder forcing you around.

As far as my reading of the rules goes it requires a succesful contested Athletics roll, which is a higher bar than a hand on your shoulder.

Hmm, I'll have to double check.

But then what about weapons like bows? Can you still use those while grappled? And does it matter if it's a creature like a Stirge instead of a man that's grappling you?

Quote from: trechriron;806944Challenge Rating!!

Ah, never heard of it. Is this a new 5th Ed. thing?

I think it is a good idea to keep the grappling rules as simple as possible while making it a useful option. As is, grappling isn't particularly useful. Preventing spellcasting changes this dramatically.
But, if you want to make it more (and probably needlessly) complicated: somatic spells require a free hand. Grappling "occupies" one hand that thus becomes 'useless' for the purpose of casting. Thus casters could possibly cast spells when they drop whatever they held in their other hand.

Being restrained however should do more than that. if you cannot move, period, I don't see much opportunities for waving hands and wiggling fingers.

Quote from: Matt;806961Ah, never heard of it. Is this a new 5th Ed. thing?

Nope. It goes back (at least) to 3rd edition.

I wasn't a big fan of inspiration points as a reward for keeping in character role. The players who do that, do that and those that don't, don't. Plus, many players tend to develop and evolve their character's personalities over time based on choices and events in the ongoing game. Defining everything in character creation isn't necessarily a good thing.

So I just give everyone 1 automatic inspiration roll per day and call it good.

I've been debating Inspirations, and contemplating some 'per session' or 'per long rest' mechanic that lets you broadly justify taking an Inspiration to do something connected to your alignment/ideals/bonds/flaws.

At least through 8th level, the game runs smooth as silk.  The only things that have caused my group any concerns are:

PCs are perhaps a tad more powerful at levels 5+ than I personally visualize they should be.  Getting used to it and have been modifying my expectations.

The party ranger using a quarter staff one handed is still a bit bothersome conceptually.

Running a business does not include the amount of capital put into said business.

As a person who likes a magic item economy, the magic item prices are somewhat funky.  Especially for scrolls.

Magic item treasure tables should have been listed by rarity instead of A, B, C, to clarify that they are in fact listed by rarity.

Hoard of the Dragon Queen is kind of a crappy adventure.

That's it.  Overall, 5e is by far the smoothest roleplaying experience I have ever played.  There has not yet been a situation where the rules cause a situation that just does not make any damn sense, which has happened at some point with every other rpg I've ever gamed.  (I do not use Inspiration or CR, so no idea if they work for a person that cares about such.)

Quote from: misterguignol;806965Nope. It goes back (at least) to 3rd edition.

That explains it. I had 1st, then 2nd when it first came out, then stopped RPGing for years and lost touch with all things D&D. Gave away all my Dragon magazines. Didn't know TSR was gone until a few years ago! Now I'm using 1st Ed. again.

Thanks for all the replies.  Keep them coming if you like . . . at least I will read them.

I want to keep my mechanics on the simpler side.  When I was in my 20s, I was interested in rules intensive, but now in my 40s, I have been swinging the other way.

I will also probably leave out inspiration.

I have been on the fence about cantrips being unlimited.  I like the idea of them being plentiful but not at will.  Perhaps ability mod + level is a good compromise until a long rest.

Same goes for all hp back at long rest.  I like a grittier game, which would be offset somewhat by the presence of healing magic anyway.  I also don't want anyone to have to keep track of hit dice for healing.  That said, maybe I'll still allow 1 hp/level for short rest and a d4/level for long rest.  That's still above what characters would gain in 3 D&D, the last edition I played extensively.  A compromise between closer to reality and having the recovery time of a 17 year old super athlete.  I don't want reality healing times . . . it is a heroic game after all.

I am intrigued by the lower xp threshold.  I like the idea that the designers want players to get to high level faster . . . not sure yet.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;806946Wouldn't getting rid of cantrips pretty much cripple spellcasters at low levels? That's all they have outside of two spells per day.

That's pretty normal in old school games and spellcasters do fine there in every game I ever saw. Plus in 5e their weapons are better.

There's a taste issue ... should spells be powerful big things that unleash, or do wizards live and breathe magic?

After they raise a few levels, the spellcasters in my game largely quit casting cantrips.  Just not worth it anymore.

Quote from: Will;807026There's a taste issue ... should spells be powerful big things that unleash, or do wizards live and breathe magic?

If you handle it right at the table, then magic can still be dangerous and mysterious, even with low level spellcasters. As a rule, we don't use spell names, even when the PC Dragonborn is casting spells...he gives me a cue as to what he's doing and I narrate it.

The NPC Warlock that was traveling with the group absolutely terrified them, even though any one of them could have taken him in straight up fight.

Quote from: Zak S;807025That's pretty normal in old school games and spellcasters do fine there in every game I ever saw. Plus in 5e their weapons are better.

Hmm, might be a good idea to try it out then.

Right now I'm totally new to 5E and D&D in general so I don't have the confidence that I won't royally screw something up by tweaking the rules left and right. I've just been focusing on understanding what rules there actually are.

I feel like the players wouldn't like removing the cantrips though.

Oh, another thing I've had a hard time tracking is weight and encumbrance. There's all these items with different weights, I have no idea how much anyone has and haven't bothered to check yet. But I probably should since PCs are doing stuff like trying to carry 5 different weapons and 30 goblin ears.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807044Hmm, might be a good idea to try it out then.

Right now I'm totally new to 5E and D&D in general so I don't have the confidence that I won't royally screw something up by tweaking the rules left and right. I've just been focusing on understanding what rules there actually are.

I feel like the players wouldn't like removing the cantrips though.

Oh, another thing I've had a hard time tracking is weight and encumbrance. There's all these items with different weights, I have no idea how much anyone has and haven't bothered to check yet. But I probably should since PCs are doing stuff like trying to carry 5 different weapons and 30 goblin ears.

I don't worry about weight and encumbrance unless someone's obviously trying to carry way too much.

If you're new to D&D then just stick to what you feel comfortable with for a few sessions and--if you do decide to make changes-- make sure your players are on board with any changes you make.

New players often like to have powerful characters to start with whereas players who've been around the block a few times are more likely than them to feel like a weak character is a fun challenge.

When you're a new GM there's a balance:

On the one hand, all the rules can seem overwhelming.

On the other hand, you're afraid to mess with stuff and remove rules since you don't know the knock-on effects.

The most important thing is: make sure your players trust your judgment about what's fair. After that, you can work together to push the rules to a place that fits the game you all can agree on.

Its like I said upthread. 5e is pretty sturdy, it doesn't break that easy.

Just be sure to be flexible. If you make a change and it turns out it sucked, rework it or throw it out.

I wouldn't do the cantrip throwing out myself, but I'm sure the game would still work (Warlock might need some adjusting, since Cantrips are most of its strength).

Be confident, and make sure the players trust you. And if you find that you messed up, don't be afraid to say so.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807044Oh, another thing I've had a hard time tracking is weight and encumbrance. There's all these items with different weights, I have no idea how much anyone has and haven't bothered to check yet. But I probably should since PCs are doing stuff like trying to carry 5 different weapons and 30 goblin ears.

Don't dither with tracking encumbrance.  Just use common sense and the genre trope that someone wearing a backpack can fight just as easily as if they were not wearing one.  Only worry about it if someone does something stupid like say they have 5 polearms on their person or whatnot.

Re, the above posts: how would you guys handle weight then? Just go with what feels right?

For instance, someone carrying five different swords wouldn't make sense, right? But by weight rules they could probably do it easily. I'm not sure.

Hmm, maybe if they had two strapped to their back, one in a scabbard on each leg...

I just don't want my decision of "no, that's too much to carry" to seem arbitrary.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807053Re, the above posts: how would you guys handle weight then? Just go with what feels right?

For instance, someone carrying five different swords wouldn't make sense, right? But by weight rules they could probably do it easily. I'm not sure.

I'd say if they carried 5 swords and nothing else then maybe.

Remember also: carrying stuff is one thing. Carrying stuff while moving and fighting is quite another. You can probably carry an unconscious friend around but could only fight with them on your back if you had a high strength. I believe the rule of thumb is: STR score x 10= comfortable carry weight in lbs. (not bench press, just: what you could have on your back and walk)) Half that is what you can comfortably fight and do athletics and acrobatics with.

In general: use what's plausible in the version of life or fiction that you are imagining as your guide.

Your rules have to be tighter if you have players who will push them to the extremes--if you don't you can just spot check like "What all are you carrying?"

Many players just won't ever push the situation to 5 swords, so it's a problem you may never have to solve.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;807046I wouldn't do the cantrip throwing out myself, but I'm sure the game would still work (Warlock might need some adjusting, since Cantrips are most of its strength).

Its not as booyah as some make it out to be. My test run against the wolves in the other thread was so far the most I have used that cantrip to date and it couldnt even drop a wolf in one shot. Usefull? Yes. vital? YMMV on that. But I get the feeling that some people bitch about the cantrips havent actually played a caster type to see them in use. Or if they did, they waved their magic cock around the first few levels and declared it overpowered.

As for the OPs question. Things that havent worked?

Not much really. Everything seems to so far be clicking along.

At worst I think that the combat lethality can be at times deceptive since the system changes have shifted the balance in odd ways that sometimes skew the outcome. Not necessarily a bad thing. But it can lead to either too easy or too hard a battle until you get the hang of it.

Well, I can't say for certain that it "hasn't worked" because I flat fucking refused to use it, but I'm still pretty disappointed in the 3e-style multiclassing rules.

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;807066Well, I can't say for certain that it "hasn't worked" because I flat fucking refused to use it, but I'm still pretty disappointed in the 3e-style multiclassing rules.

I am personally actually pretty happy that the 5e multiclassing rules make multiclassing "dipping" just about useless. No one in the group I am in or DM for has any interest in multiclassing.

Quote from: Vic99;806911For those of you that have actually played 5e, is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?  I have a few ideas, but I don't want to start the thread by biasing it in one direction.  Thanks.

Surprise does not seem to work how I would have done it.

Animal Companions (be they familiars, beast master pets, whatever) require you to use you action o attack (if they can attack at all), which to me makes no sense. How I have fixed this is by using the Loyalty Rules in the DMG. If your pet has a Loyalty of 10+ it will happily attack on its own, less that that you have to use an action to command it as per the usual rules. It's a bodge, but it seems to keep everyone happy.


But all in all, its holding up pretty well.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;807053Re, the above posts: how would you guys handle weight then? Just go with what feels right?

For instance, someone carrying five different swords wouldn't make sense, right? But by weight rules they could probably do it easily. I'm not sure.

Hmm, maybe if they had two strapped to their back, one in a scabbard on each leg...

I just don't want my decision of "no, that's too much to carry" to seem arbitrary.

Ask the player to draw a quick sketch of their character.  Or use some swords/swordlike things around the house and ask them to demonstrate how their character is carrying it.  Your point will quickly drive home.

Quote from: Omega;807069I am personally actually pretty happy that the 5e multiclassing rules make multiclassing "dipping" just about useless. No one in the group I am in or DM for has any interest in multiclassing.

Same here: I'm more in favor of these rules now that I caught on that a characters gets their bonus ability score improvements or feats based on individual class level totals, not their overall character level. Multiclass too much and you "screw" yourself over a little.

To answer the OP: not a complaint, just a warning. The game can be deceptively lethal at low levels. One of my players' PC got one-shotted by two goblin archers who beat him in initiative*. Luckily he was a half-orc, and his racial ability saved him from having to make Death Saving checks.

* i actually don't really use initiative rules: I just let the in-game scene determine who goes first based on each individual situation. In this case, though, the PC and the monsters surprised each other, and so I just made a ruling to have them roll off initiative to see who had better wits to act first.

Quote from: jadrax;807072Surprise does not seem to work how I would have done it.

Animal Companions (be they familiars, beast master pets, whatever) require you to use you action o attack (if they can attack at all), which to me makes no sense. How I have fixed this is by using the Loyalty Rules in the DMG. If your pet has a Loyalty of 10+ it will happily attack on its own, less that that you have to use an action to command it as per the usual rules. It's a bodge, but it seems to keep everyone happy.


But all in all, its holding up pretty well.

According to the DMG, it seems to be that "absent any direct orders, they will follow their nature", which means an animal companion may attack to defend his friend on its own. Its just that it takes an action to direct it when you're wanting something specific.

Replied to the wrong topic!

Quote from: Vic99;806911For those of you that have actually played 5e, is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?  I have a few ideas, but I don't want to start the thread by biasing it in one direction.  Thanks.

Hm, I guess for me it's the idea that player's can't buy magical items. I don't have the DMG yet and I hear there are some pricings in there for magical items but that sort of runs counter to the game.

I believe the intent is that you're supposed to be using your gold for things in-game like keeps and taxes and tithes and greasing politicians / local authority palms, and etc but to be perfectly honest, none of that really appeals to me. Coming from a predominantly 3E and 4E background you often spent your money on making your self better at your profession (ie. Murder Hobos) and that was fine with me. Now the idea is to buy a Keep and have a side game of  SIMs while we play D&D and I really don't like that approach. Especially if/when I want to run a 5E Eberron game where the setting is really build around magic and the economy is set up with it in mind.

Quote from: Batman;807087Hm, I guess for me it's the idea that player's can't buy magical items. I don't have the DMG yet and I hear there are some pricings in there for magical items but that sort of runs counter to the game.
.

The question was if there was something that didn't work as you expected in actual game play.  And it sounds like your response is just guessing about something you hadn't actually experienced.

There are enough of those types of responses floating around.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807091The question was if there was something that didn't work as you expected in actual game play.  And it sounds like your response is just guessing about something you hadn't actually experienced.

There are enough of those types of responses floating around.

My experience is that the design goal of D&D:Next is so that magical items aren't on display as things anyone can go into a shoppe and buy. Nothing up to this point has given me reason to think this has changed.

The question was: "is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?"

The concept of non-magical items not being on sale does not work for me.

That's a semantic dodge.

'This doesn't work' in the sense of how something functions or fails to function, vs:
'This doesn't work' in the sense of esthetically not liking it.

So, Batman is being silly.

Quote from: Batman;807101My experience is that the design goal of D&D:Next is so that magical items aren't on display as things anyone can go into a shoppe and buy. Nothing up to this point has given me reason to think this has changed.

The question was: "is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?"

The concept of non-magical items not being on sale does not work for me.

Yeah, and if you weren't speculating but going by actual experience with the rules like the OP asked, you'd see that magic items do have a gp value and the DMG explicitly tells you that if you want ye ol magic shop, here's how to do it.  So your guesswork is flat out incorrect.

So I go back to my original statement.  The OP was asking for actual in game experiences.  I'm about done with people like you who have this incessant need to bitch about the game without actually playing it.  You guys make just about every thread toxic because in  nearly every case, your problems aren't actual problems and it's needless arguing.

Quote from: Batman;807101My experience is that the design goal of D&D:Next is so that magical items aren't on display as things anyone can go into a shoppe and buy. Nothing up to this point has given me reason to think this has changed.

The question was: "is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?"

The concept of non-magical items not being on sale does not work for me.

So, to you it "seemed" like it would not work for you, and you may or may not have experienced that it is in practice not working for you?

You thought it would suck, you still think it sucks.  How does that in any way address the concept not working as well or easily as it seemed.  Spoiler: it doesn't.

I'm all for sharing opinions about what we like and what we don't like, but don't pretend like yours addresses the question when it obviously doesn't, especially when thats seems to be an armchair player opinion.

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;807066Well, I can't say for certain that it "hasn't worked" because I flat fucking refused to use it, but I'm still pretty disappointed in the 3e-style multiclassing rules.

Quote from: Omega;807069I am personally actually pretty happy that the 5e multiclassing rules make multiclassing "dipping" just about useless. No one in the group I am in or DM for has any interest in multiclassing.

The multi classing rules are OPTIONAL which is a good thing. In practice there are a few dips that are fairly useful. In my first campaign I wanted to test everything so I allowed freeform multi-classing. The cleric dipped into warlock and can thus regain healing spells on a short rest which is pretty powerful but not game breaking.

Since this campaign is largely about testing things out as they are I am ignoring the jarring WTF factor of just waking up one morning with the abilities of another class.

In the second campaign I started I am still allowing multiclass options but taking the first level in a new class requires 250 days and 250 gp to train just like learning a new proficiency. Thus mechanically it is still possible but the overnight gaining of new abilities has been curbed a bit.

Quote from: Batman;807087Hm, I guess for me it's the idea that player's can't buy magical items. I don't have the DMG yet and I hear there are some pricings in there for magical items but that sort of runs counter to the game.

I believe the intent is that you're supposed to be using your gold for things in-game like keeps and taxes and tithes and greasing politicians / local authority palms, and etc but to be perfectly honest, none of that really appeals to me. Coming from a predominantly 3E and 4E background you often spent your money on making your self better at your profession (ie. Murder Hobos) and that was fine with me. Now the idea is to buy a Keep and have a side game of  SIMs while we play D&D and I really don't like that approach. Especially if/when I want to run a 5E Eberron game where the setting is really build around magic and the economy is set up with it in mind.

There isn't any reason that you can't have magic items for sale in your campaign and even make it commonplace. The game simply makes it clear that it is YOUR decision to do so. No one who takes responsibility for the content of their own game should mind this at all.

If you are not the one running the game then such decisions aren't yours to make anyway. Magic item availability and the rarity of such things should be a decision left to the GM.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807105Yeah, and if you weren't speculating but going by actual experience with the rules like the OP asked, you'd see that magic items do have a gp value and the DMG explicitly tells you that if you want ye ol magic shop, here's how to do it.  So your guesswork is flat out incorrect.

Considering that I don't have the DMG I can only go off what my experience with the system has given me thus far. My guesswork was that the DMG might have these options. Great. It was correct however I still don't have the book yet. Right now with the PHB and the Basic Rules PDF, magic item shoppes aren't assumed to be apart of the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807105So I go back to my original statement.  The OP was asking for actual in game experiences.

To which I DO, unless you think I'm lying for some retarded reason?? My experiences with the system do not lend to one book. So I guess if I don't have every single piece of printed material with the entire system yet, my experience is now null and void? Guess what, I didn't play through Hoard of the Dragonqueen yet, does that mean my groups sessions with the system right now don't count?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807105I'm about done with people like you who have this incessant need to bitch about the game without actually playing it.  You guys make just about every thread toxic because in  nearly every case, your problems aren't actual problems and it's needless arguing.

So in other words: Derp derp derp, blah blah, derp. Thanks for that insightful rant of insipid trash.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807106So, to you it "seemed" like it would not work for you, and you may or may not have experienced that it is in practice not working for you?

With the PHB and the Basic rules PDF as our sources for playing the game, we haven't come across any reason to believe that magical marts/shoppes would be things we could spend our gold on. Magical items, with these two supplements, are specifically tied to monster hordes and found treasure. RIGHT NOW it seems as though buying and selling magical items isn't apart of the game.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807106You thought it would suck, you still think it sucks.

Nope. Never said it sucks. I said that the idea of using gold for other things outside of upgrading characters isn't particularly my cup of tea. I'm not a fan of some of the suggestions like raising a keep or army or spending gold on things like taxes, tithes, and politicians. I NEVER said it sucked. So...try again.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;807106How does that in any way address the concept not working as well or easily as it seemed.  Spoiler: it doesn't.

I'm all for sharing opinions about what we like and what we don't like, but don't pretend like yours addresses the question when it obviously doesn't, especially when thats seems to be an armchair player opinion.

So, more Hur-durr dur. Thanks.

Circle of the Moon Druids seem to be really overpowered and broken to me. All druids get wild shape, but for this archetype, it's more than a little over the top.

I've been playing continuously through the whole playtest up until today, and I've GM'ed two groups that have advanced to 8th level. I'll tell you what I've noticed.

1. Don't worry about encumbrance. If your players are the type that end up as packrats, grab a blank silhouette form from the internet (like this https://bensmithsanimation.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/outline-body.png) and have them draw their gear on. There's a cat on youtube who is an archaeologist and European martial artist who does a great bit on what people historically walked around with.
 Schola Gladiatora (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llPAuGy6XvQ&list=UUt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA)

2. Magic is powerful at higher levels, but not as much as you think. There are certain situations where a spellcaster will just outclass anyone else, and other situations where the other characters will outclass the caster. Once a caster gets Fireball, throwing piles of low-HP creatures at them will just be feeding meat to the tiger. On the other hand, they're still far weaker than other classes, with poorer HP and AC, so big critters (like giants and the like) can one-shot even middling level wizards.

3. Ignore the internet. Or, well, ignore the belly aching on the internet. People love to hypothesize about what 'might' appear. Distinguish between 'personal taste' and 'broken'.  Personal taste is when a player wants a system to do something different, such as making magic weaker or stronger. Broken is when the game doesn't actually do what it says on the tin. You won't find too many genuinely broken things in games. If it's not a problem at your table, it's not a problem.

Quote from: Batman;807109Nope. Never said it sucks. I said that the idea of using gold for other things outside of upgrading characters isn't particularly my cup of tea. I'm not a fan of some of the suggestions like raising a keep or army or spending gold on things like taxes, tithes, and politicians. I NEVER said it sucked. So...try again.


So, more Hur-durr dur. Thanks.

Ooookay.  Was "sucks" a naughty curse word to you?

Quote from: Batman;807101My experience is that the design goal of D&D:Next is so that magical items aren't on display as things anyone can go into a shoppe and buy. Nothing up to this point has given me reason to think this has changed.

The question was: "is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?"

The concept of non-magical items not being on sale does not work for me.

You thought it wouldn't work for you, and you still think it doesn't work for you. That does not indicate any change of opinion or expectation. If you can't punch your way out of that paper bag, you are sad, sad little munchkin.

Quote from: Batman;807087Hm, I guess for me it's the idea that player's can't buy magical items. I don't have the DMG yet and I hear there are some pricings in there for magical items but that sort of runs counter to the game.

Counter to what game, and in what way?

Quote from: Batman;807087I believe the intent is that you're supposed to be using your gold for things in-game like keeps and taxes and tithes and greasing politicians / local authority palms, and etc but to be perfectly honest, none of that really appeals to me. Coming from a predominantly 3E and 4E background you often spent your money on making your self better at your profession (ie. Murder Hobos) and that was fine with me. Now the idea is to buy a Keep and have a side game of  SIMs while we play D&D and I really don't like that approach. Especially if/when I want to run a 5E Eberron game where the setting is really build around magic and the economy is set up with it in mind.

If/when you want to run an Eberron game where the setting is really built around magic, then unless you're a feeblminded goat you'll do what you want as the GM.

Just to draw your attention back to the OP:

Quote from: Vic99;806911For those of you that have actually played 5e, is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?  I have a few ideas, but I don't want to start the thread by biasing it in one direction.  Thanks.

You continue to fail to demonstrate some mechanic or concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed.  You never thought not selling magic items to PCs (whether that is actually true in the game or not doesn't seem to influence you) would work out well or easily, so all you're doing is griping about an element of the game you don't like, not that its effects were unexpected. Again, gripe away, but pretending that it's relevant to the OP is sad.  

Quote from: Batman;807109With the PHB and the Basic rules PDF as our sources for playing the game, we haven't come across any reason to believe that magical marts/shoppes would be things we could spend our gold on. Magical items, with these two supplements, are specifically tied to monster hordes and found treasure. RIGHT NOW it seems as though buying and selling magical items isn't apart of the game.

You need the game rules to tell you what you can spend your money on and whether or not there are magic shoppes in that setting? Does the GM of your setting not determine those things? Projecting your weird inferences from the PHB and basic PDFs about the economy of magic items is just shitty icing on a shitty cake.

Oh, I almost forgot. Here's the translation into rhetoric you seem to understand.

Hurr-durr-derp!

Everything works pretty much as they said it would, based on playtest and playing basic packet here. I can see doing a BASIC game, though I'd want a few more backgrounds to choose from. There's really just things I don't care for. Still think DEX is an uber stat, and think the whole game would work fine with 3 stats (STR, DEX, MIND), but I can't find much fault, save to chime in with CR not truly representing threat. Even the BASIC PC's carved up most things I tossed at them, including a pair of supposed very tough encounters.

Batman, the point I'm trying to make is if you aren't playing with all the rules, don't bitch about the rules not having what you want.  It's like ordering a barebones car and bitching that it doesn't have power windows or A/C.  If that's what you want, then go get it.

That's hardly the game's fault for failing to meet your expectations because you choose not to play with the rules that you want to have.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807120Batman, the point I'm trying to make is if you aren't playing with all the rules, don't bitch about the rules not having what you want.  It's like ordering a barebones car and bitching that it doesn't have power windows or A/C.  If that's what you want, then go get it.

You and I have a very different definition of bitching. I'd say I'm pleased with about 95% of D&D:Next. It does MANY MANY things right. It cuts down on a lot of the chaff I've encountered with other editions, doesn't fuel numbers porn, maintains interesting role-playing, introduces really fun backgrounds that have great build-in ideas, and all around is fun and easy to get into.

I have one minor quibble in the form of magical items. This minor quibble is directly related to my experiences with the amount of the game we've encountered so far. And yes, apparently this has been addressed in the DMG. I didn't know that. I'm glad that it has and gives me a definite reason to go out and get it within fairly short order.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807120That's hardly the game's fault for failing to meet your expectations because you choose not to play with the rules that you want to have.

Which doesn't mean that I don't have any experiences what so ever with the system, an accusation that was just leveled against me. And it also doesn't mean that I hate the system or think it sucks either.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807105Yeah, and if you weren't speculating but going by actual experience with the rules like the OP asked, you'd see that magic items do have a gp value and the DMG explicitly tells you that if you want ye ol magic shop, here's how to do it.  So your guesswork is flat out incorrect.

So I go back to my original statement.  The OP was asking for actual in game experiences.  I'm about done with people like you who have this incessant need to bitch about the game without actually playing it.  You guys make just about every thread toxic because in  nearly every case, your problems aren't actual problems and it's needless arguing.

Umm OK.  I've been running a campaign through 8th level now.  The party has sought out and purchased a few magical items in game.  The 5e price list is not quite as good as the more granular price lists of previous editions for purchasing said items.  It also has some kind of bizarre results what with scrolls being so relatively expensive for a one use item compared to the multi-use items and whatnot.  It does the job for now.  As I play more and get more accustomed to 5e, this is an area I plan to eventually apply some elbow grease.

Not sure why Batman is saying PCs cannot purchase magic items in 5e.  That is totally up to the DM's milieu.  But I agree with his overall point.

Stealth and hiding are a little too vague for newer/less experienced GM's

My Gm is having a problem with how exactly to work it and balance it out to be useful and not too strong or easy a thing.

I think I won't have issues with it but I can see why newbie Gm's might need more guidance.

Quote from: Batman;807101My experience is that the design goal of D&D:Next is so that magical items aren't on display as things anyone can go into a shoppe and buy. Nothing up to this point has given me reason to think this has changed.

The question was: "is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?"

The concept of non-magical items not being on sale does not work for me.

They stopped calling it Next when the playtest ended.

5e discourages flat out "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" since 5e vastly downplays magic items. Characters arent likely to find even a +1 item till around level 5. Loot is alot less.

That does not though prohibit the occasional item being on sale in amongst other more mundane items. And basic healing potions arent even magic items now so you can "legally" stock a shop with them.

For me this all works as I tend to prefer not seeing a magic shop anyhow till later in the adventuring career. Usually placed in a major city.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;807107In practice there are a few dips that are fairly useful. In my first campaign I wanted to test everything so I allowed freeform multi-classing. The cleric dipped into warlock and can thus regain healing spells on a short rest which is pretty powerful but not game breaking.

er, I dont think it works that way...

Quote from: Omega;807069I am personally actually pretty happy that the 5e multiclassing rules make multiclassing "dipping" just about useless. No one in the group I am in or DM for has any interest in multiclassing.

I hate dipping, too. It's the fact that 3e multiclassing doesn't support "even splits" like a traditional AD&D multiclassed character that chuffs me.

How have the changes to the magic system worked out for you? I think that tying the strength of the spell to the level of the spell rather than the level of the caster is an interesting change.

Quote from: Baron Opal;807196How have the changes to the magic system worked out for you? I think that tying the strength of the spell to the level of the spell rather than the level of the caster is an interesting change.

I think it helps with keeping the casters more on-par with their non-caster counterparts. It keeps LFQW from happening.

Quote from: Omega;807172er, I dont think it works that way...

Actually, it does:

Quote from: PHB p164if you have both the Spellcasting class feature and Pact Magic class feature you can use the slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature

Quote from: FaerieGodfather;807179I hate dipping, too. It's the fact that 3e multiclassing doesn't support "even splits" like a traditional AD&D multiclassed character that chuffs me.

What would be the major problem of using the old AD&D form of multi- / dualclassing rules with the 5e rules? The game would be quite different, but should probably work anyway.

Quote from: Beagle;807247What would be the major problem of using the old AD&D form of multi- / dualclassing rules with the 5e rules? The game would be quite different, but should probably work anyway.

That's what I'm doing. It seems to work so far, but we're still pretty low-level and new to the system, so it's not exactly stress-tested. Might have to adjust the XP tables to get it to work right-- right now, I'm using 150% XP for 2 classes and 200% for 3 classes, but with bounded accuracy it seems like that might mess up combinations with good synergy.

On the other hand? "Good synergy" seems to rule out most spellcaster crosses. Most of your melee types do really well combined with Champion, and Warlock combines frighteningly well with Paladin and/or Bard.

Quote from: dbm;807241Actually, it does:

Oh. Thought he meant regain all his CLERIC slots on a short rest.

Quote from: Beagle;807247What would be the major problem of using the old AD&D form of multi- / dualclassing rules with the 5e rules? The game would be quite different, but should probably work anyway.

It doesnt work in 5e because you only have 20 total levels to go through. If you allowed the old AD&D style then someone could potentially reach the equivalent of 40 levels distributed, 60 levels, whatever. One problem mentioned was the amount of HP such a character would be packing then in a system geared to 20 HD PCs.

There was a discussion on this last year and the math gets pretty messy pretty fast. Even with a cap on it. Lets say you did it evenly between two classes to 10 each. The dual classer will have their 20 levels around when the single classer hits level 13 or the normal 5e dual classer hits 20.

Quote from: Omega;807577It doesnt work in 5e because you only have 20 total levels to go through. If you allowed the old AD&D style then someone could potentially reach the equivalent of 40 levels distributed, 60 levels, whatever. One problem mentioned was the amount of HP such a character would be packing then in a system geared to 20 HD PCs.

There was a discussion on this last year and the math gets pretty messy pretty fast. Even with a cap on it. Lets say you did it evenly between two classes to 10 each. The dual classer will have their 20 levels around when the single classer hits level 13 or the normal 5e dual classer hits 20.

You can almost do it with 2 classes just taking alternate levels. Its not far off Multi-classing but substantially weaker.
But the problem with old Multi-classing was that it was over powered so that seems reasonable.

Aside from a couple of of minor issues with specific feats/powers etc my only real complaint is that everyone feels "magic". Even the Barbarian and the Battlemaster's mundane stuff still somehow feels magic. Back to the modular idea I think they need to publish an adventure path or similar that has a more S&S feel with magic dialed back and weirded up more. Now this is entirely personal but I was hoping the modularity thing would cover that option.

Or do Gestalt. I'm thinking gestalt might work reasonably well in 5e, since a lot of the stacking shenanigans would be reduced.

Quote from: Will;807595Or do Gestalt. I'm thinking gestalt might work reasonably well in 5e, since a lot of the stacking shenanigans would be reduced.

But what character concept needs multicasting when you have Arcane tricksters (MU/thief), Eldritch Knight (Fighter/MU), Eldritch Knight or Ranger with the criminal background (MU/Fighter/Thief), Wizard + acolyte background (MU/Cleric)

Are we desperate for a Monk/Barbarian? or a Baladin ? (you can do a Baladin easily actually :) )

etc ... I can't see why people are looking to mimic the previously broken multi-classing rules when the new rules are far better.

I agree, but hey, it's an option.

I'm all for more options.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;807105Yeah, and if you weren't speculating but going by actual experience with the rules like the OP asked, you'd see that magic items do have a gp value and the DMG explicitly tells you that if you want ye ol magic shop, here's how to do it.  So your guesswork is flat out incorrect.

So I go back to my original statement.  The OP was asking for actual in game experiences.  I'm about done with people like you who have this incessant need to bitch about the game without actually playing it.  You guys make just about every thread toxic because in  nearly every case, your problems aren't actual problems and it's needless arguing.

You've got a serious problem. That doesn't necessarily make you different from many posters on forums like the present one, but you somehow decided to make it everyone else's problem. Like this thread here. I can't even begin to describe how bizarre it is to read this same post of yours, which you wrote like 8 months ago, over and over, in total disregard to other people's context, or even (heaven forbid) the context of their posts.

I'm really quite floored by how far the forum has come in piling up on people who dare to have an opinion other than their own. You might wanna reread this post of Jeff Rients a propos 4e:

http://jrients.blogspot.nl/2008/07/4e-reader-response.html

It's basically the only valid response to the gang who's taken hostage of 5e discussions here. The notion that edition discussions, or game discussions per se, are only legit among active, long term players of the game in question (aka the supporters - only a masochist would indulge in playing a game s/he dislikes on a long term basis), is so obviously inimical to friendly, sober dialogue, that the only interesting thing left to do with threads like these is marvel at the extent of intellectual and emotional insecurity that exerts its constant hold on the 12-15 people left regularly 'contributing' to 5e threads.

Quote from: Windjammer;808024It's basically the only valid response to the gang who's taken hostage of 5e discussions here. The notion that edition discussions, or game discussions per se, are only legit among active, long term players of the game in question (aka the supporters - only a masochist would indulge in playing a game s/he dislikes on a long term basis), is so obviously inimical to friendly, sober dialogue, that the only interesting thing left to do with threads like these is marvel at the extent of intellectual and emotional insecurity that exerts its constant hold on the 12-15 people left regularly 'contributing' to 5e threads.

I don't really know the history of whatever beef you have here, but the context of the OP was specifically in regard to actual play experience. So from an ignoring context perspective it all seems pot-kettle to me.

Quote from: Vic99;806911I hope to start a 5e D&D campaign from first level in the next month.  I've got the three core books and have read most of each.  Been playing D&D for over thirty years, although I skipped 4e.  The more stream-lined approach of 5e really appeals to me, especially the elegance of advantage/disadvantage.

For those of you that have actually played 5e, is there a mechanic or a concept that does not work as well or as easily as it seemed?  I have a few ideas, but I don't want to start the thread by biasing it in one direction.  Thanks.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;808046I don't really know the history of whatever beef you have here, but the context of the OP was specifically in regard to actual play experience. So from an ignoring context perspective it all seems pot-kettle to me.

Don't worry about it.  I think Windjammer has some serious issues with reality.  Every few months he pops in to attack me personally, with reasoning that makes no sense at all.  He did this the same thing a couple months ago, and was quickly shown how wrong he was.

Just look at his post here?  My post from 8 months ago?  It was last week.

Maybe I stole his girlfriend or something, I don't know.

*Edit*  I will fully admit that my response to batman was aggressive and I was being kind of a dick.  But I'm not sorry about it.  AFAIC, he's established himself with a long history of jumping into threads to bitch about a game without actual game experience.  He's no different that people like Paraxis, or any of the other usual suspects who base everything on theorycrafting rather than actual play.  And what I've found is that 5e, probably moreso than any other edition, cannot be accurately evaluated based on theorycrafting.  So when there's a thread from someone asking specifically about actual play, that theorycrafting bitching gets old fast.

Sacrosanct likes to go up my ass with mining equipment on other subforums, and he and I get along about as well as cats in a wet sack.

He is totally right, here.

Well, thanks for all the serious replies to those who tried to answer my question. I realize that threads can go off topic. Sometimes a poster can read the question too quickly or really wants to use the topic as a spring board to talk about whatever his thing is related to the thread topic . . . I think I have done that.  Any other 5e play tested experience out there?  Thanks.

I've run and played 5E since the PHB was released and bought each core book pretty much from release date.

I've run quite a few of the classes and races from 1st level up to about level 5.
So I think I have a pretty good feel for 5E now.

Having run 5E for a player for a Moon Druid, I really don't know what the concern is.
Sure they're powerful, like all the classes in different ways, but the Shapechange thing is limiting as well.
No spellcasting in the wildshape (a major drawback for a caster class)
Can't really communicate with others properly
Limited number of times to shapechange anyway.
It has to be a beast the Druid shapechanges into.
The damage isn't that fantastic really and the AC is often pretty bad.

Overall I'm very happy with 5E.
I DO think the whole tool proficiency thing was confusing at first. I don't know they just didn't use skills instead of having this catch all tool proficiency, but it's no big deal really and I've gotten used to it now.

Quote from: danskmacabre;808057I've run and played 5E since the PHB was released and bought each core book pretty much from release date.

I've run quite a few of the classes and races from 1st level up to about level 5.
So I think I have a pretty good feel for 5E now.

Having run 5E for a player for a Moon Druid, I really don't know what the concern is.
Sure they're powerful, like all the classes in different ways, but the Shapechange thing is limiting as well.
No spellcasting in the wildshape (a major drawback for a caster class)
Can't really communicate with others properly
Limited number of times to shapechange anyway.
It has to be a beast the Druid shapechanges into.
The damage isn't that fantastic really and the AC is often pretty bad.

Overall I'm very happy with 5E.
I DO think the whole tool proficiency thing was confusing at first. I don't know they just didn't use skills instead of having this catch all tool proficiency, but it's no big deal really and I've gotten used to it now.

This aligns with my experience of the moon druid as well.  Often, he would have to use his 2nd usage to change back early (needed to talk, needed to cross the rope bridge, etc).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;808058This aligns with my experience of the moon druid as well.  Often, he would have to use his 2nd usage to change back early (needed to talk, needed to cross the rope bridge, etc).

Agreed. This has been an issue on several occasions where the player had to balance the disadvantage of staying in Beast form (due to various circumstances) or turning back into a humanoid form and using up a valuable shapeshift slot.

I also didn't like the "Long rest = full HP heal", but the DMG has a nice alternative of full HD + CON bonus healing on a long rest, which works very well.
That way, if a party is hammered really hard for some reason, a full rest is still good, but most likely they'll not be back on 100% HPs after resting for 8 hours.

Which makes more sense and feels better to me.

Quote from: danskmacabre;808068I also didn't like the "Long rest = full HP heal", but the DMG has a nice alternative of full HD + CON bonus healing on a long rest, which works very well.
That way, if a party is hammered really hard for some reason, a full rest is still good, but most likely they'll not be back on 100% HPs after resting for 8 hours.

Which makes more sense and feels better to me.

the houserule I used, long before the DMG actually came out, was no healing on full rest, but you did get all HD back.  So if you were really weakened, you could use those HD to heal back some, but then of course you used them so you wouldn't have them for short rest healing.  Or however you wanted to manage them.

Quote from: Beagle;806964I think it is a good idea to keep the grappling rules as simple as possible while making it a useful option. As is, grappling isn't particularly useful.

Oh my, you don't know just how wrong you are.   Behold, the secrets revealed (http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4142801).

Seriously, grappling is awesome in 5e.  It's just that it's subtle.  But once you know how to use it, it's very very powerful.

Quote from: Windjammer;808024It's basically the only valid response to the gang who's taken hostage of 5e discussions here.

STFU you whiner, nobody has taken anyone hostage.  If you feel like you're drowning in a sea of people who disagree with your world view, it's either your own lack of confidence in your world view, or your world view just wasn't strong to begin with.  But don't blame others for your feelings.  Everyone's handling the discussion just fine except you.

My 5E players discovered grappling a few weeks ago, and yes, it can be extremely effective.

Grappling was one of those things where I was guilty of not following my own advice.  Initially upon skimming the rules, I didn't feel like it was all that great so I didn't bother attempting it.  But like I keep saying, I needed to actually see how it worked in actual play before dismissing it.  It really augments my battlemaster fighter very well, as far as controlling the enemy goes.

I think that group of gamers who follow the philosophy of "If my PC isn't doing as much damage as every other PC" are missing out on a lot, and are probably inadvertently making the entire party less effective.  It's not PC vs PC, it's the party vs monsters.

I just had this come up on ENWorld yesterday as a matter of fact.  I had mentioned how my halfling BM fighter used action surge to get a total of five attacks in the first round, using his superiority dice on each attack, forcing the dragon they were fighting to make a saving throw on each one.  That ended up using up all of the dragon's legendary resistance, opening it up for the casters.

Saelorn (I think that's how you spelled it), was saying that the BM is still not as good as the caster becuase his maneuvers that forced a save weren't nearly as good at the caster's spells that required a save.  My position was that you shouldn't compare maneuver vs spell because that wasn't the objective.  The objective was overcoming the legendary resistance, and just because the BM didn't do 50 pts of damage with a fireball, his actions accounted for 25 of those points since the caster's damage would have been halved if the dragon still had legendary resistance remaining.  so the point was not to look at each individual power/skill/spell and make a comparison, but to evaluate each in the greater context of a team sport, so-to-speak.

So how does this relate to grappling?  If you're the grappling PC, you don't need to do as much damage as everyone else, because you're effectively increasing their damage output by putting them in a position to inflict greater harm.  Without you grappling, your party might not even hit.

This is one area white room analysis SERIOUSLY falls apart. It reminds me a little of chess.

White room analytics folks would be the sort of chess player obsessed with not losing a piece.

Quote from: Will;808144This is one area white room analysis SERIOUSLY falls apart. It reminds me a little of chess.

White room analytics folks would be the sort of chess player obsessed with not losing a piece.

White room analysis is very very tricky, and should always be taken with a grain of salt.  Yes, I can see the value of it, but only for basic comparisons.  "Should an axe do X damage over a sword" etc.

But there are sooooo many factors in an actual game session (environment, party composition, etc), that you really can't put a whole lot of weight on the results if you're evaluating something as complex as an entire combat encounter.

I see how DPS spreadsheets have a real value for an MMO because you're so constrained by code.  But in a tabletop RPG with people and a limitless environmental interaction?  Use with caution.

Quote from: Omega;807172er, I dont think it works that way...

It can given you can use use your Warlock spell slot with a Cleric spell but it's a costly way to go given you lose whole levels dipping into Warlock like that because they aren't considered full casters or semi-casters when multiclassing. You get their spell slot(s) but nothing else, so if you had a Cleric/Warlock 17/3 you have the slots of a 17th level caster with 1 or 2 free floating Warlock spell slots as a 17th level character.

Quote from: Will;808144This is one area white room analysis SERIOUSLY falls apart. It reminds me a little of chess.

White room analytics folks would be the sort of chess player obsessed with not losing a piece.

Quote from: Will;795329Yep. I haven't been able to be in a TT game for the last few years, hoping to start one after I move in another 6 months.

I do a little RPG stuff online, but it isn't the same.

So I contemplate games I'd like to do, reminisce about past games.

Hmm.

Quote from: soviet;808191Hmm.

:popcorn:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;808192:popcorn:

Perhaps we should avoid going down this path. I don't see anything useful coming out of it.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;808195Perhaps we should avoid going down this path. I don't see anything useful coming out of it.

It's not the start of some big attack, I've got nothing particularly against Will. Just seemed to me like he was on pretty thin ice.

So instead of making an argument, you're going to make suggestive inferences about the character and motives of a poster. That's really conducive to productive internet discussions!


White room analysis is marked by two things: lack of actual play experience, and, more importantly, the Reductionist's sin of deciding anything not easily quantified is irrelevant.

I've been gaming for over 30 years. I have a lot of actual play experience. Yes, I'm in a dry spell NOW, but that's a small fraction of my gaming life.

I also listen and consider other folks' play experiences. If you've paid any attention to my comments about 5e, it's either 'this is what I've read' or 'this is what I've heard,' and I've weighed it accordingly.
For example, I keep hearing that multiple low level enemies can be a credible threat to high level enemies. That's not immediately obvious from a casual read-through, but I'm inclined to believe it because I've heard it a lot and not heard any real counter claims.

The bit that's more important is that white room analysis is sterile. It focuses on easily manipulated numbers and DPS and whatnot. I... totally don't do that, and even reading a few of my posts should make that screamingly clear.


In short, you are a fucking idiot.

Quote from: Will;808208So instead of making an argument, you're going to make suggestive inferences about the character and motives of a poster. That's really conducive to productive internet discussions!
--snip--
In short, you are a fucking idiot.

:hmm:

Quote from: Ronin;808221:hmm:

Heh.

Will, if I can do all that just by quoting you without additional comment, then I don't know what to tell you. Pointing out a potential issue with your argument is not the same thing as attacking your character and motives.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I had a D&D session tonight.

Then I'll keep it short.

Not having gamed in a few years has absolutely nothing to do with white room analysis.

Quote from: Will;808361Then I'll keep it short.

Not having gamed in a few years has absolutely nothing to do with white room analysis.

Actually in 9 cases out of 10, it has everything to do with it.

Quote from: soviet;808331Heh.

Will, if I can do all that just by quoting you without additional comment, then I don't know what to tell you. Pointing out a potential issue with your argument is not the same thing as attacking your character and motives.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I had a D&D session tonight.

I see what you did there.

What is 'white room analysis'? :)

  I think we have a question of definition here, with a term that some are using as 'precise spreadsheet calculations of strictly delimited factors' and others as 'anything not based on firsthand actual play experience.'

  (And I also think the emphasis on 'firsthand actual play experience' is a combination of practical wisdom--some things aren't clear until you experience them for yourself--and the postmodern 'how dare you question my experiences? Only the personal matters, and the personal is political! I define myself and my own reality; I shall mount to the throne of the Most High, I shall be as God, I Will Not Serve!' :) )

Quote from: Will;808361Then I'll keep it short.

Not having gamed in a few years has absolutely nothing to do with white room analysis.

Dry spells aside it has everything to do with discussion of a game that you have never played.

I have been gaming for almost 35 years but have never really played Runequest. Any contributions I could make to a discussion of that game would be devoid of any actual play experience.

Having been away from the table for a few years puts you in the same boat with regard to 5E. You haven't played it, so comments about how it plays are uninformed.

Past experience is useful when dealing with general issues like playstyles, behavior, and such but there is no substitute for actual play. Claiming that general gaming experience matters in discussions about actual play of 5E would be like me claiming that all my past GURPS experience is relevant to a Runequest actual play discussion.

Apples & Oranges.

I have tried to be quite clear in my comments about 5e that I'm either hypothesizing, stating things I'd like to try, or reactions I've seen a lot from other people.

Like 'low level creatures remain a threat against high level creatures when in large numbers.'
I have no experience with this, it's very different from 3e, and it's not obvious from just reading it. But actual play reports keep saying it, so I'll say (in other threads) that it appears to be true based on APs.

If I ever actually claim something based on my personal experience with 5e, I invite everyone to ding me for it.

Quote from: Will;808439I have tried to be quite clear in my comments about 5e that I'm either hypothesizing, stating things I'd like to try, or reactions I've seen a lot from other people.

Like 'low level creatures remain a threat against high level creatures when in large numbers.'
I have no experience with this, it's very different from 3e, and it's not obvious from just reading it. But actual play reports keep saying it, so I'll say (in other threads) that it appears to be true based on APs.

If I ever actually claim something based on my personal experience with 5e, I invite everyone to ding me for it.

Fair enough.

I haven't played 5th edition yet, but I've come up with a 47 page house rules document based on some threads over at rpg.net.

Quote from: Brad;808449I haven't played 5th edition yet, but I've come up with a 47 page house rules document based on some threads over at rpg.net.

13 pages on a pew pew fighter
4 pages nerfing the druid wildshape
8 pages of new names for basically the same race
10 pages on tactical grid combat with explicit rules telling players they can pick their nose if they want, and how to resolve it
10 pages on the super uber warlord class
and 2 pages listing magic item shop prices

Quote from: Sacrosanct;80845113 pages on a pew pew fighter
4 pages nerfing the druid wildshape
8 pages of new names for basically the same race
10 pages on tactical grid combat with explicit rules telling players they can pick their nose if they want, and how to resolve it
10 pages on the super uber warlord class
and 2 pages listing magic item shop prices

  5E: Your D&D, Your Way*

  *So long as you can document 1000 hours of actual play experience, 200 hours of DMing, 20 years of overall experience in the hobby, ownership of 1E, BX and Holmes in original printings (or OD&D in any form), attendance at no less than 4 GenCons, 50 hours of tabletop wargaming experience, destruction of all 4E material previously possessed, a signed Oath of Loyalty to Demogygax, and the conferral of the Sacred Viking Hat of True Old School 5E DMing by either RPGPundit, High Anticleric of the World; Zak S, High Anticleric of the Flesh; or the yet-to-be-ordained High Anticleric of the Devil

Quote from: Sacrosanct;80845113 pages on a pew pew fighter
4 pages nerfing the druid wildshape
8 pages of new names for basically the same race
10 pages on tactical grid combat with explicit rules telling players they can pick their nose if they want, and how to resolve it
10 pages on the super uber warlord class
and 2 pages listing magic item shop prices

It's uncanny!

I ran a 5th edition game two weeks ago (well, basic set w/some options from the PHB) and it went pretty well. There is a lot to like about the new version, and it'll probably become my #2 game due to the accessibility of the rules. One thing I don't particularly care for is the extremely flat power curve, but that could just be a knee-jerk reaction after playing AD&D for so long. I also wish there was a bit more variation in proficiency bonus (class-wise), but again, probably seeing the game through AD&D-colored glasses.

Quote from: Brad;808453It's uncanny!

I ran a 5th edition game two weeks ago (well, basic set w/some options from the PHB) and it went pretty well. There is a lot to like about the new version, and it'll probably become my #2 game due to the accessibility of the rules. One thing I don't particularly care for is the extremely flat power curve, but that could just be a knee-jerk reaction after playing AD&D for so long. I also wish there was a bit more variation in proficiency bonus (class-wise), but again, probably seeing the game through AD&D-colored glasses.

There's actually an optional rule in the DMG to use a die instead of a flat prof bonus if you want.  d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 depending on your PC level.  You'd just roll and add to your d20 roll instead of using the flat prof bonus.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;808454There's actually an optional rule in the DMG to use a die instead of a flat prof bonus if you want.  d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 depending on your PC level.  You'd just roll and add to your d20 roll instead of using the flat prof bonus.

I got the DMG for Christmas/Chanukah but haven't had a chance to even crack it open. Page number so I can take a look? From reading threads here, sounds like there are a ton of options in the book for customization.

QuoteThere's actually an optional rule in the DMG to use a die instead of a flat prof bonus if you want. d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 depending on your PC level. You'd just roll and add to your d20 roll instead of using the flat prof bonus.

If I remember correctly that's a rule that Mearls prefers to use in his games but that they went with the flat proficiency in the PHB because the other way is a bit more swingy.

Quote from: Brad;808455I got the DMG for Christmas/Chanukah but haven't had a chance to even crack it open. Page number so I can take a look? From reading threads here, sounds like there are a ton of options in the book for customization.

page 263

Quote from: Marleycat;808458If I remember correctly that's a rule that Mearls prefers to use in his games but that they went with the flat proficiency in the PHB because the other way is a bit more swingy.

Yep.  Mearls loved that idea, but was overruled ;)  I guess that speaks well of him, to not veto everyone else and stick with a rule he personally liked.

Because I don't have experience with 5e, among other things, I'm inclined to play/run 5e 'straight' for at least a few months, whenever I have the chance, to see how I actually feel about it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;808476Yep.  Mearls loved that idea, but was overruled ;)  I guess that speaks well of him, to not veto everyone else and stick with a rule he personally liked.

I agree. Part of being a good developer is trusting your team.

Quote from: Marleycat;808458If I remember correctly that's a rule that Mearls prefers to use in his games but that they went with the flat proficiency in the PHB because the other way is a bit more swingy.

I started using that rule last week for the exact same reason. My players were dubious (they're like that about everything) - and now they love it.

Quote from: Will;808485I agree. Part of being a good developer is trusting your team.

I would say the same thing about GM's listening to their players.

I also agree with you running your game vanilla before you start getting crazy changing rules or adding to them.

As for what's "wrong" with 5e? Not a lot imo. Nothing I consider beyond the "problem" line that I all RPG's have. For it's conceits - it's pretty sturdy and flexible.

I love the proficiency dice rule. There are just a few things to keep in mind:

1. Static does still work better for Spell DCs, it gets a little wonky otherwise. (unless you go spell dc = 8+ability score, and have the enemy roll your proficiency die as a penalty to their roll, but that is a bit more wonky feeling imo)
2. Bard's Jack of All Trades should progress d2/d4/d6 in the same way it originally progressed +1, +2, +3. Unless you really want to use D3 and D5.

Spoony thinks it's too streamlined and too balanced. He says the old games never were this streamlined and balanced.

If you have no life and waaaay too much time you can watch it here (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-1/) and here (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-2/).

Does he have a point?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;808499Spoony thinks it's too streamlined and too balanced. He says the old games never were this streamlined and balanced.

If you have no life and waaaay too much time you can watch it here (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-1/) and here (http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-dd-5th-edition-review-part-2/).

Does he have a point?

Jesus, fucking, christ. Is there a condensed/summarized version I can actually respond to? Is there a reason he needs two fucking hours to review the book?

I've played 5e several times now. I think it came out a lot better than Mike Mearls made it sound like it would, and I haven't noticed any big issues. The main problem I am concerned about is the balance between full casters and non casters; in our main campaign that's gone through every edition since 2e I play a mid to high level fighter so I was worried about losing some of the cool things I'd picked up during 4e (especially after how bad things were in 3e). I've been able to build a version of him in 5e dipping into both barbarian and ranger that has given me I think a decent amount of noncombat options without sacrificing his contribution in a fight. The designers have certainly made some effort to address all the LFQW stuff, but I'm not sure it's enough. I look at what our paladin, cleric, and warlord can do, and I'm worried about feeling overshadowed especially as we level up. We've only played those characters once in 5e so it's too early to tell yet, we've played more 5e with a different group of characters where I play a wizard and in that campaign I have definitely felt like the most powerful character by a significant margin. I guess that only actual play will tell whether this concern is valid or not.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;8084525E: Your D&D, Your Way*

  *So long as you can document 1000 hours of actual play experience, 200 hours of DMing, 20 years of overall experience in the hobby, ownership of 1E, BX and Holmes in original printings (or OD&D in any form), attendance at no less than 4 GenCons, 50 hours of tabletop wargaming experience, destruction of all 4E material previously possessed, a signed Oath of Loyalty to Demogygax, and the conferral of the Sacred Viking Hat of True Old School 5E DMing by either RPGPundit, High Anticleric of the World; Zak S, High Anticleric of the Flesh; or the yet-to-be-ordained High Anticleric of the Devil

Oh shut the fuck up and preferably piss off.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;808501Jesus, fucking, christ. Is there a condensed/summarized version I can actually respond to? Is there a reason he needs two fucking hours to review the book?

Too streamlined and too balanced. He doesn't recognize AD&D 2nd edition in 5th. It plays too quick and too simple. AD&D has always been a bloated mess of rules. He liked it that way.

As an aside, I find nearly all video blogs to be really fucking awful excuses for people too fucking lazy to sit down and organize their thoughts.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;808501Jesus, fucking, christ. Is there a condensed/summarized version I can actually respond to? Is there a reason he needs two fucking hours to review the book?

I took a glance, and he did say something that other people said here. That cantrips are way too strong and OP.

He also hates advantage/disadvantage because it grants the same result no matter how big or small the advantage is. Spitting wine in the face grants the same advantage as having the high ground with a bunker of archers, etc. Also that it relies on "your ability to argue whether you have the advantage or not. It would become a court case where the GM and player try to wrangle advantage and disadvantage out of each other."

He says everything with death saving throws was made too abstract. Getting kicked by a halfling does the same thing as getting stabbed in the chest with a greataxe -- you fail one death saving throw. That and the chance of success and failure is the same whether you're some huge musclebound bodybuilder or a diseased weakling. In addition, it's way too hard to die.

He hates point buy because everybody ends up making the same optimal characters. He likes rolling for stats.

A thoughts from playing in a fairly beer-and-pretzels-y D&D5 campaign for the past few months:

1) Large numbers of creatures are really difficult to deal with, out of proportion with their listed challenge - particularly when they have special abilities like kobolds and goblins. It seems like the challenge number is based on how hard creatures are to kill, and not on how much damage they do. (Our 3rd level party was nearly wiped out by 12 kobolds yesterday.)

2) Healing is really hard on my suspension-of-disbelief - although admittedly I've had at least some problems with hit points in every edition. Healing completely in one night is strange, as is bleeding out to dead within seconds after being knocked unconscious, as is popping up so easily after being downed in combat. I would have preferred it if they made very common magic to facilitate such healing.

3) I've had no problems with spells or cantrips, but then I'm not hugely concerned with game balance.

4) A few rules are confusing, such as tool kits and others. Just lack of clarity and referencing, mainly.

Quote from: Will;808439Like 'low level creatures remain a threat against high level creatures when in large numbers.'

wasn't that supposed to be the point? I remember reading about the threat of low level monsters to high level characters as a design feature or something.

Something like this:

QuoteThe Monstrous Horde: Sometimes outnumbering the characters gives monsters a big tactical advantage. If you're creating an encounter with monsters that have a relatively low XP value compared to the XP budget for the party's level, you might end up with twice as many monsters as characters. However, if you looked at our preview of the hobgoblin, you'll have seen that even lower-CR monsters can become more dangerous when they fight as a group. As such, large numbers of monsters can skew the balance of an encounter.

Mearls and his L&L (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/building-adventures-0)

I've GMed most of the starter set (and have the three core books) and our group are a mix of 3rd and 4th levels, with: Battle Master Fighter 4, Trickster Cleric 3, Shadow Monk 3, Arcane Trickster, 3 Diviner Wizard, 3 multi-class Bear Totem Barbarian 3 / Fighter 1.

So far, all bar the Monk have done well. The monk was killed by a surprise attack from a bugbear whilst still first level, and his player created another monk who is still alive but has been put on the deck again since then. I started him at 1st level with his new character whilst the rest of the party had levelled to 2.

Previously we have usually done what we can to keep level parity even after death due to differences being tricky in past editions. I didn't do this here, so we could test out the effect of having disparate levels, and a 1-level difference is definitely viable. I think bigger level disparities would be tricky due to the chance of a 1st level character being one-shot'ed by a higher CR monster. It would require very cautious play by the lower level character.

All the characters have tactical options during combat, and resources to manage. We see this as a good thing. Casters are not notably more powerful than non-casters in the larger context of a sequence of combats. They are just more 'peak-y' with lower 'reguler' damage from cantrips but the possibility of higher burst damage. Although the fighter has a similar capability for burst damage with Action Surge!

Outside of combat all the characters still have options to contribute, which is excellent. No more of the fighter only having one or two skills out of a set of 20-ish potential skills.

The game is a joy to run. It has less moving parts than any post-2000 edition of DnD and the elements are more loosely coupled. It is very easy to make ref calls which help verisimilitude without feeling the need to root through the book looking for modifiers or special rules. Adjudicating short rests is just common sense, too, in my experience. Somewhere safe? Yes! In the middle of a dungeon? No! As long as the PCs aren't up against the clock there is little stopping them falling back to engineer a rest, but the monsters should respond accordingly.

Example from the Lost Mines of Phandelver

Spoiler

For example, the party assaulted Cragmaw Castle, fought through half of it then felt the need to bug out. They took a short rest so I decided the remaining monsters vacated the castle, leaving behind the doppelgänger disguised as the dwarf they were looking for. He led them into an ambush outside the castle and attacked himself with his surprise attack ability.

If they had had a full rest instead I was going to basically re-stock the entire castle and have them on maximum alert.

None of this was in the module, it just made natural sense based on the situation in hand.

Despite the characters having less components than in 3.x or 4e it is very easy to customise them and make them distinct. The combination of race, class and background gives a lot of variability and it is so easy to swap out a skill or proficiency to fine tune a character concept (for example, the trickster cleric wanted to have Intimidation rather than Persuade - no problem!).

It's the best DnD style game we have played in a long time. Prior to 5e 13th Age was our favourite current game of this type.

In terms of what is tricky to manage, Inspiration is a little fiddly. Unless the character has some kind of blatant characterisation it is quite tricky as the GM to decide when to award it. I probably need a chart of all character traits to run this effectively, like I would with Aspects in Fate.

I've just been avoiding Inspiration. There's already plenty of ways to gain advantage.

Quote from: dbm;808540In terms of what is tricky to manage, Inspiration is a little fiddly. Unless the character has some kind of blatant characterisation it is quite tricky as the GM to decide when to award it. I probably need a chart of all character traits to run this effectively, like I would with Aspects in Fate.

I'm just going with the suggestion from the DMG and letting the players reward each other Inspiration. My friends don't try to abuse the system, so I trust their judgment.

Quote from: Will;808524As an aside, I find nearly all video blogs to be really fucking awful excuses for people too fucking lazy to sit down and organize their thoughts.

Yep his mayor problem. He used to do proper reviews/rants on awful games which were really funny. Nowadays he just rambles. I guess he just gets paid for uploading something. His countermonkey stories are funny as well.