PDA

View Full Version : So excited for 5th



MadBear
2014-07-21, 11:10 PM
When I first heard the rules were up for free, I immediately read through the whole thing (twice actually). After I finished, I was completely satisfied with the direction that they were taking this edition. They closed the gap between martial's and casters (not even close to completely, but leagues above 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder), they simplified it with the proficiency system, they created a way for casters to feel relevant after their best spells are spent, differentiated how the rogue and fighter deal damage, etc.

I then ran over to the forums expecting to see a group of people equally excited about this new edition, and was stunned. I've been completely perplexed by the overall negative reaction to 5th on this forum. Not to say that some valid points haven't been made (they have), but this lack of interest stunned me.

So here's to all those out their like me, who can't wait to see this edition play out.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-21, 11:26 PM
I'll looking forward to the final release myself. Over all I like the direction and the feel of this version. Rules are a little less complex (for me at least) then what was in 3E/PF and less odd/restrictive to what was in 2E (again just a personal thing, nothing again the edition or people that love it). From all the time I've have play testing this D&D, this feels like a good solid match.

Callin
2014-07-21, 11:39 PM
So far I enjoy it. I will with hold final Judgement until the PHB is released. But if its not too far from where it is now its a win for me.

akaddk
2014-07-21, 11:41 PM
I then ran over to the forums expecting to see a group of people equally excited about this new edition, and was stunned. I've been completely perplexed by the overall negative reaction to 5th on this forum. Not to say that some valid points haven't been made (they have), but this lack of interest stunned me.

I actually think there is a lot of positive interest in the edition. It's simply that there are, like always, a vocal minority who drown out the positives. Plus, generally speaking, people are more likely to discuss negative aspects on forums than positive ones so the sound to noise ratio is always going to be high on a forum no matter how good the system is or could be. I also think that a lot of people want it to be good but are very apprehensive about a lot of the changes and can't quite get out of the mentality that they're currently in, in order to engage a more positive outlook.

I honestly think that this will be a successful edition once the PHB & MM are out and people have actually played it enough to get over their concerns. I also think that the DMG is going to address a lot of people's complaints with its modularity and rules options. Of course, this is speculation and only time and experience will tell but on the whole I see an undercurrent of positivity that is being overshadowed by a few loud voices.

Tholomyes
2014-07-21, 11:59 PM
I think a lot of the negative reaction is that people are looking for Fighters (and martials, more in general) to have significantly stronger options than just "I hit things" each and every round, and so far, it's sitting at a point where a lot of the evidence points to some lackluster stuff. Personally I don't think it's quite as damning as some others think, but I think it does need to be supported with future supplements to hold the system for me. I think they will support it, but it's important that the support both exists, and is quality.

For the most part, for me, time will tell. The simplicity isn't a huge plus, in my opinion, since the system math is simple, but doesn't work very well. The Saving throw proficiency system, means that non-proficient saves fall behind rather quickly, and a lot of similar places where the math falls apart. This doesn't completely damn the system for me, but it is a mark against it.

The last thing for me, is, I've tested a fair number of systems. I've seen a lot of mechanics. There are a lot of things that 5e does, which are pretty innovative for D&D (or may have been introduced in 4e, but refined for a more classic D&D style. Think Cantrips), but are fairly old hat, for my experience with other systems. Inspiration, as an example, would be really neat, but I've already seen similar things done, in the form of Hero Points, which also give players greater narrative power, in addition to just a reroll (or even in 5e's case, just advantage). So 5e has to do these things a lot better than I've seen them before, to really impress me, and so far it hasn't.

pwykersotz
2014-07-22, 12:07 AM
Just read the beginning of the longer threads that start over two weeks ago. You'll see everyone united in positive solidarity for some reason. :smallwink:

Chaosvii7
2014-07-22, 12:30 AM
I've loved this edition since I started playtesting from the beginning in 2012. I love the final product and where it's come all the way from. I still remember when the Halfling increased the damage dice for slings and short swords 1 die step, so the Halfling Rogue could do tons of damage by hiding behind an ally and breaking stealth for tons of damage.

Either way, this system has the charm of all of the old editions while using some of the best mechanics from all of them. It's taken cues from other games that have shaped the genre, even, and that's really only helped it. I'm ecstatic for when my PHB comes in, in August, and I look forward to soon being wholly engrossed in this system.

akaddk
2014-07-22, 01:06 AM
I'm ecstatic for when my PHB comes in, in August, and I look forward to soon being wholly engrossed in this system.
Oh to be American. I won't get mine delivered by Amazon until September :(

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 07:27 AM
They closed the gap between martial's and casters (not even close to completely, but leagues above 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder)

Sorry but they actually have not closed any gap, not yet at least. The casters are still god among the other classes. Hell you can end encounters with low level spells still.

The new rules put in make the game somewhat like 2e in this instance. Sure the rules help non-casters battle casters but the casters are still gods standing on the shoulders of other gods and about to form mechashiva while the non casters are more relatable to commoners.

Anything a fighter can do, can be done if you have enough common humans. No amount of common humans can do what a first level wizard can do. They still (from what we have seen so far) are putting non-casters in the realm of commoners instead of making them elite high fantasy badasses.

Hmm someone should make abrating scale on how many commoners it takes to replicate a class feature.

Like...
Level 1 Fighter = X commoners
Level 2 Fighter = Y commoners

And so on...

I like the basic idea of next, I really do. But there are so many minor things that they fudged up on... It makes me sad that they are using the fans as a scapegoat when they could have made this game badass as holy hell. I'll be putting out a homebrew version of my favorite stuff from previous editions because of this.

Tehnar
2014-07-22, 09:03 AM
Sorry but they actually have not closed any gap, not yet at least. The casters are still god among the other classes. Hell you can end encounters with low level spells still.

The new rules put in make the game somewhat like 2e in this instance. Sure the rules help non-casters battle casters but the casters are still gods standing on the shoulders of other gods and about to form mechashiva while the non casters are more relatable to commoners.

Anything a fighter can do, can be done if you have enough common humans. No amount of common humans can do what a first level wizard can do. They still (from what we have seen so far) are putting non-casters in the realm of commoners instead of making them elite high fantasy badasses.

Hmm someone should make abrating scale on how many commoners it takes to replicate a class feature.

Like...
Level 1 Fighter = X commoners
Level 2 Fighter = Y commoners

And so on...

I like the basic idea of next, I really do. But there are so many minor things that they fudged up on... It makes me sad that they are using the fans as a scapegoat when they could have made this game badass as holy hell. I'll be putting out a homebrew version of my favorite stuff from previous editions because of this.

Lets see how many commoners a fighter is equal to. Lets assume:

Hypothetical tough monster with 18 AC.

Lvl 1 Fighter, 18 STR, greatsword (two handed weapon style). DPR is 0.4*12.33+0.05*20.66=5.94 DPR

On the other hand lets have our commoner with a sling at long range has a DPR of 0.09*3.5= 0.315 (we will ignore critical hits). The commoner is attacking with disadvantage, but with the crazy A/DA rules he doesn't care if its dim light or the enemy is under some effect that hands out disadvantage to the attacker.

So a lvl 1 fighter is equal to about 19 commoners with slings attacking at long range. Seems about right.

At lvl 20 the fighter will have STR 20 and will still be using his greatsword. Against the same hypothetical tough monster (ignoring action surge for now). DPR is 4*(0.55*13.33+0.15*21.66)=42.34
So using the same logic as above a lvl 20 fighter is equal to 135 commoners. Or about 7 lvl 1 fighters.

So a level 20 fighter is about equal to a militia force from a large village / small town.

pwykersotz
2014-07-22, 11:28 AM
Sorry but they actually have not closed any gap, not yet at least. The casters are still god among the other classes. Hell you can end encounters with low level spells still.

Closed the gap in the context that MrPuppyTickler stated is more like narrowed the gap. You're saying the same thing here. :smalltongue:

Unless you believe that casters will be able to stack literal godmode as easily as previous editions, but then this turns into a whole different discussion.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 11:56 AM
Closed the gap in the context that MrPuppyTickler stated is more like narrowed the gap. You're saying the same thing here. :smalltongue:

Unless you believe that casters will be able to stack literal godmode as easily as previous editions, but then this turns into a whole different discussion.

I don't think it is even all that narrow. They attempted to and have put in rules that makes it appear to have narrowed... But really nothing has changed, sadly.*

*so far

Cibulan
2014-07-22, 04:25 PM
I'm cautious optimistic about this edition. I cut my D&D teeth on 3.5 and rather enjoy Pathfinder but we play with some people that have been playing AD&D for twenty years. They do not really care for PF but will humor us sometimes, but I feel like this is an edition we may all be able to get behind down the road.

Madfellow
2014-07-23, 09:50 AM
The problem right now is that all we have is the paper version of the rules--nobody outside of WotC has had the chance to play with these rules for an extended period of time. Just looking at the rules on paper, they do look very similar to 3e; wizards cast spells, fighters hit things. But a lot of people around here seem to be forgetting that all we have right now is the BASIC version of the rules, those specifically designed to mirror the simplicity that fighters had in 3e and previous versions. And because the rules resemble those of 3e, a lot of people seem to be making the leap that these rules have the same balance issues as before, without bothering to try them in practice at the gaming table. :smallfurious:

Lokiare
2014-08-01, 08:20 AM
The problem right now is that all we have is the paper version of the rules--nobody outside of WotC has had the chance to play with these rules for an extended period of time. Just looking at the rules on paper, they do look very similar to 3e; wizards cast spells, fighters hit things. But a lot of people around here seem to be forgetting that all we have right now is the BASIC version of the rules, those specifically designed to mirror the simplicity that fighters had in 3e and previous versions. And because the rules resemble those of 3e, a lot of people seem to be making the leap that these rules have the same balance issues as before, without bothering to try them in practice at the gaming table. :smallfurious:

WotC hasn't had the time to extensively play with these rules either. They did iterative changes to the rules, and they did it over the course of a few months. So they are right there where we are with just a few weeks of actual play on the final rules.

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 08:31 AM
For my own problem (the opposite of the OP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364681-Pathfinder-vs-Next-5th&p=17863841#post17863841)) I would appreciate some links to some threads having a good discussion about the pros and cons of next.

I am NOT looking forward mainly due to the loss of tools I experience. Granted, the PHB COULD solve that, but its not even out yet...
Can I build a coin throwing Screwge McDuck? No. Can I build a Summoner who slowly gets corrupted by the creatures he invokes? No. Can I build a Heavy Metal Bard? No.
Can I build a Wizard or a Fighter and then go down the alleyway of railroaded background information? Yes.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-08-01, 09:02 AM
For my own problem (the opposite of the OP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364681-Pathfinder-vs-Next-5th&p=17863841#post17863841)) I would appreciate some links to some threads having a good discussion about the pros and cons of next.

I am NOT looking forward mainly due to the loss of tools I experience. Granted, the PHB COULD solve that, but its not even out yet...
Can I build a coin throwing Screwge McDuck? No. Can I build a Summoner who slowly gets corrupted by the creatures he invokes? No. Can I build a Heavy Metal Bard? No.
Can I build a Wizard or a Fighter and then go down the alleyway of railroaded background information? Yes.

Screwge McDuck?: Tavern Brawler Rogue Halfling. Use improvised weapons such as money bags (sap) or coins (stats for daggers, make it bludgeoning damage). Refluffed the Halfling to be a duck race. You could even TWF with the thrown money.

The warlock was said to be able to summon. Corruption is a roleplaying aspect as of right now and really I prefer it that way.

Heavy metal bard? Yeah we have that already. Look for the bard preview and tell me that isn't metal. Play a Warforged (DMG i think) to literally be made of heavy metal.

Most of your complaints are either fluff or have been addressed in L&L/Leaks.

Backgrounds are super customizable, they are not railroads. If you actually read the background section in the basic pdf you would know this.

Friv
2014-08-01, 09:19 AM
Lets see how many commoners a fighter is equal to. Lets assume:

Hypothetical tough monster with 18 AC.

Lvl 1 Fighter, 18 STR, greatsword (two handed weapon style). DPR is 0.4*12.33+0.05*20.66=5.94 DPR

On the other hand lets have our commoner with a sling at long range has a DPR of 0.09*3.5= 0.315 (we will ignore critical hits). The commoner is attacking with disadvantage, but with the crazy A/DA rules he doesn't care if its dim light or the enemy is under some effect that hands out disadvantage to the attacker.

So a lvl 1 fighter is equal to about 19 commoners with slings attacking at long range. Seems about right.

At lvl 20 the fighter will have STR 20 and will still be using his greatsword. Against the same hypothetical tough monster (ignoring action surge for now). DPR is 4*(0.55*13.33+0.15*21.66)=42.34
So using the same logic as above a lvl 20 fighter is equal to 135 commoners. Or about 7 lvl 1 fighters.

So a level 20 fighter is about equal to a militia force from a large village / small town.

A Level 20 fighter has the DPS of 135 commoners provided he's up against low-level enemies, but he's quite a bit better than them, for the following reasons:

1) A Champion fighter at Level 20 is potentially equal to infinity commoners. If the fighter has AC 20 (magic plate armor and the Defense trait), only one commoner in 400 is going to hit him at long range, and when he gets hit enough he starts recovering enough HP per round (8-10) that it will take three decently powerful successful hits each round just to do any further damage. With a +12 or better to hit, he will always hit low-level opponents, and can kill four commoners a round, no problem, so he can just keep killing people until his sword arm gets tired and he feels like calling it a day. Short of him standing in an open field and calling on a thousand guys to shoot him full of arrows, he's not going to get beaten by any militia or conscript army of any size.

2) Unlike commoners, the fighter remains at full fighting strength until all of his HP goes away, and he has about a hundred commoners worth of HP between his actual HP, his Second Wind, and his Survivor. The commoners die to any given attack, and area effects will kill a number of them at a time. (On the flip side, against a single monster with good accuracy and damage but who only attacks once, or a monster who uses Save or Dies one at a time, the commoners have the edge, because the fighter can potentially be locked down. This applies only if the monster is fighting in the open, of course; a high-level stealthy monster can easily fight a milita three or four at a time and slaughter them wholesale.)

ImperiousLeader
2014-08-01, 09:40 AM
I'm surprised how eager I am for the 5th edition books. I remain a fan of 4e, it's the main edition I've played. 3.5/Pathfinder was ok, but 4e was the one that I really enjoyed. So I initially found 5th to be a repudiation of the things that I liked. But the new system is showing some surprising strengths.

1. Roleplaying. I don't think that 3.5 was better for roleplayers than 4th. But I do think that 5th is taking a step past both editions. Devoting a significant amount of space on the front page just for a character's personality and background, and giving some solid, but not intrusive mechanical weight to it through the Inspiration system is really good.

2. Cleaner, simpler rules. This doesn't surprise me. 4e tried to simplify 3.5, and 5th continues the trend. Plus, 5th is the new game in town, less material makes it simpler. But I like how simple they've kept the core rules.

3. Flexibility. If I have an issue with 4th, is that it's very good at running 4th ed, but the ruleset doesn't feel very flexible. 5th edition does.

I'm still in a "wait and see" mentality for how the game actually plays, but I'm eager to find out, which is new.

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 12:39 PM
The warlock was said to be able to summon. Corruption is a roleplaying aspect as of right now and really I prefer it that way.

Heavy metal bard? Yeah we have that already. Look for the bard preview and tell me that isn't metal. Play a Warforged (DMG i think) to literally be made of heavy metal.

Most of your complaints are either fluff or have been addressed in L&L/Leaks.

Backgrounds are super customizable, they are not railroads. If you actually read the background section in the basic pdf you would know this.

Thanks for the heads up, I did in fact read the PDF just before the post and I do feel that it tells me to go down one of the suggested roads cause I can't come up with them myself. I don't need to customize a background, I am able to come up with one myself.

I don't like to read over character suggestions in core either. And what is said to and leaked does not make it happen as for now. The decision to switch is made now, nothing is published yet.

Again, thanks for the outlook, but there is no need to be rude about it :smallwink:

1337 b4k4
2014-08-01, 01:41 PM
I don't need to customize a background, I am able to come up with one myself.

Which would be customizing a background. Just because it's custom from the bottom up doesn't make it any less custom.



I don't like to read over character suggestions in core either.

Frankly speaking, then don't read them over. While I'm generally a fan of not piling thousands of choices and options upon players, it absolutely helps both new and veteran players alike to have at least some examples to work from and draw inspiration from. I'm all for making it clear these aren't your only choices (and I think they do a pretty good job of that) but leaving examples and options out completely is a good way to lock out new players. Not everyone enjoys coming up with stuff from scratch. If you do, that's great, the examples don't prevent you from doing that.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-08-01, 01:46 PM
Thanks for the heads up, I did in fact read the PDF just before the post and I do feel that it tells me to go down one of the suggested roads cause I can't come up with them myself. I don't need to customize a background, I am able to come up with one myself.

I don't like to read over character suggestions in core either. And what is said to and leaked does not make it happen as for now. The decision to switch is made now, nothing is published yet.

Again, thanks for the outlook, but there is no need to be rude about it :smallwink:

Well if you want to ignore (and then post as if you didn't know about it) the part of the rules that says it is ok to mix and match and make your own background then expect people to think you have read the basic PDF... You are just lucky I wasn't channeling my inner Lok, then you would get to see rude (we all have a bit lokiare).

But let me get this straight, you hate it when core rules have fluff? So did you ever get mad when fireball added in fluff or when a class had fluff? This is by far the wildest and craziest complaint I've heard about 5e.

There are some real legitimate negatives about 5e, I get that, but to complain that there are packaged backgrounds that you can alter... Well I can't help but think you just want to nitpick or you just need something to complain about.

Actually right now you could use Gate to bring creatures into your world and they could corrupt you. Cleric 16 or whatever, but it is there. We do have rules for having undead (finger of death) you conjure forth an undead and eventually you are corrupted by the power of having undead minions.

So yeah, it is a new system that has limited options, but most of your complaints so far have been about fluff or things that have been shown to be in the PHB.

Sartharina
2014-08-01, 01:46 PM
Thanks for the heads up, I did in fact read the PDF just before the post and I do feel that it tells me to go down one of the suggested roads cause I can't come up with them myself. I don't need to customize a background, I am able to come up with one myself.And in this edition, you actually get benefits for the background you come up with!

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-08-01, 01:50 PM
and in this edition, you actually get benefits for the background you come up with!


oh the horror!!!!!

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 02:35 PM
And in this edition, you actually get benefits for the background you come up with!

Good roleplay can be rewarded with XP and by other means in any system.

Tying these rewards INTO a system this much shows that they are trying to get more people to play tabletop rpgs, which is awsome!

But for a established group of nerds/geeks players it might be just unnecessary bloat.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-08-01, 02:39 PM
Good roleplay can be rewarded with XP and by other means in any system.

Tying these rewards INTO a system this much shows that they are trying to get more people to play tabletop rpgs, which is awsome!

But for a established group of nerds/geeks players it might be just unnecessary bloat.

I bet you would be the first to complain that WotC was to lazy and cheap if they just brought out the mechanics with no fluff.

Sartharina
2014-08-01, 02:46 PM
Good roleplay can be rewarded with XP and by other means in any system.

Tying these rewards INTO a system this much shows that they are trying to get more people to play tabletop rpgs, which is awsome!

But for a established group of nerds/geeks players it might be just unnecessary bloat.

XP is terrible for roleplaying, because it's worthless unless it leads to power-up, and then it leads to imbalance. Inspiration/Action Points are much better rewards.

And, the background trait and skills are the real benefit. I can play my Catboy Inner-city-stripper-turned-Wasteland-Paladin now, and have his mechanics represent that background instead of having to kludge something together that almost gets me what I want and brings a bunch of other garbage with it.

Yuki Akuma
2014-08-01, 02:55 PM
Giving one player more XP than everyone else just because you think he's roleplaying better is a terrible idea. You shouldn't encourage power imbalances with the party.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-08-01, 02:59 PM
Giving one player more XP than everyone else just because you think he's roleplaying better is a terrible idea. You shouldn't encourage power imbalances with the party.

My current DM for a PF game gives out RP and Skill use XP...

I was level 4 by the time the rest of the party hit half way past level 2... No joke. I got my character killed in a way that I can't be implicated so that I would take the 2 level penalty for bringing in a new character.

huttj509
2014-08-01, 03:42 PM
Frankly speaking, then don't read them over. While I'm generally a fan of not piling thousands of choices and options upon players, it absolutely helps both new and veteran players alike to have at least some examples to work from and draw inspiration from. I'm all for making it clear these aren't your only choices (and I think they do a pretty good job of that) but leaving examples and options out completely is a good way to lock out new players. Not everyone enjoys coming up with stuff from scratch. If you do, that's great, the examples don't prevent you from doing that.

I've been loving the variety in the examples given. Helps give an image of "these 3 different characters could all be described as X." Especially stood out to me with the Paladin.

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 03:42 PM
Good roleplay can be rewarded with XP and by other means in any system.


And no Morbo, I would not complain in that case. But if you don't see the difference in importance between fluff and crunch.... you are just being rude again.

Sartharina made a much more sensible comment in pointing out that there are backgrounds who fit concepts. In some cases that can be nice and easy, I do like to come up with my own stuff first and THEN try to make it work, that's part of the fun. You can also be lucky and the options given fit your concept, as I said, in some cases that works, in others it might not.

I also made good experiences in the playtest 2012/13 when trying to create a gentleman killer. Noble background suited him nicely. On the other hand the last paladin I played with in PF had a horse and a squire who carried his stuff for him as well. As it didn't gave him huge/gamechanging benefits everyone was ok with that. So no need to pick up things from a list.

akaddk
2014-08-01, 03:45 PM
Can I build a coin throwing Screwge McDuck? No Yes. Can I build a Summoner who slowly gets corrupted by the creatures he invokes? No Yes. Can I build a Heavy Metal Bard? No Yes.

Fixed It For Reality.

hawklost
2014-08-01, 04:00 PM
.....
I also made good experiences in the playtest 2012/13 when trying to create a gentleman killer. Noble background suited him nicely. On the other hand the last paladin I played with in PF had a horse and a squire who carried his stuff for him as well. As it didn't gave him huge/gamechanging benefits everyone was ok with that. So no need to pick up things from a list.

So what you are saying, is that your Paladin also followed the Basic rules by making his own background effectively? Without following one of the sample backgrounds? The rules also give you a pretty broad range to 'customize' your background to whatever you feel like.

Customization options (Pick any or all options you wish to change)
-Change a Feature (pick one feature and change it with any other)
-Pick any 2 skills
-Choose up to 2 tool proficiencies or languages
-Choose starter equip from your background or roll
-Choose personality traits,1 ideal,1 bond,1 flaw.
- If something doesn't match what you want, talk with DM (make it up and if DM agrees, its all good)

EDIT: Note, if you 'customize' every part of the backgrounds, (which is Fully accepted by the Basic) then you ARE creating your own background. Remember: Sample = Guidelines NOT requirements or 'only this way'

So, Everything in a background can be completely changed to fit what you want. The samples we are given are just to make it easier for someone who doesn't play much or doesn't feel like spending a large amount of time creating a character to choose from. It is just like Race names, recommendations but not required.

Now, a background in general? Pretty good to have since it gives some benefits like a Feature and skills/languages. It also gives a DM (and you) a good sense of your character and for the DM many little plot hooks he could use if he wishes.

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 04:45 PM
Well if you want to ignore (and then post as if you didn't know about it) the part of the rules that says it is ok to mix and match and make your own background then expect people to think you have read the basic PDF... You are just lucky I wasn't channeling my inner Lok, then you would get to see rude (we all have a bit lokiare).

But let me get this straight, you hate it when core rules have fluff? So did you ever get mad when fireball added in fluff or when a class had fluff? This is by far the wildest and craziest complaint I've heard about 5e.

There are some real legitimate negatives about 5e, I get that, but to complain that there are packaged backgrounds that you can alter... Well I can't help but think you just want to nitpick or you just need something to complain about.

Actually right now you could use Gate to bring creatures into your world and they could corrupt you. Cleric 16 or whatever, but it is there. We do have rules for having undead (finger of death) you conjure forth an undead and eventually you are corrupted by the power of having undead minions.

So yeah, it is a new system that has limited options, but most of your complaints so far have been about fluff or things that have been shown to be in the PHB.

Missed this before.
(Btw: When did I ignore or post something I pretended to not know about? Where are you pulling these accusations from? Was there a misunderstanding?)


I have read the fact that you can mix/make up your own background, hm, lets call them 'traits' in 2012 or 2013 already.

Do I need this help, though? Do I need them to tell me that it is okay to make up a background? No. As a new player? Yes I might want that, but I am taking the point of somebody who already had at least SOME experiences with these games.

Do I think filling the only document that was released with fluff and not with crunch suggests a focus/marketing strategy that tries to appear to a wider audience? Yes, as are the simplifications of the rules. Do I think that if a comparatively big part of the released document is 'unnecessary' fluff, the quality of the content that will still be released will suffer? Yes.

Again, this changes when looking at it from a new player's perspective, which I am not.

And I don't have a problem with fluff, but writing down fluff options is rather easy, making content for a balanced, in itself logical AND easy to use system is NOT. The fact that I get to read over a lot of fluff in the published most BASIC rules, makes me doubt quality of further content and the motivations for creating this new product. Others might or might not share at least a part of my concern. You don't need to like my concerns, you can disagree with them, but if you do, please do so in a more polite manner or don't bother to discuss with me/answer my questions. I would prefer the former, as I am certain you know a great deal more about the future content of dnd 5th.

Thank you

Thank

hawklost
2014-08-01, 04:52 PM
Missed this before.
(Btw: When did I ignore or post something I pretended to not know about? Where are you pulling these accusations from? Was there a misunderstanding?)


I have read the fact that you can mix/make up your own background, hm, lets call them 'traits' in 2012 or 2013 already.

Do I need this help, though? Do I need them to tell me that it is okay to make up a background? No. As a new player? Yes I might want that, but I am taking the point of somebody who already had at least SOME experiences with these games.

Do I think filling the only document that was released with fluff and not with crunch suggests a focus/marketing strategy that tries to appear to a wider audience? Yes, as are the simplifications of the rules. Do I think that if a comparatively big part of the released document is 'unnecessary' fluff, the quality of the content that will still be released will suffer? Yes.

Again, this changes when looking at it from a new player's perspective, which I am not.

And I don't have a problem with fluff, but writing down fluff options is rather easy, making content for a balanced, in itself logical AND easy to use system is NOT. The fact that I get to read over a lot of fluff in the published most BASIC rules, makes me doubt quality of further content and the motivations for creating this new product. Others might or might not share at least a part of my concern. You don't need to like my concerns, you can disagree with them, but if you do, please do so in a more polite manner or don't bother to discuss with me/answer my questions. I would prefer the former, as I am certain you know a great deal more about the future content of dnd 5th.

Thank you

Thank

You seem to have some problem with Fluff when it relates to experienced players. So here is a challenge (for anyone really). Take the Basic rules, rip out only the fluff and see how many pages you save. See how much of the data you can get across to other experienced players without any fluff.

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 04:53 PM
So what you are saying, is that your Paladin also followed the Basic rules by making his own background effectively? Without following one of the sample backgrounds? The rules also give you a pretty broad range to 'customize' your background to whatever you feel like.

Now, a background in general? Pretty good to have since it gives some benefits like a Feature and skills/languages. It also gives a DM (and you) a good sense of your character and for the DM many little plot hooks he could use if he wishes.

-->
I also made good experiences in the playtest 2012/13 when trying to create a gentleman killer. Noble background suited him nicely. On the other hand the last paladin I played with in PF had a horse and a squire who carried his stuff for him as well. As it didn't gave him huge/gamechanging benefits everyone was ok with that. So no need to pick up things from a list.

That was IN Pathfinder, where no such rules exist. (I think this could have been read either way, though. If that was the case: Apologies!)
Which ties in my second point: You shouldn't need rules to get your players to play an interesting character that provides some hooks for you. Again, for new players this might help. But we are not talking new players.

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 05:01 PM
Fixed It For Reality.
Hilarious

Is there a Bard in the basic rules? These were the first things that came in my mind after reading through the basic or core rules. No doubt there will be future content, but I would still rather wait until that is out until I switch. The outlook I get from this PDF is a bit of railroading, the promise of keeping it like this at the most basic/necessary rules is not giving me the feeling that you can build equally as crazy things as in 3.5/Pathfinder is the point.

Dimcair
2014-08-01, 05:05 PM
You seem to have some problem with Fluff when it relates to experienced players. So here is a challenge (for anyone really). Take the Basic rules, rip out only the fluff and see how many pages you save. See how much of the data you can get across to other experienced players without any fluff.

Would be very interesting to know, maybe I am entirely wrong?
I DID read somewhere about the number of pages you need to read to create a character in comparison of some other system, tomorrow I see if I can find this again.

Abrahadabra
2014-08-01, 08:55 PM
I'm very excited too. I think balance is really overrated in non-competitive games, so I love how they're making casters really strong again. Of course, even though I think the normal gap (fighters stronger early, then both equal, then casters stronger) has to exist (and grow exponentially after a certain level), that gap was too big in the 3rd edition, and the fact that any pure wizard could be stronger at other roles without multiclassing was dumb. I mean, getting to level 9 starting with 8 str/10 dex, then casting polymorph for higher str/dex numbers than the fighter himself, then casting wraithstrike and/or divine power and greatly outperforming the fighter at his own job, that was pretty stupid. I think they're fixing that in this edition, which is nice. I just hope they make some kind of polymorphing wizard class for those who want that fluff, without outclassing the other fighters early on.

Of course, in much higher levels (say, after 7-8th level spells) I'm pretty ok with casters being op. Magic is magic. They could add something else for the fighting classes, maybe supernatural pacts or whatever, but if they keep a mundane nature they kind of have to be weaker.

I absolutely loved the new rogue, or at least the thief archetype. Actually, the four classes had quite a bit of their own unique awesomeness and I felt like playing all of them.

The only thing that has worried me so far is the problem with the saves disparity.

Knaight
2014-08-01, 08:59 PM
Is there a Bard in the basic rules? These were the first things that came in my mind after reading through the basic or core rules. No doubt there will be future content, but I would still rather wait until that is out until I switch. The outlook I get from this PDF is a bit of railroading, the promise of keeping it like this at the most basic/necessary rules is not giving me the feeling that you can build equally as crazy things as in 3.5/Pathfinder is the point.

There's a bard in the PHB, and the preview has been released. The basic rules are highly limited, as is to be expected from basic rules- look at GURPS Lite in comparison to GURPS. By every indication, all of those will be available with the PHB, which is the actual system.

Will the variety of 3.5 exist? Probably not. Your actual examples, though, are very much doable based on what we've seen of the Basic set and the class previews. As for waiting until the future content is out until you switch, that's pretty much the assumed case for everyone switching. For those of us who really don't operate under the "switch" paradigm at all, giving 5e a spin is much more palatable.

1of3
2014-08-05, 08:09 AM
I then ran over to the forums expecting to see a group of people equally excited about this new edition, and was stunned. I've been completely perplexed by the overall negative reaction to 5th on this forum. Not to say that some valid points haven't been made (they have), but this lack of interest stunned me.

This board is a shining example about how a hand full of people can suck all joy out of a thing. It's kinda fascinating.

archaeo
2014-08-05, 08:17 AM
This board is a shining example about how a hand full of people can suck all joy out of a thing. It's kinda fascinating.

It is kind of just this board, too. EN World and Reddit, which are probably more prominent points for discussion, seem to be pretty excited.

But like several people have said, it's the Internet; nobody should be surprised that a bunch of people are mostly here to argue over petty nonsense.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-08-05, 08:24 AM
This board is a shining example about how a hand full of people can suck all joy out of a thing. It's kinda fascinating.

I don't get to focused myself on the people that are nick-picking it to a letter. It doesn't affect me and my enjoyment of 5th edition at all. I like to read the posts here and interact a bit. I've gleamed some nice insight on different styles of RPing but when it comes to the heavily picking apart of the math and the tier system I just politely pass it by myself.

pwykersotz
2014-08-05, 11:30 AM
I don't get to focused myself on the people that are nick-picking it to a letter. It doesn't affect me and my enjoyment of 5th edition at all. I like to read the posts here and interact a bit. I've gleamed some nice insight on different styles of RPing but when it comes to the heavily picking apart of the math and the tier system I just politely pass it by myself.

I've found that for critical review, the playground is an excellent wealth of information. It doesn't matter what the attitudes of the poster are, people are disassembling the system and looking at the inside bits and I find it fascinating. Even the people who post incorrect information usually have something to show for it, some way of looking at a class feature or ability that I wasn't seeing before.