Results 211 to 240 of 577
Thread: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
-
2018-01-10, 02:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2016
- Location
- No Longer The Frostfell
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Well, that's not exactly correct. The DMG just says that a CR 9 creature is supposed to be a "good challenge" for a group of 4 9th level characters. So, if "good challenge" is 100% chance of success for you, then a Fighter 9 should have a 25% chance of success, but if "good challenge" is less that 100% chance of success, then that chance of any single character succeeding is going to be lower as well.
The DMG doesn't really outline challenges for individual characters, but for parties.
-
2018-01-10, 02:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Finland
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
The encounter would much depend on the circumstances (e.g. open areas make Air Elemental's mobility quite fearsome and it has the Whirlwind + reach advantage which makes it an annoying opponent particularly if its feats were picked reasonably. However, damage-wise you could just smack stuff together. Dragonborn [Races of the Dragon] Water Orc (Wings), 22 Str, 24 with level-ups, Power Attack, Shock Trooper [Complete Warrior], Leap Attack [Complete Adventurer], Headlong Rush [Races of Faerun], Battle Jump [Unapproachable East], Power Lunge [Ghostwalk], Mw. weapon and the numbers are 9 BAB, 7 Str, +1 weapon for +17. +19 on Charge, +1 higher ground. You could further ride a Pegasus or whatever, put your ranks in Handle Animal to train it for combat riding to give you more mobility and make it easier to deliver your damage. Even at -2 base, you'll have +10ish by level 9 which enables you to take 10 on the training. Note, you need Jump too so you need some Int.
You're privy to Dragonborn of Bahamut Diving Charge when you Dive from above if we use a Piercing weapon (ride your Pegasus/Whatever above the target and dive, also triggering Battle Jump - you have enough movement in a single action). We can take Law Devotion [Complete Champion] for +3 to ensure we hit on 4 or higher and higher ground bonuses let us hit on 3 or higher. Take e.g. EWP: Greatspear, damage on Charge is (2d6+14+27)*4 = 192 average, which kills a Greater Air Elemental in one hit on average. Now, this is using the weird Leap Attack math the errata causes; the probably intended math would lead you down to 36 Leap Attack damage being easily more than enough to kill. We're talking 8 feats here, so there's room for 1 more even without flaws.
1. Battle Jump
F. Power Attack
F. EWP: Greatspear
3. Law Devotion
F. Power Lunge
6. Headlong Rush
F. Shock Trooper
F. Leap Attack
9.
You could of course e.g. Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization or Aberration/Deformity feats for reach to avoid the attack of opportunity or play a natively Large race (add Half-Minotaur or Half-Ogre to the character for instance) or whatever to further improve on it, but damage is something Fighters are certainly quite competent at when sourcebook diving.Campaign Journal: Uncovering the Lost World - A Player's Diary in Low-Magic D&D (Latest Update: 8.3.2014)
Being Bane: A Guide to Barbarians Cracking Small Men - Ever Been Angry?! Then this is for you!
SRD Averages - An aggregation of all the key stats of all the monster entries on SRD arranged by CR.
-
2018-01-10, 02:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2018-01-10, 03:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2015
- Location
- Mid-Rohan
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
It's been years since I played 5e, but what I remember the game seems to rather encourage tables to be a bit more liberal with their application of Freeform elements of RPGs.
Having a skill system still gives us the satisfaction of rolling dice and adding numbers, even if the DCs aren't as almighty and powerful as they once were.
The "go build a fighter without magic items" is a tricky concept. Yes, you are supposed to have approximately WBL to count as being at appropriate power level, but having Optimal magic items was never guaranteed, either. Without just outright using the Magic Item Creation rules (which the fighter needs a friendly caster to help with), you can have your entire WBL and then some, only to find yourself not all that much better off for it because the particular arrangement of items was sub-optimal.
-
2018-01-10, 03:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Sovereign State of Denial
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
I'd vastly prefer it if this thread doesn't develop into deeply-intrenched arguments over the 'edition war'. I just wanted to get other people's reasons why they prefer 3e/3.5e/PF over other systems, if indeed they did. All systems have strengths and weaknesses.
-
2018-01-10, 03:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
-
2018-01-10, 03:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2015
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Actually, I just realized something. Why write a long text if I can just do this:
In 3.5e/PF I can play this as a character:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjVY0a0rxXg
Combined with this as a setting/storyline:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39j5v8jlndM
And it will work mechanically and not seem implausible at any point, unless we dive into Tippyverse. 5e won't let me be Vergil, not even at level 20. And Bahamut doesn't work with bounded accuracy.Elezen Dark Knight avatar by Linklele
Favourite classes: Beguiler, Scout, Warblade, 3.5 Warlock, Harbinger (PF:PoW).
-
2018-01-10, 03:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- Berlin
- Gender
-
2018-01-10, 03:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
I didn't like 4e. But I've found that 5e is good for some kinds of games and 3.5 good for others. As an example, I'd much rather run Ravenloft in 5e and Planescape in 3.5 than the other way around. Pathfinder is my preference for Eberron, though.
-
2018-01-10, 03:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
The point of a skill system is to reduce randomness. If I'm good at something, I'm supposed to succeed more than I fail, though I might still be able to fail occasionally (depending on circumstance or luck.) If I've optimized to where I can succeed on a 6 or a 3, I've often paid for that specialization elsewhere in my build and should be allowed to.
By leaving it wholly up to chance (i.e. "did he roll low, medium or high?") his DM is invalidating the system entirely. When you're at the whim of the dice to that degree - particularly the even distribution of 1d20 - modifiers and thus character creation become meaningless.
Maybe "optimal" items are not, but there is definitely a minimum expectation, even by WotC/Paizo themselves. The Big Six are the most commonly cited baseline, and #6 on the list of why players pick them from that article is even labeled "Required to Play." If your GM is not going to guarantee even that much, they need to tone the encounters you'll face down severely, especially for martial characters.Last edited by Psyren; 2018-01-10 at 06:12 PM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2018-01-10, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Cleveland, OH
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
It's a "roleplay heavy" group with mostly novice players, and everybody is having fun. The DM is good at keeping the story going and waving away the rules when they don't need to be there. So far it's not bothering me all that much. If I really need to know the DC for something I'm rolling, I can look it up and adjudicate it myself if need be.
Handbooks:
Shax's Indispensable Haversack, TWF OffHandbook
Builds:
Archon of Nine, Jellobomber, King of Pong, Lightning Thief
Spells:
Druidzilla, Healbot, Gish
Iron Chef:
-
2018-01-10, 04:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- Berlin
- Gender
-
2018-01-10, 04:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2018-01-10, 04:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Yeah, doesn't this make investing in any skill modifiers effectively pointless?
I think this is one of my problems with 5e's design in general, DMs should be prepared to deal with PCs succeeding or failing, not handwaving their rolls so they fit whether or not their expectations of success or failure.Last edited by Zanos; 2018-01-10 at 04:55 PM.
If any idiot ever tells you that life would be meaningless without death, Hyperion recommends killing them!
-
2018-01-10, 05:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2018-01-10, 05:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Cleveland, OH
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
I think I explained this badly. I believe the DM is eyeballing the situation, such as a Rogue making an Acrobatics roll or a Ranger making an Athletics roll, and based on what he knows about the characters (1st level Rogue with high Dex, 1st level Ranger with moderate Str), and for the purposes of expediency, is making a judgement on whether the PC needs to roll low, medium, or high to succeed. So decisions that the player has made (race, class, skills, expertise, etc.) are being accounted for, but in a very informal way. If what's at stake is very low, then the DM can tell at a glance if a low roll or high roll is something where he needs to come up with a complication or an unexpected deviation, or just declare a simple failure/success. If the rolls are for higher stakes, then the players tend to ask about specific modifiers or DCs before rolling, and then he can calculate a more specific DC.
However, it's largely anecdotal, and pertains only to my particular group. I'm not sure it's really worth arguing about as indicative of 5E.Handbooks:
Shax's Indispensable Haversack, TWF OffHandbook
Builds:
Archon of Nine, Jellobomber, King of Pong, Lightning Thief
Spells:
Druidzilla, Healbot, Gish
Iron Chef:
-
2018-01-10, 06:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
for me, I played 4th edition, found it OK. played 5th, found it OK. had fun playing them, but felt no cumpulsion to switch over. made the jump from 3.5 to pathfinder though as I was already deeply entrenched in 3.5, and I liked the changes.
the first half of the meaning of life is that there isn't one.
-
2018-01-10, 07:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Does it? Did it have items as cool as the Wand of Wonder, the Amulet of Caterpillar Control, or the Gem Bow? Have you seen GMs describe items created out of a shaft of sunlight, solidified hatred, or unicorn hair? Does it have rules for crafting your own items that involve collecting butterfly dreams?
Do the items have character, or are they merely math?
If I'm not mistaken, the thread of thought here wasn't about how fun the rules are, but, rather, how mechanically diverse different characters can be. Or, more accurately, how mechanically diverse different characters with the same "role" can be.
The assertion was, all strikers / tanks / bfc / whatever play the same in 5e, in a way that wasn't true of 3e characters with similar roles.
This. In 3e, I can make the character be whatever it needs to be to fit the party. This works so much better than relying on a GM to fix things.
I'm confused. In 2e and earlier, monsters had "immune to damage unless from a weapon of X or better". It was a very hard "you must be this tall".
In 3e, monsters straight out of the MM could have things like DR 50/+3. Still a clear case of "my first fighter" having no chance.
3.5 changed that. IIRC, DR caped out at around 15 pre epic.
So, before 3.5, clever strategies, heavy optimization, or the McGuffin +x was required to pass. Adding items was like handing out keys to locked doors.
After 3.5, even moderate optimization beyond "my first fighter" could allow a character to bypass DR.
I'm also confused by the text in the middle, which seems to read, "the GM has to maintain balance... unless he doesn't". What were you intending to get across?
So, my character's history will be horribly inconsistent, as he travels from table to table? Yeah, no thanks.
Or, you can just play the world as a CaW simulation, and put the burden on the players to choose what to engage and what to run from, instead of forcing the world to be "CR Appropriate".
Granted, it doesn't make for as fun of a game when either a) players don't know going in that certain classes are "hard mode"; or b) your concept determines whether you're playing easy mode or hard mode, rather than your conscious choice to do so.
-
2018-01-10, 07:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
It kind of is. Because the DC of everything is whatever the DM feels like, at some point a DM gets tired of having to think of a DC for every single instance a player wants to do something. It's easier to base success if the player rolled high or low. If it's in the middle the DM might factor in if the character is proficient or not or then bother to think on it. If he didn't want the thing to happen, the player had to roll high or else.
-
2018-01-10, 07:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Trapped in England
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
I don't actually like D&D 5E all that much personally, but I do have to defend it here.
Not only does it literally have the Wand of Wonder, with it being described on page 212-213 of the DMG and in fact also having an illustration...
Spoiler
... the magic item stuff is actually pretty solid and contains not only some really cool options but some pretty amazing illustrations, such the ring of spell storing being a ring that goes over two fingers and is made to look like a scroll;
Spoiler
Or the sun blade more or less being a lightsabre;
Spoiler
Granted this is really just doing what the edition ought to have been doing to begin with when it comes to magic items, and continuing the traditions of previous editions.
-
2018-01-10, 07:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Rhymes with "Protracted."
Handbooks: The Warlockopedia | The Warmagepedia (WIP) | Tier List (2019 Update)
Spreadsheets: Spellcasting classes | Deities | Useful items
Homebrew: Gestalt Theurge | Fighter and Monk fixes | Warlock stuff | Houserules and quick fixes
Original Fiction: The Wizard's Familiar
-
2018-01-10, 07:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Personally, when I first took a look at 5th edition I thought it was a tremendous improvement from 4th and was actually pretty excited to make my first characters and start playing. However, the more I read the rules, the more I found I had issues with the rules and design of the game. Things like bounded accuracy, the gutting of the skill system, the lack of meaningful character creation options, bounded accuracy, the overly onerous concentration mechanics and bounded accuracy.
Overall, I simply decided that there wasn't any point in trying to bludgeon 5e into being the system I wanted when 3.5e already worked perfectly fine.
Also, in case I haven't made myself clear I absolutely hate bounded accuracy on a level that is difficult to properly express without violating forum rules on profanity. It is a rancid pile of noxiousness that was born out of laziness on the part of the designers and module writers and which robs me of an element of the game from which I derive a large part of my enjoyment of the game.If brute force isn't working, that just means you're not using enough of it.
When in doubt, set something on fire. If not in doubt, set something on fire anyway.
My Homebrew
-
2018-01-10, 09:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Often both phenomena occur on the same character sheet, since the system rewards specialization. Most characters put max ranks into the skills they most want/need and nothing into any other skills (with some exceptions). So you end up with a character whose Spot is so high they can count someone's nose hairs at 50 paces, but whose Sense Motive is so bad they can't tell that the pickpocket they caught was lying when they claim to be the king in disguise.
Pathfinder tried to split the "have it/eat it" cake between a skill-point system and a class-assigned skill list... and except for a few wrinkles, evened out a lot of the wonkiness from 3E. Classes were innately "good" at certain things, but there was enough optimization options that you still had enough room to differentiate between casual experts and legendary specialists.
WotC do love their errata for the sake of errata. Always have, going back to the days before they even bought TSR.Last edited by Velaryon; 2018-01-10 at 09:07 PM.
-
2018-01-10, 09:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
-
2018-01-10, 09:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Collegeville, PA
- Gender
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Resident Mad Scientist...
"It's so cool!"
Spoiler: ContestsVC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace
-
2018-01-10, 10:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Worse than being at the whim of the dice, is being at the whim of the DM. There's no excuse for failing at something on one check, then succeeding at a check of that same thing later, in similar circumstances, on the same d20 roll.
As for getting good at something, the 5e system of 'you can always fail' is horrible with most skills. If I do something every day, for months or years on end, then OF COURSE I'm going to get so good at it that I fail less than 5% of the time (i.e. rolling a 1). So why shouldn't my character be able to get so good at something that the only possible way to fail at the task is a crit-fail on my roll?
I guess I don't believe the DM should be able to just 'make a judgment.' I need consistency, not informality, in the ACTUAL MECHANICS of the game. If the DM wants me to fail, or have a higher chance of failure, then they need to be able to explain why this skill check has a higher DC than the last time I skill checked for this very same thing.
-
2018-01-10, 11:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2015
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
For me, the appeal of 3/3.5/P is the way it simultaneously constrains and enables world-building for me as a DM. I tried so hard to like 4E, I really did, but the out of combat rules support was just too minimal. There weren't enough ways for my players to manipulate the setting I created other than negotiating with me. With 3rd's design theory, it worldbuilding feels like playing with legos. With most other systems I've played, including 4e, it's more akin to painting a picture. The legos are 3d. Once I build my castle or whatever, my friends can play in it, they can take pieces off and move them, or add stuff. The legos are a toy, and they're much more fun to play with than a finished drawing.
The other piece is just sunk cost. I've put a lot of time and effort into my setting and my homebrew, and they're heavily linked to the assumptions of low-level 3.P. I haven't played 5e, but I suspect that if and when I do it will be fun enough but I'll mostly just be looking for interesting bits to loot and carry home to my set of 3.P houserules.
-
2018-01-11, 12:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
See, here's the rub. The bolded part? That's a feature, not a bug.
Who says rogues have to be able to find and disarm traps? Why can't a rogue be an assassin or a social butterfly? Or both, but learn the need to learn how to disarm traps also?
Ever if the game lets me pick an archetype, I'm then locked with that progression and those abilities. What if I want to dabble a bit? My character progression, while often mostly planned out, does have it's odd "I learned Neutralise Poison" moments, I want for the adventure to be able to affect my character's growth.
So maybe the sneaky, trap disarming rogue let his one true friend die, because he just couldn't cut it when fighting. Or he tried talking their way out of a pickle and just dug himself deeper.
Ultimately, 5E tries to dictate the characters through its bounded progression, and that just kills it for me.
The fact the archetypes are fairly stereotypical and don't mix well doesn't help any.Last edited by TotallyNotEvil; 2018-01-11 at 12:42 AM.
-
2018-01-11, 02:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Norway
- Gender
-
2018-01-11, 02:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: Why didn't we switch to 4e/5e?
Precisely my point. 3.0 and earlier editions literally require magical items. 3.5/PF/4E do not. So the idea that 5E is innovative because it doesn't require magical items is clearly marketing hype.
I'm also confused by the text in the middle, which seems to read, "the GM has to maintain balance... unless he doesn't". What were you intending to get across?Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.
"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!