# What 5e got wrong



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

5e was a huge opportunity to do some modernizing to the traditional ruleset of dungeons and dragons. They did a great job with this in certain aspects of the game, like the updated spellcasting rules.  However, my biggest complaint by far about 5e is how they made almost no updates to the traditional attribute system d&D has always used, which frankly has a lot of problems. 

 Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced. Not only do the 6 attributes in PoE make more conceptual/thematic sense, but they are also designed with the mantra of being useful independent of class. There's no such thing as a dump stat. Some stats may be more useful for some builds than other stats, but it comes much closer to being class-independent than D&D, which I vastly prefer because it makes character concepting and building much more engaging, with the potential for much more diversity, and opens up interesting role-play options.


----------



## darjr (Jan 8, 2016)

For the benefit of those of us who barely know what 'pillars' is, what are the stats in question? How do they work?


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

darjr said:


> For the benefit of those of us who barely know what 'pillars' is, what are the stats in question? How do they work?




PoE largely draws from the traditional D&D ruleset but makes a number of changes, many of which I find to be for the better. As for the attributes, I think it would be easier to link to the wiki with them than copy/paste all of it here:

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attribute

Note that PoE is mechanically a bit different from D&D, being a real-time strategy video game, but I'm mostly talking about the stats on a conceptual level.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 8, 2016)

A video game can get a lot more finicky with ability scores, since the computer manages the number crunching rather than one person. It's easier to regularly shift abilities, give bonuses, and have every party member trying to improve all their abilities because all are relevant. 

All ability scores are somewhat useful in D&D. There's no real bad ability scores. But you have a finite amount of points to spread around, and a character with  14, 13, 12, 12, 11, 10 is rather boring (dump stats make a character interesting) so you focus on a preferred bonus. 

5e also had a legacy element. They wanted "18 Strength" to mean something, to be good. There was a cap in place. So regular stat boosts didn't work.


----------



## darjr (Jan 8, 2016)

While I agree conceptually, and that link is neat, and so is that game, stats in D&D have always been kind of amorphous and abstract. I don't think the change would have been enough of any kind of benefit to warrant killing that sacred cow.

I use to very much think it was archaic, it was one of the main reasons I played GURPS back in the day. But I think now that I've come to appreciate the weight of history that the existing stats brings. Not nostalgia per se, though that is a component, but the momentum of what those stats mean outside of the definition stated in the books.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

I don't think 5e missed out by not re-defining ability scores.

D&D without STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA is, from a brand perspective, _just not D&D_. 

And I don't know that I buy the case that D&D ability scores don't work fine as they are. The desire to be "class independent" offers you MUCH more in a single-player CRPG than in a group setting (where you want different characters to focus on different things). And it ain't like PoE is exactly class-independent, either - classes there favor certain scores, just as they do in D&D.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 8, 2016)

I definitely think that they didn't streamline the magic system as much as they could have. Sure, it's way more forgiving in terms of spell preparation, but not more than 3E was more forgiving than 2E.

They could have ditched spell preparation for all classes, but they didn't, and that makes me sad.


----------



## delericho (Jan 8, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> I don't think 5e missed out by not re-defining ability scores.
> 
> D&D without STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA is, from a brand perspective, _just not D&D_.




Agreed. The six ability scores, and even the 3-18 range, is one of the most sacred of cows in D&D.


----------



## devincutler (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> 5e was a huge opportunity to do some modernizing to the traditional ruleset of dungeons and dragons. They did a great job with this in certain aspects of the game, like the updated spellcasting rules.  However, my biggest complaint by far about 5e is how they made almost no updates to the traditional attribute system d&D has always used, which frankly has a lot of problems.
> 
> Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced. Not only do the 6 attributes in PoE make more conceptual/thematic sense, but they are also designed with the mantra of being useful independent of class. There's no such thing as a dump stat. Some stats may be more useful for some builds than other stats, but it comes much closer to being class-independent than D&D, which I vastly prefer because it makes character concepting and building much more engaging, with the potential for much more diversity, and opens up interesting role-play options.




Then it wouldn't be D&D. There are plenty of classless systems out there, many quite good. 2nd and 3rd edition Chaosium Runequest come to mind...I believe Chaosium has republished a new BRP system. Check it out. I guess it has the same general stats as D&D but is a completely skill-based system.

I think the D&D stats pretty much broadly cover all of the bases needed. Yep...I know Dex can be divided into nimbleness and coordination, and Wis can be divided into awareness and willpower, but who needs it?


----------



## PnPgamer (Jan 8, 2016)

Well multiclassing must be mentioned. While being very streamlined and forgiving regarding spell progression, i dont like the armor and weapon proficiency system. Also related what bugs me is wizards in armor.

I am actually torn apart. The munchkin in me likes the rules, but the same rule is disgusting to the Roleplayer in me.

Also rules are simple, a bit too simple. Coming from pathfinder i have not as much options  as id like.


----------



## Sadras (Jan 8, 2016)

The only thing 5e got wrong were all our table's house rules we've had to implement.


----------



## 77IM (Jan 8, 2016)

There are _thousands_ of RPGs out there, and they pretty much all use different attributes/stats/ability scores. You know why? Because picking the right ones is an extremely hard problem. An attribute that makes sense to one person is baffling to another; a stat that is important to one genre/setting is irrelevant in another; some people like lots of stats and some like few; etc.

The classic six ability scores are not my favorite, either. But they've persisted because they _work_ for D&D.

And because of bounded accuracy, ability scores are more useful for more character types than ever before. In 3e, your fighter with Cha 14 was completely overshadowed by the bard with Cha 22 and 18 ranks in Diplomacy. Now, the bard's only got Cha 20 and 5 "ranks" and you're both facing DC 15 so you both have a chance to succeed and a chance to fail -- and advantage/disadvantage can swing things even further.


----------



## Mecheon (Jan 8, 2016)

PnPgamer said:


> Also rules are simple, a bit too simple. Coming from pathfinder i have not as much options  as id like.




Pathfinder has the opposite problem. To say Pathfinder is bloated is a slight understatement.

Honestly I think there could have been some more 4e nods. Plus I really was liking that whole idea of making the sorcerer something other than "Mage but more different" they had going in a test

Oh, and rebalancing the ability scores because while they are all sort of useful, there are certain ones that are infinitely more useful regardless of class. I remember a good idea somewhere that combined a few of them together for the point of saves and it did seem to work well


----------



## PnPgamer (Jan 8, 2016)

Mecheon said:


> Pathfinder has the opposite problem. To say Pathfinder is bloated is a slight understatement.
> 
> Honestly I think there could have been some more 4e nods. Plus I really was liking that whole idea of making the sorcerer something other than "Mage but more different" they had going in a test
> 
> Oh, and rebalancing the ability scores because while they are all sort of useful, there are certain ones that are infinitely more useful regardless of class. I remember a good idea somewhere that combined a few of them together for the point of saves and it did seem to work well




Yeah pathfinder is pretty bloaty, i just prefer bloat over being starved.
Just like my women.


----------



## Uchawi (Jan 8, 2016)

I never found a RPG that had a good representation of abilities via attributes, but I think the larger problem with 5E is the majority of classes use magic and there is little flexibility for martial classes via maneuvers; if you compare that against casters with spells. It is not a good model for fantasy or real life in regards to learning or training.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Jan 8, 2016)

That looks like a great attribute system ... for a computer RPG.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (Jan 8, 2016)

The thing I think 5e did wrong were small...

the warlock... every other caster in the book plays nice with caster level when multi classing, except the warlock

the battle master fighter it is a good start but more powerful and maybe even boarder line supernatural manuvers at higher levels should have been int here


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Jan 8, 2016)

Warmaster Horus said:


> That looks like a great attribute system ... for a computer RPG.



This.

The problem is that while in a computer RPG it's easy to make each stat do 4 different things so it's useful for every single class, in Pen&Paper you rather not want to have such a complexity to keep track off.

The only thing I dislike about D&D 5e attributes is that while during point buy raising a stat above 13 is more expensive, it is not more expensive to raise it while leveling up, making it much better to only raise the main stat to 20. I would have liked it more if there was a choice like "Put 1 point in my main stat or 2 points in some other stat I occasionally need?". Also then at least the total stats would be perfectly balanced on point buy.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

I do think one area where 5e kind of phoned it in is the stealth rules.

If _hiding_ - something that hobbits do on the regular - requires that much DM adjudication and text-parsing, we've really failed to support a range of character types (sneaky rogues, stealthy rangers, ambushy assassins) with little more than "Uh...ask your DM if it's cool."


----------



## akr71 (Jan 8, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> A video game can get a lot more finicky with ability scores, since the computer manages the number crunching rather than one person. It's easier to regularly shift abilities, give bonuses, and have every party member trying to improve all their abilities because all are relevant.
> 
> snip
> 
> 5e also had a legacy element. They wanted "18 Strength" to mean something, to be good. There was a cap in place. So regular stat boosts didn't work.



I agree 100%

Also, if they had gone and changed ability scores (names and/or score thresh-holds), it wouldn't be doing such a good job at pulling people back to the game.  I've read posts by many forum members, such as myself that have been away from gaming for many years.  5e is familiar yet stripped down, making it accessible.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Way to miss the point, nearly every responder in this thread.  What I was talking about was the design mantra behind the stats, and not the specific mechanics of them.

Sorry,  but nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoever. Additionally,  I'm unlikely to be convinced that int, wis, and cha aren't poorly hodgepodged conceptually and in need of a rethink.


----------



## Ath-kethin (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoever. Additionally,  I'm unlikely to be convinced that int, wis, and cha aren't poorly hodgepodged conceptually.



Which begs the question as to why you posted this on a discussion board.


----------



## GMMichael (Jan 8, 2016)

77IM said:


> Because picking the right (attributes) is an extremely hard problem.




Gotta disagree here.  I think tri-stat pretty much nails it.  However, that only works for the loosey-goosey crowd - the crunch-lovers probably prefer more.

5e is a breath of fresh air compared to 3.5, 3.75, and 4.  If anything went wrong, excluding what was needed for legacy... is it possible they did -too much- playtesting?  They could've had a nice early-edition feel just by including rules that sound cool.  That wouldn't work so well for Adventurer's League though.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Way to miss the point, nearly every responder in this thread.  What I was talking about was the design mantra behind the stats, and not the specific mechanics of them.
> 
> Sorry,  but nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoever. Additionally,  I'm unlikely to be convinced that int, wis, and cha aren't poorly hodgepodged conceptually and in need of a rethink.




Ok, so I won't try to convince you.  That's your opinion.  Mine is that I disagree with you.  Since you don't want discussion, I guess we can close the thread now?


----------



## Awesome Adam (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Way to miss the point, nearly every responder in this thread.  What I was talking about was the design mantra behind the stats, and not the specific mechanics of them.




Trust me, your first post was completley vague. If that was your intent, it was completely unclear that was what you were hoping for.



Einlanzer0 said:


> Sorry,  but nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoever.




Stats being overly unequal in 5E, especially when compared to previous editions is debatable. 
STR - Melee, Melee Damage, Saves, Athletics
DEX - Finese Melee, Finesse Melee Damage, AC, Saves
CON - Hit Points, Saves, concentration, sometimes AC
INT - spell casting, crafting and knowledge skills
WIS - spell casting, perception, survival, saves, sometimes AC
CHA - spell casting, saves, all social skills

They all seem to be usefulto me



Einlanzer0 said:


> Additionally,  I'm unlikely to be convinced that int, wis, and cha aren't poorly hodgepodged conceptually and in need of a rethink.




They've only worked for 30+ years, and I didn't see you make any actual suggestions on how to improve them, so I'm kind of missing the point of your post.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Way to miss the point, nearly every responder in this thread.  What I was talking about was the design mantra behind the stats, and not the specific mechanics of them.
> 
> Sorry, but nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoeverI didn't really come here for your petty opinions you should just agree with mine. Additionally, I'm unlikely to be convinced that int, wis, and cha aren't poorly hodgepodged conceptually and in need of a rethink. I've already made up my mind and you aren't ever going to change it.




FIFY


----------



## hejtmane (Jan 8, 2016)

Why is Initiative just dex which over values dex it should be based on the characters main stat to balance the initiative role just one mans opinion.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

hejtmane said:


> Why is Initiative just dex which over values dex it should be based on the characters main stat to balance the initiative role just one mans opinion.




Initiative is based of reaction time ability.  Which is what dexterity covers.  I wouldn't want it based off main stat or you'd end up with even more min/maxed PCs than you do now.  IMO, I don't like it when every class looks exactly the same as every other same class, ability score wise.  I find it metagamy and artificial.  YMMV of course.


----------



## hejtmane (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Initiative is based of reaction time ability.  Which is what dexterity covers.  I wouldn't want it based off main stat or you'd end up with even more min/maxed PCs than you do now.  IMO, I don't like it when every class looks exactly the same as every other same class, ability score wise.  I find it metagamy and artificial.  YMMV of course.




This pretty much happens already


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

hejtmane said:


> Why is Initiative just dex which over values dex it should be based on the characters main stat to balance the initiative role just one mans opinion.




I could see an argument for Wisdom possibly being a factor in initiative and possibly even Strength, though I feel that is a real stretch.  But it doesn't make any sense to connect initiative with Constitution, Intelligence and Charisma in my opinion.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Jan 8, 2016)

Initiative doesn't have such a huge impact on your power that it needs to be spread over multiple stats.

STR, DEX, CON all have a global purpose in 5e that all classes benefit from, though STR's would be weight limit increase which hardly any DM enforces.

INT, WIS, CHA are a bit more problematic, because you really only need one of those three, depending on what kind of caster you are. It gets especially one-sided because hardly any DM enforces player behavior based on these stats (low INT char can still act smart).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Way to miss the point, nearly every responder in this thread.  What I was talking about was the design mantra behind the stats, and not the specific mechanics of them.



Which design mantra is that?



> Sorry,  but nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoever.



The usefulness of stats is only as unequal as the individual DM/scenario makes them. So if strict equality in usefulness is something you appreciate, there are ways to get at that (4e's skill challenge model is not a bad starting point, since inclusivity of different skills and ability scores was often part of its philosophy). That's not an inevitable consequence of the six D&D scores. 



> Additionally,  I'm unlikely to be convinced that int, wis, and cha aren't poorly hodgepodged conceptually and in need of a rethink.



I find they work to serve their purpose pretty decently, creating ways to represent a character that is to varying degrees intelligent, observant, and influential. 

Fortunately, the DMG has advice if you'd like to make up new ability scores.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 8, 2016)

I think the six ability scores are solid conceptually, but I know I'm not the first person to point out that in 5E Intelligence could stand to be a little stronger.


----------



## akr71 (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Way to miss the point, nearly every responder in this thread.  What I was talking about was the design mantra behind the stats, and not the specific mechanics of them.



If we missed the point, it is because you did a poor job of making it.

However, I will agree that the importance/utility of all 6 ability scores _is_ unbalanced, but I'm ok with it and design characters accordingly.



TheCosmicKid said:


> I think the six ability scores are solid conceptually, but I know I'm not the first person to point out that in 5E Intelligence could stand to be a little stronger.



Yes that is a little mystifying to me too.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

hejtmane said:


> This pretty much happens already





Maybe at your table.  By having initiative as DEX, I've seen other non-rogue classes put a higher score into DEX, when if it were based on the class main stat, then they wouldn't.  Then again, I've always preferred, (and my group is similar) to play PCs based off of archetype and not driven off of mechanical optimization.  That means my long time fighter Merdock has his second highest score in CHA, because he's a knight and leader of men.  If every fighter has 18 STR and 16 CON, I find that boring and too predictable


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> The usefulness of stats is only as unequal as the individual DM/scenario makes them. .




This bears repeating.  For example, a lot of people say INT is underpowered.  This strikes me odd because we have a lot of puzzles and insight checks come up very often.  So it really comes down to the DM style.


----------



## hejtmane (Jan 8, 2016)

OldSkoolRPG said:


> I could see an argument for Wisdom possibly being a factor in initiative and possibly even Strength, though I feel that is a real stretch.  But it doesn't make any sense to connect initiative with Constitution, Intelligence and Charisma in my opinion.




We could argue dex, wisdom and Int if we want to not do everything

Dex is reaction

Wisdom because of experience and knowledge you gain advantages from seeing opening

Intelligence is so smart that you can see tactics opening etc 

I can get not using all the stats but it be nice to have multiple stats that could effect initiative giving us a little more diversity


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

hejtmane said:


> We could argue dex, wisdom and Int if we want to not do everything
> 
> Dex is reaction
> 
> ...




I hadn't thought of intelligence contributing to initiative in that way.  I can see that working, though I have no problem with the current system really.  I just wouldn't want a "You use your main stat for init" type rule.


----------



## hejtmane (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Maybe at your table.  By having initiative as DEX, I've seen other non-rogue classes put a higher score into DEX, when if it were based on the class main stat, then they wouldn't.  Then again, I've always preferred, (and my group is similar) to play PCs based off of archetype and not driven off of mechanical optimization.  That means my long time fighter Merdock has his second highest score in CHA, because he's a knight and leader of men.  If every fighter has 18 STR and 16 CON, I find that boring and too predictable




I embrace different even build ones less than optimal that fit concepts and encourage that even sub optimal races for builds. Then again that is rare among most players


----------



## ccs (Jan 8, 2016)

akr71 said:


> I agree 100%
> 
> Also, if they had gone and changed ability scores (names and/or score thresh-holds), it wouldn't be doing such a good job at pulling people back to the game.  I've read posts by many forum members, such as myself that have been away from gaming for many years.  5e is familiar yet stripped down, making it accessible.




Exactly.  I'm looking to play D&D, not some other game that they just slapped it's logo on.
You know what you get when you change the system too much?  
4e.
And we all know how that story ended.

Now you can do whatever the 9 Hells you want to the system via house rules for your own groups.  And publishing books full of alternate systems is cool.
But the market pretty well expects a certain formula as far as the base game is concerned.  Deviate from that at your own peril....


----------



## Bawylie (Jan 8, 2016)

What else they got wrong:

1.) 3 books (kudos, though to basic rules package)
2.) format & layout (indexes, tables, & references particularly)
3.) XP & encounter building (math is solid for encounter building & leveling but the explanations for encounter building are arcane. They also lack meaningful non-math difficulty modification and advice). 
4.) Monster building (good system, bad explanation). 
5.) adventure & campaign writing advice. 
6.) lacking "modules" (over promised; under-delivered

Overall: great game, poorly explained.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

You know what they got wrong?  Not pleasing everyone.  Seriously, what were they thinking?


----------



## ccs (Jan 8, 2016)

hejtmane said:


> Why is Initiative just dex which over values dex it should be based on the characters main stat to balance the initiative role just one mans opinion.




By main stat, do you mean;
A) the Stat that is generally implied - though never actually mandated by the book - to be most useful to a class?
B) Or is it the Stat that I put the highest # in for whatever reason
(Say I rolled randomly, going straight down the line.  Or the character I envision needs more in x than he does in whatever his classes traditional favorite stat is.)
C) What if I somehow get another stat raised higher than whatever my "main" stat is?  Do I now have a new main stat?  Should my inititive be recalculated?  If not, why are you punishing me by not letting me use my highest modifier like everyone else???
D) What happens when I multi-class?

Btw, please show me an example of how my 20 con would even apply to determing initiative.

Thanks.


----------



## hejtmane (Jan 8, 2016)

ccs said:


> By main stat, do you mean;
> A) the Stat that is generally implied - though never actually mandated by the book - to be most useful to a class?
> B) Or is it the Stat that I put the highest # in for whatever reason
> (Say I rolled randomly, going straight down the line.  Or the character I envision needs more in x than he does in whatever his classes traditional favorite stat is.)
> ...




Hence I replied back it was a suggestion and we had a discussions where I said i can see that point of view and we talked about maybe allowing  dex, wisdom or int to be used

Dex which is based on reaction

Wisdom experience and knowledge allow you to decipher weakness exploiting those weaknesses

INT you are smart and have a high understanding of tactics using that to your advantage


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> This bears repeating.  For example, a lot of people say INT is underpowered.  This strikes me odd because we have a lot of puzzles and insight checks come up very often.  So it really comes down to the DM style.



Insight is Wisdom based.  And yes, Intelligence helps with puzzles.   But every ability helps with some sort of obstacle -- it's just that most of them also provide some broader advantage.  In 3E, Intelligence was just as useful for solving puzzles, but it also gave you precious precious skill points.  And it was the key ability for the very important Search skill, which now RAW is yet another a function of the already-top-tier Perception.  (I've houseruled it back to Investigation.)

So it's not just a matter of style.  Whatever DM style you have, Intelligence has lost ground.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Insight is Wisdom based.  And yes, Intelligence helps with puzzles.   But every ability helps with some sort of obstacle -- it's just that most of them also provide some broader advantage.  In 3E, Intelligence was just as useful for solving puzzles, but it also gave you precious precious skill points.  And it was the key ability for the very important Search skill, which now RAW is yet another a function of the already-top-tier Perception.  (I've houseruled it back to Investigation.)
> 
> So it's not just a matter of style.  Whatever DM style you have, Intelligence has lost ground.




My bad, I meant investigation, not insight.  I dunno, maybe our group spends a lot of time in out of combat things, like doing research into the area before we just march blinding into it.  History, arcana, and investigation checks are very common in our games.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> 5e was a huge opportunity to do some modernizing to the traditional ruleset of dungeons and dragons.



No, no it wasn't.  5e is fundamentally a revival product, bringing back a fad from 30-20 years ago.  It re-wound a lot of 'modernization,' fed hamburger into a meat-grinder in reverse and popped sacred cows out the other end with preternatural success.  

It didn't just re-print the traditional ruleset with new art, though, so yes, there's some cool stuff preserved from d20 and even built upon, a little.  But if you judge it by how 'modern' it is, you're really not being fair to it, at all.  



> However, my biggest complaint by far about 5e is how they made almost no updates to the traditional attribute system d&D has always used, which frankly has a lot of problems.



I can't imagine how that'd remotely have been on the table.  5e was absolutely committed to re-capturing the feel (and lapsed fans) of the 20th century editions of the game.  Attributes are one of the few things that weren't terribly desecrated by the sacrilege of 3e & 4e modernization.  They probably regarded them as some sort of untouchable 'third rail.'  You could no more get away with changing the traditional attributes than you could switch from d20 to percentile.  Be thankful they didn't go back to arbitrarily different bonuses for each stat, and kept the +1 mod per 2-above-10 formula (BTW, first introduced in the 4th ed of Gamma World, c1992, iirc).



> Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced.



For every rule between the covers of a D&D book, there is some other game some where that does that particular sort of rule way better - but D&D can't afford to go emulating that other game, _because it's not D&D_.



> There's no such thing as a dump stat. Some stats may be more useful for some builds than other stats, but it comes much closer to being class-independent than D&D.



There are a lot of negatives to class system, but one of the positives is that they do simplify the decisions of character generation.  Obvious 'prime' and 'dump' stats are part of that.  5e does go further than prior editions in trying to make each stat relevant to all characters, though, with all six being used for saving throws (however rarely half of them get used), and with proficiency/level bonuses being small enough, and DCs 'bounded' enough, that a decent stat mod is always helpful.  So they really did make an effort, there.



Saelorn said:


> I definitely think that they didn't streamline the magic system as much as they could have. Sure, it's way more forgiving in terms of spell preparation, but not more than 3E was more forgiving than 2E.
> 
> They could have ditched spell preparation for all classes, but they didn't, and that makes me sad.



In favor of what, exactly?  Spontaneous casting of any spell on your class list?



77IM said:


> There are _thousands_ of RPGs out there, and they pretty much all use different attributes/stats/ability scores. You know why?



Copyright law? ;P



Sacrosanct said:


> You know what they got wrong?  Not pleasing everyone.  Seriously, what were they thinking?



 That'd've been funnier if pleasing everyone ("who ever loved D&D," that is - I guess if you're not pleased by 5e you never really loved D&D, you were just leading it on?) hadn't been a goal from the first announcement of 'Next.'


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> That'd've been funnier if pleasing everyone ("who ever loved D&D," that is - I guess if you're not pleased by 5e you never really loved D&D, you were just leading it on?) hadn't been a goal from the first announcement of 'Next.'




It was?  I seem to recall them saying that they wanted to put elements from everyone's favorite edition into 5e.  Which is not the same as saying they wanted to please everyone.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> This bears repeating.  For example, a lot of people say INT is underpowered.  This strikes me odd because we have a lot of puzzles and insight checks come up very often.  So it really comes down to the DM style.




This is fallacious reasoning. The usefulness of a stat should not be dependent on how much the DM is willing to handhold it. They need to be as balanced as possible in the hard, mechanical rules of the game.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> My bad, I meant investigation, not insight.  I dunno, maybe our group spends a lot of time in out of combat things, like doing research into the area before we just march blinding into it.  History, arcana, and investigation checks are very common in our games.



Heh, research.  "Blindly leaping into danger" is pretty much our party's motto in my own game.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> This is fallacious reasoning. The usefulness of a stat should not be dependent on how much the DM is willing to handhold it. They need to be balanced in the mechanical rules of the game.




I agree with you broadly, but that is NOT the dominant paradigm of 5e play.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> This is fallacious reasoning. The usefulness of a stat should not be dependent on how much the DM is willing to handhold it. They need to be balanced in the mechanical rules of the game.




Why? Just because you think they should? Or do you have a logically valid argument leading to the conclusion that such mechanical balance should be the case? You accuse Sacrosanct of fallacious reasoning (though you don't point out exactly what fallacy he is guilty of) while resorting to question begging yourself.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> This is fallacious reasoning. The usefulness of a stat should not be dependent on how much the DM is willing to handhold it. They need to be as balanced as possible in the hard, mechanical rules of the game.




Say what again?  It's not fallacious.  Everyone DMs differently.  There are three pillars of the game, meant to be used equally.  Just because one group does combat a lot more than another and doesn't use INT checks very often doesn't mean that INT is designed to be worse.  Seems to me that INT is balanced with most other stats between combat (casters) and out of combat (all those checks for everyone).  How often someone uses something is entirely subjective.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> In favor of what, exactly?  Spontaneous casting of any spell on your class list?



The obvious choice would be spontaneous casting of any spell known. 

I don't exactly mind any of the given implementations, but between bonus spells that are _always_ prepared and bonus spells that _can_ be prepared, it's hard to keep all of the different mechanics straight. There's already sufficient distinction between characters based on what spells they can learn; they don't also all need different mechanics for accessing those spells.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> This is fallacious reasoning. The usefulness of a stat should not be dependent on how much the DM is willing to handhold it. They need to be as balanced as possible in the hard, mechanical rules of the game.




Since DM's apply the mechanical rules differently at different tables, I don't see any mechanical framework as being really able to enforce equality of ability scores. Even if you loot PoE's mechanics wholesale, nothin' stops an individual adventure or quest from completely ignoring INT or CON or whatever and focusing on other ability scores. The PoE wiki itself admits that CON, for instance, is rarely relevant in dialog. A conversation-heavy adventure wouldn't use the ability score much, so it could be safely "dumped" by a character playing through that adventure.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> It was?  I seem to recall them saying that they wanted to put elements from everyone's favorite edition into 5e.  Which is not the same as saying they wanted to please everyone.



Yes, they did pithily say "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D," which was prettymuch saying they want to please 'everyone' (in that expansive group of past & current D&D fans).  And did also say something about taking the 'best' out of each prior edition, which might seem a little less impossible (if there were any consensus what might be counted as 'best').


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes, they did pithily say "D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D," which was prettymuch saying they want to please 'everyone' (in that expansive group of past & current D&D fans).  And did also say something about taking the 'best' out of each prior edition, which might seem a little less impossible (if there were any consensus what might be counted as 'best').




Who said that?  I suspect this is more of hearing someone not part of the design team saying something like that, and us confusing it with an official statement years later.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Who said that?



Mike Mearls.  I'm surprised you've forgotten about it, it didn't exactly fly under the radar- hmm... OK, it generated a lot of discussion on the WotC boards at the time, not sure if it made as big a splash here, though.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Yeah, but did he say _that_?  Like I said, we as human beings hear something that is actually said and repeat a variation of it that isn't the same thing, and leap to assumptions.  That's what I'm getting at.  Did Mearls really say the goal was to make everyone happy?  Or did he say something along the lines of pulling things from everyone's favorite edition and people _lept to a conclusion_ that he said he was wanting to make everyone happy.


----------



## Awesome Adam (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> The usefulness of a stat should not be dependent on how much the DM is willing to handhold it. They need to be as balanced as possible in the hard, mechanical rules of the game.




No, they don't.  Your attributes tell you what to add to a D20 roll when you try to do something, nothing more. 

D&D is not some PVP video game where ALL things need to be equal to prevent someone from geting an unfair advantage. 

This line of thought goes along with the people not being able to cope with other chartacters being able to so the same thing they can but better, in a co-operative game.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 8, 2016)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> The thing I think 5e did wrong were small...
> 
> the warlock... every other caster in the book plays nice with caster level when multi classing, except the warlock
> 
> the battle master fighter it is a good start but more powerful and maybe even boarder line supernatural manuvers at higher levels should have been int here




I would have been really dissapointed had the warlock had the same spell system as every other caster. I'm also disapointed that the sorcerer isn't more like the warlock than like he wizard. 

IMO, the problem with the warlock is sticking with the pacts, instead of treating the warlock like the rogue to the wizard's fighter, and having the warlock be the class that used various "hacked" rituals, including pacts, to jack into magical power sources, thus having a combination of raw blasting power, the kind of magic usually reserved for magical creatures, and ritual style stuff like curses, calling forth otherwordly beings and powers, binding stuff, etc. 

IT comes close in feel, but I'd like at least one "patron" option that doesn't actually have a patron, and instead is flavored as above. Warlocks as magical hackers taking shortcuts and taking huge risks by breaking what are actually very sensible safety related rules, is much more interesting to me than "guy who sold his soul for power, but doesn't necessarily know a damn thing about magic on his own."


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> My bad, I meant investigation, not insight.  I dunno, maybe our group spends a lot of time in out of combat things, like doing research into the area before we just march blinding into it.  History, arcana, and investigation checks are very common in our games.



Sure.  But Stealth and Acrobatics checks are very common in a lot of games too, and Dexterity still gets to add to AC, initiative, ranged attacks, and a frequently-used saving throw.  I'm not saying Intelligence is completely useless.  I'm saying that Intelligence is underpowered compared to other scores and to itself in previous editions.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 8, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I would have been really dissapointed had the warlock had the same spell system as every other caster. I'm also disapointed that the sorcerer isn't more like the warlock than like he wizard.
> 
> IMO, the problem with the warlock is sticking with the pacts, instead of treating the warlock like the rogue to the wizard's fighter, and having the warlock be the class that used various "hacked" rituals, including pacts, to jack into magical power sources, thus having a combination of raw blasting power, the kind of magic usually reserved for magical creatures, and ritual style stuff like curses, calling forth otherwordly beings and powers, binding stuff, etc.
> 
> IT comes close in feel, but I'd like at least one "patron" option that doesn't actually have a patron, and instead is flavored as above. Warlocks as magical hackers taking shortcuts and taking huge risks by breaking what are actually very sensible safety related rules, is much more interesting to me than "guy who sold his soul for power, but doesn't necessarily know a damn thing about magic on his own."



You seem to be describing a wizard.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Sure.  But Stealth and Acrobatics checks are very common in a lot of games too, and Dexterity still gets to add to AC, initiative, ranged attacks, and a frequently-used saving throw.  I'm not saying Intelligence is completely useless.  I'm saying that Intelligence is underpowered compared to other scores and to itself in previous editions.




Again, depends on what you're playing (INT is certainly a lot more important for a caster) and what style of game you're playing.  For example, in our games, investigation and history checks come up WAY more often than stealth or acrobatics do.  

Just because one stat has more things it impacts, doesn't mean it impacts more things in the actual game.  THAT is entirely dependent on what sort of game you're running.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, but did he say _that_?



He might have said "anyone" rather than "everyone," or something, but yes.  It was rather a memorable quote because of the flowery phrasing.  It was in one of the L&Ls following the announcement of Next.  He also said some pretty improbable things about not only supporting multiple styles, but letting people play characters in the style of the edition they liked best at the same table.  

Now, he didn't come out and say that they were rolling rev because 4e had failed to please everyone, nor did he promise that Next would please everyone, but he did say that it was meant to be D&D for everyone who had ever loved D&D, and a lot of us did observe how effing impossible that sounded...


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> No, they don't.  Your attributes tell you what to add to a D20 roll when you try to do something, nothing more.
> 
> D&D is not some PVP video game where ALL things need to be equal to prevent someone from geting an unfair advantage.
> 
> This line of thought goes along with the people not being able to cope with other chartacters being able to so the same thing they can but better, in a co-operative game.




The point flew over your head, but I don't agree with you regardless.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Since DM's apply the mechanical rules differently at different tables, I don't see any mechanical framework as being really able to enforce equality of ability scores. Even if you loot PoE's mechanics wholesale, nothin' stops an individual adventure or quest from completely ignoring INT or CON or whatever and focusing on other ability scores. The PoE wiki itself admits that CON, for instance, is rarely relevant in dialog. A conversation-heavy adventure wouldn't use the ability score much, so it could be safely "dumped" by a character playing through that adventure.




Combat is key. Con doesn't play a vital role in dialogue because it doesn't need to; it's universally important when it comes to combat. The point I was making is that the ability scores should be as equal as possible when it comes to combat mechanics, because those are the only rules that are extremely fleshed-out and detailed; they are far less subject to DM interpretation.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> The point flew over your head, but I don't agree with you regardless.




Translation: You are too ignorant to understand why I am right so I have dismissed your argument entirely.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

OldSkoolRPG said:


> Why? Just because you think they should? Or do you have a logically valid argument leading to the conclusion that such mechanical balance should be the case? You accuse Sacrosanct of fallacious reasoning (though you don't point out exactly what fallacy he is guilty of) while resorting to question begging yourself.




https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

I'm not begging the question. The reason for this is obvious - it's bad for game balance when there are overt gaps in usefulness between the stats. It creates a clunky system where you have to hog-tie class specific mechanics to emphasize "weak stats" for certain classes, which in turn leads to goofy build non-options and pigeonholing game-play. For example, playing a high-Int fighter typically requires making a suboptimal character, because Fighters get very little value from the Int stat. As a result, you almost never see high-Int fighters, despite the fact that if it were the real world, one's Intelligence would definitely play a role in how effective a fighter they were. The same is true regarding Str for wizards. If you're in combat, physical strength and reflexes are going to be important.

The ideal way to design a game is for every stat to carry unique mechanical benefits irrespective of class, so that character building is engaging and you can build a diverse array of potential characters without gimping their ability to support a party.

A good way to handle Int, as an example, would be to tie some type of Tactics mechanic to it, which may work something like how Hero Points work in the normal rules. This would serve as an incentive to buff up Int instead of, say, Con.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy
> 
> I'm not begging the question. The reason for this is obvious - it's bad for game balance when there are overt gaps in usefulness between the stats. The ideal way to design a game is for every stat to carry unique mechanical benefits irrespective of class, so that character building is engaging and character builds are diverse.




ROFLMFAO. Did you really just quote me a fictional fallacy created in a RPG forum?!?  Since you are obviously not informed on actual logical fallacies let me educate you on what question begging is.  It is when you make an argument which presupposes the conclusion.  Example: It is bad design for there to be gaps in stat usefulness because ideal design is for stats to be beneficial regardless of class, i.e. what you just did!

Edit: OP edited the quoted post while I was responding apparently thinking if he made it longer and more complex it would hide the fundamental question begging but it all boils down to "bad design = stats that aren't equally useful to all classes and good design = stats equally useful regardless of class because I said so."


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

OldSkoolRPG said:


> ROFLMFAO. Did you really just quote me a fictional fallacy created in a RPG forum?!?  Since you are obviously not informed on actual logical fallacies let me educate you on what question begging is.  It is when you make an argument which presupposes the conclusion.  Example: It is bad design for there to be gaps in stat usefulness because ideal design is for stats to be beneficial regardless of class, i.e. what you just did!




Your attempt at condescension is laughable. The original post shows how it is actually comprised of faulty logic. It's pretty sad to lord something like knowledge of logical fallacies on a social board as if almost everyone who posts on this board doesn't know what they are. I mean did you learn about them in high school or something?


----------



## Marandahir (Jan 8, 2016)

The problem with the Oberoni Fallacy is that it assumes the ideal is to take the DM out of the equation and make a game that can run irregardless of good or bad DM adjudications. 

5e's fundamental underlying principle is that, when you try to do this – WHICH 4th Edition tried several times – you end up taking away the quality that makes D&D (and Paper & Pencil RPGs in general) most appealing. Now don't get me wrong; I LOVED 4th Edition. The edition took a terribly clunky game and balanced it so that everyone could do cool things. In 5th Edition, everyone still can do cool things like in 4e, but the game isn't designed with a player-focus. It's DM-focused, because DM-fiat is what drives D&D. It's not a computer game. The best 4e games happened, in my experience, when tables let go of the strict interpretations of the rules and strict usages of powers and positions and just ran with the free-form of roleplaying. That's something you can only do with when "Rule 0" is made the centerpiece of the game. 

Now, you can reject this notion and say the entire logical underpinning of 5e is flawed because it accepts Rule 0 as a centerpiece. But if the Roll20 survey results are any indication, 5e has by and large reunited the fanbase that was consistently splintered with each Edition turnover of D&D. People are coming back to D&D in droves because it speaks to what they know to be D&D.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Combat is key. Con doesn't play a vital role in dialogue because it doesn't need to; it's universally important when it comes to combat. The point I was making is that the ability scores should be as equal as possible when it comes to combat mechanics, because those are the only rules that are extremely fleshed-out and detailed; they are far less subject to DM interpretation.



Combat isn't always key in practice in D&D. It's one of at least three typical ways of resolving a given conflict (the other two being typically exploration and interaction). So you have the character who beefed up their CON because it's important in combat but then combat is a rarity because the rest of the party is low-HP DEX/CHA monkeys who prefer to kill in ambushes what they can't talk their way out of, and our CON beefcake feels pointedly that not all ability scores are equal. It matters very little if CON and DEX and CHA are equal in a task resolution system that rarely gets used because of the choices of the players. 

Or more directly: presuming combat is all that matters is a mistake in a game where player choices and character abilities outside of combat can and often do entirely negate combats. 

A fleshed-out, detailed system that requires little DM interpretation is not the sole arbiter of an ability score's effectiveness in actual play.



> This mentality is a slippery slope (speaking of logical fallacies), because you can imagine a game that becomes nothing more than rule zero.



Such games have been published and are well-loved by many. Hell, informally, such games have existed for millennia. It's not a slippery slope, it's a design choice (and understanding why you might make such a choice and why you might not make such a choice gives some pretty interesting insight into Tabletop RPGs as a game medium). 



> My argument is that it's simply not acceptable, and logically faulty, to say "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever".



Since no such game has been proposed or produced, I imagine that it should be pretty evident that the 5e designers agree with you.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Marandahir said:


> The problem with the Oberoni Fallacy is that it assumes the ideal is to take the DM out of the equation and make a game that can run irregardless of good or bad DM adjudications.
> 
> 5e's fundamental underlying principle is that, when you try to do this – WHICH 4th Edition tried several times – you end up taking away the quality that makes D&D (and Paper & Pencil RPGs in general) most appealing. Now don't get me wrong; I LOVED 4th Edition. The edition took a terribly clunky game and balanced it so that everyone could do cool things. In 5th Edition, everyone still can do cool things like in 4e, but the game isn't designed with a player-focus. It's DM-focused, because DM-fiat is what drives D&D. It's not a computer game. The best 4e games happened, in my experience, when tables let go of the strict interpretations of the rules and strict usages of powers and positions and just ran with the free-form of roleplaying. That's something you can only do with when "Rule 0" is made the centerpiece of the game.
> 
> Now, you can reject this notion and say the entire logical underpinning of 5e is flawed because it accepts Rule 0 as a centerpiece. But if the Roll20 survey results are any indication, 5e has by and large reunited the fanbase that was consistently splintered with each Edition turnover of D&D. People are coming back to D&D in droves because it speaks to what they know to be D&D.




This mentality is a slippery slope (speaking of logical fallacies), because you can imagine a game that becomes nothing more than rule zero. I'm not saying there's something inherently bad with re-emphasizing DM control/power/subjectivity, but, this whole discussion represents how there is a hard mechanical structure that represents iconic d&d, and there's a reason for that (mostly relating to collective awareness of what D&D is and how to play it).

My argument is that it's simply not acceptable, and logically faulty, to say "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever".


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Aren't you the one that originally accused Sacrosanct of "fallacious reasoning"?  I then replied that you were actually the one guilty of fallacious reasoning. Your reply was to point to a fake fallacy while again using a real one. Now you claim that everyone knows what logical fallacies are and that it is condescending to inform you that you are indeed question begging and to explain why.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Combat isn't always key in practice in D&D. It's one of at least three typical ways of resolving a given conflict (the other two being typically exploration and interaction). So you have the character who beefed up their CON because it's important in combat but then combat is a rarity because the rest of the party is low-HP DEX/CHA monkeys who prefer to kill in ambushes what they can't talk their way out of, and our CON beefcake feels pointedly that not all ability scores are equal. It matters very little if CON and DEX and CHA are equal in a task resolution system that rarely gets used because of the choices of the players.
> 
> Or more directly: presuming combat is all that matters is a mistake in a game where player choices and character abilities outside of combat can and often do entirely negate combats.
> 
> A fleshed-out, detailed system that requires little DM interpretation is not the sole arbiter of an ability score's effectiveness in actual play.




Sorry, but the reality of D&D's rules don't really mesh with this mentality. It's not that other pillars of gameplay aren't important or are usually absent, because that clearly isn't the case. It's that the rules for combat are much, much more detailed than the rules for other pillars. This creates a situation where the DM and his/her group are pushed into creating their own style around dealing with the other pillars (which, in my experience, often becomes very vague and theater-of-the-mind). As such, they don't factor into the game's mechanical balance as much as the pillar for which extremely detailed rules exist and whose usage are the norm for almost all play groups - combat.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Sorry, but the reality of D&D's rules don't really mesh with this mentality. It's not that other pillars of gameplay aren't important or are usually absent, because that clearly isn't the case. It's that the rules for combat are much, much more detailed than the rules for other pillars. This creates a situation where the DM and his/her group are pushed into creating their own style around dealing with the other pillars (which, in my experience, often becomes very vague and theater-of-the-mind). As such, they don't factor into the game's mechanical balance as much as the pillar for which extremely detailed rules exist and are the norm.



The reality of the game as it is played is that combat isn't always very important. So it'd be a mistake to presume that combat is where all "balance" (for whatever value of balance you propose) should be located.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> This mentality is a slippery slope (speaking of logical fallacies), because you can imagine a game that becomes nothing more than rule zero. I'm not saying there's something inherently bad with re-emphasizing DM control/power/subjectivity, but, this whole discussion represents how there is a hard mechanical structure that represents iconic d&d, and there's a reason for that (mostly relating to collective awareness of what D&D is and how to play it).
> 
> My argument is that it's simply not acceptable, and logically faulty, to say "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever".




You acknowledge that the argument you are making here is merely a slippery slope fallacy and yet you proceed to make it anyway and conclude that other positions are logically faulty!  You decide to throw a straw man in for good measure because no one is using the argument you are claming, i.e. "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever"  The argument is that there are other design factors than balance and some people prefer a game that prioritizes those other factors over balance.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> The reality of the game as it is played is that combat isn't always very important. So it'd be a mistake to presume that combat is where all "balance" (for whatever value of balance you propose) should be located.




My point is that combat is already where balance is disproportionately handled in the basic rules. Most aspects of balance are explicitly handled within the combat rules, and when there's an attempt at balance outside of that context (like with the PHB Ranger class) - it immediately becomes subject to criticism for being too finicky and weak in general gameplay.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

OldSkoolRPG said:


> You acknowledge that the argument you are making here is merely a slippery slope fallacy and yet you proceed to make it anyway and conclude that other positions are logically faulty!  You decide to throw a straw man in for good measure because no one is using the argument you are claming, i.e. "here are these rules, but we didn't care much about making them balanced because the DM can change them to whatever"  The argument is that there are other design factors than balance and some people prefer a game that prioritizes those other factors over balance.




What? I think you got lost in the discussion.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> The reason for this is obvious - it's bad for game balance



So only important to the degree that game balance is prioritized as a design goal.  Oberoni may have been terribly relevant to 3.5 when it was dreamed up, but less so to 2e or 4e - and not at all to 5e.  The 5e DM isn't just allowed to change the rules, he's expected to overrule them consistently.  Complaining about Oberoni in your 5e D&D is like complaining about macaroni in your Kraft Mac & Cheese.  It's a foundation, not a fallacy.  



Marandahir said:


> The problem with the Oberoni Fallacy is that it assumes the ideal is to take the DM out of the equation and make a game that can run irregardless of good or bad DM adjudications.
> 
> 5e's fundamental underlying principle is that, when you try to do this you end up taking away the quality that makes D&D most appealing.



 The idea of the Oberoni fallacy is that you can't defend the quality of a rule by pointing out that you can fix it.  Nothing much to do with taking the DM out of the equation - nor is refraining from pushing game-(re)-design work on the DM fundamental to D&D being 'really D&D' (other in the nostalgic sense of it being like D&D when it was at it's most primitive).  

5e tries to appeal to as broad a set of current and past D&D fans it possibly can, that requires a lot of flexibility, and leaving large swaths of play open to (or even in need of) DM rulings is a big part of delivering that.  It's not that you can't have a clear/consistent/expansive/complete system that handles a broad range of styles, either, but the alternative of 'Empowering' the DM has the virtue of evoking the way we ran games back in the day, when the game "needed fixing."  

Today, it's not that 5e is broken, but that it's open.

Bottom line, Oberoni doesn't apply to 5e.  



> let go of the strict interpretations of the rules and strict usages of powers and positions and just ran with the free-form of roleplaying. That's something you can only do with when "Rule 0" is made the centerpiece of the game.



It doesn't matter how good a system is, you can always toss it and go free form if you want to.  No one can stop you.  With an at least basically functional system, you just also have the option of playing 'RAW.'


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> My point is that combat is already where balance is disproportionately handled in the basic rules. Most aspects of balance are explicitly handled within the combat rules, and when there's an attempt at balance outside of that context (like with the PHB Ranger class) - it immediately becomes subject to criticism for being too finicky and weak in general gameplay.



Your point is slippery! 

I don't agree that most aspects of balance are handled within the combat rules, or that the criticisms of the ranger revolve around a lack of combat effectiveness. I see plenty of nods to exploration and interaction balance within 5e, and the ranger criticisms have revolved around the beastmaster not playing in a way that represents the fiction of a person fighting alongside their animal friend, not a lack of combat effectiveness in general.

What's more, if you're only really concerned with combat effectiveness, nothing is stopping you from making a character devoted to DEX, CON, and WIS who dumps the other stats (or making a D&D game where those three stats are the only ones that exist). This is by far a simpler solution than plugging Charisma into some defense and increasing the math load. You could also occupy a middle ground and take a 4e tactic of making DEX, CON, and WIS each have a secondary ability score that can sub for them in combat (INT, STR, and CHA, respectively). 

That 5e D&D isn't already like this isn't a significant criticism of it, because D&D isn't exclusively concerned with combat. Nor should it be, IMO.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Sorry, but the reality of D&D's rules don't really mesh with this mentality. It's not that other pillars of gameplay aren't important or are usually absent, because that clearly isn't the case. It's that the rules for combat are much, much more detailed than the rules for other pillars. This creates a situation where the DM and his/her group are pushed into creating their own style around dealing with the other pillars (which, in my experience, often becomes very vague and theater-of-the-mind). As such, they don't factor into the game's mechanical balance as much as the pillar for which extremely detailed rules exist and whose usage are the norm for almost all play groups - combat.




Combat gets the most rules because it needs more precise adjudication. 

Keep in mind that originally in D&D you gained experience for treasure acquired not monsters slain. You were encouraged NOT to engage in combat because there was no reward and a risk of death. You were encouraged to find other ways to get the treasure and considered combat as a last resort. Same rules, same focus, but a subtle change alters the tone of many games. 
If you doubled xp for non-combat solutions everyone would be a lot more chatty and creative...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> The ideal way to design a game is for every stat to carry unique mechanical benefits irrespective of class, so that character building is engaging and you can build a diverse array of potential characters without gimping their ability to support a party..





So....exactly how many award winning and/or popular games _have_ you designed?


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> So only important to the degree that game balance is prioritized as a design goal.  Oberoni may have been terribly relevant to 3.5 when it was dreamed up, but less so to 2e or 4e - and not at all to 5e.  The 5e DM isn't just allowed to change the rules, he's expected to overrule them consistently.  Complaining about Oberoni in your 5e D&D is like complaining about macaroni in your Kraft Mac & Cheese.  It's a foundation, not a fallacy.




Sorry, I just think this is flat-out wrong. What's the point of having rules at all if it's all completely subject to the whims of a DM? DMs are empowered to make adjustments so things work for their games, they are not empowered to just casually rewrite the combat mechanics. While they can certainly do that, it is not the assumption of 5e that they will or that they should. The combat rules in particular are intended to create a set of rails for the gameplay, otherwise mechanics like Hero Points, Inspiration, and Advantage/Disadvantage wouldn't exist.

So, the idea that it's okay for Wizards of the Coast to publish imbalanced rules just because they provide the caveat that a "DM can change it" (which has always been the case) is laughable in its absurdity. It is every bit as much now as it was during 3.5 and 4e. The Oberoni fallacy still carries plenty of weight. WotC carries a responsibility to strive for a well-balanced ruleset. And they have done a relatively decent job with it a lot of the changes they made from previous editions.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> Combat gets the most rules because it needs more precise adjudication.
> 
> Keep in mind that originally in D&D you gained experience for treasure acquired not monsters slain. You were encouraged NOT to engage in combat because there was no reward and a risk of death. You were encouraged to find other ways to get the treasure and considered combat as a last resort. Same rules, same focus, but a subtle change alters the tone of many games.
> If you doubled xp for non-combat solutions everyone would be a lot more chatty and creative...




Yep. I never denied this, and it just reinforces my point about the greater necessity of combat rules being balanced in and of themselves.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Which again, assumes the rules are imbalanced.  Which is your opinion and hardly fact.  Based on some of the phrases you've used ("suboptimal") it seems like you're more of a powergamer who focuses on combat.  Newsflash.  Most people actually don't powergame, and lots of people have actually done entire sessions where combat never even occurred.  So by your logic, stats like INT and WIS are overpowered compared to CON because no one ever went into combat.

Of course stats are situation and don't apply evenly to all things.  If they did, why have them at all?  Why not just rename everything to "primary stat" and "secondary stat" if mechanically they all did the same thing.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Which again, assumes the rules are imbalanced.  Which is your opinion and hardly fact.  Based on some of the phrases you've used ("suboptimal") it seems like you're more of a powergamer who focuses on combat.  Newsflash.  Most people actually don't powergame, and lots of people have actually done entire sessions where combat never even occurred.  So by your logic, stats like INT and WIS are overpowered compared to CON because no one ever went into combat.
> 
> Of course stats are situation and don't apply evenly to all things.  If they did, why have them at all?  Why not just rename everything to "primary stat" and "secondary stat" if mechanically they all did the same thing.




You're just being contrary. You have no idea how I like to play D&D. I, in fact, am not a power gamer; I like to build interesting characters. And, who the hell ever argued that the stats should all do the same thing? That is the opposite of what I'm arguing.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

I can only go by what you say.  And when you use phrases like "suboptimal", that infers a powergaming aspect.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's hardly unusual for people to come to those sorts of conclusions.

You never answered my question.  How many award winning/popular games have you designed, since you seem to profess how a game should ideally be designed?


----------



## Ristamar (Jan 8, 2016)

This may be the some of the finest first post trolling I've seen at ENWorld in quite some time.  It is both disgusting and beautiful.

3.x tried to turn a lot of the non-combat portions of D&D into something much more granular and predictable, and it turned out to be a bloated mess that wasn't elegant or efficient.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> I can only go by what you say.  And when you use phrases like "suboptimal", that infers a powergaming aspect.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's hardly unusual for people to come to those sorts of conclusions.
> 
> You never answered my question.  How many award winning/popular games have you designed, since you seem to profess how a game should ideally be designed?




Actually I have worked on a couple of kickstarters and have spent loads of times writing revised rulesets for many games over the years. It's a hobby, though, not a profession. The question is hardly relevant to this discussion.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Sorry, I just think this is flat-out wrong. What's the point of having rules at all if it's all completely subject to the whims of a DM? DMs are empowered to make adjustments so things work for their games, they are not empowered to just casually rewrite the combat mechanics. While they can certainly do that, it is not the assumption of 5e that they will or that they should. The combat rules in particular are intended to create a set of rails for the gameplay, otherwise mechanics like Hero Points, Inspiration, and Advantage/Disadvantage wouldn't exist.




Yes you THINK that is flat out wrong. It is just your opinion.  



Einlanzer0 said:


> So, the idea that it's okay for Wizards of the Coast to publish imbalanced rules just because they provide the caveat that a "DM can change it" (which has always been the case) is laughable in its absurdity. It is every bit as much now as it was during 3.5 and 4e. The Oberoni fallacy still carries plenty of weight. WotC carries a responsibility to strive for a well-balanced ruleset. And they have done a relatively decent job with it a lot of the changes they made from previous editions.




You continue to argue as if game balance were the only design factor to consider.  Yes it would be absurd if balance was the end all be all of design considerations to then create an imbalanced game just because individual groups could fix it for themselves.  However, it is not absurd to prioritize other design factors  over balance because that is what most people want and those that prefer prioritizing balance can then do so at their own tables.  What you are, and have been, arguing is that your priorities are the only correct ones, the way you play at your table is the only correct way, and that no one can convince otherwise even going so far as to outright state that is the case.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Actually I have worked on a couple of kickstarters and have spent loads of times writing revised rulesets for many games over the years. It's a hobby, though, not a profession. The question is hardly relevant to this discussion.




When you are arguing what the "ideal way" an rpg should be designed is, then yes, your experience designing RPGs is important.  And it sounds like the answer to my question is "zero".  Which means you're pretty much the same as 99% of everyone as far as your expertise goes.  Which is to say, just your opinion man and hardly objective.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

OldSkoolRPG said:


> Yes you THINK that is flat out wrong. It is just your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to argue as if game balance were the only design factor to consider.  Yes it would be absurd if balance was the end all be all of design considerations to then create an imbalanced game just because individual groups could fix it for themselves.  However, it is not absurd to prioritize other design factors  over balance because that is what most people want and those that prefer prioritizing balance can then do so at their own tables.  What you are, and have been, arguing is that your priorities are the only correct ones, the way you play at your table is the only correct way, and that no one can convince otherwise even going so far as to outright state that is the case.




Did I say it wasn't an opinion? So is what you're saying. I simply disagree.

Regarding the second paragraph, I don't see how you're extrapolating that I'm arguing as if game balance was the only design factor. But, regardless, we need to take a step back and redefine "balance". What I'm actually talking about in this thread is my dissatisfaction with inter-stat "balance", which is a different beast and more of a conceptual issue than something like class balance, which is how people often interpret "balance" discussions.

In other words, my complaint is that the stats not only aren't as balanced as they could and should be, they also just aren't as interesting as they could and should be. If you disagree, that's fine, but stop arguing with me as if I'm wrong.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> If you disagree, that's fine, but stop arguing with me as if I'm wrong.




Oh, the irony


----------



## Dit464 (Jan 8, 2016)

NVM


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Oh, the irony




Would you just leave this thread already? The majority of your posts have failed to contribute anything whatsoever to the conversation.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

cbwjm said:


> I believe I've seen intelligence used as initiative in games before as a means of quickly sizing up the situation and reacting accordingly so I could see initiative being based of it. I really couldn't see it being based of strength, though. I agree that constitution and charisma wouldn't suit, but could possibly see wisdom.




The problem is really that nothing fits right, because the game lacks an "awareness" stat. It's half-way incorporated into wisdom along with completely unrelated things like willpower and piety. All 3 of the mental stats are poorly appropriate, IMO. This is a lot of why I think PoE's 6 stats are better. They just make more sense.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Would you just leave this thread already? The majority of your posts have failed to contribute anything whatsoever to the conversation.




You're the one who came here into a public discussion, saying something very opinionated and literally said you'd refuse to hear any sort of contrary conversation.  Sorry, but if you don't want people disagreeing with you, you shouldn't come to a public forum.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Did I say it wasn't an opinion? So is what you're saying. I simply disagree.
> 
> Regarding the second paragraph, I don't see how you're extrapolating that I'm arguing as if game balance was the only design factor. But, regardless, we need to take a step back and redefine "balance". What I'm actually talking about in this thread is my dissatisfaction with inter-stat "balance", which is a different beast and more of a conceptual issue than something like class balance, which is how people often interpret "balance" discussions.
> 
> In other words, my complaint is that the stats not only aren't as balanced as they could and should be, they also just aren't as interesting as they could and should be. If you disagree, that's fine, but stop arguing with me as if I'm wrong.




I am really impressed with how you take a post in which I point out that you have consistently argued that everyone else is wrong and you are right and then claim that I am the one arguing as if you are objectively wrong.  You are the one that has repeatedly lectured others on what is ideal, optimal and what should be. You are the one that said no one would ever convince you.  You are the one that has constantly said everyone else is just missing the point or that it is going over their poor little heads.  I'll give you this you truly have one gigantic brass pair. Bravo.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> You're the one who came here into a public discussion, saying something very opinionated and literally said you'd refuse to hear any sort of contrary conversation.  Sorry, but if you don't want people disagreeing with you, you shouldn't come to a public forum.




Maybe you should expect people to express opinions on a public forum. Maybe you should also expect people to prefer actual conversation over zealous and misguided attempts to convince them their opinion is wrong based on absurd reasoning, like there's nothing wrong with the rules because the DM can change them.

In any case, I'm not going to perpetuate a pointless semantic conversation. Unless you provide productive conversation contributing to the original topic I'm not responding to your posts anymore.


----------



## Marandahir (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas took my points and ran with them in a more eloquent way. 

Suffice to say, 5e needs to be flexible, and that takes a lot of DM adjudication, and thus Rule Zero gets implemented a lot in 5e. Oberoni Fallacy doesn't really work when talking about 5e because 5e de-emphasizes the purpose of CharOp (power to the players). This is probably my biggest issue with the D&D Adventurer's League – it takes away the power of houserulling from the DM for the sake of "fairness" and thus imposes a structure on 5e the edition was never meant to carry.

In any case, trying to make the game fair for different ability scores is what got us into the madness of the 4e Battlemind attacking with his Constitution (or the ConLock for that matter). Nobody really argues that Constitution isn't fairly treated in 5e; in fact, because of 5e's bounded accuracy and bounded ability score maximums, Constitution is the ability score everyone wants to invest in. Likewise, all abilities are worth investing in by almost any and every character to some extent. 5e finally throws off the shackles of the 1 or 2 ability score using characters that were common in 3rd and 4th editions (remember that I loved 4th edition, in spite of this flaw).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Sorry, I just think this is flat-out wrong. What's the point of having rules at all if it's all completely subject to the whims of a DM?



Principally, to help a DM in running a fun game. 



> DMs are empowered to make adjustments so things work for their games, they are not empowered to just casually rewrite the combat mechanics. While they can certainly do that, it is not the assumption of 5e that they will or that they should. The combat rules in particular are intended to create a set of rails for the gameplay, otherwise mechanics like Hero Points, Inspiration, and Advantage/Disadvantage wouldn't exist.



I think 5e's take on combat falls in line with the idea that rules are there to help rather than to dictate: we've given you something we think works pretty good. Here's how it works. Here's how to change some things. 



> WotC carries a responsibility to strive for a well-balanced ruleset. And they have done a relatively decent job with it a lot of the changes they made from previous editions.



I'm with you, but the things you've been seeing as "imbalanced" (because they're not strictly combat-equivalent) are certainly more open to discussion and questions than you seem to be presuming. It is not the case that, if Charisma is not as useful in combat as Dexterity, that it should be made to be as useful, or else the ability scores are flawed. That Charisma is not as useful in combat as Dexterity but is valued equally indicates instead that combat is not the only or even necessarily primary consideration the designers have taken into account.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Maybe you should also expect people to prefer actual conversation over zealous and misguided attempts to convince them their opinion is wrong based on absurd reasoning, like there's nothing wrong with the rules because the DM can change them.




See what he did there?  "Your attempt to convince me my opinion is wrong is misguided because of your absurd reasoning, i.e. your opinion is wrong"  The lack of self-awareness is simply mind boggling.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

OldSkoolRPG said:


> See what he did there?  "Your attempt to convince me my opinion is wrong is misguided because of your absurd reasoning, i.e. your opinion is wrong"  The lack of self-awareness is simply mind boggling.




"There's nothing wrong with the rules because the DM can change them."  <-- absurd reasoning. #sorrynotsorry. And same thing applies to you that applies to Sacrosanct.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Marandahir said:


> Tony Vargas took my points and ran with them in a more eloquent way.
> 
> Suffice to say, 5e needs to be flexible, and that takes a lot of DM adjudication, and thus Rule Zero gets implemented a lot in 5e. Oberoni Fallacy doesn't really work when talking about 5e because 5e de-emphasizes the purpose of CharOp (power to the players). This is probably my biggest issue with the D&D Adventurer's League – it takes away the power of houserulling from the DM for the sake of "fairness" and thus imposes a structure on 5e the edition was never meant to carry.
> 
> In any case, trying to make the game fair for different ability scores is what got us into the madness of the 4e Battlemind attacking with his Constitution (or the ConLock for that matter). Nobody really argues that Constitution isn't fairly treated in 5e; in fact, because of 5e's bounded accuracy and bounded ability score maximums, Constitution is the ability score everyone wants to invest in. Likewise, all abilities are worth investing in by almost any and every character to some extent. 5e finally throws off the shackles of the 1 or 2 ability score using characters that were common in 3rd and 4th editions (remember that I loved 4th edition, in spite of this flaw).




I don't agree that Oberoni doesn't work in 5e. At all. It's still incumbent on WotC to provide a good, well-thought out ruleset, regardless of how much they empower DMs to tweak or adjust.

Getting back to ability scores - I never thought that people using Con to attack with made any sense or was a good idea; all it does is further reinforce the class-based score structure d&d has always had. What I'm saying needs to happen is that they need to tie more baseline combat-relevant mechanics to the ability scores to make them less class-dependent than they currently tend to be. There should be some incentive and some payoff for playing a high-int, low-con fighter, for example, rather than just gimping the crap out of yourself to do it. I've actually drafted a number of things over the years in an attempt to facilitate this, like a tactics-style mechanic that works something like HD.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> "There's nothing wrong with the rules because the DM can change them."  <-- absurd reasoning. #sorrynotsorry. And same thing applies to you that applies to Sacrosanct.




I never made that argument.  Since you like to keep accusing others of engaging in a fallacy, this is what we call a "strawman".


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 8, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> You seem to be describing a wizard.




No, I'm not. At all.

Wizards study distinct arcane formulas, according to established rules, to use (generally) known spells in a relatively safe, predictable manner. 

That bears no resemblance to what I described.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 8, 2016)




----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Sorry, I just think this is flat-out wrong. What's the point of having rules at all if it's all completely subject to the whims of a DM?



 They're a starting point for when the DM isn't having any whims.  Seriously, though, the idea is that the DM will make rulings to make the game he's running better, not just on a whim.  As playing games go, DMing is fairly responsible.



> DMs are empowered to make adjustments so things work for their games, they are not empowered to just casually rewrite the combat mechanics.



Rulings aren't re-writing rules, just interpreting or overruling them.  But, yes, DM's are empowerd to re-write the rules if they want to.  Or, rather, nothing can stop them.  The assumption in 5e is rulings, though, not re-writes.



> So, the idea that it's okay for Wizards of the Coast to publish imbalanced rules just because they provide the caveat that a "DM can change it" (which has always been the case) is laughable in its absurdity.



They can publish an imbalanced system for no reason whatsoever.  Or 'because our surveys indicate D&D fans hate balance' or whatever.  

Now, it would be absurd if they'd published 5e and claimed it was balanced and the DM shouldn't need to change it, then resorted Oberoni when confronted with the fact it wasn't.  But they've done neither.  




Jester Canuck said:


> Keep in mind that originally in D&D you gained experience for treasure acquired not monsters slain.



Not in any published ruleset.  Indeed, one of the changes made by the first supplement to OD&D, Greyhawk, was to reduce the exp for killing monsters.



Sacrosanct said:


> Which again, assumes the rules are imbalanced.



Of course they are.  And not just on the tautological grounds that perfect balance is impossible.  The question isn't are they balanced or are they broken, but whether that can be excused because the DM is Empowered to enforce spotlight balance and assure playability, or whether Oberoni applies.  Key reasons I have to argue it's the former are that there was no particular call for or prioritization of balance leading up to Next or during the playtest (in fact, plenty of the opposite), and that the explanation of play includes DM rulings as a matter of course.

The thing about Oberoni is it's not talking about rulings, but house-rules. There's a distinction.  House rules replace/change existing rules.  The result is a different ruleset.  Ruling don't replace rules, they might override the results of a rule, or cover a situation there's no rule for, but they don't change the rule itself.  When a rule is broken and the DM changes it, the rule was still broken, even when an off-hand 'Rule 0' says "BTW, change any rules you want."  When the rules say "and now the DM makes a ruling," the DM isn't changing them by making that ruling, he's just working with them.




Einlanzer0 said:


> The Oberoni fallacy still carries plenty of weight.



Only to the degree the game purports to be balanced in the first place.  5e rests so much on DM rulings that it doesn't need much, if any, mechanical balance to be playable.  You want to complain that 5e isn't balanced, go ahead.  It isn't.  



> WotC carries a responsibility to strive for a well-balanced ruleset.



Nope.  They're selling a product, and how well it's sold has been darn near inversely proportional to how well it's been balanced.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

cbwjm said:


> Now that I've caught up and read through the previous pages; I don't really feel that every stat needs to be useful for every part of the game. If only wizards are getting the benefit of a high intelligence in combat then that is fine, they are also going to shine outside of combat when it comes to making intelligence checks. It's the same with wisdom and charisma. PCs who are built to take advantage of the physical stats so that they can be a melee machine are going to suffer when the combat is over. I've seen some games on youtube where, in two hours, they have a single combat; otherwise the players are making history checks, perception checks, investigation and persuasion checks, and those who have an 8 in the required stat are suffering unless they have a lucky die roll. It's perfectly fine for certain stats to have a greater impact on different pillars of the game, they don't all need to be equal in every scenario.




Here's one issue I have with this - one character tends to carry the party during non-combat engagements, and more often than not, it's unnecessary and arguably detrimental to have several PCs with the same skillset. This is part of the reason why Int kind of sucks in 5e. Because most of its mechanical benefits (unless you're a wizard) are vague and tied to non-combat engagements, you get diminishing returns from having more than one high-int PC in the party, which is going to default to the wizard if the party contains one. If not, you're likely to just collectively decide who the Int person is in order to mitigate waste. 

I mean, really, how lame is that? Wouldn't it make way more sense if Int had some use in combat that wasn't specifically tied only to wizard spells?


----------



## Jeff Carlsen (Jan 8, 2016)

Bawylie said:


> What else they got wrong:
> 
> 1.) 3 books (kudos, though to basic rules package)
> 2.) format & layout (indexes, tables, & references particularly)
> ...




I think there's a fair argument for each of these, though some, like format & layout are more of a slight miss than an abject failure.

I agree that the encounter building rules could have used another writing pass. It was a mistake to use the term Challenge Rating. It sets the wrong expectations.

I think the way fighter subclasses turned out is flawed, as shown by the discussion of the Kits Unearthed Arcana.

They zoomed in way to close on the cover image of the PHB. The full size artwork as seen on the inside cover is far more dramatic.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Snip




You're actually arguing that it's totally okay for WotC to spend years writing elaborate rules for their game, then publish that game for purchase with horribly imbalanced rules, as long as they don't tell us it's balanced and try to prevent players from rewriting them for their games? I mean, really? Are you serious? That's so irrational I don't even know how to argue against it.

I mean, maybe we're getting lost in the semantics of the term "balance" here, which I already suggested in a previous post. But, I urge you to re-think what you just asserted. Or, if I'm misunderstanding, clarify your meaning.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 8, 2016)

Marandahir said:


> In any case, trying to make the game fair for different ability scores is what got us into the madness of the 4e Battlemind attacking with his Constitution (or the ConLock for that matter). Nobody really argues that Constitution isn't fairly treated in 5e; in fact, because of 5e's bounded accuracy and bounded ability score maximums, Constitution is the ability score everyone wants to invest in. Likewise, all abilities are worth investing in by almost any and every character to some extent. 5e finally throws off the shackles of the 1 or 2 ability score using characters that were common in 3rd and 4th editions (remember that I loved 4th edition, in spite of this flaw).




No, the battlemind and conlock use their COn because they are drawing upon their physical endurance as a power source/power conduit, which is 100% sensible for both a magic user and a psionic character. 

Agree with the rest, though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> You're actually arguing that it's totally okay for WotC to spend years writing elaborate rules for their game, then publish that game for purchase with horribly imbalanced rules



Yes.  







> as long as they don't tell us it's balanced and allow players to rewrite them for their games?



 Not rewrite, but overrule in play, yes. 







> I mean, really?



Really. 







> Are you serious?



Yes. 







> I don't even know how to argue against it.



OK.  Don't feel obligated.



> I mean, maybe we're getting lost in the semantics of the term "balance" here, which I already suggested in a previous post.



I'm not arguing that 5e is balanced.  Just that it doesn't 'need' to be, or, perhaps, can't be expected to be given it's goals. 







> But, I urge you to re-think what you just asserted. Or, if I'm misunderstanding, clarify your meaning.



Aside from the distinction between changing, fixing, or house-ruling the existing rules and simply making rulings, I think you've got it.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yes. Not rewrite, but overrule in play, yes. Really. Yes. I'll take that as conceding defeat, thank you.
> 
> I'm not arguing that 5e is balanced. Just that it doesn't 'need' to be, or, perhaps, can't be expected to be given it's goals. Aside from the distinction between changing, fixing, or house-ruling the existing rules and simply making rulings, I think you've got it.




I would not call that "conceding defeat". I walk away from arguments with creationists all the time. Does that make me wrong? It's more like acquiescing that there's no way to make the other person see reason.

I mean, maybe you're right if we assume WotC cares absolutely nothing about their brand image or sales prospects, but that clearly isn't the case. I still think maybe we're conceptualizing the term "balance" differently. Your argument seems to hinge on labeling 4e as "balanced" and 5e as "not balanced". I would argue that in most respects 5e is very carefully balanced, it's just also streamlined, and that's why it's more popular than 4e (well, that and that it's more "traditional"). My complaint is regarding a very specific issue I have, not with 5e taken as a whole. 

Do you honestly think 5e would be doing so well if the gameplay felt grossly imbalanced to such a degree that it required constant player rule changes and refinement? No, it wouldn't.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Jan 8, 2016)

Falling is a proud nail for me. 1d6 per square up to 20d6 is a lot but even if you maximize it, still survivable by many higher level characters. Some could even keep adventuring effectively the same day.  In my lifetime, I've seen people who fell from cliffs, down elevator shafts, even skydiving and lived, so I understand that it can happen, but they all injuries that remain for the rest of their lives. If we're in a fantasy setting and magic fixes it fine. Magic ought to be better because it's magic, but still short of being healed by magic or protected by the divine, falling 100' off anything should be a life changer. 

Then there's sundering. In 3e breaking a weapon was hard to pull off, and it would take a special ability or something weird going on to 'limb' someone. Yet the troll continues to describe that it can overcome this happening as if were ever to come up. historical digs though in many battle sites show the terrible propensity of medieval and ancient weapons to do this. It should not come up constantly, maybe make a mechanic akin to the massive damage rules, but think of the drama of the villain getting the ancient holy sword and then our hero relieves him of it, or his hand, only to have him come back later with the hand of Vecna.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 8, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> I would not call that "conceding defeat".



I wasn't being serious with that bit, already dropped it.


> I mean, maybe you're right if we assume WotC cares absolutely nothing about their brand image or sales prospects, but that clearly isn't the case.



I think it's precisely because they do care about brand image and sales prospects that they haven't made balance a priority for 5e, leaving it largely to the DM to engineer how he likes.  It seems to be working for them.



> Do you honestly think 5e would be doing so well if the gameplay felt grossly imbalanced to such a degree that it required constant player rule changes and refinement?



DM rulings, not player rule changes.  Aside, from that, yes, it would, _and it is_.  It's how classic D&D tended to play, and that feel and familiarity has been drawing lapsed players back to the game.  it's been very successful, precisely because it hasn't embraced 'RAW' the way 3.5 did nor prioritized balance the way 4e did.



> I still think maybe we're conceptualizing the term "balance" differently.



A definition of game balance I like is that a game is balanced when it provides the players with many choices that are both viable and meaningful.  Don't know if that helps, since we're not primarily disagreeing about whether the game is balanced or not.


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> I wasn't being serious with that bit, already dropped it.
> I think it's precisely because they do care about brand image and sales prospects that they haven't made balance a priority for 5e, leaving it largely to the DM to engineer how he likes.  It seems to be working for them.
> 
> DM rulings, not player rule changes.  Aside, from that, yes, it would, _and it is_.
> ...




Edited my post above in case you didn't see it. A lot of the changes made to 5e were actually pro-balance changes, such as striving to narrow the utility gap between non-casters and casters. What can happen is that you focus on balance so much that it bogs down the gameplay, and that definitely can be to a game's detriment, but that isn't what I'm talking about. The design goals for any game should include both balance and smooth/streamlined gameplay. The best games pull both off simultaneously. Any game that fails too hard at either or both is going to not be received well.

edit: apparently you did and subsequently edited yours =P  
btw - DMs are also players.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 9, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Edited my post above in case you didn't see it. A lot of the changes made to 5e were actually pro-balance changes.



Changes relative to what, exactly?  It's a game that borrows from all it's own prior editions, more so than using one of them as a starting point and making changes to it.  



> The design goals for any game should include both balance and smooth/streamlined gameplay. The best games pull both off simultaneously.



I'd agree that for just any game (of any sort) off the shelf, balance and playability are vitally important goals, and nothing about them is innately incompatible (normally).  RPGs are a little different (if anything, balance is more important for most RPGs), and D&D is downright unique due to its legacy.

Whether a game feels 'smooth' or 'streamlined' though depends both on the qualities of the game, and the familiarity players have with it.  D&D has been around since 1974, and didn't really change much until 2000.  It's first 10 years or so were also the period when the most people, by far, actually played it.  Both long-time and returning players have a certain familiarity with those versions of D&D, and to the extent that 5e evokes those games, it gains a familiarity that lends it that feel of being 'simpler' (or 'streamlined' or whatever you want to call it), relative to the more complex/innovative d20 games like 3.5/PF, or the simply less familiar (if not obscure ones) that constitute prettymuch the whole (tiny) industry apart from D&D and it's closest imitators.

By the same token, D&D has never been all that exemplary when it comes to game balance.  Longtime DMs have necessarily become accustomed to compensating for that.  And designers trying too hard to balance the system, mechanically, damage that familiarity its built up over decades.  
It simply doesn't need to be balanced - quite the opposite.  
It simply needs to be D&D.  

You might notice that stats are 'imbalanced' - that what stat you put your highest roll or most points into isn't one of those meaningful/viable choices.  There are dump stats, there prime requisites.  Thing is, those stats are deeply ingrained in D&D, part of what makes it so familiar it doesn't feel complicated anymore.  You can't mess with 'em.



> btw - DMs are also players.



But rulings aren't rule changes.  And it's only DMs that make rulings.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 9, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Combat is key. Con doesn't play a vital role in dialogue because it doesn't need to; it's universally important when it comes to combat. The point I was making is that the ability scores should be as equal as possible when it comes to combat mechanics, because those are the only rules that are extremely fleshed-out and detailed; they are far less subject to DM interpretation.





All ability scores are useful in combat, just not for all classes. The sorcerer, bard, and paladin all get combat use out of Charisma, and being asked to make Charisma saving throws means that having it as a dump stat hurts. 
Doing otherwise... well, let's look at that after this:




Einlanzer0 said:


> I'm not begging the question. The reason for this is obvious - it's bad for game balance when there are overt gaps in usefulness between the stats. It creates a clunky system where you have to hog-tie class specific mechanics to emphasize "weak stats" for certain classes, which in turn leads to goofy build non-options and pigeonholing game-play. For example, playing a high-Int fighter typically requires making a suboptimal character, because Fighters get very little value from the Int stat. As a result, you almost never see high-Int fighters, despite the fact that if it were the real world, one's Intelligence would definitely play a role in how effective a fighter they were. The same is true regarding Str for wizards. If you're in combat, physical strength and reflexes are going to be important.
> 
> The ideal way to design a game is for every stat to carry unique mechanical benefits irrespective of class, so that character building is engaging and you can build a diverse array of potential characters without gimping their ability to support a party.
> 
> A good way to handle Int, as an example, would be to tie some type of Tactics mechanic to it, which may work something like how Hero Points work in the normal rules. This would serve as an incentive to buff up Int instead of, say, Con.



That makes for a very complex game. 
Players have to learn the details for six different ability scores, how they related to various abilities, and then choose how to assign ability scores. That is a LOT more complicated than having one or two key scores for each class that the game can tell you to prioritize. Making characters becomes much harder. 5e was meant to be a simpler game in that regard. 

It also gets unwieldy in a tabletop game. There's a LOT of RPGs out there and I can't think of one that gets as heavy into ability scores like that, with lots of optimization choices for each class. Because it's complicated and works better in a video game where the computer can manage the numbers and interactions. Video games universally tend to be more complicated in terms of character (look at all the stats and numbers in Warcraft, with Hit, armour, resistances, crit chance, etc), but much easier to play and manage as the math is done behind the scenes. 
Really, most tabletop games are getting even less complicated than D&D. As rules lite as it is, D&D is still a pretty crunch system compared to the various FATE powered games out there. 

It's also harder to balance. Which seems to be a big thing with you. 
Perfect balance is impossible. It's an illusion. If given three ostensibly perfect choices, one will always be slightly better. Even if only situationally. Look at Rock Paper Scissors. All theoretically have the same chance of winning, yet people have won Roshambo tournaments multiple years in a row despite only having a 33% chance of winning any given game. The odds of that are astronomical. Because there's imbalance. 
The more complicated the system, the greater imbalances exist. When you have a complicated system where each ability score has a different bonus in combat and every player has to prioritize and unlimited freedom to build their characters with any stat combination, that is phenomenally more complicated.
Do the math. An average 5e fighter will have a high Strength or Dex, Con as their second, the other of Dex or Str as a third and Int/Wis/Cha as wild cards. There are really two functional builds: Str>Con>Dex, Dex>Con>Str. Maybe as many as four if you put Con to tertiary. Assuming all stats have to be high and are equally valuable, that means there are 46,000 different combinations. And they all have to be balanced with each other. That's just not possible. And with a million more players looking at a game than designers, it's only a matter of time before the flaws, broken combinations, and imbalances are found. One stat or stat array emerges as just plain better. And unlike a video game, D&D cannot patch to fix content. 
The balance is soooooo much harder.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 9, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, I'm not. At all.
> 
> Wizards study distinct arcane formulas, according to established rules, to use (generally) known spells in a relatively safe, predictable manner.
> 
> That bears no resemblance to what I described.



But a class built around bargaining for power with an extraplanar entity does?  It seems strange to me that you're so eager to radically reinvent the warlock, but insist on such a narrow conceptualization of the wizard.  Is it so unthinkable that the class which actually _uses Intelligence to cast spells_ might be the one to engage in "magical hacking"? What do you think a wizard's formulas _are_, anyway, if not code to "jack into magical power sources"?  And who ever said that wizardry was safe?  It's one of the oldest adventure tropes in the book for a wizard to screw up an experiment and inflict some strange and terrible fate upon himself and/or others.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 9, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> But a class built around bargaining for power with an extraplanar entity does?  It seems strange to me that you're so eager to radically reinvent the warlock, but insist on such a narrow conceptualization of the wizard.  Is it so unthinkable that the class which actually _uses Intelligence to cast spells_ might be the one to engage in "magical hacking"? What do you think a wizard's formulas _are_, anyway, if not code to "jack into magical power sources"?  And who ever said that wizardry was safe?  It's one of the oldest adventure tropes in the book for a wizard to screw up an experiment and inflict some strange and terrible fate upon himself and/or others.




Not sure why you're so worked up about this, but ok. 

Anyway, you clearly didn't get what I was saying. At this point I don't really care if it was my wording or your reading. c'est la vie.


----------



## Awesome Adam (Jan 9, 2016)

*The Backfire Effect* When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 9, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Would you just leave this thread already? The majority of your posts have failed to contribute anything whatsoever to the conversation.




I thought that he was allowed to post because he is an award winning/popular game designer?

Is that not the criteria for posting now a days?


----------



## Aribar (Jan 9, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> You're actually arguing that it's totally okay for WotC to spend years writing elaborate rules for their game, then publish that game for purchase with horribly imbalanced rules, as long as they don't tell us it's balanced and try to prevent players from rewriting them for their games? I mean, really? Are you serious? That's so irrational I don't even know how to argue against it.
> 
> I mean, maybe we're getting lost in the semantics of the term "balance" here, which I already suggested in a previous post. But, I urge you to re-think what you just asserted. Or, if I'm misunderstanding, clarify your meaning.




I think it's okay because D&D has (outside of 4E and maybe Basic?) never been known for being a balanced game. I think the typical D&D fan cares more about the "feel" given by their interpretation of the rules rather than the actual rules themselves. They don't care that even a level 20 character specialized in something will fail a Moderate skill check almost half the time, it _feels_ right and doesn't bother them. 5E really doubled-down on this with the super-awkward "natural language" of the rules where half the clarifications literally amount to "ask your DM" and just isn't designed for gamers like you or me. We're likely better served by sticking with 4E, or going to 13th Age (especially since it _can_ do the Death To Ability Scores thing really well!), or Strike!. Would it have been awesome if 5E built upon 4E instead of being "3E+some 2E elements II: Electric Boogaloo"? I think so, but that's not what we got and even very early into the public playtests that was apparent.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 9, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> *The Backfire Effect* When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
> http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/




Sort of like cognitive dissonance.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 9, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> But a class built around bargaining for power with an extraplanar entity does?  It seems strange to me that you're so eager to radically reinvent the warlock, but insist on such a narrow conceptualization of the wizard.  Is it so unthinkable that the class which actually _uses Intelligence to cast spells_ might be the one to engage in "magical hacking"? What do you think a wizard's formulas _are_, anyway, if not code to "jack into magical power sources"?  And who ever said that wizardry was safe?  It's one of the oldest adventure tropes in the book for a wizard to screw up an experiment and inflict some strange and terrible fate upon himself and/or others.



That's kind of a fun thought, actually.  A society where warlocks are the respected practitioners of arcane magic, because they're mentored by respectable extraplanar entities.  Wizards have to teach them themselves how to make it work, which is why they have so many divergent effects available to them, rather than focusing and learning the classics.  It's also why their magic is so draining, and it takes a whole night just to get their ability to cast back, while a warlock only has to take a quick break to meditate and refocus to get all their magic back.  Heck, wizards can barely manage the trick to cast minor magic repeatedly, unlike the numerous magical effects a warlock can learn to cast over and over again!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 9, 2016)

cbwjm said:


> Edit: I just spotted a quote in the post above mine where you mention tactics tied to Intelligence. It's a thought, I guess, but I think it would have to stay in the optional rules section of the DMG. I'd also have to wonder what kind of tactics it would allow for which can't already be done by anyone in the game.



One rather abstract way of modeling superior INT in combat that I vaguely recall from some game in the 80s (can't even remember which) was initiative.  You use a declaration phase separate from an action phase.  In the declaration phase, everyone states their action for the round in ascending order of INT, so the 'smartest' character gets to know what everyone else is doing before deciding what to do.  Then, you resolve actions in descending order of DEX (or standard rolled initiative order or whatever).  Even simpler and more abstract would be to add INT to initiative instead of or in addition to DEX.


----------



## Awesome Adam (Jan 9, 2016)

That sounds like a feat
*TACTICIAN* - Add Intelligence Modifier in addition to the Dexterity Modifier when making ability checks to determine initiative order.


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Jan 9, 2016)

My only complaint thus far is about some of the subclasses. I think most of them are solid but some of them are conceptually muddy. For example, the mastermind rogue is somewhat like a warlord, with a real emphasis on combat. Yet one of their abilities is around disguise. Disguise works for an infiltrator or spy subclass. It just feels out of place with the mastermind. Similarly, I'm not a fan of the hound summoned by the shadow sorcerer. I'd rather see that subclass focused exclusively on cool stuff to do with shadow, kind of like the monk subclass. And save the companion for a summoner subclass. Long story short, I see too many subclasses with one or two features that just seem out of place for the concept.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 9, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> For example, the mastermind rogue is somewhat like a warlord, with a real emphasis on combat. Yet one of their abilities is around disguise. Disguise works for an infiltrator or spy subclass. It just feels out of place with the mastermind.



Mastermind is less like a Warlord than a Holmes or a Mr. Phelps, and disguise seems pretty appropriate.  Coincidentally, though, the last Warlord I played was a shapechanger specialized in bluff. 







> Similarly, I'm not a fan of the hound summoned by the shadow sorcerer. Long story short, I see too many subclasses with one or two features that just seem out of place for the concept.



And if they were different someone else might feel the same way about the alternative you'd prefer.  5e just needs a deal more customizability & flexibility than the current sub-class paradigm allows for, especially for those classes that don't have spells-known & prepped to provide both, respectively.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 9, 2016)

To the OP that is nmore or less D&D as the 6 ability scorething is a sacred cow IHO that makes it D&D. Things 5E actually got wrong IMHO.

1. The saving throw system. 6 saves when 3 of them really only matter that much and 1 of them is barely used. Some classes have good basic saves (str/con) and other classes have meh saves (int/wis). IN effect your saves often get worse as you level up relative to the Cs as well.

2. The encounter building rules and the 2 short rest assumption and 6-8 encounters assumptions. Makes the game grindy.

3. The healing rate. Partly related to 2 but there is to much healing in this game combined with easy monsters. Makes the game a bit boring and 5E is crap at doing things like hex crawls or exploration games in the wilderness.

4. Subclass design. There are a few stinkers in the game.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jan 9, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> 5e was a huge opportunity to do some modernizing to the traditional ruleset of dungeons and dragons. They did a great job with this in certain aspects of the game, like the updated spellcasting rules.  However, my biggest complaint by far about 5e is how they made almost no updates to the traditional attribute system d&D has always used, which frankly has a lot of problems.
> 
> Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced. Not only do the 6 attributes in PoE make more conceptual/thematic sense, but they are also designed with the mantra of being useful independent of class. There's no such thing as a dump stat. Some stats may be more useful for some builds than other stats, but it comes much closer to being class-independent than D&D, which I vastly prefer because it makes character concepting and building much more engaging, with the potential for much more diversity, and opens up interesting role-play options.




I mostly agree. Pillars doesnt have a cha stat from what I can tell. 

I am writing an OSR based low fantasy game, and have changed the attributes to str, dex, con, int (inc perception/detection), willpower (resisting mental affects) and charisma (influence/looks/leadership only). No wisdom. 

The blurring of wisdom and int and cha in traditional DnD should have been corrected a long time ago imo.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 9, 2016)

I think 5e got bounded accuracy wrong.  It was a great idea, but they bounded it a bit too tightly.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jan 9, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> To the OP that is nmore or less D&D as the 6 ability scorething is a sacred cow IHO that makes it D&D. Things 5E actually got wrong IMHO.
> 
> 1. The saving throw system. 6 saves when 3 of them really only matter that much and 1 of them is barely used. Some classes have good basic saves (str/con) and other classes have meh saves (int/wis). IN effect your saves often get worse as you level up relative to the Cs as well.
> 
> ...




I agree with all the above. In addition: 

5. passive perception is broken vs traps and doesnt actually help the game. it just makes problems. 

6. Damage and hp are too inflated at higher levels. There should be no HD healing - that is just pure buffer which is unnecessary and stretches out the attrition game. Personally I would have capped the game at about level 12. 

7. Personally, I prefer the rarer, stronger magic with no cantrips at all. I suppose that is more of a personal style thing. Still, it makes playing a "low fantasy" game impossible with 5e. 

8. The short rest mechanic was a mistake. It makes wilderness and city adventures too easy for short rest classes, and dungeons too easy for long rest classes. Everything should have been set to the same recharge mechanic, probably the long rest. Short rest powers could have been 2/day (or 3/day or 1/day, varying by ability perhaps).


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Jan 9, 2016)

Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.


----------



## Marandahir (Jan 9, 2016)

Why can't you just play a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Monk/Ranger/Paladin? 

None of them have cantrips by default and certainly not before level 3. Magic is rare or nonexistent for these classes.

If you don't care for magic, 5e doesn't need it. Just remove the caster classes and use backgrounds and feats to customize a bit to get at some of those other roles.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 9, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game  because so many class features are delivered through spells.



 5e works fine without magic _items_ pretty easily, though, which is what most D&Ders mean when they say low/no 'magic.'  I get that's not what you're saying, just thought I'd mention that it's a weakness most fans don't care about (or even consider all classes using spells as features a, well, feature). 







Marandahir said:


> Why can't you just play a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Monk/Ranger/Paladin?



They all have class features delivered by spells, though.

If you take it down to sub-classes, Champion, Battlemaster, Thief, Assassin, and Berserker don't have any class features even referencing spells, and those 5 are it for the PH.  

To be fair, 5e has been adding non-caster sub-classes as fast as they can think of decent features for them, maybe even a little faster.  



> If you don't care for magic, 5e doesn't need it. Just remove the caster _sub-_classes and use backgrounds and feats to customize a bit to get at some of those other roles.



The remaining sub-classes give you a pretty limited party, though, and the odd background or feat won't replace the contributions the game expects from casters.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 10, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.




Most of the 2E classes cast spells as well. A 5E conversion of DS should just have very restricted subclass options. Fighters, Thief, Assasssin(bard), and the wizards/clerics be allowed (only 4 domains).


----------



## Staffan (Jan 10, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> My only complaint thus far is about some of the subclasses. I think most of them are solid but some of them are conceptually muddy. For example, the mastermind rogue is somewhat like a warlord, with a real emphasis on combat. Yet one of their abilities is around disguise. Disguise works for an infiltrator or spy subclass. It just feels out of place with the mastermind.



This is what a Mastermind looks like:






Nate Ford is the guy who makes his whole team better by knowing their strengths and weaknesses better than they do themselves, and by planning out the cons. He's also pretty good at the grifter side of the business (but not as good as Sophie Deveraux), covered by disguises and Deception.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 10, 2016)

Exactly. The mastermind is only warlord like in the vaguest possible sense. I.e., has support features, isn't magical.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 10, 2016)

Let's not get into the warlord here. There's an entire forum for that argument.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 10, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.




D&D has never been a great system for low magic games. 5e lets a little more magic into the classes, but there are fewer magic items. 

The cleric, druid, wizard, ranger, and paladin have pretty much the same magic as in 2e when _Dark Sun_ was created. Only the bard only has a little more. There are more classes with magic because there are more classes. If it worked then, it should work now. 
_
Dark Sun_ should be a little easier to manage now, since you can just ban the cleric and paladin and let the bard and druid pick up the healer slack, so you don't need to force elemental priests in just to keep healing and _restoration_ in the game. Elemental priests could be druid circles pretty easily.

But 5e is pretty modular, so it could be tweaked. It'd be easy to remove or reduce cantrip casting, or reduce spellcasting. You can give spellcasters restriction to make using magic harder, such as house rules that increase casting time, perks to encourage people to play martial characters, or roleplaying restrictions such as magic users being feared or magic corrupting the weilder. For example, you could give the ranger and paladin the eldritch knight casting chart, give the wizard, cleric, bard, druid, and sorcerer the ranger and pally casting chart and just make magic rarer. Or have spellcasters declare the spell they're casting at the end of their turn, with it taking effect the following round, but have a chance it's interrupted.


----------



## ccs (Jan 10, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.




Well, we managed to play Dark Sun games back in 2e.
You know, when the setting was introduced.
Guess what?
Clerics/druids had spells.
Wizards had spells.
Bards had spells.
Rangers & paladins got spells eventually.

So make whatever changes 2e made....


----------



## Awesome Adam (Jan 10, 2016)

I don't recall Dark Sun being Low Magic. Dark Sun was a meatgrinder that encouraged you to make extra characters ahead of time and EVERYONE had psionics.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 10, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> I don't recall Dark Sun being Low Magic. Dark Sun was a meatgrinder that encouraged you to make extra characters ahead of time and EVERYONE had psionics.




Dark Sun was not low magic.  It had plenty of magic and psionics both.


----------



## discosoc (Jan 10, 2016)

To me, I feel like PoE's system wasn't well-thought-out.  They obviously wanted to make all the attributes potentially equally important, but they did so in sometimes nonsensical ways.  For example, the Barbarian class makes heavy use of AoE/Cleave attacks, and the Intelligence stat is what enhances AoE/Cleave damage.  So an effective Barbarian is one that has a high Intelligence.

It's a fun game, and the creators obviously had symmetry in mind when designing the mechanics.  I just don't think it's really any more effective than the DnD system.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 10, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> *The Backfire Effect* When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.
> http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/




The effect is a bit overblown due to a lack of work to determine in people change their minds over time as a result of contradictory evidence. I've very very rarely seen anyone change their mind about something they feel strongly about immediately upon encountering contradictory evidence or convincing arguments, but people often come to view the topic very differently weeks or months later, after their brain has processed the info without the "my beliefs and thus my self are under attack" emotional response. 

Of course, such changes seem to happen less with people who are raised in an environment that treats changing your mind about something as an almost taboo sign of not only intellectual weakness, but also weakness of character.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 10, 2016)

ccs said:


> Well, we managed to play Dark Sun games back in 2e.
> You know, when the setting was introduced.
> Guess what?
> Clerics/druids had spells.
> ...




Bards did not have spells in 2E Darksun they rewrote the class. The 5E bard would not exist on DS along with most of the other subclasses. the Bard would be a Rogue:Assassin with the entertainer back ground. The only martial clases in 2E were.

Fighter
Thief
Gladiator
Bard (rewritten)

Most of the 5E classes and sub classes would not exist in a faithful adaption of 2E DS. YOu would have 5 domains for the clerics (elemental+templar or refluffed PHB domains), the 8 wizards, maybe the 3 fighter subclasses, maybe the 3 rogue subclasses, Druids of the Land (no moon Druids).

No Barbarians, Monks, Paladins, Sorcerers (PHB ones anyway),  Half Orcs, Gnomes, Drow, Tieflings, Dragonborn. Hell you would probably rewrite the races.


----------



## Herobizkit (Jan 10, 2016)

Adjunct:

* Deities didn't exist in the DS universe, hence Clerics (and maybe Paladins?) also did not exist.  

* (I think) everyone started with a free Psionic Wild Talent power.

* Wizards had two flavors, Preserver (advanced at a slower rate) and Defiler (advanced quicker but spells killed plants/sources of life in a radius around the caster)


----------



## Mecheon (Jan 10, 2016)

I'm pretty sure elemental clerics at least existed, who more worshipped the elements themselves


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 10, 2016)

I think 5e got a few things wrong it is a good system and very easy to adapt. The main things: Encounter building rules are an utter mess, Recharging at separate rates was never going to work, To much carebear!. Most of these issues can be fixed throwing in lingering injuries fixs care bear issues(albeit expanding the table) Encounter building rules well rip out the section of the DMG and re-write it and power re-charges are a minor hiccup.

5e also got some things right such as Dm empowerment, ease of aces, bounded accuracy(maybe they tied the knot a tad to tight).

I have made 5e work with a few house rules and minor tweaks to get the nasty gritty game i want.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> I don't agree that Oberoni doesn't work in 5e. At all. It's still incumbent on WotC to provide a good, well-thought out ruleset, regardless of how much they empower DMs to tweak or adjust.
> 
> Getting back to ability scores - I never thought that people using Con to attack with made any sense or was a good idea; all it does is further reinforce the class-based score structure d&d has always had. What I'm saying needs to happen is that they need to tie more baseline combat-relevant mechanics to the ability scores to make them less class-dependent than they currently tend to be. There should be some incentive and some payoff for playing a high-int, low-con fighter, for example, rather than just gimping the crap out of yourself to do it. I've actually drafted a number of things over the years in an attempt to facilitate this, like a tactics-style mechanic that works something like HD.




Swimming a bit upthread.

Why?  Why should a high Int, low Con fighter be as viable as a high Dex/Str fighter?  I really don't get the idea that every concept should be equally viable.  If you're really smart, but weak and slow, and lack endurance, then you suck as a fighter.  End of story.  Physical stats matter for a fighter.  You could have an IQ of 180, but, if you can't do more than five push ups, you are not going to last long as a fighter.  It would be like saying that a 150 pound rocket scientist should be able to play in the NFL.  It just doesn't work.  When your basic concept is beating on things with sharp pointy objects, then physical stats are obviously going to have a greater impact.

I agree that the system should be balanced.  That's true.  No given option should be so much better than all other options that it becomes the default.  But, that doesn't mean that all options should be equal.  There does come a point where, sorry, no, that concept just doesn't fit with the nature of the character.  



Jester Canuck said:


> D&D has never been a great system for low magic games. 5e lets a little more magic into the classes, but there are fewer magic items.
> 
> The cleric, druid, wizard, ranger, and paladin have pretty much the same magic as in 2e when _Dark Sun_ was created. Only the bard only has a little more. There are more classes with magic because there are more classes. If it worked then, it should work now.
> /snip




That's not quite accurate.  A 2e ranger or paladin still didn't get any actual spells until 8th level or higher.  And their spell lists were extremely truncated.  And, since bards did not gain at-will spells, 5e bards cast a heck of a lot more spells per day than a 2e bard could even dream of.  5e has added spells to almost all the classes and is a much, much higher magic game than 2e was.



Mecheon said:


> I'm pretty sure elemental clerics at least existed, who more worshipped the elements themselves




This was added some time later to the setting.


----------



## iltharanos (Jan 10, 2016)

Hussar said:


> This was added some time later to the setting.




Elemental Clerics were there from the very beginning of the setting, with the release of the original boxed set in 1991.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 10, 2016)

(About Dark Sun elemental clerics)


Hussar said:


> This was added some time later to the setting.



No. Elemental Clerics were around in the very first Dark Sun boxed set. In Dark Sun, they replaced the regular 2e sphere system (which was used to determine which priest spells were available to what priests) with an elemental one - clearly elemental-themed spells were put in the spheres of Air, Earth, Fire, and Water, and all the rest in the sphere of Cosmos. Elemental clerics had major access (all spells) to their own element, and minor access (up to 3rd level spells) to Cosmos. Druids had major access to one element based on their guarded land, major access to Cosmos, and possibly minor access to a second element if appropriate to their land (e.g. a druid whose guarded land is a volcanic spring would have major access to Water and minor to Fire). You also had templars serving the sorcerer-kings, who got major access to all five spheres but had a different spellcasting table (for the most part inferior to the cleric one, but at really high levels they caught up and became even stronger).

In the sourcebook Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, about Dark Sun priests, they added Para-elements and clerics of those: Sun, Silt, Magma, and Rain. They also made regular elemental clerics more environmentally conscious (even fire clerics - fire wants things to burn after all), and made para-elemental clerics environmentally hostile (except rain clerics).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 10, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.



Yeah, while I think this is totally possible as written, 5e could use moar spell-less / magic-naught options. There's a few, but 5e embraced the idea of a magical world and magical people whole-heartedly.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 10, 2016)

Marandahir said:


> Suffice to say, 5e needs to be flexible, and that takes a lot of DM adjudication, and thus Rule Zero gets implemented a lot in 5e. Oberoni Fallacy doesn't really work when talking about 5e because 5e de-emphasizes the purpose of CharOp (power to the players). This is probably my biggest issue with the D&D Adventurer's League – it takes away the power of houserulling from the DM for the sake of "fairness" and thus imposes a structure on 5e the edition was never meant to carry.





Einlanzer0 said:


> I don't agree that Oberoni doesn't work in 5e. At all. It's still incumbent on WotC to provide a good, well-thought out ruleset, regardless of how much they empower DMs to tweak or adjust.



This got me thinking.

I think the Oberoni Fallacy still applies to 5e. WotC is responsible for providing a (reasonably) balanced game, and one with as few flaws as possible. 4e showed that balance isn't everything and if balance is achieved at the cost of play style and flexibility then the game is still flawed, albeit in a different way.
5e was based on the design of being a highly flexible retroclone. Being the best edition of D&D and feeling a little like playing all prior versions of the game. As such, anything that really breaks away from the D&D feel would be contrary to that design goal and a flaw. 

However, while the Oberoni Fallacy applies, the innate flexibility of the system - a game designed to be modular - means that less things can be considered a "flaw". 
Loopholes are still a problem. Broken combinations or imbalance are a problem. Mechanical issues are a problem. 
Something like the current discussion on low magic are not a problem and do not fall under the purview of the Oberoni fallacy. Because they are not universally a problem and the game is designed to be modular and customizable. By being a modular ruleset, the game was designed to accommodate those changes.


----------



## n0nym (Jan 10, 2016)

PoE did things really well for a video game, but I agree that it's a bit too complicated for a real-life RPG. I think what 5th edition designers should have done, is give us an alternate attribute system in the DMG. They tried to do something like this, with the introduction of the *Sanity *and *Honor *attributes, but should have gone a bit further imo.

I personaly chose to rewrite the attributes by merging several of them and getting a 5-stats system like several other RPGs have (7th sea, L5R). Unfortunately, only one person gave me his opinion in the thread I created (thanks btw !) so I think it's a good place to repost them. Please note : Classes get one strong saving-throw and half their proficiency bonus in their second saving throw.

*Dexterity :* virtually unchanged except : applies to attack rolls with all weapons (except Heavy) and to damage rolls with Ranged and Finesse weapons. Still applies to Initiative, AC, skills.

*Sturdiness :* compound of Strength and Constitution for saving throws, concentration, etc... Applies to damage rolls with all weapons (except Ranged and Finesse weapons) and to attack rolls with Heavy weapons. Sturdiness score is used to calculate Wound points (I'll be using a kind of Vitality system).

*Wits :* compound of Wisdom and Intelligence for saving throws (except Charm and Fear) and most skills. Now applies to _Initiative _and _Deception _checks as well.

*Fortitude / Determination :* replaces _Charisma _for saving throws, _Wisdom _for Charm and Fear saving throws and maybe Constitution for spells and effects like Finger of Death. Used for Persuade, Intimidate, Perform and some Animal Handling checks. Modifier adds to Vitality points.

*Fate / Luck :* used for Death Saving Throws (no proficiency allowed). Gives [modifier] "Fate points" (act as Luck points) each Session or Long Rest (if Gritty Realism is used). Used for "luck" checks (like trying to find a needle in a haystack). If the modifier is negative, the DM gets the "Fate points" instead and can use them against this character.

PS : I'm running a 5th ed Dark Sun campaign with Templars being Paladins (mostly low-ranking ones) and Clerics (high templars) and it's working really well. Rogue and fighter subclasses are also psionic in nature, just like the bard. I'm not a purist though, so what works for me probably doesn't work for a 1st edition rigorist.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 10, 2016)

Hussar said:


> That's not quite accurate.  A 2e ranger or paladin still didn't get any actual spells until 8th level or higher.  And their spell lists were extremely truncated.  And, since bards did not gain at-will spells, 5e bards cast a heck of a lot more spells per day than a 2e bard could even dream of.  5e has added spells to almost all the classes and is a much, much higher magic game than 2e was.



2e rangers and paladins didn't get spells to 8th level, but in Dark Sun you started at 3, so 8 wasn't *that* far away. Rangers and paladins were more likely to have spells in Dark Sun. Well... rangers, since Paladins didn't exist. 

The only class was significantly more magic was the bard. Which is a very different character in Dark Sun, and a Athasian bard might work better as a rogue subclass. 



Zardnaar said:


> Bards did not have spells in 2E Darksun they rewrote the class. The 5E bard would not exist on DS along with most of the other subclasses. the Bard would be a Rogue:Assassin with the entertainer back ground. The only martial clases in 2E were.
> 
> Fighter
> Thief
> ...




As [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] says, psionic magic was everywhere, almost every person had a psionic magic talent. So it's not really low magic. 
I don't see why barbarians get excluded. They weren't one of the 2e Dark Sun classes, but barbarians didn't really exist in that edition. They'd fit the setting nicely. Ditto warlocks. And maybe tieflings.

But Dark Sun was always a setting that required a lot of customization.


----------



## SailorNash (Jan 10, 2016)

For me, it's the Short Rest mechanic. An hour is too long to be practical, and half the class abilities break as a result. Similar to the complaints about a Ranger's Favored Enemy, a player is at the whim of the DM's design decisions. Warlocks, for example, just are not playable with two spells per day. 

Even worse, at times where there might be a gap for a break, the other party members with Long Rest abilities push for a full rest instead. In practice it's not the "5 minute workday" classes that blow their abilities early and now have to do without...the whole group has to work around their lack of spellpower instead. It's a cooperative game, after all, and would be pretty brutal to push weakened teammates onward towards likely character death and possible TPK. 

I do like the idea of refreshing abilities, especially as a way to differentiate character concepts. But it should be as simple as "ten minutes since your last use" or something similar, with few additional riders. 

It would also simplify the language greatly. Saying "once per long or short rest" is far from natural language. "Once per day" is far simpler, so long as there is some definition as to what defines an encounter for the "once per encounter" abilities they're trying to model with Short Rests.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 10, 2016)

Looking at the OP's linked wiki page on Pillar's of Eternity, even that game doesn't encourage all attributes for all classes:
http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Attribute#Class_recommendation

A Perception/Resolve barbarian is discouraged, as is a Might/Intellect fighter. 
It really seems like his initial claim that all abilities can equally prioritized is false. All are _useful_ and have a mechanical bonus, but that's not the same thing. 

That game also gets away with it because each point increase means a 5% bonus on that stat's effects. Which is akin to a +1 bonus on a d20 roll for D&D. So stats in the game can be a lot less high (14 Might has an equivalent game effect as 18 Strength). It wouldn't feel very D&D to have the dwarf fighter with an "astonishing" 13 Con at 1st level. 
As the ability cap in both games is 30 though, the numbers in PoE must get much, much higher. A 30 Might would have a +100% bonus, or the equivalent of a 50 Strength. I'm not sure how that much number boost is balanced without boosting Might being mandatory or having characters that don't boost falling behind. 

(To say nothing of weirdness, such as all classes needing a high Might because it affects all damage, so it's as recommended for wizards as Intellect and better for rogues than Dexterity.)

There's some neat interactions between the abilities and the derived attributes. But it's not very D&D.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 10, 2016)

SailorNash said:


> It would also simplify the language greatly. Saying "once per long or short rest" is far from natural language. "Once per day" is far simpler, so long as there is some definition as to what defines an encounter for the "once per encounter" abilities they're trying to model with Short Rests.



They don't say "once per long long or short rest" though. They say "When you finish a short or long rest you..." Or "You regain this ability after a short rest."

Short rests are not encounter powers. You're meant to have a short rest after a variable amount of encounters, typically 2-3. Short rests are big. 
The 4e short rest was effectively mandatory. You finished the encounter and regained your abilities and the five minute cooldown was just long enough that you wouldn't try it in combat but just short enough it wouldn't affect the story. It was a hand wavy way of justifying powers resetting after an encounter. A nod to verisimilitude. 

They made short rests longer in 5e because they found it easier to DMs to determine if taking a rest has story consequences. 5 or 10 minutes proved too short. Would a patrol find the PCs? Would the guards they killed be missed? Does the villain's ritual go off? Would the vampire reduced to mist be able to noticeably recover? Can the bad guys who heard the combat get ready to defend or prepare tactics? 
With an hour there was much more leeway for knowing the rest has an impact. It was easier to justify something happening. 

But if you want shorter rests, then change them. Make them 30 minutes. Or 15. Or 5. That's why it says "short rest" everywhere rather than "resting for an hour". So you can change the definition of short rest without having to rewrite every class.


----------



## ccs (Jan 10, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> Bards did not have spells in 2E Darksun they rewrote the class. The 5E bard would not exist on DS along with most of the other subclasses. the Bard would be a Rogue:Assassin with the entertainer back ground. The only martial clases in 2E were.
> 
> Fighter
> Thief
> ...




I was refering to 2e in general.
Like I said, make whatever changes (classes/abilities/spell availability/etc) 2e made & your good to go.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 10, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> As [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] says, psionic magic was everywhere, almost every person had a psionic magic talent. So it's not really low magic.
> I don't see why barbarians get excluded. They weren't one of the 2e Dark Sun classes, but barbarians didn't really exist in that edition. They'd fit the setting nicely. Ditto warlocks. And maybe tieflings.
> 
> But Dark Sun was always a setting that required a lot of customization.




Yeah.  The cannibal halflings would make perfect barbarians.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 10, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> 2e rangers and paladins didn't get spells to 8th level, but in Dark Sun you started at 3, so 8 wasn't *that* far away. Rangers and paladins were more likely to have spells in Dark Sun. Well... rangers, since Paladins didn't exist.
> 
> The only class was significantly more magic was the bard. Which is a very different character in Dark Sun, and a Athasian bard might work better as a rogue subclass.
> 
> ...




Also monks are basically psionic. Slight reflavor and it's fine.

Most casters should be options, with slower spell slot progressions unless they defile, or add a defiler mechanic that kills things around you, with negative effects even for your allies when you cast powerful spells. 

4e did a good job, I think, of giving a solid lore friendly place for Druids Rangers and barbarians. And their magic isn't arcane, so that works.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (Jan 10, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> That sounds like a feat
> *TACTICIAN* - Add Intelligence Modifier in addition to the Dexterity Modifier when making ability checks to determine initiative order.




I've actually been pondering adding that something like that to the Keen Mind feat (perhaps in lieu of the +1 Int, perhaps not). I wonder how (un)balanced it would be?


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Jan 10, 2016)

ccs said:


> Well, we managed to play Dark Sun games back in 2e.
> You know, when the setting was introduced.
> Guess what?
> Clerics/druids had spells.
> ...




Many people here are referencing 2E for Dark Sun. I'm thinking more about 4E. 4E was probably the edition that best modeled the sword and sorcery genre's emphasis on martial protagonists. So, I wish 5E had carried forward that ability to compose an effective party that has no spellcasters. From a mechanics standpoint it's possible simply by tweaking the healing rules. But there's so much magic baked into the classes. That's where the problem lies. Dark Sun is just one example. Another is Primeval Thule, which is a fantastic campaign setting, but 5E makes it difficult to build characters that fit seamlessly into that sort of sword and sorcery world. Not impossible, just a little bit more difficult. Regardless, this is a corner case. 5E is a good game.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 10, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> Many people here are referencing 2E for Dark Sun. I'm thinking more about 4E. 4E was probably the edition that best modeled the sword and sorcery genre's emphasis on martial protagonists. So, I wish 5E had carried forward that ability to compose an effective party that has no spellcasters.




The problem that I had with the 4e version of Darksun was that it essentially made all of the restrictions of Darksun meaningless.  Like for example you do not need heavy armour to get a good AC so that negates the shortage of metal.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 10, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> So, I wish 5E had carried forward that ability to compose an effective party that has no spellcasters. From a mechanics standpoint it's possible simply by tweaking the healing rules. But there's so much magic baked into the classes. That's where the problem lies.



That's just a matter of not enough variety/scope/flexibility among the few non-caster sub-classes.  Adding more non-caster sub-classes (like PDK & Swashbuckler) doesn't help a lot, as it's very incremental, and they can't be that different from existing sub-classes.  New classes with a great deal more flexibility to contribute more than just DPR is all you need.  That's harder to do than adding new caster classes, since the groundwork hasn't been laid the way it has been with an expansive spell list, but far from insurmountable.



> Dark Sun is just one example. Another is Primeval Thule, which is a fantastic campaign setting, but 5E makes it difficult to build characters that fit seamlessly into that sort of sword and sorcery world. Not impossible, just a little bit more difficult.



Dark Sun isn't exactly low/no magic, just different magic - Psionics instead of Divine, Arcane having a serious PR problem.  Even in Primeval Thule, magic isn't low/no so much as just rare and distrusted, so caster PCs just have a lot less NPCs competing with them, and some PR issues when they're overt with their magic around the wrong people.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 10, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> The problem that I had with the 4e version of Darksun was that it essentially made all of the restrictions of Darksun meaningless.  Like for example you do not need heavy armour to get a good AC so that negates the shortage of metal.




That's a balance thing. 2e didn't care much for balance, and heaped some limitations on non-weapon-using classes as well (such as arcane magic being outlawed pretty much everywhere), so there it was kind of OK to say that the best available armor was scale and hide - even if you could afford metal armor at 100x inflated prices, you were heavily penalized for using it in the desert heat. But 4e was much more balance-focused - fighters were supposed to have scale armor (which was a lot tougher in 4e than previous editions) as a baseline, so depriving them of that would warp the all-important game balance. So the options essentially were "make the primitive nature of weapons and armor cosmetic" or "mess up game balance" - and the designers chose #1. That was, BTW, also the option chosen by the people at athas.org who got Wizards' approval for making a 3e version of Dark Sun.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 11, 2016)

Staffan said:


> That's a balance thing. 2e didn't care much for balance, and heaped some limitations on non-weapon-using classes as well (such as arcane magic being outlawed pretty much everywhere), so there it was kind of OK to say that the best available armor was scale and hide - even if you could afford metal armor at 100x inflated prices, you were heavily penalized for using it in the desert heat. But 4e was much more balance-focused - fighters were supposed to have scale armor (which was a lot tougher in 4e than previous editions) as a baseline, so depriving them of that would warp the all-important game balance. So the options essentially were "make the primitive nature of weapons and armor cosmetic" or "mess up game balance" - and the designers chose #1. That was, BTW, also the option chosen by the people at athas.org who got Wizards' approval for making a 3e version of Dark Sun.




Which is kinda of surprising, considering the general angst towards things like adding Gnomes, that making the game easy gets a free pass.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> The problem that I had with the 4e version of Darksun was that it essentially made all of the restrictions of Darksun meaningless.  Like for example you do not need heavy armour to get a good AC so that negates the shortage of metal.



Some classes did 'need' heavy armor...







Staffan said:


> That's a balance thing. 2e didn't care much for balance,  so there it was kind of OK to say that the best available armor was scale and hide. But 4e was much more balance-focused - fighters were supposed to have scale armor as a baseline, so depriving them of that would warp the all-important game balance.



Except you just said that scale had been available, anyway.   


> So the options essentially were "make the primitive nature of weapons and armor cosmetic"



Exactly what your armor 
was made of was prettymuch cosmetic, anyway.  There were already non-metallic 'masterwork' heavy armor types, for instance.  So, yeah, that's a given. 

Armor-dependence was always a major failing of D&D, though.  Some classes were 'balanced' by being banned from using armor, others by being proficient in it; the combat system didn't work if ACs fell out of a functional range, etc.  It did mean that migrating the system to a different 'tech level' meant completely either completely re-doing it - or just altering gear 'cosmetically.'  The latter makes more sense than it might seem to, because weapons & armor have been in a constant arms race throughout history, and it's only rarely that one comes out on top for long.  At most points, be it more 'primitive' or 'advanced' than the D&D baseline, it wouldn't be unfair to have weapons of the day being about as effective as ever against armors of the day.  Whether that's stone spear vs hide, or steel sword vs maile.





> or "mess up game balance" - and the designers chose #1. That was, BTW, also the option chosen by the people at athas.org who got Wizards' approval for making a 3e version of Dark Sun.



5e bounded accuracy makes everyone being in the right kind of armor as vital as ever.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to go that way if adapting to it, as well.


----------



## Morlock (Jan 11, 2016)

> There's no such thing as a dump stat.




Easy to do with a computer game. You just balance the attribute checks in your adventures. No real way to do that for an RPG, outside of your published adventures. It's on the GM to make sure there are no dump stats.

Or, What Jester said on the first page.

Considering that the D&D six stats were cooked up in the late seventies, and pretty much everything they did was without precedent, I think those fellows did a bang-up job of it. That said, I never liked the D&D stats back in the day, and was always coming up with more than six stats in every system I home-brewed. I take a more sanguine approach these days. I'd rather buy into a good system that everyone plays, than a great one that few do.



> The only thing 5e got wrong were all our table's house rules we've had to implement.




I see what you did there. 



> nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoever.




Except in, say, realistic games.

Nothing remotely realistic about having all stats be equally useful. Just ask the nearest brawny fella how much money that makes him.


----------



## Morlock (Jan 11, 2016)

> Initiative is based of reaction time ability. Which is what dexterity covers.



ETA: another quote:


> I could see an argument for Wisdom possibly being a factor in initiative and possibly even Strength, though I feel that is a real stretch. But it doesn't make any sense to connect initiative with Constitution, Intelligence and Charisma in my opinion.




Reaction time is related to brain power, too. More than "Dex," maybe. Where people get confused is muscle speed, which isn't the same thing.

E.g., a video-gamer can have excellent reaction time, but also be a spaz who dodges like a slug in real life. Stimulus is conveyed to brain > brain makes decision > brain sends signal to body > body moves. Dex is the stat for how fast you can get your sword out, but Int is the stat for how fast you process and respond to the info that made you decide to draw it.

correlation IQ reaction time

If mental stats get short shrift, maybe roll Int and Wis in together (e.g., "intellect")? They've always seemed like the same thing to me, anyway, with the counterexamples seeming more like anecdotes about non-neurotypical people.

ETA2: yeah, in an "ideal" and "realistic" system, initiative seems more like something I'd use Int bonus for, given some kind of mechanic to model the time it takes to carry out an action. E.g., the quick-witted wizard tends to go first in the round, starting his action before the dull-witted but fleet-footed archer, but depending on how long it takes him to cast his spell, he may or may not "release" before the archer nocks and looses his arrow.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 11, 2016)

THEMNGMNT said:


> Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.




In 4E, there were four martial classes:
* Fighter
* Ranger
* Rogue
* Warlord

The Fighter and Rogue remain as martial in 5E.

The Fighter killed the Warlord and took his stuff.
The Fighter also killed the Martial Ranger and took his stuff, if you use the UA Scout archetype.

That's the thing: 5E actually handles low-magic pretty well, but there aren't that many martial classes to deal with. Archetypes and Backgrounds allow the customisation. (And most of the 4E "Powers" were pretty samey when you got down to it; just bigger dice and modifiers were involved).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

MerricB said:


> That's the thing: 5E actually handles low-magic pretty well



It's OK with low-magic in the sense of not many magic items, or even in the sense of not very many NPC casters.  You could easily run Standard D&D in a setting like Primeval Thule that way, for instance - the party may have tons of magical resources, but they encounter relatively little magic in the world.

 But low-magic in the sense of no full-caster PCs, that cuts out half the PC options (8 wizard sub-classes, 7 cleric, 2 each Bard & Druid, 2 Sorcerer).  And no magic, in the sense of no PC magic-wielding classes at all, the game's not just lacking choices (only 5 non-magical sub-classes in the PH), it's non-functional.



> but there aren't that many martial classes to deal with.



And they're all pretty heavily focused on DPR.


> (And most of the 4E "Powers" were pretty samey when you got down to it; just bigger dice and modifiers were involved).



Even if the Fighter's 400+ maneuvers over 30 levels were 'really just' 130 maneuvers over 10 with different dice/modifiers at different tiers, that's still a still a whole lot more than the Battlemaster's 17 or so maneuvers at 3rd and nothing else.  







> Archetypes and Backgrounds allow the customisation.



As Builds & Backgrounds (& Themes) did.  

It's not just a question of raw number of choices (which remain paltry even if you use UA & SCAG), but of the resources & contributions you need to have a functional adventuring party (which hasn't improved noticeably). 

5e has a lot going for it.  It delivers the ol' classic feel of D&D in the 20th century really well.  There's not much you could've done with a D&D character before 2000 that you can't do in 2e, and plenty more besides.  But compared to the sheer volume of choices in 3.5 or the breadth and viability of martial choices in 4e, it's still falling far short.  There's nothing systemic keeping it from getting there, it's just a matter of offering more optional material.



> In 4E, there were four martial classes:
> * Fighter
> * Ranger
> * Rogue
> ...



Apart from the fact that both can literally cast spells (EK & AT). 



> The Fighter killed the Warlord and took his stuff.



The fighter might have made off with some of the Warlord's pocket lint.  

Perhaps more to the point, the fighter threw away a lot of his own stuff:  the 5e fighter is a DPR 'tank' - toughish Striker in 4e terms, like the Essentials Slayer was.   







> The Fighter also killed the Martial Ranger and took his stuff,



 If the fighter simply got a little more non-combat stuff up-front or in each archetype (if each archetype had Expertise in a skill or two, for instance), it really could stand in pretty well for the functionality (DPR with strong wilderness/dungeoneering skills) of the Ranger. It is essentially a striker, afterall. 







> if you use the UA Scout archetype.



Or, heck, Outlander.  

The fluff is willing, the crunch is weak.


----------



## Morlock (Jan 11, 2016)

> I walk away from arguments with creationists all the time.




Why in Heaven's name would you get into an argument with a Creationist in the first place? Let alone do it on a regular enough basis for there to be an "all the time" aspect to it?

Arguments about Creationism, I mean.

ETA: Not actually asking. It's a rhetorical question, given the context of the thread.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 11, 2016)

4E totally missed the feel of DS wit the healing surges and the balance in regards to the armor as you weere fine in light armor AC wise. IN 2E DS you tended to have lower ACs than a standard D&D game and you had penalties with crappy weapons made out of stone and bone- another feel that 4E missed on along with the no clerics thing and shoe horning in the 4E races from the PHB.

No plate mail was available on DS and anyhting over AC 15 was kind of rare out side magic, high ability scores or thri kreen with a high de. 2E made no assumptions about the AC/to hit treadmill so in 2E things were a lot tougher if you actually played up the difference DS had.

 Running a wizard in Darksun for example should be like running the Jedi in the rebelion or dark times era in Star Wars. Show off your flashy powers to much and Vader/The Dragon/Sorcerer King just out right smacks you down dead if not somewhat arbitrarily. 

 Things like that get missed in the mindless pursuit of balance. DS never was balanced to begin with and that is part of the charm and appeal of it. Currently playing a shadow force user in the Dark Times and used force lightning all of twice and that was with the rest of the party unconscious. Expecting DS to run like any other D&D setting is part of the problem IMHO. Let it be what it is -along with Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape and the other non generic settings.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 11, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> 4E totally missed the feel of DS wit the healing surges and the balance in regards to the armor as you weere fine in light armor AC wise. IN 2E DS you tended to have lower ACs than a standard D&D game and you had penalties with crappy weapons made out of stone and bone- another feel that 4E missed on along with the no clerics thing and shoe horning in the 4E races from the PHB.
> 
> No plate mail was available on DS and anyhting *over AC 15* was kind of rare out side magic, high ability scores or thri kreen with a high de. 2E made no assumptions about the AC/to hit treadmill so in 2E things were a lot tougher if you actually played up the difference DS had.




Under armor class 5


----------



## Einlanzer0 (Jan 11, 2016)

Morlock said:


> Why in Heaven's name would you get into an argument with a Creationist in the first place? Let alone do it on a regular enough basis for there to be an "all the time" aspect to it?
> 
> Arguments about Creationism, I mean.
> 
> ETA: Not actually asking. It's a rhetorical question, given the context of the thread.




Well, I'll answer anyway - because I'm from rural East Texas, where it describes about 60% of the population. Of course, I don't still live there, so it doesn't happen as much as it used to.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jan 11, 2016)

hejtmane said:


> We could argue dex, wisdom and Int if we want to not do everything
> 
> Dex is reaction
> 
> ...




I'd say other stats wouldn't apply as, to me, initiative is about how quickly you can get 'off the line' as it were. 
When the starting gun goes off it isn't the runners int or wis score that applies. 
But that's just my interpretation of initiative.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 11, 2016)

cmad1977 said:


> I'd say other stats wouldn't apply as, to me, initiative is about how quickly you can get 'off the line' as it were.
> When the starting gun goes off it isn't the runners int or wis score that applies.
> But that's just my interpretation of initiative.




Except for the fact that since a complete action in a round is 6 seconds long... the split-second starting-pistol-going-off reaction is so miniscule in comparison to the entire time you get to act that (at least in my opinion) there's no reason why any one stat is or needs to be the "end and and be all" to initiative.  Yeah, someone's reaction time would be mightily important when the totality of action occurs between when the first person acts and then the second person acts (like say in a pistol duel)... but when the first person gets to do a complete set of actions over 6 whole seconds, who's to say whether the person's reflexes allowed them to it, the person's intellect to scout and anticipate what the action needed to be allowed them to do it, the person's perception allowed them to see what had to happen to do it, or even so far as to say that the person mere presence overwhelmed the reaction time of the enemy for that moment which allowed them to act first?

And on top of that... it doesn't even actually _matter_ what the "real world" application is, because the person still gets to do a _full six seconds_ worth of activity before anyone else gets to go.  Which basically means the whole thing about Initiative is merely a game construct to determine who gets to play the game first.  And thus, ANY abstraction you want to use to figure that out is just as "realistic" as any other-- which is to say, not realistic at all.

The game says "Add your Dexterity Modifier to your initiative roll", because the game required a game rule to adjudicate it.  But it could and can be anything else, because the rules for it are just game constructs and nothing more.  There's no "real world" involvement here at all.


----------



## cmad1977 (Jan 11, 2016)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Except for the fact that since a complete action in a round is 6 seconds long... the split-second starting-pistol-going-off reaction is so miniscule in comparison to the entire time you get to act that (at least in my opinion) there's no reason why any one stat is or needs to be the "end and and be all" to initiative.  Yeah, someone's reaction time would be mightily important when the totality of action occurs between when the first person acts and then the second person acts (like say in a pistol duel)... but when the first person gets to do a complete set of actions over 6 whole seconds, who's to say whether the person's reflexes allowed them to it, the person's intellect to scout and anticipate what the action needed to be allowed them to do it, the person's perception allowed them to see what had to happen to do it, or even so far as to say that the person mere presence overwhelmed the reaction time of the enemy for that moment which allowed them to act first?
> 
> And on top of that... it doesn't even actually _matter_ what the "real world" application is, because the person still gets to do a _full six seconds_ worth of activity before anyone else gets to go.  Which basically means the whole thing about Initiative is merely a game construct to determine who gets to play the game first.  And thus, ANY abstraction you want to use to figure that out is just as "realistic" as any other-- which is to say, not realistic at all.
> 
> The game says "Add your Dexterity Modifier to your initiative roll", because the game required a game rule to adjudicate it.  But it could and can be anything else, because the rules for it are just game constructs and nothing more.  There's no "real world" involvement here at all.




Ok. To me the only thing that matters in a fight is how quickly ones muscles can move in response to the commencement of said fight. All that other stuff happens before the fight starts, before the muscles begin to move.  
Besides which I don't see it as people performing 6 second actions one at a time, actions are roughly simultaneous.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 11, 2016)

MerricB said:


> In 4E, there were four martial classes:
> * Fighter
> * Ranger
> * Rogue
> ...




5e does low-magic parties fine, but it'd be nice to have more official options that don't cast spells or do magic-y things. Not exactly necessary, and I wouldn't say that 4e did it better, but it'd be useful.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> 4E totally missed the feel of  2E DS



'Feel' is one of those things, though.  Not only subjective, but including both the setting/sub-genre the game was aiming for, and what it actually delivered, no matter how far wide of the mark or marred by system artifacts that might have been.  

4e handled DS neatly, in 2e it was tortuous to adapt the system to the setting.  Maybe having to fight the system added to Athas's air of bleak despair and struggle for survival in a way that the closer modeling of skill challenges & 'survival days' didn't - at least for those who formed their impression from that earlier edition.  :shrug:



> IN 2E DS you tended to have lower ACs than a standard D&D game and you had penalties with crappy weapons made out of stone and bone



So your AC was lower and your weapons had penalties.  Nice for 'process-sim' purists, I suppose, but it sounds like a wash. ;P



> Running a wizard in Darksun for example should be like running the Jedi in the rebelion or dark times era in Star Wars. Show off your flashy powers to much and Vader/The Dragon/Sorcerer King just out right smacks you down dead if not somewhat arbitrarily.



That's a system-independent setting-based RP consideration, yes.



> Things like that get missed in the mindless pursuit of balance. DS never was balanced to begin with and that is part of the charm and appeal of it.



Balance is a good quality for a game to have, it lets each player (DM included) have 'agency' in defining the game-elements under their respective control, while minimizing the risk that they'll interfere with eachother.  And, the process of designing balance into a system is certainly a mindful one.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> 5e does low-magic parties fine, but it'd be nice to have more official options that don't cast spells or do magic-y things. Not exactly necessary, and I wouldn't say that 4e did it better, but it'd be useful.



Mayhaps one could create a class that uses the spell slot paradigm, but their spells known are actually various weapon techniques.  I see no part of this idea that would be remotely controversial.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 11, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> Mayhaps one could create a class that uses the spell slot paradigm, but their spells known are actually various weapon techniques.  I see no part of this idea that would be remotely controversial.



Heh. Taking the idea seriously for a sec, I think the main hurdle would be 5e's insistence on narrative coherence - there'd have to be some reason that they can only do it X/day, for instance, and that immediately begins to truck with the supernatural. The main reason 4e's martial dailies were A-OK was because one valued the gameplay goals over the suspension of disbelief - it matters less _why_ you could only do your daily 1/day and more _that_ you could nova-spike, too. 5e cares about that why quite a bit. 

Though I could maybe see a Warlock model working OK! It's usually easier to buy a "you're too tired" explanation in the span of a couple of minutes during an encounter. And Warlocks already have at-will stuff.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> 5e does low-magic parties fine



Low-magic in the sense of low-magic-items, certainly, and even low-magic in the sense of no-full-caster PCs (you loose half the PC options, but you still have Paladins to offer some support, and a range of other contributions from the remaining half-casters, and the technically magical Monk).  







> but it'd be nice to have more official options that don't cast spells or do magic-y things. Not exactly necessary, and I wouldn't say that 4e did it better, but it'd be useful.



It's not exactly necessary for an FRPG to handle a complete lack of magic, certainly - except that 5e is trying to broaden the range of playstyles it supports to at least encompass those past editions did, and low-/no-magic is one of 'em.  
The 5e PH offers 0 non-magical classes, and 5 non-magical sub-classes out of 38.  All 5 of those sub-classes are DPR-focused ('Strikers'), they are virtually choiceless compared to the unprecedented flexibility of the neo-Vancian caster classes.  The 4e PH offered 4 non-magical classes out of 8, and 8 non-magical builds out of 18, covering 3 out of 4 roles (the most dispensable role, Controller, being the one left out).  All 8 classes were robustly balanced and only the Wizard had a little more choice/flexibility than the others.  It's hard to characterize that as anything but 'better.'  Indeed, even if you would say 'did it better,' you'd be guilty of a profound understatement.  

5e however, as the current edition, and one that emphasizes modularity and the potential to support multiple play styles, still has every chance to make up that gap.  A couple of really engaging, flexible new classes with all/mostly non-casting sub-classes, able to handle the rest of the informal/implied roles needed in a 5e party could do it.  



TwoSix said:


> Mayhaps one could create a class that uses the spell slot paradigm, but their spells known are actually various weapon techniques.  I see no part of this idea that would be remotely controversial.



Very funny.  Actually, Battlemaster CS dice are pretty close to Warlock spell slots.  If Warlocks could only learn 6 spells, out of list of only 17, and all of them being 1st level, that is.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Though I could maybe see a Warlock model working OK! It's usually easier to buy a "you're too tired" explanation in the span of a couple of minutes during an encounter. And Warlocks already have at-will stuff.



I love the Warlock model.  I'll be honest, I wish all of the caster classes had been built similarly to the Warlock chassis.  I think it would be a great model for a Warblade/Swordsage type class as well.



Tony Vargas said:


> You mean like why the non-magical Berserker can only Rage n/day?  No, there's really not much of a hurdle, there.   Aside from lingering edition-war animosity.



Pathfinder has a large number of X/day abilities on non-magical classes, with nary a peep of a hint of damage to anyone's verisimilitude.  Presentation, presentation, presentation, I think.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> I love the Warlock model. I'll be honest, I wish all of the caster classes had been built similarly to the Warlock chassis. I think it would be a great model for a Warblade/Swordsage type class as well.



Obviously, that would have failed to properly evoke the feel of past editions, a big 5e goal.  Maybe there could have been a module to help convert neo-Vancian to short-rest/Warlock-style progression, similar to the spell point system?  Though, obviously, it'd have to be more involved.



I'm A Banana said:


> Heh. Taking the idea seriously for a sec, I think the main hurdle would be 5e's insistence on narrative coherence - there'd have to be some reason that they can only do it X/day, for instance



You mean like why the non-magical Berserker can only Rage n/day?  No, there's really not much of a hurdle, there.   



TwoSix said:


> Pathfinder has a large number of X/day abilities on non-magical classes, with nary a peep of a hint of damage to anyone's verisimilitude.  Presentation, presentation, presentation, I think.



I don't think it's 'presentation,' no.  There are other, more meaningful, differences.  For instance, how many of those non-magical PF classes with X/day abilities are Tier 1?   It's easy to ignore a non-magical X/day or n/rest ability when it doesn't do much, and the class that has it is still being consistently overshadowed.  Once the ability is spectacular or even merely useful and the class more nearly balanced, it gets noticed.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 11, 2016)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> I love the Warlock model. I'll be honest, I wish all of the caster classes had been built similarly to the Warlock chassis. I think it would be a great model for a Warblade/Swordsage type class as well.



I'm a little over-cautions about applying the Warlock model to every friggin' thing, but I think that if you want a martial system that mirrors spellcasting closely, that would not be a bad starting point.  



Tony Vargas said:


> Low-magic in the sense of low-magic-items, certainly, and even low-magic in the sense of no-full-caster PCs (you loose half the PC options, but you still have Paladins to offer some support, and a range of other contributions from the remaining half-casters, and the technically magical Monk).  It's not exactly necessary for an FRPG to handle a complete lack of magic, certainly - except that 5e is trying to broaden the range of playstyles it supports to at least encompass those past editions did, and low-/no-magic is one of 'em.




I think it's even fine to do a party limited to only the Barbarian (Berserker), Fighter (Champion), Fighter (Battle Master), Rogue (Thief), and Rogue (Assassin). It's a narrow suite of options, but a party made of those five characters would, I believe, handle the challenges 5e throws at it just fine. A combination of fast combat, an emphasis on managing the context for an encounter (ambushes, scouts, etc.), the common availability of _Healing Potions_, and the suite of combat options available to all characters make this a very viable party. 



> The 5e PH offers 0 non-magical classes, and 5 non-magical sub-classes out of 38.  All 5 of those sub-classes are DPR-focused ('Strikers'), they are virtually choiceless compared to the unprecedented flexibility of the neo-Vancian caster classes.  The 4e PH offered 4 non-magical classes out of 8, and 8 non-magical builds out of 18, covering 3 out of 4 roles (the most dispensable role, Controller, being the one left out).  All 8 classes were robustly balanced and only the Wizard had a little more choice/flexibility than the others.  It's hard to characterize that as anything but 'better.'  Indeed, even if you would say 'did it better,' you'd be guilty of a profound understatement.



I think you under-estimate the "builds" of 5e.

I also think you put too much emphasis on combat roles. There is no critical need in 5e for a class or a character to be a "leader" or a "controller" or a "defender" (or a "striker!"). Party balance doesn't rely on having individual characters dedicated to these positions. While each class or subclass might have a role it fires "best" on, there's no need to particularly orient your character to that role, and there's no requirement to ignore the other roles in favor of just one. Indeed, over-specialized characters don't often fare particularly well in 5e's more dynamic/swingy atmosphere. From round-to-round, you might play your Assassin Rogue as a leader (drops a healing potion, use a healer's kit, uses the Help action), a striker (ambush with sneak attacks!), a defender (get in the doorway and Dodge), or a controller (use an attack to shove prone, drop a vial of alchemist's fire, etc). Given that combat is brief in 5e, any given round might be best addressed by doing any of the above, and with Bounded Accuracy, your ability to do these things is solid, even if you aren't specialized.

The fact that a Champion Fighter's class features help her deal buttloads of damage in no way stops that Champion Fighter from doing other things.

Which isn't to say that more diversity wouldn't be appreciated, just that it's not necessary. There's nothing 5e is missing when it comes to a non-magical party, nothing that prevents it from realizing that reality. That adequacy is just that - adequacy. There's plenty of room to dive more deeply. But there's nothing missing.

The fact that 5e manages to allow for any character to adequately cover any combat role in a typical 5e combat (short as they are) is part of why I think 5e does this better. Rather than specifying that it's Class X's job to heal and Class Y's job to deal damage, they leave the decision as a tactical one for the individual player on each of the PC's turns - does your party need healing? Do you need to take out an enemy quick? Do you need to protect a vulnerable party member? How do you do that in the moment? Did you come prepared? Can you risk doing something you're maybe not the best at for a round or two? 

More than once in a 5e game, I've uttered the term "Tankmage," when a character with d6 HD who hasn't been hit as much as the main melee machines takes over for a round or two on one of the fronts. 5e is set up well to allow moments like that to happen. If that happened in a 4e game, it would've been bad news, a sign of the defenders or controllers not "doing their job," not something that a Striker would have cause to worry about or think about doing themselves (and not something that, in a 10-round 4e combat, the striker would really be able to keep up for long enough to matter much anyway). 

I like that 5e makes elements like that systemic, so that emergent gameplay is that players ask themselves "I know I'm a thief, but maybe I need to be protecting our Paladin's back more than stabbing this round? Maybe? Can I?" That immediately trumps 4e's "roles" system, and gives me gameplay I value much more. 

While five character class options (each with probably 2-3 build options apiece, depending), there's not a lot of diversity out of the gate. And that's something that I think should be remedied (and given the battlerager and the banneret and the mastermind and the swashbuckler, it's something that it seems like WotC is paying attention to). But I think it would be missing some of 5e's most remarkable design elements to characterize the out-of-the-box capability of 5e doing a non-magical party as inadequate. It's rather amazing what putting healing potions on the equipment list can do in a world of 3-round combats.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> The fact that 5e manages to allow for any character to adequately cover any combat role in a typical 5e combat (short as they are) is part of why I think 5e does this better. Rather than specifying that it's Class X's job to heal and Class Y's job to deal damage, they leave the decision as a tactical one for the individual player on each of the PC's turns - does your party need healing? Do you need to take out an enemy quick? Do you need to protect a vulnerable party member? How do you do that in the moment? Did you come prepared? Can you risk doing something you're maybe not the best at for a round or two?



Don't forget feats.  Healer + Inspiring Leader is far more mitigation than a Life Cleric can pump out until mid-to-high levels, and Sentinel makes any character with decent AC into a passable ground controller.  Not the vortex of pain that a 4e Fighter was, but it'll stop a monster from getting to the squishes for a round or two, which is more than enough when fights only last from 3-5 rounds.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> I think it's even fine to do a party limited to only the Barbarian (Berserker), Fighter (Champion), Fighter (Battle Master), Rogue (Thief), and Rogue (Assassin). It's a narrow suite of options, but a party made of those five characters would, I believe, handle the challenges 5e throws at it just fine.



It could handle straightforward combat challenges, as long as they face no set-backs, and whatever challenges can be answered by a high-DC skill check in whichever skills the Rogues have Expertise in.  



> A combination of fast combat, an emphasis on managing the context for an encounter (ambushes, scouts, etc.),  and the suite of combat options available to all characters make this a very viable party.



It could be effective for a while:  it has lots of DPR and some exploration skills.  So it could prowl around, getting surprise, winning quick victories, and evading contact once out of HD - for a while.  But they couldn't cope well with even seemingly small setbacks, like being surprised instead of gaining surprised, or a few good rolls dropping one or two of them unexpectedly and a fight dragging out as a result.  So not really viable.  The DM could avoid those sorts of things by narrowoing the scope of the campaign and nature of the challenges enough, of course, that's always an option, no matter the party.    


> the common availability of _Healing Potions_,



Obviously not applicable in a no-magic game.



> I think you under-estimate the "builds" of 5e.



There just not a lot of customizeability or flexibility in the 5 PH non-magical sub-classes ('builds').  You have two very combat-focused tough multi-attack-DPR 'builds,' two opportunisti-SA-DPR skill specialist builds, and one daily-Rage-DPR tough slightly-wildernessy 'build.'  



> I also think you put too much emphasis on roles. There is no critical need in 5e for a class or a character to be a "leader" or a "controller" or a "defender" (or a "striker!"). Party balance doesn't rely on having individual characters dedicated to these positions.



Sure, 'Role' and 'build' are defunct terms, and party 'balance' is subtler/more-DM-involved, maybe even as much art as science.  But there are contributions that every party needs, and they're spread out over the classes.   DPR is one of those contributions.  Exceptional checks in a skill specialty or few are another.  And those are all the significant contributions the few non-magical sub-classes have to offer.  But, there are more contributions needed, more than just the absence of the other 3 non-Striker 'Roles' would imply.



> The fact that a Champion Fighter's class features help her deal buttloads of damage in no way stops that Champion Fighter from doing other things.



The inability to do other things well enough to be useful or viable doing them is what stops her.  In theory, that's some sort of balance or differentiation.  You can hit things really hard and stack up crazy DPR, therefore you don't have to be able to do anything else, others will cover those functions.  



> Which isn't to say that more diversity wouldn't be appreciated, just that it's not necessary. There's nothing 5e is missing when it comes to a non-magical party, nothing that prevents it from realizing that reality. That adequacy is just that - adequacy. There's plenty of room to dive more deeply. But there's nothing missing.



There is obviously a great deal missing when it comes to non-magical options.  Non-magical classes, for instance.  All the important functions a party needs apart from DPR and Expertise.  In-play flexibility.  Mechanical coverage of non-caster character concepts (RP coverage being trivial, you can RP any concept, even if the game offered only one class).  Whether what's missing is 'necessary' or what little there is 'adequate,' can be chalked up to opinion or PoV or context.  

But, I think we can agree that 4 non-magical classes is more than 0, 8 builds out of 18 more than 5 out of 38, and 3 out of 4 formal roles more coverage than 2 out of 6* or 9 or however many sorts of definable contributions may be present/needful in 5e.  

The fact that 5e manages to allow for any character to adequately cover any combat role in a typical 5e combat (short as they are) is part of why I think 5e does this better. Rather than specifying that it's Class X's job to heal and Class Y's job to deal damage, they leave the decision as a tactical one for the individual player on each of the PC's turns - does your party need healing? Do you need to take out an enemy quick? Do you need to protect a vulnerable party member? How do you do that in the moment? Did you come prepared? Can you risk doing something you're maybe not the best at for a round or two? 



> More than once in a 5e game, I've uttered the term "Tankthief," when a character with d6 HD who hasn't been hit as much as the main melee machines takes over for a round or two on one of the fronts.



Y'mean the d8 HD Rogue when you say 'thief?'  Actually, it's funny that one thing 5e did map almost precisely from 4e was the relative hp/level of the classes d10/6, d8/5, d6/4.  CON bonuses throw it off completely, but the base is there, no more d4 HD classes, rogue & bard 'promoted' to d8.



> 5e is set up well to allow moments like that to happen. If that happened in a 4e game, it would've been bad news, a sign of the defenders or controllers not "doing their job,"



No, 4e did not assume that having a Defender meant no one else ever got attacked.  In fact, if that happened, they were 'doing their job too well,' since other classes did have hps & Surge resources for a reason.  Not that 5e's relative lack of 'defender' mechanics is all that relevant:  the all-non-magical PH-only party doesn't lack defenderish capacity to any greater degree than the party pulling from the whole PH, nor even the all-magical PH-only part.   



> But I think it would be missing some of 5e's most remarkable design elements to characterize the out-of-the-box capability of 5e doing a non-magical party as inadequate. It's rather amazing what putting healing potions on the equipment list can do in a world of 3-round combats.



If you need healing potions to pull of a no-magic setting, the system has failed to support that style of campaign.  And if the game can only handle 3-round combats, it's failed to support a range of playstyles.  I'll accept that 5e hasn't yet succeeded in the former, but hold out hope that it's only a matter of time.  The latter, however, I don't think should be the case, 5e is heavily tuned towards fast combat, but the DM is sufficiently empowered to construct and manage the flow of more challenging combats to allow them to go more than 3 rounds without the whole thing completely falling apart (though, doing so without in-combat healing available to the party would be too much to ask).


Here's a thought experiment on 'adequacy.' 

If the PH had an equal number of magic- and non-magic-using sub-classes, would the magical side be 'adequate.'  

Let's get even more specific.  To match the 5 non-magical sub-classes (Berserker, Champion, Battlemaster, Assassin & Thief), we'll posit these 5 magical sub-classes:  Totem Barbarian, Eldtrich Knight, Arcane Trickster, Hunter & Beastmaster.  

That 'adequately' cover everything you'd like to do with magical PCs?


----------



## Awesome Adam (Jan 11, 2016)

Why should D&D well support a play style that will fully ignores half the classes and all of the magic items that are part of the core D&D experience ?

You are trying to impose huge limitations on a game that wasn't designed to accommodate them, and then complaining that it doesn't leave you many options that fit your narrow requirements.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 11, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> I don't think it's 'presentation,' no.  There are other, more meaningful, differences.  For instance, how many of those non-magical PF classes with X/day abilities are Tier 1?   It's easy to ignore a non-magical X/day or n/rest ability when it doesn't do much, and the class that has it is still being consistently overshadowed.  Once the ability is spectacular or even merely useful and the class more nearly balanced, it gets noticed.




Barbarian's get Rage, Swashbuckler gets Charmed Life, Brawler gets Knockout.  All three are definitely Tier 1 classes and all of those abilities are non-magical x/day.  Rage is one of if not the most single most powerful x/day abilities there is and it is non-magical.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 11, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> Don't forget feats.  Healer + Inspiring Leader is far more mitigation than a Life Cleric can pump out until mid-to-high levels, and Sentinel makes any character with decent AC into a passable ground controller.  Not the vortex of pain that a 4e Fighter was, but it'll stop a monster from getting to the squishes for a round or two, which is more than enough when fights only last from 3-5 rounds.



Yeah, I minimized them because they're strictly "optional," but if you opt-in, there's even more support for non-casters.



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> But they couldn't cope well with even seemingly small setbacks, like being surprised instead of gaining surprised, or a few good rolls dropping one or two of them unexpectedly and a fight dragging out as a result. So not really viable.



I don't agree. I think they could cope well with being surprised or having a few PC's drop. That's what short rests are for! (and minimizing the chance that this would happen is what you have two rogues for!  ) They've also got some of the highest AC's and HP totals in the game and the potential for amazing Dex bonuses, mitigating the effects of surprise. The party would need to be comfortable with falling back and playing cautiously when they stumble, and smart strategy would go a long way, but they could take a few flubs on the chin and be fine. 



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> (healing potions are) Obviously not applicable in a no-magic game.



I'd dispute this point. Healing potions can be made with herbalism kits and are on the standard equipment list. They're no more necessarily "magical" than antitoxins. 



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> The inability to do other things well enough to be useful or viable doing them is what stops her.



It would if she could do no other things well enough to be useful or viable, but 5e is designed so that every character can be useful and viable in any role (even if it's a bare minimum provided by an item or an action in combat). Bounded accuracy follows through with 4e's philosophy of having broadly competent characters that almost always have some chance to succeed on what they try to do and they don't need to constantly chase an escalating target number to do that. 



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> The latter, however, I don't think should be the case, 5e is heavily tuned towards fast combat, but the DM is sufficiently empowered to construct and manage the flow of more challenging combats to allow them to go more than 3 rounds without the whole thing completely falling apart (though, doing so without in-combat healing available to the party would be too much to ask).




It's the latter bit that is the important one. 5e is designed so that in-combat healing isn't a vital element, and quick combats are part of that design. Slower combats make in-combat healing more important - and even there, an herbalism kit and some healing potions sets you up to adequately restore actions to downed characters (which is the ultimate purpose of in-combat healing).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

OldSkoolRPG said:


> Barbarian's get Rage, Swashbuckler gets Charmed Life, Brawler gets Knockout.  All three are definitely Tier 1 classes and all of those abilities are non-magical x/day.  Rage is one of if not the most single most powerful x/day abilities there is and it is non-magical.



One really good - even broken - ability doesn't make you Tier 1.  It buys your way into Tier 4, Tier 3 if you're not otherwise deficient.  

But, if it's not that such powers fly under the radar, why is Pathfinder not being regularly attacked for such 'narrative incoherence' or whatever neologism is being trumpeted atm to make non-magical x/day abilities sound unacceptable?



Awesome Adam said:


> Why should D&D well support a play style that will fully ignores half the classes and all of the magic items that are part of the core D&D experience ?



Same reason it should support such oddities as CaW or dungeon-crawls or whatever:  some past edition or other supported it (and/or fans of that edition at least /tried/ to use it that way).  

Low-magic, and even no-magic campaigns have been attempted more or less from the beginning, even if they haven't often been workable.




I'm A Banana said:


> I don't agree. I think they could cope well with being surprised or having a few PC's drop. That's what short rests are for! (and minimizing the chance that this would happen is what you have two rogues for!



I'm sure I could imagine ways they might, too.  But, lack of in-combat healing to stand up a fallen PC, for instance, can turn an ordinary combat into a 'death spiral,' as loss of the PC shifts the numeric advantage to the enemy, leading to another dropped PC, further stacking the odds against them.  

It's really just like the all-striker delves of early 4e, or the Nova tactics of 3.0 - it works well as long as it works, but when it doesn't, it's disastrous.  



> I'd dispute this point. Healing potions can be made with herbalism kits and are on the standard equipment list. They're no more necessarily "magical" than antitoxins.



That's probably an acceptable 're-skinning' of the traditional healing potion (or maybe projecting the traditionally magical healing potion of all prior eds on 5e was a little unconscious re-skinning on my part).



> It would if she could do no other things well enough to be useful or viable, but 5e is designed so that every character can be useful and viable in any role



No, it didn't.  Checks, sure.  Other contributions, not even close.  



> 5e is designed so that in-combat healing isn't a vital element, and quick combats are part of that design.



Yes, quick combats are part of the design, but no, in-combat healing is as vital as ever, because quick combats can go wrong quickly, and you need to be able to recover from that just as quickly.

And, while in-combat healing is perhaps the most obvious contribution such a party would be lacking, it's far from the only one.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 11, 2016)

I'll concentrate on the points where we disagree below, but I think we agree more than we disagree.  



Tony Vargas said:


> ...
> But, lack of in-combat healing to stand up a fallen PC, for instance, can turn an ordinary combat into a 'death spiral,' as loss of the PC shifts the numeric advantage to the enemy, leading to another dropped PC, further stacking the odds against them.
> ...
> Yes, quick combats are part of the design, but no, in-combat healing is as vital as ever, because quick combats can go wrong quickly, and you need to be able to recover from that just as quickly.
> ...




Just thinking through this thought experiment: the Fighter/Fighter/Rogue/Rogue/Barbarian party with no in-combat healing (though we both agree that healing potions are something a non-magical party might still be comfortable with). They get ambushed by a Medium-difficulty encounter. The enemy uses fairly optimal tactics, and so they render a lightly-armored rogue PC unconscious in the first round (possibly the thief, since the assassin's combat abilities are mostly overcome by getting ambushed in the first place). Most encounters, they won't be able to drop more than one PC, even during a well-coordinated surprise round. Even at Hard, or Deadly, knocking out two PC's (three of whom have HP's well into the double digits from 1st level) would be a very exceptionally auspicious start! 

The rest of the party goes nova and ends the combat after 1-2 rounds. 3 if the party whiffs a lot. You might get another PC dropping, especially if they didn't start the combat fully healed, but the party will likely emerge victorious even with their unconscious allies. The nova potential FAR outweighs the death-spiral, and can even be applied defensively (of of the fighters Action Surges to take the Dodge action, for instance), negating hits that would otherwise happen.  

It takes a downed PC ~6 rounds to be fully dead on average, so there's little chance of permanent death (not impossible, just not "average"). 

Afterwards, the party retreats and takes a Short Rest.

I can see a few ways this can go south, but mostly it would rely on low-level characters and really, REALLY bad luck. These ways would affect a party with a cleric in it equally - the cleric is the one made unconscious during that surprise round with fairly optimal tactics. 

Yeah, if the entire party is ambushed three times between rests by Deadly encounters and enemies who concentrate on killing unconscious characters, they won't make it, but neither would a party WITH a dedicated healer.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 11, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> One really good - even broken - ability doesn't make you Tier 1.  It buys your way into Tier 4, Tier 3 if you're not otherwise deficient.
> 
> But, if it's not that such powers fly under the radar, why is Pathfinder not being regularly attacked for such 'narrative incoherence' or whatever neologism is being trumpeted atm to make non-magical x/day abilities sound unacceptable?




If you reread my post which you quoted I never said those abilities made those classes Tier 1. I pointed out that they are Tier 1 and have those abilities.  

As for "narrative incoherence" I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just pointing out that such powers definitely do not fly under the radar in PF.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm just as disappointed in Margaret Weis Productions' Marvel Heroic Roleplay System. I was trying to use it to play a Breaking Bad style, gritty melodrama setting. I couldn't believe how poorly it emulated such a story without the need for a great deal of houserules and ignoring large portions of the book. I mean it's not like I need all those superpowers. Not sure what they were thinking when the wrote the game. Shame on them.


----------



## OldSkoolRPG (Jan 11, 2016)

ChrisCarlson said:


> I'm just as disappointed in Margaret Weis Productions' Marvel Heroic Roleplay System. I was trying to use it to play a Breaking Bad style, gritty melodrama setting. I couldn't believe how poorly it emulated such a story without the need for a great deal of houserules and ignoring large portions of the book. I mean it's not like I need all those superpowers. Not sure what they were thinking when the wrote the game. Shame on them.




Nevermind....didn't read your post thoroughly enough to catch the sarcasm


----------



## Wuzzard (Jan 11, 2016)

I don't think I could find players for a gritty melodrama setting if I had a rules systems that worked for it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Just thinking through this thought experiment: the Fighter/Fighter/Rogue/Rogue/Barbarian party with no in-combat healing (though we both agree that healing potions are something a non-magical party might still be comfortable with).



Even so, it's a fair assumption.  Items may or may not be available.  But, they are most helpful at low level, when feeding a fallen ally one is less of a wasted action (the 4-10 hps aren't trivial), and low level is when in-combat healing is perhaps most critical.



> The rest of the party goes nova and ends the combat after 1-2 rounds.



 'Goes Nova' isn't very meaningful for this hypothetical party.  The Barbarian's probably raging anyway, whether someone else drops or not.  The Champion & Battlemaster Action-Surging (if they didn't since the last short rest) is about as nova as it gets.  There's a world of difference between that and an AE spell erasing half the enemies you face, for instance.



> It takes a downed PC ~6 rounds to be fully dead on average, so there's little chance of permanent death (not impossible, just not "average").



Assuming PC victory (or mutual droppage, with everyone left lying on the field, for that matter).  



> These ways would affect a party with a cleric in it equally - the cleric is the one made unconscious during that surprise round with fairly optimal tactics.



The party with a Cleric replacing one them, perhaps.  A party with caster/non-caster proportions more in keeping with the number of classes (let alone sub-classes), OTOH, will likely have two or more sources of bandaids, as well those  and other characters able to 'nova' with AEs or big damage, and/or contribute buffing, de-buffing, battlefield control, lockdown &c.



OldSkoolRPG said:


> If you reread my post which you quoted I never said those abilities made those classes Tier 1. I pointed out that they are Tier 1 and have those abilities.



Still not sure I buy it, but not important, atm...  



> As for "narrative incoherence" I have no idea what you are talking about.



Yeah, not my words, but the idea is clearly that it's BadWrongFun for a non-magical ability to be x/Day.  The question was, if that's the case, why is it not a problem in 3.5/PF (Barbarian Rage being both EX and X/day)?  I thought maybe it 'flew under the radar' because it was just one power of a Tier 4 class (3.5 Tiers, c2008 - which I foolishly assumed still held in PF). 







> I was just pointing out that such powers definitely do not fly under the radar in PF.



Which blows my theory.  



I'm A Banana said:


> Just thinking through this thought experiment: the Fighter/Fighter/Rogue/Rogue/Barbarian party with no in-combat healing (though we both agree that healing potions are something a non-magical party might still be comfortable with).



Even so, it's a fair assumption.  Items may or may not be available.  But, they are most helpful at low level, when feeding a fallen ally one is less of a wasted action (the 4-10 hps aren't trivial), and low level is when in-combat healing is perhaps most critical.



> The rest of the party goes nova and ends the combat after 1-2 rounds.



 'Goes Nova' isn't very meaningful for this hypothetical party.  The Barbarian's probably raging anyway, whether someone else drops or not.  The Champion & Battlemaster Action-Surging (if they didn't since the last short rest) is about as nova as it gets.  There's a world of difference between that and an AE spell erasing half the enemies you face, for instance.



> It takes a downed PC ~6 rounds to be fully dead on average, so there's little chance of permanent death (not impossible, just not "average").



Assuming PC victory (or mutual droppage, with everyone left lying on the field, for that matter).  



> These ways would affect a party with a cleric in it equally - the cleric is the one made unconscious during that surprise round with fairly optimal tactics.



The party with a Cleric replacing one them, perhaps.  A party with caster/non-caster proportions more in keeping with the number of classes (let alone sub-classes), OTOH, will likely have two or more sources of bandaids, as well those  and other characters able to 'nova' with AEs or big damage, and/or contribute buffing, de-buffing, battlefield control, lockdown &c.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 12, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> I'm sure I could imagine ways they might, too.  But, lack of in-combat healing to stand up a fallen PC, for instance, can turn an ordinary combat into a 'death spiral,' as loss of the PC shifts the numeric advantage to the enemy, leading to another dropped PC, further stacking the odds against them.



I played a combat healer in 5e from levels 1 to 9 built for support and not damage, and more often than not my action could be better spent on an offends spells of enabling the damage of another PC thasn rezzing a fallen PC. Combat healing was often a trap as I could never heal enough to remotely keep up with the damage of foes. It was often a waste of a spell that just prolonged combat. 
It was useful only if the downed creature acted after me but before any creature near them, otherwise they character would just take another hit while on the ground. It was very situational. 
Often, I would have been better with more damage per round and acting as a back-up healer.

Healer is a valid character build and handy in a large party, but its not universally useful. It's a situational build.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 12, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> I played a combat healer in 5e from levels 1 to 9 built for support and not damage, and more often than not my action could be better spent on an offends spells of enabling the damage of another PC thasn rezzing a fallen PC.
> Combat healing was often a trap as I could never heal enough to remotely keep up with the damage of foes. It was often a waste of a spell that just prolonged combat.



Offense-heavy styles tend to shake out that way, yes, I've seen it plenty of times.  Imagine how much more so for a character resorting to healing potions for in-combat healing. 



> It was useful only if the downed creature acted after me but before any creature near them, otherwise they character would just take another hit while on the ground. It was very situational.



Everything's situational.  The less versatility you have, the harder it is to adapt to the situation.  



> Healer is a valid character build and handy in a large party, but its not universally useful. It's a situational build.



Dedicated healers, like a 'pacifist' cleric can be a bit iffy, but in-combat healing is vital to the combat mini-game of D&D remaining playable.   It's the safety valve that lets the PCs come back from a bit of bad luck or tougher than expected fight, and, from the story perspective, to have combat scenes that don't come off as rollovers without risking TPKs.


----------



## Yaarel (Jan 12, 2016)

I want to see the six abilities become crisper in meaning, more mutually exclusive, and more equal in worth.

In his original post, Einlanzer0 mentions the computer game, Pillars of Eternity. It organizes the abilities (≈ attributes) in an interesting and useful way. Its abilities differ from 4e abilities, but like 4e, all six contribute to three defenses.

*Strength *(≈ Might): +2 Fortitude
*Constitution *(≈ Constitution): +2 Fortitude

*Dexterity *(≈ Dexterity): +2 Reflex
*Wisdom *(≈ Perception): +2 Reflex

*Intelligence *(≈ Intellect): +2 Will
*Charisma *(≈ Resolve): +2 Will


Notice, Intelligence and Charisma together apply to Will for all mental defenses, including against Charm and Illusion. By contrast, Wisdom (≈ Perception) only refers to the physical senses, thus improves alertness to ones surroundings and responsiveness of Reflex. The system is coherent and makes sense. These six abilities become more equal in worth.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 12, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Dedicated healers, like a 'pacifist' cleric can be a bit iffy, but in-combat healing is vital to the combat mini-game of D&D remaining playable.   It's the safety valve that lets the PCs come back from a bit of bad luck or tougher than expected fight, and, from the story perspective, to have combat scenes that don't come off as rollovers without risking TPKs.



In combat healing was a trap in most editions (save 4e). It was almost always more useful to have a character that did *anything* else. The cleric was more useful out of combat reducing the time needed to rest. But that aspect of the class is less necassary with Hit Dice and full overnight healing. Once characters didn't need to spend a week regaining enough hp to keep playing the dedicated healer was less essential. 

You could remove the cure wounds spell or not have a character capable of healing and the game would still chug along nicely.

Heck, I've played more Organised Play than not over 3.5e and PF and dedicated healers were super rarer. The game worked just fine. When there was a cleric out healer they often used their spells for other things. The only dedicated healer was the standard issue CLW wand. And I just finished the Skull & Shackles campaign with no one in the party playing a healer in a lower magic setting where they had fewer CLW wand and it worked just fine.

The need for a combat healer is exaggerated.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 12, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:


> In combat healing was a trap in most editions



Heard that many times back in the 3.x era.  It can be made true under a sufficiently offense-oriented style, but that style isn't as optimal as it seems in a white room or with a DM who over-rewards/under-challenges it.  

In more 'natural' 3e campaigns, with more-varied/less-telegraphed challenges, the DM could keep it from degenerating into rocket tag.  



> Heck, I've played more Organised Play than not over 3.5e and PF and dedicated healers were super rarer.



Dedicated, sure. For one thing, most class-based healing resources were spells, which are definitely usable for a lot more than healing.  Short of a Mini-Handbook 'Healer' class or a pacifist build, it wouldn't even possible to have a mechanically dedicate healer. Besides, tere's plenty of ways to get cheap healing outside of class features, and the lure of CoDzilla makes the dedicated healer a chump, while also making it likely there's some heals and other support resources in the party, even if they rarely get used.


----------



## Jester David (Jan 12, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Heard that many times back in the 3.x era.  It can be made true under a sufficiently offense-oriented style, but that style isn't as optimal as it seems in a white room or with a DM who over-rewards/under-challenges it.
> 
> In more 'natural' 3e campaigns, with more-varied/less-telegraphed challenges, the DM could keep it from degenerating into rocket tag.



If a DM can keep it from being that way then it's hardly a mandatory part of the game. 

The math doesn't really encourage combat healing. 
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/monsterCreation.html
Monster damage per round increases by 5 per CR at mid-levels and ramps up to 10 per CR at high level. In contrast, healing increases at 3.25 per level (1 for caster level and a new d8 - or 4.5 - every other level). Healing spells simply do not keep up. It's less and less useful until you get _heal_. Even _mass cure light wounds_ is only so-so as you're healing everyone for a small amount of damage when an AoE half that spell level would do more. 
5e is simmilar with monster damage far out pacing healing, and the amount healed goes up slower. You actually heal less, not adding caster level to the equation. 
You just cannot heal more than a monster can damage. In combat healing is not generally worth the cost of the action compared to anything else. 
If you can take out the monster before it's turn, you've effectively "proactively healed" all the damage it would have done, which will almost universally be more than you could have actually healed. Offence is the best defence. 

It can be strategically useful. But that's more something you can handle with a potion or a wand or a feat than regular spells or other class resources. In the same way it can be strategically useful to spend your action pushing a creature rather than dealing damage.
But I'm not going to suggest "pusher" should be the fifth class role and every party needs a "pusher" to be balanced. 



Tony Vargas said:


> Dedicated, sure. For one thing, most class-based healing resources were spells, which are definitely usable for a lot more than healing.  Short of a Mini-Handbook 'Healer' class or a pacifist build, it wouldn't even possible to have a mechanically dedicate healer. Besides, tere's plenty of ways to get cheap healing outside of class features, and the lure of CoDzilla makes the dedicated healer a chump, while also making it likely there's some heals and other support resources in the party, even if they rarely get used.



Right. In 3.x, healing was a trap as there was so much better stuff to do.
In Pathfinder it's a trap as you can't keep up with monster damage and you can use cheap magic instead. 
In 5e, it's a trap as spells heal even less than 3.x and you have Hit Dice. 

Healers were really important in 1-2, but less due to combat and more due to the slow rate of out of combat healing.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> Why should D&D well support a play style that will fully ignores half the classes and all of the magic items that are part of the core D&D experience ?
> 
> You are trying to impose huge limitations on a game that wasn't designed to accommodate them, and then complaining that it doesn't leave you many options that fit your narrow requirements.




Thing is, this was the more or less _default_ play style for about the first twenty years of the game.  In OD&D, and 1e, your "full casters" had an extremely truncated spell list, and, even with a  fairly generous DM giving the Magic User a lot more spells to learn, the MU just couldn't cast that many spells in a day.  Just didn't have that many spells to cast.  Even at higher levels, say, 8th+ (higher in AD&D anyway), at best your MU was casting maybe one or two spells per encounter, and even then, likely only one.  Clerics didn't get any direct damage spells (that I recall anyway) until FOURTH level spells.  The idea of cleric as blaster simply didn't exist.

Never minding that the standard party was three fighter types, a cleric, wizard and a thief.  You had four of the six characters with no spells at all (for almost the entire campaign) and the cleric mostly dealing with healing and the wizard shooting off spells at a much, much lower rate.  Add to that the fact that most magic items were nowhere near as flashy as 5e items - a flame tongue, which was a major magic item, was a +1 sword most of the time.  At best, it was a +4 sword.  Not the 2d6 bonus fire damage every single hit of 5e.  Magic armour and shields were pretty much plus items only - no other effects.  By and large, there was no visual difference between a fighter with magic weapons and armour and one without.

5e is a MUCH higher magic game.  Most classes can cast spells.  Most encounters feature spells being cast every single round.  There might be a lower expectation of the number of magic items in a given campaign, but, the items tend to be a lot flashier than in AD&D.  

If the goal of 5e was to support D&D play styles, then supporting a low magic (I'd agree that a no-magic campaign is not something D&D should support) game which was a very common play style in 1e and 2e, should not be too much of a stretch.

I do agree with [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] though.  The options that we do have should be able to cover things well enough.  I'd like to see a few more options on the low magic end of things since the high magic end of the stick gets a ton of support, but, I don't think it's too hard to do low magic 5e.  About the biggest issue would be healing and 5e doesn't really need in-combat healing that often.  I mean, I've seen it done now that you can run a game without a standard healer at all - our current group is almost 9th level and the only one with any direct healing is the Paladin and that's what, 40 points per day?  In a 6 PC party?  Not a lot of healing there, but, it's not necessarily a bid deal.

What casters bring to 5e is breadth of options, not so much straight up depth of power.


----------



## Jessica (Jan 12, 2016)

IMO what 5e got wrong:

1) Nerfed in-combat options for a lot of classes. I enjoy playing classes that have a variety of in-combat options and don't often end up with one dominant strategy. In 4e, I made a character based on concept and felt I could enjoy pretty much any class because they all had a good range of options. In 5e, I'm kinda stuck to full casters minus a few of those casters who often end up with a dominant strategy anyways outside of certain subclasses or feat usage(e.g. Warlocks, Clerics, and Bards often doing either basic attacks or having that one cantrip that outshines all their other damaging cantrips assuming they even have more than one damaging cantrip).

2) Making feats such a small part of the game. On top of that certain things I like in my characters(e.g. more than one damaging cantrip option, being able to cast with my hands full, being able to actually keep a target on me when I'm trying to play a Defender) often require feats which means no matter how much I want to play a certain race, I often just end up playing a Human so that I can play the character I want to play from early on instead of having to wait like 2 or 3 months or so after character creation to hit level 4.

3) Bringing back VSM components. Ugh! I hate jazz hands and jibber jabber. What was wrong with details agnosticism in how powers happened? Couldn't they leave those rules out and then just EMPOWER the DM to make RULINGS on when a given spellcaster couldn't cast?

4) The general trend towards simplifying and the resulting decrease in knobs to tweak when you are changing things around.

5) The art. I think a lot of the art has taken a sharp decrease in quality imo. It's better than 1e art, but it's definitely worse than 4e art. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the art in 5e just bugs me. Like maybe it's starting to get into that uncanny valley area between 2e and 4e where 4e had a more "cartoon-y" feel that I loved while 2e seemed to succeed when it was trying to be "realistic". 5e is just in some painful middle ground.

6) The last one is probably more a community thing than an actual edition thing, but I feel like D&D has become more reactionary this edition. It's not so much about making new fantasy but rehashing old fantasy. I understand that getting old favorites is important, but both 3e and 4e introduced a lot of brand new things really early. 3e had the Sorcerer and put out a bunch of cool new ideas via prestige classes early on and with 4e you had Warlords, core Warlocks, and within about a year of release you had brand new classes in the form of the Avenger, Invoker, and Warden. 5e has been out for a year and a half and we got a book with some subclasses that were mostly stuff we've already had before. Oh well. I mean I guess in some ways 2e was pretty reactionary when compared to 1e. Maybe that means 6e will be crazy revolutionary when it comes out roughly when all the people who actually know what a Grey Mouser is are in retirement homes or in the ground.


----------



## n0nym (Jan 12, 2016)

Yaarel said:


> *Strength *(≈ Might): +2 Fortitude
> *Constitution *(≈ Constitution): +2 Fortitude
> 
> *Dexterity *(≈ Dexterity): +2 Reflex
> ...




That's a great idea and a good way to solve attributes discrepancies imo. Now people have a reason not to dump Intelligence or Charisma, even if it's still not enough for my taste.

Regarding in-combat healing, I can only agree with Jester Canuck. The Dark Sun party I'm DMing doesn't have a healer, and they've reached level 10 with only a couple casualties (and both times, the player could have survived if he didn't choose to go all-out instead of retreating). 5th edition is *that* forgiving. Even if you drop to 0hp, it's highly unlikely you're going to die.


----------



## Onslaught (Jan 12, 2016)

Zeuel said:


> IMO what 5e got wrong:
> 1) Nerfed in-combat options for a lot of classes. I enjoy playing classes that have a variety of in-combat options and don't often end up with one dominant strategy. In 4e, I made a character based on concept and felt I could enjoy pretty much any class because they all had a good range of options. In 5e, I'm kinda stuck to full casters minus a few of those casters who often end up with a dominant strategy anyways outside of certain subclasses or feat usage(e.g. Warlocks, Clerics, and Bards often doing either basic attacks or having that one cantrip that outshines all their other damaging cantrips assuming they even have more than one damaging cantrip).



Could you give examples? Because the way you put, I get the feel that you're criticizing Bounded Accuracy. Which IMHO is one of the most "right" things in 5E - and I bet most people out there agree.




Zeuel said:


> 2) Making feats such a small part of the game. On top of that certain things I like in my characters(e.g. more than one damaging cantrip option, being able to cast with my hands full, being able to actually keep a target on me when I'm trying to play a Defender) often require feats which means no matter how much I want to play a certain race, I often just end up playing a Human so that I can play the character I want to play from early on instead of having to wait like 2 or 3 months or so after character creation to hit level 4.



I disagree with you. Since Feats are optional, most abilities are already within the classes and we don't have to fear system bload via feats.

The Human variant that gets a bonus feat at first level is also optional.




Zeuel said:


> 3) Bringing back VSM components. Ugh! I hate jazz hands and jibber jabber. What was wrong with details agnosticism in how powers happened? Couldn't they leave those rules out and then just EMPOWER the DM to make RULINGS on when a given spellcaster couldn't cast?



They empowered the DM to rule VSM components out. If you dislike that rule somuch, why not just ask your DM to don't use it in play (excluding expensive material components). I guess most DM's won't find that a problem.




Zeuel said:


> 5) The art. I think a lot of the art has taken a sharp decrease in quality imo. It's better than 1e art, but it's definitely worse than 4e art. I can't quite put my finger on what it is, but the art in 5e just bugs me. Like maybe it's starting to get into that uncanny valley area between 2e and 4e where 4e had a more "cartoon-y" feel that I loved while 2e seemed to succeed when it was trying to be "realistic". 5e is just in some painful middle ground.



Well, that's personal taste... that said, I like most of 5E art... just hate awful halflings.

Anyway I still prefer the major artists in 3e era: loockheart, WAR, etc... but that's my personal taste.


----------



## Jessica (Jan 12, 2016)

Onslaught said:


> Could you give examples? Because the way you put, I get the feel that you're criticizing Bounded Accuracy. Which IMHO is one of the most "right" things in 5E - and I bet most people out there agree.




I love bounded accuracy. I hate classes that have a dominant strategy that often involves spamming basic attacks or one specific cantrip(e.g. Eldritch Blast for Warlocks). I like classes that have multiple at-will options that you get to decide between on a round-by-round basis(e.g. Wizard



Onslaught said:


> They empowered the DM to rule VSM components out. If you dislike that rule somuch, why not just ask your DM to don't use it in play (excluding expensive material components). I guess most DM's won't find that a problem.




Because I only play AL, so I and the DMs I play with are pretty much beholden to RAW.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 12, 2016)

On the VSM thing.

I've gamed for a long time.  I can't recall, other than when the PC's may have been captured and had their equipment stripped, ever giving the slightest thought to spell components.  Does anyone actually track this stuff?   Has it ever come up at your table?  It really hasn't at mine.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 12, 2016)

Onslaught said:


> Could you give examples? Because the way you put, I get the feel that you're criticizing Bounded Accuracy. Which IMHO is one of the most "right" things in 5E - and I bet most people out there agree.




Bounded accuracy is good.  Overbounded accuracy, which is what we got is not so good.  They tightened it too much, which resulted in things like armors which are effectively the same from leather to plate.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2016)

Hussar said:


> On the VSM thing.
> 
> I've gamed for a long time.  I can't recall, other than when the PC's may have been captured and had their equipment stripped, ever giving the slightest thought to spell components.  Does anyone actually track this stuff?   Has it ever come up at your table?  It really hasn't at mine.




Yes, it does get tracked at some (at least one) table. Verbal gets checked against environment and conditions, somatic gets checked against conditions and hand use, and materials gets checked (depending on the edition) at the time of preparation and casting.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Bounded accuracy is good.  Overbounded accuracy, which is what we got is not so good.  They tightened it too much, which resulted in things like armors which are effectively the same from leather to plate.




Having played both E6 and E12, I think +10 is a better point to bind maximum proficiency.


----------



## delericho (Jan 12, 2016)

Hussar said:


> On the VSM thing.
> 
> I've gamed for a long time.  I can't recall, other than when the PC's may have been captured and had their equipment stripped, ever giving the slightest thought to spell components.  Does anyone actually track this stuff?   Has it ever come up at your table?  It really hasn't at mine.




Verbal and Somatic matter at our table, at least they do on the occasions when the caster can't speak or doesn't have a hand free (which is not common, but not unheard-of either).

Material components are something we tracked once, in one game, for about five minutes, before we abandoned it as way too much effort for too little gain. It's one of those things that _sounds_ quite good because of the flavour it adds to magic, but which didn't work out in practice.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 12, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> ...armors which are effectively the same from leather to plate.



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> What on earth are you talking about?





Maximum achievable AC.  

It's really studded to splint.  The maximum AC achievable when wearing armour is 17.  Plate actually gets one higher. A couple of light armours get one lower and a slew of medium armours pretty much suck.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 12, 2016)

Nagol said:


> Maximum achievable AC.
> 
> It's really studded to splint.  The maximum AC achievable when wearing armour is 17.  Plate actually gets one higher. A couple of light armours get one lower and a slew of medium armours pretty much suck.




I'm still unclear on this... how is the maximum achievable armor class for everything from studded to splint 17?


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2016)

Imaro said:


> I'm still unclear on this... how is the maximum achievable armor class for everything from studded to splint 17?





```
Type           AC                       Max AC

Studded        12 + Dex mod             17

Hide           12 + Dex mod (max 2)     14
Chain shirt    13 + Dex mod (max 2)     15
Scale          14 + Dex mod (max 2)     16
Breastplate    14 + Dex mod (max 2)     16
Half-plate     15 + Dex mod (max 2)     17

Ring mail      14                       14
Chain mail     16                       16
Splint         17                       17
```


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 12, 2016)

So you pick different armor depending on your Dexterity.  I don't see how that makes armor "effectively the same".  What's more, I don't see how it's a 5E or bounded accuracy problem, since 3E did pretty much exactly the same thing without bounded accuracy.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 12, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> So you pick different armor depending on your Dexterity.  I don't see how that makes armor "effectively the same".  What's more, I don't see how it's a 5E or bounded accuracy problem, since 3E did pretty much exactly the same thing without bounded accuracy.




The problem exists (and was complained about) in 3.X, it is true.  5e made it worse.  In 3.5, the max Dex modifier ranges from +0 to +8 and some heavy armour has a positive modifier.  All armours have a maximum Dex mod.  

In 3.X, light armour is demonstrably different than heavy armour in that (1) Dex mod could be (and often was) negated from AC and (2) Touch AC is a thing.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 12, 2016)

Jester Canuck said:
			
		

> In combat healing is not generally worth the cost of the action compared to anything else.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> About the biggest issue would be healing and 5e doesn't really need in-combat healing that often.




Yeah, it only becomes something that is a significant concern when a party member is actively making death saves (and you're losing out on their actions in the action economy), and even then, you usually have someone who can hang on for the few rounds it might take you to mop up the enemies. And that's what healing potions - standard equipment, made by herbalists, not involving magic - are basically there for. Even without 'em, it's only slightly worse than being hit with some disabling effect (a net, _hold person,_ whatever) for a few rounds. 

I think it's worth harping on this a bit because it's *very* different from 4e, where the combats almost required healing to get through.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 12, 2016)

Nagol said:


> ```
> Type           AC                       Max AC
> 
> Studded        12 + Dex mod             17
> ...





Okay I thought you were saying that all of those armors maxed out (somehow) at 17 (thus being effectively the same)... so what's the problem with the armor?  You select it based on Dex, whether you want to be stealthy, what you can afford and what's available...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 12, 2016)

Yeah, I'm playing a cleric, and I've found myself many times thinking, "If we can just make it past this combat, I'll do Prayer of Healing then.  A few d8 ain't gonna do much in combat when I could use that same slot to thunderclap or something."

Which is too bad, really.  Unless you're a life cleric, with they way HP and damage scale, even if you spend an upper slot, you're not curing nearly as much damage as what is coming your way.

In all fairness, I am playing a tempest cleric, so I'm sort of built to be using my spells to sling lightning/thunder damage, rather than a healer.  I'm finding that the best use of my spells is for buffing or direct damage (destructive wave is one of my favorite spells.  Holy cow).


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 12, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, I'm playing a cleric, and I've found myself many times thinking, "If we can just make it past this combat, I'll do Prayer of Healing then.  A few d8 ain't gonna do much in combat when I could use that same slot to thunderclap or something."
> 
> Which is too bad, really.  Unless you're a life cleric, with they way HP and damage scale, even if you spend an upper slot, you're not curing nearly as much damage as what is coming your way.
> 
> In all fairness, I am playing a tempest cleric, so I'm sort of built to be using my spells to sling lightning/thunder damage, rather than a healer.  I'm finding that the best use of my spells is for buffing or direct damage (destructive wave is one of my favorite spells.  Holy cow).



I think the "healing not mandatory" model is a huge step forward, and makes low- and non-magical parties a much more viable option.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Jan 12, 2016)

I'm just idly wondering how many years into 5e will we have to get before people finally stop mischaracterizing what bounded accuracy is what it actually does...


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 12, 2016)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I think the "healing not mandatory" model is a huge step forward, and makes low- and non-magical parties a much more viable option.




I agree with this.  However, I also think that when you do have a healer, that healer is effective at healing while still in combat.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 12, 2016)

Zeuel said:


> IMO what 5e got wrong:
> 
> 1) Nerfed in-combat options for a lot of classes. I enjoy playing classes that have a variety of in-combat options and don't often end up with one dominant strategy.



5e classes tend to have more option available than in prior eds.  Neo-Vancian casting combines the 3.5 Sorcerer's 'spontaneous casting,' with preparing daily from the class list (or known spells picked/gained from a class list).  That's a tremendous number of options available when you think about it.  The Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter & Rogue all have access to that system's unprecedented flexibility.  Though the Warlock uses a different system, it still has a lot of choices compared to a 3.5 or 4e Warlock.  Arguably, the Monk and Barbarian have fewer combat choices than at their peak in 4e, but the Monk has more than in most other prior editions.  The Sorcerer might come out a little behind it's original 3.0 incarnation.  
Of course, at the sub-class level, there are some real losers in terms of options, but just a few.



> In 4e, I made a character based on concept and felt I could enjoy pretty much any class because they all had a good range of options. In 5e, I'm kinda stuck to full casters minus a few of those casters who often end up with a dominant strategy anyways outside of certain subclasses or feat usage.



You can always willfully decline the optimal strategy, if there are viable alternatives.  If you're 'stuck with full casters,' that still more than half the available sub-classes - Cleric & Wizard, alone, account for 15 sub-classes, plus 2 each for the Bard & Druid is 19, that's half, and/or if you credit the Sorcerer or Warlock with 'full caster' status, there's more.  That's a lot of potential PCs to explore.



> 2) Making feats such a small part of the game. On top of that certain things I like in my characters(e.g. more than one damaging cantrip option, being able to cast with my hands full, being able to actually keep a target on me when I'm trying to play a Defender) often require feats



It just makes them optional.  As long as you & your DM are on the same page, that way, it shouldn't be that bad. 







> which means no matter how much I want to play a certain race, I often just end up playing a Human so that I can play the character I want to play from early on instead of having to wait like 2 or 3 months or so after character creation to hit level 4.



Those first 3 levels go really fast.  One adventuring day each to reach 2nd, and 3rd at the standard exp budgets, only half-again as long to get to 4th.   As fast as 4e combats run, you could reach 4th in as few as 4 sessions if you manage to blow through a whole 'day' per session.



> 3) Bringing back VSM components. Ugh! I hate jazz hands and jibber jabber. What was wrong with details agnosticism in how powers happened? Couldn't they leave those rules out and then just EMPOWER the DM to make RULINGS on when a given spellcaster couldn't cast?



The details can always be reskinned.



> 6) The last one is probably more a community thing than an actual edition thing, but I feel like D&D has become more reactionary this edition.



Oh, it's definitely both, and it's no accident.  The Essentials 'Red Box' and 5e were both intentionally trying to tap the largest segment of D&D players - those who were no longer playing D&D, and hadn't since the late 80s or the 90s at the outside.  Essentials failed dramatically, but 5e, to all appearances, has succeeded.  Yes, it's retro - but it's the right kind of retro at the right time to move books.  It's shaping up to be a full-fledged come-back, possibly as dramatic as the OSR, maybe even bigger (OSR really appealed to hard-core old-school gamers, while 5e seems able to appeal to causal one-time players who tried D&D back in the day or played it more casually, or maybe even were just 'exposed' to it without actually jumping in at the time and wishing they had, who constitute a much larger potential audience).



> Oh well. I mean I guess in some ways 2e was pretty reactionary when compared to 1e. Maybe that means 6e will be crazy revolutionary when it comes out roughly when all the people who actually know what a Grey Mouser is are in retirement homes or in the ground.



Yeah, we're old.  And we'll be playing D&D instead of bingo in those retirement homes.   And medical technology is improving all the time, so we're not going away anytime soon. ;P  
Seriously, though, no, 2e wasn't reactionary, at all (there was nothing to react against) and had a long run that added a lot of detail ('bloat') and multiple new settings to the game.  It was very incremental and conservative, though.  5e will probably have a run at least as long as 2e's (10 yrs), if not 1e (13) or BECMI (15).  It could even turn out to be the last version of D&D and stay in print as long as Monopoly has - or until it's entirely replaced by MMOs or VR or holodeck LAPRing or whatever.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 12, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Yeah, I'm playing a cleric, and I've found myself many times thinking, "If we can just make it past this combat, I'll do Prayer of Healing then.  A few d8 ain't gonna do much in combat when I could use that same slot to thunderclap or something."
> 
> Which is too bad, really.  Unless you're a life cleric, with they way HP and damage scale, even if you spend an upper slot, you're not curing nearly as much damage as what is coming your way.
> 
> In all fairness, I am playing a tempest cleric, so I'm sort of built to be using my spells to sling lightning/thunder damage, rather than a healer.  I'm finding that the best use of my spells is for buffing or direct damage (destructive wave is one of my favorite spells.  Holy cow).



Right now, one of my characters is a 4th life cleric with the Healer feat.  Even with the heal bonuses, the Healer kit right now is a better deal at 1d6+8, rather than a 1st level cure wounds at 1d8+5.  I save my limited spells for bless and healing word to get people up from 0 as a bonus action.  I'm a MUCH better healer, at low levels at least, with the Healer feat than I am as a life cleric.  1d6+4+level, once per short rest _per character_, is amazing at low levels, and I imagine still a big efficiency gain even at higher levels.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 12, 2016)

ChrisCarlson said:


> I'm just idly wondering how many years into 5e will we have to get before people finally stop mischaracterizing what bounded accuracy is what it actually does...



Anywhere between 7.5 and 40, based on mischaracterizations of editions past.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 12, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> Right now, one of my characters is a 4th life cleric with the Healer feat.  Even with the heal bonuses, the Healer kit right now is a better deal at 1d6+8, rather than a 1st level cure wounds at 1d8+5.  I save my limited spells for bless and healing word to get people up from 0 as a bonus action.  I'm a MUCH better healer, at low levels at least, with the Healer feat than I am as a life cleric.  1d6+4+level, once per short rest _per character_, is amazing at low levels, and I imagine still a big efficiency gain even at higher levels.




Healer feat is amazing at lower levers and at higher levels its like a mass cure spell.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 12, 2016)

The only thing I am disappointed by are saving throws. The idea was right, make them apply to all stats, but then at some point the distribution of those saves didn't work out. Still, the core idea is good.

I suppose the other thing is that it would be nice to not have 4d6 drop lowest be the default stat method. The vast majority of balance complaints happen because people assume Max stats. The game plays much better with lower starting stats.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 12, 2016)

Hussar said:


> I've gamed for a long time.  I can't recall, other than when the PC's may have been captured and had their equipment stripped, ever giving the slightest thought to spell components.  Does anyone actually track this stuff?   Has it ever come up at your table?  It really hasn't at mine.



Back in the day, scrupulously, yeah, but I don't recall a lot of other players doing so.  Kinda like how I was alone in thinking Weapon vs Armor type adjustments were a good idea.  But, when I started running, one of the variants I came up with was a way around components, and players were delighted with it.  Besides, 5e gives you a way out of tracking material components.



ad_hoc said:


> I suppose the other thing is that it would be nice to not have 4d6 drop lowest be the default stat method. The vast majority of balance complaints happen because people assume Max stats. The game plays much better with lower starting stats.



I've found the opposite (at low level, most especially 1st level), that higher stats make the game run a little better.  I agree that 4d6-L seems to be the best choice, but because it does tend to deliver better stats than the array.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Jan 12, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> Anywhere between 7.5 and 40, based on mischaracterizations of editions past.



That's not a very bounded number....


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 12, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> I've found the opposite (at low level, most especially 1st level), that higher stats make the game run a little better.  I agree that 4d6-L seems to be the best choice, but because it does tend to deliver better stats than the array.




The problem is that there is nowhere to go when you start with the highest stats you can get. Character progression is all messed up. Feats become overpowered and I would assume so does multiclassing.

The low levels go by very quickly, and the whole point of them is that the characters are not super powerful yet.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 12, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> The problem is that there is nowhere to go when you start with the highest stats you can get.



There's everything else you get for leveling, feats, and secondary & tertiary stats.  Yes, someone using 4d6-L might roll an 18 and choose a +2 stat race, starting with a 20.  There's still plenty for him to do with his ASI's as he levels.  Everyone who wasn't so lucky will catch up with him.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jan 12, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> I suppose the other thing is that it would be nice to not have 4d6 drop lowest be the default stat method. The vast majority of balance complaints happen because people assume Max stats. The game plays much better with lower starting stats.



In a perfect world, I would have liked to see the game balanced around an ability modifier calculation of score - 10 rather than (score - 10) / 2 to make smaller differences in scores feel like they matter more.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 12, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> There's everything else you get for leveling, feats, and secondary & tertiary stats.  Yes, someone using 4d6-L might roll an 18 and choose a +2 stat race, starting with a 20.  There's still plenty for him to do with his ASI's as he levels.  Everyone who wasn't so lucky will catch up with him.




In this very thread and others people complain that characters don't gain enough power as they level up.

The higher your main stats are at the beginning of the game, the less room you have to gain power. 

Or, if you are using feats, they become overpowered because it is no longer a tough choice whether or not to take a feat. Then you end up with characters who have tons of feats.

It is easy enough to see. If you started all characters with 20 in every stat, there would be less room for growth. The same is true if you start with 18s-20s in your primary stats. There is less room to grow. 

You could, I suppose, increase the caps to 24 or 26. I think the easier thing to do is simply reduce starting stats as increasing the cap will cause other problems.

If you really want your characters to be powerful you could just decide to start the game at level 20 with 20s in all stats. That gives little room for progression though.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 12, 2016)

ad_hoc said:


> In this very thread and others people complain that characters don't gain enough power as they level up.



Going from 1st to 9th level spells not enough of a gain?  From 10 or 15 hp to 300 not enough of a gain?  



> Or, if you are using feats, they become overpowered because it is no longer a tough choice whether or not to take a feat. Then you end up with characters who have tons of feats.



You'll see more feats, but that doesn't mean they're any more powerful, in fact, the last couple taken at higher level may be pretty marginal as 4th or 6th choices.  



> It is easy enough to see. If you started all characters with 20 in every stat, there would be less room for growth. The same is true if you start with 18s-20s in your primary stats. There is less room to grow.



It's 1/6th as true.  ;P  But, less room isn't no room.  The guy starting with a 20 is going to get less benefit from dropping ASI's in his secondary & tertiary stats than others will by boosting their primaries to 20.  That's less room to grow, but he's also starting off 'just better.'  It's just like getting a magic item, in play, you're 'just better.'  5e gives characters lots of opportunities to be memorable/fun by simply being superior to the next guy.  It's part of why it feels so much like classic D&D.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 13, 2016)

Nagol said:


> Having played both E6 and E12, I think +10 is a better point to bind maximum proficiency.




Yeah.  I think adding +4 or so more would have been better.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 13, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Yeah, it only becomes something that is a significant concern when a party member is actively making death saves (and you're losing out on their actions in the action economy), and even then, you usually have someone who can hang on for the few rounds it might take you to mop up the enemies. And that's what healing potions - standard equipment, made by herbalists, not involving magic - are basically there for. Even without 'em, it's only slightly worse than being hit with some disabling effect (a net, _hold person,_ whatever) for a few rounds.
> 
> I think it's worth harping on this a bit because it's *very* different from 4e, where the combats almost required healing to get through.




Yeah, I'd agree with that.  Healing in combat was pretty much part and parcel to 4e combat.  That's by and large how the party could win against opponents.  Not that the opponents simply didn't damage the party enough, but that the opponents could damage them fast enough that the party couldn't heal/mitigate that damage.  Since monsters generally didn't have any healing, it was more about ablating the party's healing capabilities rather than their actual HP.

Does make 4e play a LOT different than 5e.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Jan 13, 2016)

Saelorn said:


> I definitely think that they didn't streamline the magic system as much as they could have. Sure, it's way more forgiving in terms of spell preparation, but not more than 3E was more forgiving than 2E.
> 
> They could have ditched spell preparation for all classes, but they didn't, and that makes me sad.




Well, I think they learned with the 4th edition that a complete redesign of the stat and spell systems didn't go over very well. The elimination of Vancian-style magic was one of their 'selling points.' 

Ilbranteloth


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 14, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Well, I'll answer anyway - because I'm from rural East Texas, where it describes about 60% of the population. Of course, I don't still live there, so it doesn't happen as much as it used to.




As a resident of Bakersfield, CA, I feel your pain. 

Bako is, if you don't know, basically a weird bubble in the Central Valley where bits of Texas and Dust Bowl refugee descendants suck oil out of the ground and grow almonds and grudgingly abide by the rules of "PC" behavior in public, and complain loudly about it whenever they can get away with it, while a minority Liberal population quietly strives to overthrow the patriarchy and maybe build an art scene that isn't a sad joke. 

But we have a pretty cool Comic Con, if you're ever in the area, and hey, some pretty famous people are from here, so...it's not all bad. 

And a lot of really good food. Especially Basque. 

But yeah, also plenty of creationists, birthers, truthers, climate deniers, and just about everything else you can imagine people saying that would make an educated Liberal /headdesk.  Not to mention positively homicidal police. 
All while being noticeably less friendly than most places in Texas.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 14, 2016)

ANyway, I don't htink I've acutally made a list of my gripes with 5e. 

So, here it is. Note that most of these aren't things I think 5e got wholly wrong, and 5e is my second favorite variation of DnD. 

Advantage: I like it, but I think they miss stepped by having there only be one bonus, as it were. 

Trying to put "4e style" gameplay in a "tactical play" module in the DMG. It's a failure, IMO. I don't know what the numbers are, but not a single person I know who liked 4e wanted to play a game that mechanically resembles warhammer. At all. That isn't what 4e is, and while it's cool to have as an option, it is not a 4e style option. 4e's "thing" was tactical options built into class abilities. Not...facing. 

The art style. The conceptopolis stuff is great, mostly. The halflings are an abomination. They look like gross cartoon people halfway turned into real people. I feel like they're going to plead with me to kill them while the artist isn't looking. 
There's some great art from 4e, like this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/JonasAlbrecht/Gwenn.jpg that is vastly more interesting than most of the art in the 5e books. Or stuff like this from Jon Hodgson, who does the art for The One Ring rpg: http://jonhodgson.deviantart.com/art/Solku-119883066

Not having more "modules" for more complex play in the DMG. Bigger weapons table with more weapon properties, for instance. 

Not putting out some pamphlets for the more popular non FR settings, or a book with info on multiple settings, maybe with worldbuilding advice from setting creators like Keith Baker, etc. 

No digital tools. I've heard this isn't really their fault, as bad luck struck again, but they need to stop messing around with companies no one has heard of, and figure this situation out for real. Either develop a department of digital production, or work with one of the companies making DnD video games/mmos. 
Maybe hire some talented app makers who have made char builders for various editions, and give them the money to do it right. Heck, allow digital tools on the DM Guild, now that that's up. 

Not allowing there to be both class and subclass iterations of ideas. IMO, this would open the game up without unbalancing it, and allow certain concepts without MCing, etc. If you have to, put the class versions of things like assassin and any given summoner/pet concept in a special area of the rules called Advanced Options or something, to satisfy the grognards and the folks who hate there being more options. 

Like I said, none of these is a big deal, really.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 14, 2016)

ChrisCarlson said:


> I'm just idly wondering how many years into 5e will we have to get before people finally stop mischaracterizing what bounded accuracy is what it actually does...




I started posting on teh wotc forums when 4e was being previewed, and didn't stop until the closed 'em. 


The answer is literally never. Even after the heat death of the universe, when only the disembodied hyperspace mind exists, contemplating the answer to the question, "How can one reverse entropy", some niggling bit of leftover individual consciousness will still refuse to admit it's a mischaracterization.


----------



## Ohillion (Jan 16, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The art style. The conceptopolis stuff is great, mostly. The halflings are an abomination. They look like gross cartoon people halfway turned into real people. I feel like they're going to plead with me to kill them while the artist isn't looking.
> There's some great art from 4e, like this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/JonasAlbrecht/Gwenn.jpg that is vastly more interesting than most of the art in the 5e books. Or stuff like this from Jon Hodgson, who does the art for The One Ring rpg: http://jonhodgson.deviantart.com/art/Solku-119883066



http://jonhodgson.deviantart.com/art/Solku-119883066

I agree with your criticism of some of the art in the books.  I can't help but note that the female elven caster portrayed on pg. 169 of the PHB has some MESSED UP looking eyes.  Elf or not, that's just an art fail that should have spent more time getting edited.
I do love the artwork of Wayne Reynolds.  He's definitely my favorite artist for all things D&D.  I don't think WotC or Hasbro wanted to pay him what he's worth.  I think he's doing work for Paizo now.  Which brings something else to light...this does give other burgeoning artists a chance to get seen.  I suppose that goes without saying.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 18, 2016)

Ohillion said:


> [/URL]
> 
> I agree with your criticism of some of the art in the books.  I can't help but note that the female elven caster portrayed on pg. 169 of the PHB has some MESSED UP looking eyes.  Elf or not, that's just an art fail that should have spent more time getting edited.
> I do love the artwork of Wayne Reynolds.  He's definitely my favorite artist for all things D&D.  I don't think WotC or Hasbro wanted to pay him what he's worth.  I think he's doing work for Paizo now.  Which brings something else to light...this does give other burgeoning artists a chance to get seen.  I suppose that goes without saying.




 WAR art is very cartoony nd the 4E/PF cover art on the core books/PFRPG is reaosnably bad IMHO.

doctorbadwolf the links you posted to the women and city are fine IMHO.Better than WAR anyway.


----------



## Ohillion (Jan 18, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> WAR art is very cartoony nd the 4E/PF cover art on the core books/PFRPG is reaosnably bad IMHO.




Wait...are you proposing a debate of cartoon art vs realism for a fantasy game?!  Challenge accepted!


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 18, 2016)

Ohillion said:


> Wait...are you proposing a debate of cartoon art vs realism for a fantasy game?!  Challenge accepted!




 I just prefer 5E art, a lot of the colour AD&D art and even some of the 4E non WAR art.


----------



## Salamandyr (Jan 18, 2016)

The art is my least favorite thing about 5e.  Needs more dudes, needs more bare chests, needs more violence, needs a whole lot fewer people standing around in fantasy formalwear.  It needs more weird.  Needs more guys swinging swords.  Needs a bare chested human barbarian on the cover, breaking down a door and ready to do dangerous business with the dragon beyond.

Oh, and the books need white pages and a larger font.  Considering how bored the art makes me, I'd infinitely prefer they left it out and gave me a book I could read without getting headaches.


----------



## Lehrbuch (Jan 18, 2016)

Zardnaar said:


> Things 5E actually got wrong IMHO.
> 
> 1. The saving throw system. 6 saves when 3 of them really only matter that much and 1 of them is barely used. Some classes have good basic saves (str/con) and other classes have meh saves (int/wis)...




I do not see this as a problem. Why does it matter?

It's kind of like complaining that reality is wrong because although people have five senses, sight and hearing matter a whole lot more than the others in many circumstances.

In fact it's kind of good, I think, that there are wrinkles and unevenness like this. It means that there is something to distinguish different PCs, and something for players with "system mastery pretensions" to optimise. But the unevenness isn't so drastic that there are significant "traps" to cripple players who either can't be bothered thinking too hard or have "character pretensions" instead.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2016)

I think WAR is one of those artists like Tony DiTerlizzi who people rarely have neutral feelings about.  Either you really like him or really don't.  I'm in the latter camp, to be honest, but, I can appreciate that others do like him.  I generally do like 5e art.  Then again, at the time, I've generally liked every editions art, so, maybe I'm just not discerning enough.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 20, 2016)

Art: 5E > 2E > 1E > 4E > 3E (not sure about Basic, assume it was similar to 2E...?).

Pretty subjective, to be sure, but Wizards is hitting it out of the park artistically (as to Halflings...nobody bats 1000...).


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 20, 2016)

Must say I'm not a 5e art fan think I enjoyed 4es art most


----------



## pming (Jan 20, 2016)

Hiya!

Haven't read the whole thread...but here's mine.

(1) Feats are too tough and "unbalanced with regards to each other". I hear "Sharpshooter", "Great Weapon Master", "Poleare Master" and "Magic Initiate" as choices _all the time_. That right there should tell you that they are 'too powerful'. I'd rather have Feats be "different" not "better" choices for characters. Things that give a bit more intangible 'benefits' over purely mechanical ones. But I'm definitely in the minority on this and I don't allow feats in my game...so....uh...yeah... 

(2) Like feats, Multiclassing. Not enough "campaign considerations" for combo's and whatnot. I also don't like how they work; I don't want "one class at a time", I want "all classes at the same time". I want to be a "Fighter/Magic-User", not a "Fighter _and_ Magic-User". You gain a level, and choose to up your MU side...well, that last level you apparently learned _absolutely nothing_ to do with Fighting. This disconnect completely destroys my SoD (Suspension of Disbelief). I wish MC'ing was moe like 1e/2e. But, again, like Feats, MC'ing is OPTIONAL and I don't allow it in my campaign without very specific reasons/allowances. So there's that...

(3) "POOF! You're healed." The rules where you sleep and wake up fully healed. Ick. Icky-poo, actually. A core rule this time that totally destroys my SoD. I changed it in my game...the first one I actually played. 

(4) Production Quality. Full-colour glossy pages can go _straight to H-E-L-L!!!_. Good gods I get eye strain after five minutes of reading. I have one of my players look up most rules during the game (saves time so I can keep DM'ing the group)...mostly so I don't have to try and figure out what something says. Grrrrr! I wish they made a non-colour version for sale...oh well. I don't care about "full colour art and slick page backgrounds with fancy borders". I want _readability_ during my game session, becuase, lets face it, once you have looked at the pages and art once or twice, you're done. After that the book is used as a _reference tome_ for playing the game....and full-colour glossy art and pages does _not_ help that....IMHO. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 20, 2016)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> (3) "POOF! You're healed." The rules where you sleep and wake up fully healed. Ick. Icky-poo, actually. A core rule this time that totally destroys my SoD. I changed it in my game...the first one I actually played.




Couldn't disagree more here one thing I hated about earlier eds was being on a epic quest to save the world and taking a week to heal. Maybe full HP is to much but 3es 1hp a level was way to low and practically required a heal botting. I know its a pain for SoD but then its a world with dragons n fire balls, maybe healing pixies come along at night when your sleeping.


----------



## pming (Jan 20, 2016)

Hiya!



Azurewraith said:


> Couldn't disagree more here one thing I hated about earlier eds was being on a epic quest to save the world and taking a week to heal. Maybe full HP is to much but 3es 1hp a level was way to low and practically required a heal botting. I know its a pain for SoD but then its a world with dragons n fire balls, maybe healing pixies come along at night when your sleeping.




Yeah, but in earlier editions most campaigns were simply _not about "epic" quests to save the world"_. In earlier editions, campaigns were generally assumed to last years and years, with characters rarely reaching levels higher than 12 to 15.

Also, in earlier editions, HP's were one of those things you didn't want to loose...so, IME, players were a _lot_ more likely to actually stop and _think_ about what battles to fight and how to do it. Just popping up a spell or two and leaping into every encounter as a battle was almost guaranteed to result in eventual mass suicide.

Different game design goals, really. Earlier editions were more about exploration and character/campaign development as a group thing than todays. Todays editions (basically, 3e+) are, IMHO, more about "heroic, me, me, me!" style adventuring where everyone at the table is asumed to be a special snowflake, destined to "save the world in an epic adventure". Just look at what they are putting out; adventures that are designed to be "campaigns" where the PC's start at level 1, go to 15 to 20, 'save the world' and end. Put your character away, remember fondly about the 'campaign', roll up a new guy and do it again...with your former PC's and 'campaign' having nothing to do with your "new campaign and PC's". *shrig* Nothing wrong with that style of "quick-rise epic'ness, save-the-world-every-6-months" play...but its not how earlier editions were assumed to be played.

As I said...different design goals. For me and my group, a character who just took 89hp's of damage from his 92hp total can get to the inn, order dinner and a pitcher of mead, hit the sack, and wake up fresh as a daisy. "Save-the-world, special-snowflake" is the assumed default...hence, "POOF! You're healed!". As Mr.Horse would say... _"Hmmm....uh-huh...errrr....mmmmm.... No sir. I don't like it."_ 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 20, 2016)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guess your right there. I have allways played the destined to save the planet. Been trying to reel it in and have more modular play. Old habits die hard. As for avoiding HP damge my groups have all ways been combat for sport types so the HP depletion shut us down.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jan 20, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> Couldn't disagree more here one thing I hated about earlier eds was being on a epic quest to save the world and taking a week to heal. Maybe full HP is to much but 3es 1hp a level was way to low and practically required a heal botting. I know its a pain for SoD but then its a world with dragons n fire balls, maybe healing pixies come along at night when your sleeping.





Yoiu also tend to take a lot less damage in AD&D (short of Dragonbreath) and there was usually extra healing available in a lot of adventures from potions (to find) or magical fountains. 

Kobolds 5E +4 to hit (with advantage alot of the time)
AD&D +0 to hit 1d3 damage

 ACs were also higher in AD&D relative to monster attack bonuses. We had clericless parties as well and the 1d3 daily healing thing worked well in adventures like hexcrawls (X1 Isle of Dread) and 5E fails hard at those adventures IMHO. Had a similar discussion last week about one of my players who has only played AD&D a little bit as we were playing SWSE after 5E and he forgot about numbers bloat in 3E and damage bloat from 5E. 

 The big sticking points I find from modern players when they play AD&D/Basic now (as opposed to back in the day) is THACO and AD&Ds ability score system (BECMI is fine). When a 4th level fighter wades into a group of Kobolds or Goblins and gets 4 attacks a round they seem to have fun with it. I think I prefer the BECMI/C&C/Myth and Magic stat modifieras 20 ion 5E is a bit high with bounded accuracy IMHO. 

BECMI
Score/modifer
3, -3
4-5,  -2
6-8, -1
9-12 +0
13-15 +1
16-17 +2
18, +3

 A clone like Castles and Crusades uses this and has ascending ACs and attack numbers and I find it very easy to run it (easier than 5E).

 They generally like the different rates of xp required, the adventures and the amount of loot they get. Kill a 2HD ghoul get an 8000gp (and 8k xp) necklace. See a wight and run for the hills. You also roleplay more due to quick combats and you get more xp from loot than killing stuff so from a powergaming PoV exploration is often better than combat.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 20, 2016)

For me, 5e has the same art issue as 4e. Wonderful landscapes and scenes, but characters and monsters don't instill any sense of wonder or excitement. 3.x couldn't get any of it right 

Not that it's a "wrong" .


5e needs more LMoP type products. Hopefully the Guild  and SRD will remedy that and get the ball rolling.


----------



## darkrose50 (Jan 20, 2016)

hejtmane said:


> Hence I replied back it was a suggestion and we had a discussions where I said i can see that point of view and we talked about maybe allowing  dex, wisdom or int to be used
> 
> Dex which is based on reaction
> 
> ...




I always think of CON as how healthy someone is, obviously.  This means there body is very likely symmetrical.  We find symmetrical bodies attractive because being attracted to someone basically is a test to rate someone as healthy (symmetrical) versus non-healthy (asymmetrical).

My house-rule for appearance is, more or less, 5 + CON mod + CHA mod on a scale 1-10 with 11+ being higher 10's.

One would assume that a healthy body would have evolutionary advantages, and would likely do more than just give more hit points, or resist disease.


----------



## Jessica (Jan 21, 2016)

Wayne Reynolds, William O'Connor, and Eva Widermann all did amazing work. I really wish they would have rehired them instead of these new artists.



pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm glad they changed it to special-snowflakes-save-the-world or whatever. That's much better than playing fantasy-Oceans-Eleven or fantasy-f***ing-Vietnam or whatever you want to call it. At least they included variant rules in the DMG so you old farts can play your nursing home version of D&D.


----------



## pming (Jan 21, 2016)

Zeuel said:


> Wayne Reynolds, William O'Connor, and Eva Widermann all did amazing work. I really wish they would have rehired them instead of these new artists.
> 
> I'm glad they changed it to special-snowflakes-save-the-world or whatever. That's much better than playing fantasy-Oceans-Eleven or fantasy-f***ing-Vietnam or whatever you want to call it. At least they included variant rules in the DMG so you old farts can play your nursing home version of D&D.




Oooo....kaaaayyyy.....

*shrug* Different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm just glad that I can fix/modify/manipulate 5e fairly easily to get a more "1e style" game. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Hussar (Jan 21, 2016)

Funny thing is, special snowflake play was in there pretty darn early. Dragonlance was being played in the very early eighties. It's hardly true that story driven play is a new concept.


----------



## delericho (Jan 21, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Funny thing is, special snowflake play was in there pretty darn early. Dragonlance was being played in the very early eighties. It's hardly true that story driven play is a new concept.




Yeah, well, it's been pretty clearly established that Dragonlance ruined _everything_!


----------



## devincutler (Jan 21, 2016)

Zeuel said:


> I'm glad they changed it to special-snowflakes-save-the-world or whatever. That's much better than playing fantasy-Oceans-Eleven or fantasy-f***ing-Vietnam or whatever you want to call it. At least they included variant rules in the DMG so you old farts can play your nursing home version of D&D.




Hostile much?

I find there is nothing more satisfying than playing the same PC for years. I have campaigns that have gone for over 10 years. My current 3.5 one is due to wrap up this year and will have been 9 years long.

This idea that you rip through a campaign in 3-6 months is not only, IMO, short changing the chance at some epic memories and real character building, but it also completely destroys any semblance of game world consistency. So, a bunch of know-nothing wet-behind-the-ears ne'er-do-wells can go from casting cantrips and sleep spells to tossing around meteor swarm in 6 months? Damn! Why doesn't everyone just do that then?

But this is yet another example of the ongoing video-game-izing of RPGs. 

I at least appreciate the fact that the DMG has some variants for slowing down the pace of the game and lending some credibility beyond the 8 hours of rest and everyone is fully healed paradigm.


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 21, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> maybe healing pixies come along at night when your sleeping.





I wonder how many XPs you could get for a healing pixie?


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 21, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> I wonder how many XPs you could get for a healing pixie?



Murder hobo! If you kill them who will heal you?


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 21, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> Murder hobo! If you kill them who will heal you?




If I kill them fast enough then I will not need the healing.


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 21, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> If I kill them fast enough then I will not need the healing.



Say that to the dragon


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 21, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> Say that to the dragon




Ha, while it is trying to Parlay we can get in a surprise attack round.


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 21, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> Ha, while it is trying to Parlay we can get in a surprise attack round.



You are past redemption! You are on the no heal list


----------



## delericho (Jan 21, 2016)

Shasarak said:


> Ha, while it is trying to Parlay we can get in a surprise attack round.




The dragon is smarter than you. Do you _really_ think it's going to fall for your obvious deception?


----------



## Mecheon (Jan 21, 2016)

delericho said:


> The dragon is smarter than you. Do you _really_ think it's going to fall for your obvious deception?




Dragons are full of ego. Build them up. Feed their ego. Let someone else diplomance their way through this. They'll be too fixated with this to ignore the more dangerous threat.

In this world, its kill or be killed. Its okay. You can trust your best friend, Flowey, in these matters.


----------



## delericho (Jan 21, 2016)

Mecheon said:


> Dragons are full of ego. Build them up. Feed their ego. Let someone else diplomance their way through this. They'll be too fixated with this to ignore the more dangerous threat.




Yeah. That's what they _want you_ to think.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> Say that to the dragon




If I kill you fast enough I will not nee *fwoof!*  

Medic!!


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 21, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> If I kill you fast enough I will not nee *fwoof!*
> 
> Medic!!



If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can imagine!


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can imagine!




Dust of Disappearance?


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 21, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Dust of Disappearance?



And get dust on my suit? Never


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 21, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> And get dust on my *suit*? Never




Er, that's soot.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Jan 21, 2016)

I don't have any major complaints about 5E, overall. Little ones here and there, but most of those are easily fixed. I feel like this edition is the one that most encourages personalizing the game, so even the things they got wrong are manageable.

Thinking about things though, I think that they could have simplified the system even more. People complain about the lack of a warlord or other classes...I feel like there really only needs to be three classes. Martial, magical, and skilled. Every one of the existing classes can be boiled down to one of these three. 

I think that rather than having the "illusion" of choice, I'd prefer a limited base choice, followed by many options that I can mix and match within that base choice. Just take all the fighter, ranger, rogue, monk, and paladin abilities and dump them into a pool. If I choose a martial character, I can mix and match abilities from the martial options. 

And perhaps an option for "lesser access" to the options for a second class. So if you wanted, you could be primarily a martial, with minor access to magical options. This would allow for characters resembling the paladin or a subclass like eldritch knight. 

It would have been a radical departure from prior editions, so I know why they didn't do it, but it would have been interesting to see.


----------



## darkrose50 (Jan 21, 2016)

I'm A Banana said:


> Heh. Taking the idea seriously for a sec, I think the main hurdle would be 5e's insistence on narrative coherence - there'd have to be some reason that they can only do it X/day, for instance, and that immediately begins to truck with the supernatural. The main reason 4e's martial dailies were A-OK was because one valued the gameplay goals over the suspension of disbelief - it matters less _why_ you could only do your daily 1/day and more _that_ you could nova-spike, too. 5e cares about that why quite a bit.
> 
> Though I could maybe see a Warlock model working OK! It's usually easier to buy a "you're too tired" explanation in the span of a couple of minutes during an encounter. And Warlocks already have at-will stuff.




I like the idea of tying abilities to the Hit Die pool.  You have a certain number to use per day, and it represents a pool of some form of stamina.  So 1/day should be fine, and then additional times would cost 1+ hit die.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 21, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> It was?  I seem to recall them saying that they wanted to put elements from everyone's favorite edition into 5e.  Which is not the same as saying they wanted to please everyone.




The issue is, in many cases, the elements they chose were the worst ones. Multiclassing, for example. 1E, 2E and 4E all had essentially the same take, yet they chose to use the terrible 3E version and make it worse. 

There are so many good ideas brought about for 5E that were just botched in execution. It turned out a rather kludgy, fan service edition for grognards rather than a great product to the point you'd swear Mike Mearls and JJ Abrams were the same person.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Jan 21, 2016)

Herschel said:


> The issue is, in many cases, the elements they chose were the worst ones.



Who decided that was true? Certainly not by my reckoning. IMO, they took all the right parts of all the editions and mushed them together into the best edition ever.

Looks like our votes cancel each other out. Where does that leave things now?


----------



## ccs (Jan 21, 2016)

Parmandur said:


> Art: 5E > 2E > 1E > 4E > 3E (not sure about Basic, assume it was similar to 2E...?).




In the 80's the art in Basic (BECMI) looked pretty much like the art in 1e.
In the 90's the art in Basic looked pretty much like the art in 2e.
Why?  Because they used the same artists.  So who ever they were using at the time....


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 21, 2016)

hawkeyefan said:


> Thinking about things though, I think that they could have simplified the system even more. People complain about the lack of a warlord or other classes...I feel like there really only needs to be three classes. Martial, magical, and skilled. Every one of the existing classes can be boiled down to one of these three.



When you think about it, everything you could fit under 'martial' combined with everything you could fit under 'skilled' still doesn't add up to anywhere near what could fit under 'magical,' while a few things, like psionics might not technically be magical.   

So, you really only need two:  Skilled (including martial _skill_), and Supernatural (magical, psioinic, &c). 



> It would have been a radical departure from prior editions, so I know why they didn't do it, but it would have been interesting to see.



I can't bring a specific example to mind, ATM, but I'm sure I seen or heard of some games or others working like that.  Maybe in the 90s?



Herschel said:


> The issue is, in many cases, the elements they chose were the worst ones. Multiclassing, for example. 1E, 2E and 4E all had essentially the same take, yet they chose to use the terrible 3E version and make it worse.



Heh.  I'd have to say that 3e had the best MCing system (but, sadly, the worst-balanced set of classes to use it with), and 5e improved upon that MCing system.  The problem was very much the classes.  3e, 'modular' I call it, Multi-classing treats the first /n/ level of each class as if it were equivalent in value to the next /n/ levels of every other class, at every level after 1st.  Aside from the Fighter, no class in 3.x was anywhere near that meticulously balanced.  



> There are so many good ideas brought about for 5E that were just botched in execution. It turned out a rather kludgy, fan service edition for grognards.



I'm not seeing that many good ideas in 5e.  At least, not new ones.  And the few I could point to don't seem botched.  Which ideas do you think were botched, and how?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 21, 2016)

ChrisCarlson said:


> Who decided that was true? Certainly not by my reckoning. IMO, they took all the right parts of all the editions and mushed them together into the best edition ever.
> 
> Looks like our votes cancel each other out. Where does that leave things now?




Me to break the tie.  5e wins.  

Seriously though, 5e has been heralded as one of the best editions of the game yet, and not just taken from the typical fan bluster you see in the first few months.  It's been out over 3 years now (including playtest), and it's still being widely heralded as a great game.

I'm also not sure what Hershal is talking about re: multiclassing.  5e requires min stat requirements in order to multiclass, which is _all about_ AD&D


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 21, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Seriously though, 5e has been heralded as one of the best editions of the game yet, and not just taken from the typical fan bluster you see in the first few months.



The highest praise I hear of 5e is usually along the lines of "best edition since 2e" or words to that effect invoking one of the other classic (pre-3.0) editions.  

It set out to evoke the feel of classic D&D and succeeded, to great effect, since more people formed their impression of D&D back when it was a fad, and during the remaining TSR years than since, and reviving that has been successful. 

But the sense of 'best' in that context, is primarily about familiarity and the nostalgia/enthusiasm of a fad having it's come-back.  



> It's been out over 3 years now (including playtest), and it's still being widely heralded as a great game.



Are you sure you were paying attention to the playtest?  Because I seem to remember a lot of complaints and controversy - and I did actually run playtest games, the system was pretty bad as a whole, through most of it, as it seemed they were 'testing' individual elements without fixing up things (like monsters) that they knew were off.   It was only after we saw 5e that we appreciated how good some bits of the playtest had been (MDDs compared to CS dice, is one that stands our for me; the creative playtest Sorcerer vs the blah version they settled on is another). 



> I'm also not sure what Hershal is talking about re: multiclassing.  5e requires min stat requirements in order to multiclass, which is _all about_ AD&D



Actually, AD&D stat requirements were to enter the class, at all, not just to MC to it.  INT of 8, couldn't be a Wizard.  CHA only 16, pick something other than Paladin.  The happened to apply to multi-classing, but they weren't the major defining feature of it.  The major defining feature of AD&D multi-classing was Race.  Your race dictated your available MC options.  From there, it worked nothing like 5e MCing, at all.  

The MC system is one of the few things 5e took from modern editions and actually improved upon, a little.  It also made it optional.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 21, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> The highest praise I hear of 5e is usually along the lines of "best edition since 2e" or words to that effect invoking one of the other classic (pre-3.0) editions.
> 
> It set out to evoke the feel of classic D&D and succeeded, to great effect, since more people formed their impression of D&D back when it was a fad, and during the remaining TSR years than since, and reviving that has been successful.
> 
> But the sense of 'best' in that context, is primarily about familiarity and the nostalgia/enthusiasm of a fad having it's come-back.




Disagree.  The impression I get from the many different communities, from all other editions (albeit not as much 4e fans), is that 5e is the best overall.



> Are you sure you were paying attention to the playtest?  Because I seem to remember a lot of complaints and controversy - and I did actually run playtest games, the system was pretty bad as a whole, through most of it, as it seemed they were 'testing' individual elements without fixing up things (like monsters) that they knew were off.   It was only after we saw 5e that we appreciated how good some bits of the playtest had been (MDDs compared to CS dice, is one that stands our for me; the creative playtest Sorcerer vs the blah version they settled on is another).




Yeah I was paying attention, and was heavily involved in the playtest from day 1.  Nearly all of the complaints were because "Man!  I wanted to play this version of the sorcerer and I can't!" or "the monsters have too few hp."  But a whole lot of people, and the majority of the comments, were actually excited about 5e and loved playing it.  Look at the bigger picture (like the number of people who downloaded and played the playtest) rather than base an opinion solely on a few internet comments.



> Actually, AD&D stat requirements were to enter the class, at all, not just to MC to it.  INT of 8, couldn't be a Wizard.  CHA only 16, pick something other than Paladin.  The happened to apply to multi-classing, but they weren't the major defining feature of it.  The major defining feature of AD&D multi-classing was Race.  Your race dictated your available MC options.  From there, it worked nothing like 5e MCing, at all.
> 
> The MC system is one of the few things 5e took from modern editions and actually improved upon, a little.  It also made it optional.




The very fact that you needed to have a minimum stat heralds back to AD&D.  Not 3e.  Which was my point.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 21, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Heh.  I'd have to say that 3e had the best MCing system (but, sadly, the worst-balanced set of classes to use it with), and 5e improved upon that MCing system.  The problem was very much the classes.  3e, 'modular' I call it, Multi-classing treats the first /n/ level of each class as if it were equivalent in value to the next /n/ levels of every other class, at every level after 1st.  Aside from the Fighter, no class in 3.x was anywhere near that meticulously balanced.




Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from: 
I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with. 

I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 21, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> The impression I get from the many different communities, from all other editions, is that 5e is the best overall.



So you've hung out with 3.5/PF fans and their general consensus is that 5e is better?  I don't think so.  



> The very fact that you needed to have a minimum stat heralds back to AD&D.  Not 3e.  Which was my point.



Sure, but it's trivial compared to /not/ requiring race, and MCing to a new class when you level vs advancing in both (or all three) from first, and, for that matter, in being able to combine any classes instead of specific ones.  5e uses a somewhat improved version of 3.x multi-classing.  That's probably one of the strongest examples of taking 'the best' from each prior edition.



Herschel said:


> Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from:
> I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with.



Has it ever worked well?  5e is a little more accommodating to light-armored concepts - if they have good DEX, almost regardless of class, because 'finesse' weapons are all but 'free' in chargen terms.  You don't have to take feats and MC to be basically OK in light armor using a light or ranged weapon, you /just/ need that good DEX.  

Low DEX and light armor prettymuch means defenseless, if you can't dodge and you're unarmored, how do you avoid attacks?



> I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.



Paladin/Warlock may not be the most synergistic class combo, but I'm not seeing where the MC system, itself, was the problem.  If everyone else is two levels ahead of you (and, Bounded Accuracy aside, that's still having more hps and the next higher level slots available, which is no small thing), and has better stats, you're going to be noticing it.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 21, 2016)

Herschel said:


> Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from:
> I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with.
> 
> I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.




Isn't the point of randomizing character generation to generate a randomized character? If you come in with the character premade and then are upset that the dice rolls don't allow your character, that seems like a feature rather than a bug.

I mean, you want a high dex character but then roll an 8 for dex, guess that doesn't happen.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 21, 2016)

Herschel said:


> Interesting take. Here's where I'm coming from:
> I joined an in-progress game game, old school style with coming in at first level and stat rolling. I wanted an unarmored or lightly-armored divine or arcane melee swordsman who wasn't stuck being a Dex Monkey by an overly-limited system. Well, that doesn't work very well in 5E to start with.




Sadly, lighted-armored character without a focus on Dex is pretty much near impossible in 5e, since there's virtually no stat replacement.  



Herschel said:


> I rolled terrible and was stuck with the garbage standard array, having to build a CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock in order to get close to the archtype with mediocre stats. Already being two levels behind other characters, having lower stats than other characters would be noticed but workable within bounded accuracy, except losing ground due to multiclassing also because the system is so straightjacketed in to narrow tropes made the character just too ineffective to sensibly adventure with the rest of the party.



Yea, probably the best you can do there is go Cleric 1 for medium armor and shields, then Warlock(Tome) to grab Charisma-based shillelagh and one of the melee attack cantrips.  Would make you a Cha-focused melee character with decent armor, and a good smattering of buff spells.  Sadly, I just can't think of a good way to pull off lightly-armored or not-armored warrior without a strong Dex focus.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 21, 2016)

Randomizing character stats is NOT intended to say "screw you and your character concept". Why should anyone waste their time playing the game then? 

You may make compromises, like going the CHA/DEX Paladin/Warlock route was not ideal, but fit enough of the criteria to go with. Unlike 1E/2E, good stats are more important, especially when all else is not equal.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 21, 2016)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, probably the best you can do there is go Cleric 1 for medium armor and shields, then Warlock(Tome) to grab Charisma-based shillelagh and one of the melee attack cantrips.  Would make you a Cha-focused melee character with decent armor, and a good smattering of buff spells.  Sadly, I just can't think of a good way to pull off lightly-armored or not-armored warrior without a strong Dex focus.



You could go Barbarian and focus on Con, which adds to AC for them. You wouldn't get the best AC, but you'd get a middling one. You could also go druid and use _barkskin._

And IMO, that's the opposite of a problem. Saying "I want to be a lightly-armored warrior without focusing on Dexterity" is about the same as saying "I want to be a wizard without focusing on Intelligence." You can do it, but you won't be very good at it.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 21, 2016)

No, it's like saying "I want to cast spells without having to rely on INT" which, oh, look, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Clerics.......


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Jan 21, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> So you've hung out with 3.5/PF fans and their general consensus is that 5e is better?  I don't think so.



<raises hand> I have! I have! And yes, I have. In case you haven't heard, I help run the largest game convention in SoCal, three times a year. We get multiple hundreds of roleplayers in, every day of the long weekend. Old school, PF, 5e. Is PF still hugely popular? Yep. Sure is. But as you and others love to point out when it suits your argument, PF is not an edition of D&D. So not sure why you even bothered to toss it in to your argument. Yet even still, I know quite a few PFSers who have jumped over to AL. And they are having the time of their lives and haven't looked back. 

Heck, AL is bursting at the seams, participation has been growing at a steady pace. We even had to move it to a different part of the convention to accommodate its increasing numbers.

I invite you to come on out this President's Day Weekend (Feb. 12-15) and check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. Our website is www.strategicon.net. Check us out. Good times had by all. Everyone is welcome. (Well except for a specific few - but y'all know who you are...)


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 21, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> So you've hung out with 3.5/PF fans and their general consensus is that 5e is better?  I don't think so.  .




I have actually.  But just go to your FLGS.  The ones I go to also aligns with most of what I've heard from others as well.  5e is the edition of choice, including those 3.5/PF players who switched over.  And before you say, "Well, it's probably just because 5e is the one currently supported", I will point out that after 4e came out, those same players were still playing 3.5/PF in the FLGS stores and didn't move to 4e.  Up until two years ago there were more PF tables than there were 4e tables.  Now it seems most are playing 5e, judging by the game tables I'm seeing.


----------



## darkrose50 (Jan 21, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> ANyway, I don't htink I've acutally made a list of my gripes with 5e.
> 
> So, here it is. Note that most of these aren't things I think 5e got wholly wrong, and 5e is my second favorite variation of DnD.
> 
> ...




It would seem that you and I are not the target audience.  I would much rather have more content.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 21, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> I have actually.  But just go to your FLGS.  The ones I go to also aligns with most of what I've heard from others as well.  5e is the edition of choice, including those 3.5/PF players who switched over.



The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it."  I haven't seen or heard a lot of defections - the EN headline we saw a while back about 5e widening it's lead on PF was about a 1% widening of that gap, pretty minor, really.  Most 5e players at our FLGS have been playing since Encounters or are are returning fans having last played 2e (a heartening number of them, really - I see faces every week that I only used to see 1/yr at conventions).

But, as positive as I like to see many of the things about 5e, I can't buy that it's being hailed as bestestevar the way you imply, outside of the usual uncritical WotC apologists squeeing over the current edition, of course.  It's successfully evoke the feel of the classic game and is bringing long-lost fans back into the fold.  That's a great accomplishment, but it can all too easily be oversold.



darkrose50 said:


> It would seem that you and I are not the target audience.  I would much rather have more content.



 The SRD and DMsGuild have got to help with that, going forward.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 21, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it." .




Well, this is flat out untrue, because I know you've been here a long time, and many posters here who happened to be 3.5/PF fans have had a lot more positive things to say about it than that.  But judging from your posts over the last couple years about 5e, it seems clear to me that you only like to cling to the negative commentary while ignoring the positive commentary (and objective facts) for anything that runs counter to your biases.  So I can't say I'm all that surprised that you'd make a claim like the one you just did.  Don't sit there and tell me that you'd like to say or hear positive things about 5e when your posting history clearly infers the opposite.  You've largely been poopooing it since day 1, never giving it credit it deserves.  At best, it's been "meh".


----------



## Jessica (Jan 21, 2016)

Herschel said:


> The issue is, in many cases, the elements they chose were the worst ones. Multiclassing, for example. 1E, 2E and 4E all had essentially the same take, yet they chose to use the terrible 3E version and make it worse.
> 
> There are so many good ideas brought about for 5E that were just botched in execution. It turned out a rather kludgy, fan service edition for grognards rather than a great product to the point you'd swear Mike Mearls and JJ Abrams were the same person.




I agree. I much prefer the non-3.X methods of multiclassing. I wish they would have brought in 2e multiclassing or 4e hybridization.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 22, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, this is flat out untrue



What I've heard from actual Pathfinder fans is not what I've heard?  Sorry, no, I was telling the truth.  

What gets tossed around here, though, it doesn't carry a lot of weight.  Say you've "never heard ______"  and someone will leap up and shout "______!" just because.  Doesn't mean much. 

Vagaries of the medium aside, yes, there's PF fans in my area, yes, I interact with them, and, no, they're not returning to D&D in droves.  OTOH, they're not railing against it, either.  That 5e didn't provoke another edition war, by itself, is a very real success.  And, OTOOH, D&D _is_ selling very without any hypothetical horde of 3.5 hold-outs crossing the aisle, PF isn't exactly contracting rapidly, either.  Returning 2e fans, OTOH, not in short supply.  Same with longtime fans continuing on with the current edition.  FWIW.




> But judging from your posts over the last couple years about 5e, it seems clear to me that you only like to cling to the negative commentary while ignoring the positive commentary (and objective facts) for anything that runs counter to your biases. So I can't say I'm all that surprised that you'd make a claim like the one you just did. Don't sit there and tell me that you'd like to say or hear positive things about 5e when your posting history clearly infers the opposite. You've largely been poopooing it since day 1, never giving it credit it deserves. At best, it's been "meh".



In this very thread, I'm defending 5e's MC system from some negativity.  Check your own biases.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 22, 2016)

darkrose50 said:


> It would seem that you and I are not the target audience.  I would much rather have more content.



Don't know about all that. I like 5e, I just want to be able to fairly easily play 5e in 4e style, and all it would take is the amount of space that the classes chapter take sup in the phb, maybe 10-20 pages more. One book with that plus maybe some rules for more complex weapons, more common magic items, etc, and it's on.


----------



## NotActuallyTim (Jan 22, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it."




Ugh. Now I have to say words. In coherent sentences, even.

Before 5th, my favorite edition of DnD was 3.5 I found it to be the easiest to read, understand, create content for, DM, and play.

When Pathfinder came out, I jumped ship with my group immediately. I loved it. It fixed so many little things about 3.5 that had bothered me, for even in my favorite edition, I had many, many complaints, most of which I can no longer remember.

Before 4th was even mentioned to the public, I read the original text for the Pathfinder Wall of Force spell, in the first, un-errated core rulebook for PF, early on in my experience with PF. I immediately read the text through my then optimization tuned glasses, and came to the conclusion that the spell permitted the caster to squeeze enemies into little bits of jello.

I just groaned, decided to ask for a house rule on that particular subject, and moved on, assured that so many other things would be better that it just wouldn't matter. By the end of the year, I reversed my position entirely, and came to conclusion that carefully spelled out, unambiguous TRPG systems were inherently flawed, and that PFs usage of the mechanics first apparent in 3.x would additionally always be flawed, because they were based on 3.x.

I then went on to play a number of other TRPGs, like Unknown Armies, Feng Shui, Deadlands, Warhammer Fantasy 2nd ed, Edge of the Empire and of course, good old StickGuy the RPG.

After trying and failing to create a working and fun TRPG with a friend of mine, I finally figured out what I was looking for in a TRPG: something I could make my it own, yet be simple enough to teach new people without immediately driving them off with far, far too much detail and complexity, but also capable of producing mechanically complex situations with little to no modification. 5th edition is more than just my favorite edition of Dungeons and Dragons, it's my second favorite TRPG ever. Right after Feng Shui 2nd edition.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 22, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> What I've heard from actual Pathfinder fans is not what I've heard?  Sorry, no, I was telling the truth.




I'm not doubting that you heard that from some PF fans.  But what you actually said was, "The highest praise I heard from PF fans was..."  And clearly that's not true.  Obviously not now, since a PF fan just told you otherwise in the post right above this.



> Check your own biases.




Indeed.  I'll also note that your "defending 5e" usually consists of "It's not awful, just meh.  Could do a lot better."  If that's what you consider defending, I hope you're not a defense lawyer.

For the record, I'm not saying 5e is immune to criticism.  I've criticized it myself several times in the past.  But it seems to be stubborn disingenuous argument to keep viewing it as just "meh" or "average at best" when the fan community reactions, official reviews, game store sales results, game store/convention tables playing it, etc all point to it being a great game--one of the best editions so far, it certainly seems.  And that's something we can point to beyond just your or my anecdotal evidence.  Especially when your anecdotal evidence claims are untrue, as was just proven.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 22, 2016)

whelp, the "look at this evidence to support the validity of my opinion" phase of the thread has started. 

abandon ship!


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 22, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'm not doubting that you heard that from some PF fans.  But what you actually said was, "The highest praise I heard from PF fans was..."  And clearly that's not true.



Nope, it's literally true.  It's all I've heard.  I see all sorts of histrionics on-line, anonymous posters claiming all sorts of wild things, I just take it with a grain of salt.



> Obviously not now, since a PF fan just told you otherwise in the post right above this.



You mean the guy disillusioned with PF before 5e was even announced?  



> Indeed.  I'll also note that your "defending 5e" usually consists of "It's not awful, just meh.  Could do a lot better."  If that's what you consider defending, I hope you're not a defense lawyer.



In this case, your hopes are not in vain.  
But, yeah, I won't counter overblown criticism with equally unfounded praise.  I don't consider discussion of a hobby an adversarial system.


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 22, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> whelp, the "look at this evidence to support the validity of my opinion" phase of the thread has started.
> 
> abandon ship!



Seems to be happening alot lately.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 22, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> if you're a defender of 5e, I would hate to see the critics.



lol.  5e dodged any kind of edition war, but there are still some pretty absurd criticisms put forth.  Of the MC system, for instance, or distorted views of DM Empowerment.  There's also some very pollyanna views of it that are just as unrealistic, and not particularly more of a service to the game.  



> IMO 5e is, by far, the best edition since 1e. And, to be honest, the only reason I hold 1e in such high esteem is because I loved its idiosyncrasies so much. It was a work of singular vision, and the 1e DMG remains legendary for a reason.



1e was the version I really dug into, I technically started with Basic, but the middle-school crowd I was in didn't really grok it, and it wasn't until I started playing AD&D that I really got to see what the game was all about.  I love 1e for that reason.  But I don't kid myself that it wasn't a very primitive game that had improved little over the original, and went on to improve very little through the rest of the 20th century.  5e, to re-capture that feel that's so evocative and enjoyable for us, partakes of some of those primitive elements.  It's the 'best' edition since 1e _at feeling like 1e._  It's even better at feeling like 2e.  That doesn't make it a mechanically superior game - it actually made it pretty hard for it to have been designed as well as it is - but it has helped make it a successful game, thanks to drawing in returning fans.  



> But yeah, it was a mess. A glorious mess, but still a mess.



Exactly.  And 5e is very nearly as glorious without being quite so messy.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## NotActuallyTim (Jan 22, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> You mean the guy disillusioned with PF before 5e was even announced?




Oh don't get me wrong. I would still play PF. It's ok as a game system. I like it.

But I rank it below Shadowrun 4th edition these days. Because the design philosophy behind it is inherently flawed.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 22, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> Seriously, they really are a mess. As much as I celebrate including a table to randomly roll types of government, have you looked back at the psionics appendix in the PHB? How about the assassin's poison ability buried in the DMG?



As it happens, due to moving some boxes around, yes, I have had occasion to check those out again within the last couple of years.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 22, 2016)

Herschel said:


> Unlike 1E/2E, good stats are more important, especially when all else is not equal.




In terms of meeting requirements with randomized stats, those are still easier to meet in 5e than either 1e or 2e: while each of the core classes (Fighter, Magic-User/Mage, Cleric, and Thief) in 1e and 2e had lower base requirements, each of the races that allowed multiclassing had score requirements to meet as well, and in 1e, level limits were exceptionally gimped, unless the PC's prime requisite was ridiculously high (as of Unearthed Arcana). In addition, most sub-classes had multiple score requirements as high as 13-15, with the paladin requiring a 17 in Charisma (not to mention the UA Cavalier and Cavalier-Paladin's obscene score requirements).

Both earlier systems default generation was 3d6 in order, yielding average scores of 10.5, making it highly unlikely to generate anything beyond a single class PC that's a member of the core four, and little choice in effectiveness of that character, based on scores.

Meanwhile, 5e's 4d6 yields an average of 12.25 per score, and can be assigned as desired. Neither classes nor races have score requirements anymore - only multiclass entry (which is an optional rule), and the 13 requirement is achievable after the 4th level score boost, even with a PC statted with straight 12s. A 1e or 2e PC couldn't hope to improve paltry starting scores, short of intervention by major magical artifact - an average core class PC remained such, with both multiclassing and the harder to achieve dualclassing completely out of his or her reach.

In fact, in 5e, good stats, while important, are both easily achievable and equally assignable, whereas 1e and 2e random generation was far from either.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 22, 2016)

doctorbadwolf said:


> whelp, the "look at this evidence to support the validity of my opinion" phase of the thread has started.
> 
> abandon ship!




To be fair, it wasn't an opinion.  He claimed the *best* he had ever heard from PF fans was that is was "not really a bad game".  That's not an opinion, but something that can be fact checked.  I know for a fact that PF fans have said better things about 5e than that.  Luckily for me, I didn't need to go look for it because a PF fan replied right away.

What is an opinion is that Tony apparently gets to decide who _really_ is a PF fan and who's not, judging by his comment.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 22, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> To be fair, it wasn't an opinion.  He claimed the *best* he had ever heard from PF fans was that is was "not really a bad game".  That's not an opinion, but something that can be fact checked. I know for a fact that PF fans have said better things about 5e than that.



Not to me, they haven't.  



> I didn't need to go look for it because a PF fan replied right away.



I was relating my personal experience.  That's what I've heard in talking 5e with PF fans.  Freaking out and calling me a liar won't change the experience.

Heck, make any remotely blanket-sounding claim about 'person in category X, never saying thing Y' around here and, between the sheer number of folks on-line and shield of anonymity, it's inevitable - someone will immediately leap up and say "I'm an X and I say Y!"  ;P


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 22, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> To be fair, it wasn't an opinion.  He claimed the *best* he had ever heard from PF fans was that is was "not really a bad game".  That's not an opinion, but something that can be fact checked.  I know for a fact that PF fans have said better things about 5e than that.  Luckily for me, I didn't need to go look for it because a PF fan replied right away.
> 
> What is an opinion is that Tony apparently gets to decide who _really_ is a PF fan and who's not, judging by his comment.




Personally I would disregard online opinion as not being an accurately representative sample.

Or at least that is what I have been told.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 22, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Jan 22, 2016)

My offer still stands, for anyone who wants to see for themselves, come out to our big convention coming up in a few weeks*. Tony included. Then he can have these supposed "personal experiences" expanded beyond his insular group telling only what he wants to hear.

(*Presidents Day Weekend in Los Angeles. www.strategicon.net. Come one come all... Almost all...)


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not to me, they haven't.




This is what you said:



			
				Tony Vargas said:
			
		

> The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it."




Seeing as how you're a very prolific poster who has been very active in 5e threads, I know this is not accurate.  I know for a fact people who are fans of 3.5/PF have made posts more positive about 5e than "nothing really bad about it." in the past, and in threads you've participated in.  I'm sure you just don't remember it, because like I said, you focus only on those posts that confirm your bias.  I could spend the time to go look them up, but I don't have to because one such fan just posted right after your claim and said they really like it.

Your response?  "Well, he's not a _real_ PF fan."  Seriously?  And now you double down by shifting the goalposts and claim "Well, they never made that comment directly to me."  Which I'll note is very much different than "I hadn't heard."  And I'm not freaking out.  Unless you consider it to be freaking out to go by the words you actually said.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 23, 2016)

No, Sacrosanct, I'm talking about what I've heard from actual people, not internet noise.  
I thought I made that abundantly clear.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 23, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Your response?  "Well, he's not a _real_ PF fan."  Seriously?  And now you double down by shifting the goalposts and claim "Well, they never made that comment directly to me."  Which I'll note is very much different than "I hadn't heard."  And I'm not freaking out.  Unless you consider it to be freaking out to go by the words you actually said.




It is a No True Scotsman, don't worry about it.

Anyone who likes 5e a lot will be deemed to not like 3.x/PF enough to count.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 23, 2016)

Then maybe you need to go to convention or game store or something.  I'm betting gamer demographics are pretty much the same everywhere.  I.e., the experience I've seen in Oregon and Washington game stores and conventions that have a big 5e presence (many of those players are PF fans who are enjoying 5e) is pretty much the same everywhere.  I don't think we're all that special in the PNW.  Chris's comments seem to imply that the same result is in California.  I don't understand why there's this big resistance to the concept that people can be fans of more than one edition, both PF AND 5e (and others).

Heck, I could say, "I haven't heard anything from D&D players other than 4e is a horrible game." by your logic.  I mean, I don't go out and talk to 4e fans and they don't talk to me, and the people I _have_ talked to are people usually in the same circle I am who don't like it.  I sincerely hope you can see how me making that statement would be a pretty silly thing to say.  And pretty deliberately obtuse to boot.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 23, 2016)

Sacrosanct said:


> Then maybe you need to go to convention or game store or something.



Two conventions a year.  Encounters every Wed since the 2nd season.  



> Heck, I could say, "I haven't heard anything from D&D players other than 4e is a horrible game."



You can say whatever you want, really.  I wouldn't be surprised if you had said something very like that, back in 2008 or so, you might even have carefully avoided talking to anyone who had played 4e, just be sure it'd be true.  Or not, no one can check up on you.



> I mean, I don't go out and talk to 4e fans and they don't talk to me, and the people I _have_ talked to are people usually in the same circle I am who don't like it.



Yeah, I still play 3.5 now and then (ironically, perhaps, in preference to 5e, while I happily run 5e, and wouldn't run 3.5 again on a bet), there's PF games at my FLGS, I have friends who can't stop telling me how awesome it is (and it certainly has a few good points), I actually do get to talk with a variety of gamers IRL.  

It's not even a dig at 5e, exactly - that 5e managed not to set off 3.5/PF hold-outs the way 4e did is still not a trivial accomplishment.  It's just a recognition that a lot of people don't acknowledge it as bestestedevar the way some on-line enthusiasts do.  Each edition still has it's fans who find it better than 5e.  Reviews often say "best editions since _____" which is a nice way of saying 'second-best,' when you think about it.  But, it's good /enough/ to bring a lot of those folks together, while pushing the whole 'bestest' button is only going to antagonize them.  

Conversations like these make me realize how easily it could have gone sideways, too.  I mean, it wouldn't have taken a lot more 'tude than we've see in some of the threads here to hit a tipping point and ignite another edition war.  I'd hope that, a year and a half in, though, we're past worrying about that sort of thing...


----------



## BryonD (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it."  I haven't seen or heard a lot of defections - the EN headline we saw a while back about 5e widening it's lead on PF was about a 1% widening of that gap, pretty minor, really.  Most 5e players at our FLGS have been playing since Encounters or are are returning fans having last played 2e (a heartening number of them, really - I see faces every week that I only used to see 1/yr at conventions).
> 
> But, as positive as I like to see many of the things about 5e, I can't buy that it's being hailed as bestestevar the way you imply, outside of the usual uncritical WotC apologists squeeing over the current edition, of course.  It's successfully evoke the feel of the classic game and is bringing long-lost fans back into the fold.  That's a great accomplishment, but it can all too easily be oversold.
> 
> The SRD and DMsGuild have got to help with that, going forward.



For a very long time I've said that 3E was quite capable of supporting the "4e-style" of play.....  UNTIL 4E came along and was custom made for that style.
A lot of 4E fans were quite content with 3E but would never ever go back once they had the chance to play 4E.  (The fact that there were also people who hated 3E all along and then loved 4E is in no way in conflict with that statement)

3E didn't do 4E nearly well enough to compete with 4E to a 4E fan.

5E doesn't do PF nearly as well as PF does PF.

All through the 5E playtest I was playing PF and loving it.   I still love it.
5E doesn't do PF for me.  But I also love what 5E does for me.  (It is highly important to note that being flexible to customization is central to this.  5E RAW has serious problems.  But the fact that it is designed that way on purpose so that the hyper simple bits are waiting to be upgraded to suite a given style is a huge plus)

Before I played 3E, I played GURPS mostly.  I love GURPS.  3E sure as hell doesn't do GURPS.
But I didn't mind because I'd done GURPS and could still do GURPS, but now I was doing a NEW fun thing.

Same thing with 5E.  I don't love PF less.   As a core game I probably love PF more than 5E.  But having played the 3E core system for 15+ years, I'm finding 5E fresh and renewed fun.

So I, as PF fan, am saying that 5E rocks.
I'm also saying that it is very easy to see why a lot of people would still prefer PF.

I'm ok with you calling me internet noise.  May I have your endorsement to use that same standard for 4E?  Because if you stand by that standard then 4E just because the most hated game in the history of mankind...........


----------



## Staffan (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it."  I haven't seen or heard a lot of defections - the EN headline we saw a while back about 5e widening it's lead on PF was about a 1% widening of that gap, pretty minor, really.  Most 5e players at our FLGS have been playing since Encounters or are are returning fans having last played 2e (a heartening number of them, really - I see faces every week that I only used to see 1/yr at conventions).




I used to be a 3.5/Pathfinder fan, but for some time before the release of 5e I was getting disillusioned with PF - way too crunch-heavy, and I was missing some of the old free-wheeling spirit of 2e. I don't know if that makes me count as a 3.5/PF fan in your eyes, but I am rather smitten with 5e. I play in a game every few weeks with one group, and was about to start a game with another but went for Star Wars: Age of Rebellion instead (which is all sorts of fun - we're getting a lot of mileage out of the add-on adventure to the Beginner game)


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if you had said something very like that, back in 2008 or so, you might even have carefully avoided talking to anyone who had played 4e, just be sure it'd be true.  Or not, no one can check up on you...





Nope, I never did.  I treated 4e the same way I treated 3e.  "Not my thing, but people seem to like it, but I'm sticking with AD&D."  This very well may surprise you, but if I don't like an edition, I don't feel the need to troll the forums of that edition constantly making sure everyone knows I don't like it.  I hang around groups of discussions I have an interest in.

Point is, is that by using your logic, I could have said that.  Personally, I think you're shifting the goal posts because you realized that your initial claim is pretty weak to stand on.  But that's just me.  Your ad hominem earlier, and now this implication of a strawman just reinforces that opinion.

*Edit*  Either way, the problem is solved, because now you have, in this very thread, had PF fans say the like the game.  If you don't care about people's opinions on the internet or don't count them in anyway, well then I guess that begs the question, "What are you doing here, and posting so prolifically to boot?"


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 23, 2016)

Staffan said:


> I used to be a 3.5/Pathfinder fan, but for some time before the release of 5e I was getting disillusioned with PF



Interesting, that's two of you in rapid succession.



> I don't know if that makes me count as a 3.5/PF fan in your eyes, but I am rather smitten with 5e.



I'm not claiming anyone posting is anything other than what they represent themselves as, that was Sacrosanct trolling me, because I dared to share what I'd heard from 3.5 fans, and it didn't fit his biases.



Sacrosanct said:


> Nope, I never did.  I treated 4e the same way I treated 3e.  "Not my thing, but people seem to like it, but I'm sticking with AD&D."  This very well may surprise you, but if I don't like an edition, I don't feel the need to troll the forums of that edition constantly making sure everyone knows I don't like it.



Not the same 'Sacrosanct,' then?  I guess there are some very similar handles.  There's several really close to emirikol, for instance, one reasonable, another a world-class edition warrior...  

:shrug:


----------



## Shasarak (Jan 23, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> I disregard other people's opinions, as not being representative of what I want to hear.
> 
> That's either what I've been told, or what I wanted to hear. Same difference.





It is always good to hear from smart and intelligent...probably good looking too... people who agree with what I think.


----------



## NotActuallyTim (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Not to me, they haven't.




Well I just have. I am a PF fan. I like PF. I like playing PF. I still read their OGC. If any of my group still played, I would play with them, and I would like it.

I don't say PF is flawed because I dislike it. I say it's flawed for the same I reason I say the original XCOM is flawed. Because I think it is. I rank it below another system because I think it belongs there. And, to be frank, I kind dislike Shadowrun 4th ed, because it doesn't have Decks in it.


----------



## Jessica (Jan 23, 2016)

5e is a great edition but I wouldn't say it's the best edition. Then again "best edition" is completely subjective based on the person doing the grading.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> What gets tossed around here, though, it doesn't carry a lot of weight.  Say you've "never heard ______"  and someone will leap up and shout "______!" just because.





NotActuallyTim said:


> Well I just have. I am a PF fan.



You left out where you think 5e is the best thing ever.  

I'm a little put out, actually.  I was genuinely expecting a lot of self-declared PF fans to come out of the woodwork praising 5e, but instead I get two former/disilusioned PF fans (thanks for your honesty, BTW) praising 5e, and one PF fan not actually getting to the praise.  Unless that's what you meant by "Well I just have," in which case, thanks!  



Zeuel said:


> 5e is a great edition but I wouldn't say it's the best edition. Then again "best edition" is completely subjective based on the person doing the grading.



There's some objective qualities a game should or shouldn't have to be 'good' (or, at least, to avoid being bad, or qualify as a game, at all), but preference always remains entirely subjective, and rightly so.  There's never any need to justify or prove a preference, but that doesn't stop people from wanting theirs validated, or even forced on others.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 23, 2016)

pming said:


> (2) Like feats, Multiclassing. Not enough "campaign considerations" for combo's and whatnot. I also don't like how they work; I don't want "one class at a time", I want "all classes at the same time". I want to be a "Fighter/Magic-User", not a "Fighter _and_ Magic-User". You gain a level, and choose to up your MU side...well, that last level you apparently learned _absolutely nothing_ to do with Fighting. This disconnect completely destroys my SoD (Suspension of Disbelief). I wish MC'ing was moe like 1e/2e. But, again, like Feats, MC'ing is OPTIONAL and I don't allow it in my campaign without very specific reasons/allowances. So there's that...




You know, I was looking at the 5e xp table and I think AD&D style multiclassing would be feasible. Not perfectly balanced of course (that wasn't even the case in AD&D) but I suspect it would be functional.

Multiclassed characters would start a level behind single classed characters (once the single classed are level 2). When the single classed characters are 20th level, a two-classed character would be 15th level, while a three-classed character would be 12th. You become more versatile at the cost of raw power. This type of multiclassing would need to be done when the character is created, and probably shouldn't be combined with 5e MCing.

- Hit Dice would be the average of all classes. (A fighter/wizard's HD would be [[1d10 + 1d6] / 2] + Con.)
- Gain all armor, weapon, and tool proficiencies.
- Choose one strong and one weak save, from those available to your classes, to be proficient in. (If you want to be old school about this, give them proficiency in saves from all of their classes, but I suspect that might be overkill.)
- Choose the highest number of skills gained from among your classes. These skills can be chosen from any of your class lists.
- Starting gold as an average of your classes.
- Gain features from all classes. Spell slots should be as a single-classed character, but spells known would be gained as normal (per the 5e MCing rules).

Admittedly, these characters will gain a LOT of ASIs. Not counting fighter/rogue bonus ASIs, a two-classed character will gain 6, while a three-classed character will gain 9. Arguably this is okay, since such a character is likely to be quite MAD. The only restriction that I would put on such characters might be to say that ASIs gained at the same level must apply to different ability scores. That would curb the absurdity of a three-class character boosting an ability score of 14 to 20 overnight.


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 23, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> You know, I was looking at the 5e xp table and I think AD&D style multiclassing would be feasible. Not perfectly balanced of course (that wasn't even the case in AD&D) but I suspect it would be functional.
> 
> Multiclassed characters would start a level behind single classed characters (once the single classed are level 2). When the single classed characters are 20th level, a two-classed character would be 15th level, while a three-classed character would be 12th. You become more versatile at the cost of raw power. This type of multiclassing would need to be done when the character is created, and probably shouldn't be combined with 5e MCing.
> 
> ...




You sir have intrigued me never played AD&D im assuming there was a table that governed the level gap somewhere but this sounds interesting.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 23, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> You sir have intrigued me never played AD&D im assuming there was a table that governed the level gap somewhere but this sounds interesting.




Yeah, sorry, I was assuming anyone who read that would be familiar with AD&D. 

Basically, the way that multiclassing worked in AD&D was that you picked two or three classes (though the combinations were limited by your race) and split XP between those classes evenly. The rest of the rules above are largely equivalent to the AD&D rules. 

The above "level limits" are simply the result of doubling/tripling the amount of XP needed to gain a level in 5e. A two-classed character is 15th level when his single classed friend is 20th because it normally takes 355,000 xp to reach 20 level. If you split that evenly between two classes, you get 175,500 xp which is only enough for level 15.

In AD&D you tracked the xp for each class separately because each class required a different amount of xp to level (IIRC, a thief needed 1,250 xp to reach level 2, whereas a wizard needed 2,500 xp for the same). In 5e you could simplify this by simply creating xp tables that are double/triple the normal xp table (that way you save the players the trouble of having to divide xp constantly).


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 23, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> Yeah, sorry, I was assuming anyone who read that would be familiar with AD&D.
> 
> Basically, the way that multiclassing worked in AD&D was that you picked two or three classes (though the combinations were limited by your race) and split XP between those classes evenly. The rest of the rules above are largely equivalent to the AD&D rules.
> 
> ...



Don't worry I often throw around legal terms just expecting my friends to know.

Simplified XP table sounds good may give it a spin


----------



## MostlyDm (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> So you've hung out with 3.5/PF fans and their general consensus is that 5e is better?  I don't think so.




I'm still working my way through this thread but I wanted to reply to this one question. 

The answer, for my limited group, is a resounding yes. 

I have no idea how my group stacks up compared to other groups. But most of us started in 2e (I'm the one exception, I played a bit of 1e AD&D and redbox classic). 

When 3e came out we were excited. No more THAC0? No more racial restrictions? Sign us up. Wizards could wear armor?? (Not really but that's what we thought at first.) It seemed so cool. 

3.5 was a welcome fix to various broken pieces. We played 3e extensively. 

We also played 4e when it was released. We were a little more skeptical, but we went through a short campaign By-The-Book, and then my players agreed to some minor changes to fit better my desired flavor... a big thing that helped me conceptually was thinking of HP as how close you were to clinical shock and Healing Surges as actual health. I just hacked in a simple Injury system, with an injury just taking longer to heal and leaving you down 1 or more surges until recovered.  No more 6 hour bounceback from all harm. 

Ran a 4e campaign like that with a lot of success. This was in about PHB3 era. 

Got burned out. Went back to 3.5 and tried pathfinder. Fun, but it was taking 3.5 in a direction I  wasn't fully a fan of. 

Heard about the Next play test but didn't pay much attention. Except for Advantage. That was cool. 

Tried going all the way back to redbox Basic. That had some charm but didn't really work for us after a single session. So we hacked in a ton of 3.5 rules... Particularly in the E6 style. Also Advantage. Played a Basic/3.5/e6 variant abomination for the next 3 years.  Ultimately it's closer to 3.5 than anything though. 

Still playing it, but about a year or two ago I looked more closely at 5e and discovered that in addition to Advantage they'd also brought in E6 sensibility with Bounded Accuracy, which I had somehow not noticed earlier. Instantly sold. 

Aside from the one amalgamation game that I'm gonna run until it's truly run its course (and a purely homebrew custom system I use for settings D&D doesn't fit) I am pretty much 5e only now. 

Until 5e I would have absolutely put myself into the camp of people who consider 3.5 the best system to date, for all its flaws and for all that I homebrew it extensively. Because it's modular enough not to collapse under that homebrewing... Something I feel 5e shares with it, in addition to having a much better overall design philosophy.


----------



## pming (Jan 23, 2016)

Hiya!

Just to add my 2¢ to what @_*Fanaelialae*_ said...

In 1e AD&D, yeah, what he said...however I would also like to add in that the DM was free to give different XP awards to the PC's classes; so he could say "Add 650 to Fighter, and 220 to Cleric"...but most of the time it was a lump sum, even split.

Also, in 1e the "balance" of the system was taken as a "campaign-level balance"; characters were expected to be played for multiple months if not years in the camapaign. This is where Level Limits come in. A lot of folk poo-poo level limits (I personally like them...but did have some house rules...as all 1e DM's do). Anyway, yeah, a level 5 Fighter vs a 5/4 Fighter/Magic-User (each with 22,000xp) may seem 'unbalanced'...as the second PC has 4 "free' levels in MU. But, with PHB level caps, that Elven F/MU would hit his Level 7 Fighter max soon. Then he's gaining only half-xp, effectively, to add to his MU...up to level 11, when he's capped. The human fighter, however, is still going strong, gaining 'full' xp, going to 12, 13, 14, etc. That said, most campaigns didn't see characters hit much past the low to mid 'teens' (re: 12th to 15th), but from a _campaign perspective_, it rationalized why every 200 year old elven Fighter, Magic-User, or F/MU wasn't 30th or 40th level...they were caped. In fact, that was the ONE thing that Humans had over all the other races...their "human special ability"...it wasn't better saves, infravision, innate spellcasting abilities, etc...it was the ability to advance to any level in any class. That was the "human special ability", and why humans dominate the assumed 1e AD&D campaign worlds. But I digress...

In 5e, I have an idea floating around in the back of my brain about allowing MC, but making characters 'wait' until they have enough XP to cover advancement in all their classes at once. So, a character could start as a F/MU...they would be 1/1. They start adventuring and start gaining XP. They can not advance until they have enough XP to be a FOURTH level character...wherein they become 2/2. They continue to advance...and must accumulate enough XP to be a SIXTH level character...wherein they become 3/3. Then XP for EIGHTH level...4/4. Then 5/5, 6/6, 7/7, 8/8, 9/9, and finally 10/10...where they are now a 20th level character and are done advancing. For triple class, kind of the same, but the MAX LEVEL they would ever be able to attain would be 6/6/6, or 18th. They would never gain xp past that. Maybe I'd figure out a way of allowing the last two levels to be gained, but probably not...just another consideration for choosing three classes for your character. Maybe let the last 2 levels be PrC only? Hmmm....not sure...

Anyway, as it stands, I don't like the 5e MC rules and much prefer the 1e method (probably because that's what I've grown up with), and I have been unable to shake that ingrained preference no matter how many times I try (old dog, new tricks I guess...  ).

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## GameOgre (Jan 23, 2016)

We all (6 of us) played Pathfinder for years but have moved on from it. We now play 5E.

I can honestly say we like 5E better than Pathfinder(despite the HUGE pile of Pathfinder books screaming at me from my bookshelves).

With that said, 5E is not the end for us. We will keep playing it till we find something better but like Pathfinder there is much about it we just do not like. Just not as much as Pathfinder has.

If Pathfinder 2E were to come out tomorrow and be a better system for our table than 5E we would change yet again.

We are not loyal to a system but to our game.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 23, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> The highest praise I've heard from 3.5/PF fans for 5e is "nothing really bad about it."  I haven't seen or heard a lot of defections - the EN headline we saw a while back about 5e widening it's lead on PF was about a 1% widening of that gap, pretty minor, really.  Most 5e players at our FLGS have been playing since Encounters or are are returning fans having last played 2e (a heartening number of them, really - I see faces every week that I only used to see 1/yr at conventions).




How can you say this? My entire group 'defected' from _Pathfinder_. That's what we were playing prior to 5E. We all liked _Pathfinder_. We played it for years buying up all the books. We wanted something new and 5E was more like the D&D we played in the past, so we gave it a try. We all enjoyed it and are playing it now. That's four players in my group. I'm still a vocal Paizo supporter and prefer their modules to 5E modules. 5E offered something _Pathfinder_ does not offer in terms of simplicity to play and run. 5E doesn't have the breadth _Pathfinder_ has, but it hasn't been out near as long.

I don't know that I look at things as better. I enjoyed every edition of D&D save one, which I won't rehash as I have no interest in edition warring. I feel as though change is inevitable. You get bored doing the same thing the same way all the time. We all decided a new game system would energize play in our group, so we moved on from _Pathfinder_. I'm still holding out hope Paizo decides to do something like 5E and simplify their game. I miss playing their APs. I don't enjoy WotC adventures as much. They don't seem to have as much meat to them and aren't as interesting to read. I never quite feel like I've gotten my money's worth with WotC adventures. I always felt like I got more than my money's worth with Paizo APs.

Unfortunately, I grew weary of the _Pathfinder_/3E mechanics. Too easy to min-max. The Paizo crew kept putting broken things in the game that interacted in a fashion to create rule situations that made DMing nightmarishly difficult. I still believe their creative team is better than the WotC creative team when it comes to adventure design and it's not even close. But 5E is a well-designed game that I prefer playing at the moment. Though I am finding that min-maxing in 5E is also very possible, but doesn't have as large a negative impact on the game as it is does in _Pathfinder_/3E due to all the inherent limitations in the 5E system.

I guess I'll add to your experience with Paizo/PF/3E fans that moved to 5E. I thought I had been pretty vocal about my group switching from PF to 5E. I figured there were quite a few of us about.


----------



## pming (Jan 23, 2016)

Hiya!

 Ok, now my non-reply post. 

For me, what 5e got "wrong" was err'ing on the side of caution over deadly. IMHO, when they came upon something that would cause a characters death (or likely to do so) in 1e/2e/becmi, or even 3.x, they went with "less deadly, no/less chance" over "as is". In those situations I think they should have had an immediate "OPTIONAL" section/blurb for those DM's like me who prefer a more deadly game. Just look at the _Phantasmal Killer_ spell thread. I'd much rather have it be "save or die". Power Word Kill...the 100hp restriction is laughably low for 5e! I had a barbarian PC in my group with about 90hp...and he was only 5th level! Almost guaranteed to crack 100 by 5th..and by the time he hit levels where bad guys would be capable of throwing around Power Word Kill...well, yeah, at that point it's not "Power Word Kill" anymore, it's more like "Power Word Harsh-Language".

My (and my group) like a more "deadly" game...we want to _feel_ like death could be around any corner or throug the next door. The way 5e's default is set up, however, it's more like a game of "spooky explorations in kiddie-land" half the time. And the times when it isn't...it ends up being really jarring from a play perspective. The first few times that juxtaposition is exciting...but after a while it gets to the whole "Oh...I guess this is one of those 'deadly' parts...I'll start rolling up a new guy now...that's just...awesome...*sigh*...".  Not near as f'ed up as 3.x/PF, where a party of 15th level PC's sees a group of 100 creatures and thinks "We can take 'em!", then sees a single creature standing int he middle of a massive cavern and thinks "Everyone! Shut the F up! SHHHH!!!!! Back away..._slowly_​...now...RUN AWAY!".

As I say time and time again...consistency is key for running an engaging campaign world.

So, yeah. I think 5e missed the boat on having little tid-bits (notes, options, pearls of wisdom, suggestions, etc) scattered throughout the system for those who want a more 'deadly' game.

Oh, and what I said way earlier...Feats and MC. Just don't like the way they are done...still... Love the concept...hate the execution. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Psikerlord# (Jan 23, 2016)

pming said:


> Hiya!
> 
> Ok, now my non-reply post.
> 
> ...




Absolutely agree one of the 5e downfalls is it's far far too hard to die. I also agree on MCing. Feats though I like, albeit they dropped the ball by not having a sidebar saying "these are just example feats, be sure to make your own!"


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 23, 2016)

pming said:


> Power Word Kill...the 100hp restriction is laughably low for 5e! I had a barbarian PC in my group with about 90hp...and he was only 5th level! Almost guaranteed to crack 100 by 5th..and by the time he hit levels where bad guys would be capable of throwing around Power Word Kill...well, yeah, at that point it's not "Power Word Kill" anymore, it's more like "Power Word Harsh-Language".




In fairness, your barbarian friend must have rolled improbably well, and not just on HP. Rolling maximum every time on 1d12 nets only 60 HP at 5th. If he started with an 18 Con, he gets another 20 HP, for a total of 80, but that would mean that he either prioritized Con over Str, or he rolled so amazingly well for ability scores that he didn't need to. Finally, in order to reach 90 HP, he also has to take the Toughness feat. 

While it is technically possible, it certainly won't the norm. In any system with random generation you're going to have improbably lucky coincidences, like the guy who rolls three 18s in 3d6 stat generation. 

To put this in perspective, I recently rolled up a 15th level NPC cleric with only 86 HP. Assuming average HP, she'll be 18th level before she can ignore PW:K while at max HP.

While I agree that they curbed instant death effects a bit, I also think you're overstating the issue. My players just hit 19th level last session and I can't count the number of times that I could have nailed them with PW:K (had there been a mage to cast it).


----------



## Staffan (Jan 24, 2016)

pming said:


> Power Word Kill...the 100hp restriction is laughably low for 5e! I had a barbarian PC in my group with about 90hp...and he was only 5th level! Almost guaranteed to crack 100 by 5th..and by the time he hit levels where bad guys would be capable of throwing around Power Word Kill...well, yeah, at that point it's not "Power Word Kill" anymore, it's more like "Power Word Harsh-Language".



_Power word: kill_ is the spell you cast to end a fight, not open it. You need to soften your foes up a bit first.


----------



## pming (Jan 24, 2016)

Hiya!



Fanaelialae said:


> In fairness, your barbarian friend must have rolled improbably well, and not just on HP. Rolling maximum every time on 1d12 nets only 60 HP at 5th. If he started with an 18 Con, he gets another 20 HP, for a total of 80, but that would mean that he either prioritized Con over Str, or he rolled so amazingly well for ability scores that he didn't need to. Finally, in order to reach 90 HP, he also has to take the Toughness feat.
> 
> While it is technically possible, it certainly won't the norm. In any system with random generation you're going to have improbably lucky coincidences, like the guy who rolls three 18s in 3d6 stat generation.
> 
> ...




In a nutshell...yes, he rolled exceptionally well on 4d6, high three, place wherever. I allowed him to make a Goliath (probably his all-time favorite race). Needless to say, 20 Con. Max HP at 1st level, and rolled _very_ well for HP's (I have a house rule where if the player doesn't like what he rolled for HP, he can ask me, the DM, to roll for him...but he keeps what I roll, even if it is equal or lower...I vaguely remember rolling an 11 for him once, and a 12 at another time...2nd level I think that one was). We were allowing Feats this game...he took Tough when he hit 4th level, or was it Durable? One of those, I can't remember. Needless to say...yeah..."bag of HP's" was kind of his thing.

As for PW:K...admittedly, we haven't ever gotten there with 5e. Hell, I think _I've_ only gotten there once...with my 20th level Elven Magic-User...Denakhan... and that was in 1e, playing 10 hour sessions, twice a week, every week, and almost every day during summer vacation (ahhh...the free time you have when you are a kid/teenager with no responsibilities or obligations...*sigh*...). Anyway...yeah...that took me _SIX YEARS_ of playing him that way. Yeah, you advance rather slowly in 1e...

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## ccs (Jan 24, 2016)

pming said:


> As for PW:K...admittedly, we haven't ever gotten there with 5e. Hell, I think _I've_ only gotten there once...with my 20th level Elven Magic-User...Denakhan... and that was in 1e, playing 10 hour sessions, twice a week, every week, and almost every day during summer vacation (ahhh...the free time you have when you are a kid/teenager with no responsibilities or obligations...*sigh*...). Anyway...yeah...that took me _SIX YEARS_ of playing him that way. Yeah, you advance rather slowly in 1e...
> 
> ^_^
> 
> Paul L. Ming




And you still needed house rules to do it.


----------



## ccs (Jan 24, 2016)

pming said:


> In 5e, I have an idea floating around in the back of my brain about allowing MC, but making characters 'wait' until they have enough XP to cover advancement in all their classes at once. So, a character could start as a F/MU...they would be 1/1. They start adventuring and start gaining XP. They can not advance until they have enough XP to be a FOURTH level character...wherein they become 2/2. They continue to advance...and must accumulate enough XP to be a SIXTH level character...wherein they become 3/3. Then XP for EIGHTH level...4/4. Then 5/5, 6/6, 7/7, 8/8, 9/9, and finally 10/10...where they are now a 20th level character and are done advancing. For triple class, kind of the same, but the MAX LEVEL they would ever be able to attain would be 6/6/6, or 18th. They would never gain xp past that. Maybe I'd figure out a way of allowing the last two levels to be gained, but probably not...just another consideration for choosing three classes for your character. Maybe let the last 2 levels be PrC only? Hmmm....not sure...
> 
> Anyway, as it stands, I don't like the 5e MC rules and much prefer the 1e method (probably because that's what I've grown up with), and I have been unable to shake that ingrained preference no matter how many times I try (old dog, new tricks I guess...  ).
> 
> ...




Wouldn't it just be easier to divide the xp gained by the # of classes?  Essentially doubling/tripling the total xp needed depending upon how many classes the PC had.


----------



## Celtavian (Jan 24, 2016)

I'd also like to add the Critical Role voice actor D&D group moved on from _Pathfinder_ to 5E. That is a fairly well known group of gamers that did not go from 4E to 5E, but from _Pathfinder_ to 5E. They seem to enjoy playing 5E, though I think the only ones that gamed a long time were Matt Mercer and Liam O'brien, and maybe Taliesin Jaffe. They were _Pathfinder_ players prior to 5E. I think one of the best things you can say about 5E is that it is closer to older versions of D&D. That is definitely something 5E got right.


----------



## pming (Jan 24, 2016)

Hiya!



ccs said:


> And you still needed house rules to do it.




Referring to being and elf and 20th level? As per Unearthed Arcana...he is a Grey Elf, with an Intelligence of 23? Maybe 24? (uses of Wish spell and other adventuring boons throughout a rather lengthy career). That puts his level Limit in MU at 20th.

If you are referring to something else...what?

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2016)

AIR wasn't 1e power word kill limited to 60 hp?  It's not like 5e characters get that many more hp than a 1e character.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 25, 2016)

Hussar said:


> AIR wasn't 1e power word kill limited to 60 hp?  It's not like 5e characters get that many more hp than a 1e character.



Don't classes in 1e only get like 2HP after level 9 or so?  By the time PWK is coming into play, I imagine there's a pretty big discrepancy.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 25, 2016)

Hussar said:


> AIR wasn't 1e power word kill limited to 60 hp?  It's not like 5e characters get that many more hp than a 1e character.




5e characters have significantly more hp than AD&D characters, for numerous reasons:

1. Start with max hp instead of rolled. That's admittedly a fairly small increase.

2. The weaker classes get bigger hit dice: d6 instead of d4 for wizards, and d8 instead of d6 for rogues.

3. Constitution bonuses at lower Con values. In AD&D, you needed Con 15+ to gain bonus hp, and unless you were a warrior-type you couldn't get more than +2 (barring superhuman stats).

4. Roll for hp at every level. In AD&D, you stopped rolling after 9th or 10th level, and gained a small fixed increase (1-3 hp based on class) after that.

All these taken together mean that a 15th level thief with Con 14 in 1e would have had 10d6+10 hp (average 45), while his 5e rogue buddy has 8+14d8+30 (average 101, or 108 if he's smart and takes fixed hp at each level instead of rolling).

That's not necessarily a huge power increase though, more of a numbers inflation. A 1e Type VI demon, makes a single attack dealing 2d6+1 damage, or whips/immolates to deal 2d6, 3d6, or 4d6 damage. A 5e balor has two attacks, for 6d8+8 and 5d6+8 damage, in addition to its flaming aura for 3d6 to everyone nearby.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 25, 2016)

Hussar said:


> AIR wasn't 1e power word kill limited to 60 hp?  It's not like 5e characters get that many more hp than a 1e character.




Your average to above average 1e 20th level fighter had 82.5 hit points.  If he was lucky enough to be well above average and have a con bonus, he probably didn't have more than +2 per hit die (not level) for a 16 con and had 100.5 at 20th level.  If beyond all expectations he was among the very, very few to have an 18 con, he had 118.5 hit points at 20th level.

Your average 20th level 5e fighter will have double that in all probability.  The other classes couldn't even get more than +2 per die, had lower hit die types, and less hit points per level after 9th, so they won't even have that 100 that the fighter has.  For example, a 20th level thief with no con bonus has an average of 53.5 hit points at 20th and an average of 71.5 if he has a 16+ for con.


----------



## mflayermonk (Jan 25, 2016)

Here are some HP examples from the pregens in Steading of the Hill Giant Chief:
12 MU  55hp
13 Thief  53 hp
12 Cleric  70 hp
14 Fighter 104 hp
5/8 F/MU  29 hp
9 Cleric 56 hp
9 Fighter 82 hp
9 MU 33 hp
9 Ranger  93 hp

All of the pregens have CON 15 or higher.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Your average to above average 1e 20th level fighter had 82.5 hit points.  If he was lucky enough to be well above average and have a con bonus, he probably didn't have more than +2 per hit die (not level) for a 16 con and had 100.5 at 20th level.  If beyond all expectations he was among the very, very few to have an 18 con, he had 118.5 hit points at 20th level.
> 
> Your average 20th level 5e fighter will have double that in all probability.  The other classes couldn't even get more than +2 per die, had lower hit die types, and less hit points per level after 9th, so they won't even have that 100 that the fighter has.  For example, a 20th level thief with no con bonus has an average of 53.5 hit points at 20th and an average of 71.5 if he has a 16+ for con.




This REALLY depends on rolling method.  If you used the method in the Unearthed Arcana, for example, you rolled 8d6, choose the best 3 for your Con.  Having an 18 Con wasn't that much of a stretch.  

But, in any case, I was thinking more about single digit level characters.  Sure, after 10th, the 5e characters will race ahead, but, prior to 10th, there isn't much of a difference.  A 5th level AD&D fighter or a 5e fighter is somewhere around 35 HP, by and large.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 25, 2016)

Hussar said:


> This REALLY depends on rolling method.  If you used the method in the Unearthed Arcana, for example, you rolled 8d6, choose the best 3 for your Con.  Having an 18 Con wasn't that much of a stretch.




My examples included 18 cons.  I've also never met a DM who allowed that optional rolling method.  I tried more than once to get them to allow it, too.



> But, in any case, I was thinking more about single digit level characters.  Sure, after 10th, the 5e characters will race ahead, but, prior to 10th, there isn't much of a difference.  A 5th level AD&D fighter or a 5e fighter is somewhere around 35 HP, by and large.




Single digit level character don't have to worry about power word kill, so what's the point?


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jan 25, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Single digit level character don't have to worry about power word kill, so what's the point?




That's not entirely accurate.

In AD&D there weren't really any encounter creation guidelines to speak of (at least not how we know them today). A low level party could most certainly encounter an archmage (or lich) capable of casting PWK. This is particularly true if they went into a high level area hoping to score some powerful magic items. I'm sure not all groups played this way (many of mine didn't) but it was a thing back then.

In 5e, a CR12 Archmage is capable of casting 9th level spells though, admittedly, the DM would have to be cruel and swap Time Stop out for PWK. A CR 12 is only a (1x) deadly fight for a group of four level 8 adventurers. Even if the party is only level 6, the fight is still only deadly x 1.5, which is certainly feasible.


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 25, 2016)

Fanaelialae said:


> That's not entirely accurate.
> 
> In AD&D there weren't really any encounter creation guidelines to speak of (at least not how we know them today). A low level party could most certainly encounter an archmage (or lich) capable of casting PWK. This is particularly true if they went into a high level area hoping to score some powerful magic items. I'm sure not all groups played this way (many of mine didn't) but it was a thing back then.
> 
> In 5e, a CR12 Archmage is capable of casting 9th level spells though, admittedly, the DM would have to be cruel and swap Time Stop out for PWK. A CR 12 is only a (1x) deadly fight for a group of four level 8 adventurers. Even if the party is only level 6, the fight is still only deadly x 1.5, which is certainly feasible.



Hmmm swap out time stop for pwk you say who would do such a thing? Good idea!


----------



## Awesome Adam (Jan 25, 2016)

What 5E got Wrong ? The Index in the PHB !!

There is nothing more frusterating than trying to look something up quick, and instead of finding a page number being told to go look up another entry in the same index.


----------



## delericho (Jan 25, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> What 5E got Wrong ? The Index in the PHB !!
> 
> There is nothing more frusterating than trying to look something up quick, and instead of finding a page number being told to go look up another entry in the same index.




Yep. Fortunately, there's a fix.


----------



## Azurewraith (Jan 25, 2016)

delericho said:


> Yep. Fortunately, there's a fix.



Will you have my babies?


----------



## KahlessNestor (Jan 25, 2016)

I play Pathfinder and 5E both, alternative weekends. I enjoy both systems, though I have to say I prefer 5E for its simplicity and ease of play. So if I was forced to choose one, I would play 5e over PF.

Our PFS group was kicked out of the FLGS for whatever reason, so we play at a nearby restaurant. We were a bit miffed to hear the store started running AL when 5e dropped.

At my main store the only PF game being played there (I was in the group) just ended, but not before discussion of switching to 5e. (We agreed to switch,  but I think the gm was burned out, so he ended it). But every night you can find at least one 5e group, often more.

So yes, PF players are defecting. Or playing both. I still by all the PF books even though I have barely scratched Core and never played anything outside of Core.


----------



## Jessica (Jan 27, 2016)

Awesome Adam said:


> What 5E got Wrong ? The Index in the PHB !!
> 
> There is nothing more frusterating than trying to look something up quick, and instead of finding a page number being told to go look up another entry in the same index.




I agree. What the heck were they thinking when they wrote that index? I'm not asking for awesome indexes(indices?) that actually are like a glossary/index hybrid with some terms having their definitions right there, but I don't want to constantly get redirected to another part of the index. :/


----------



## Herschel (Jan 27, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> In terms of meeting requirements with randomized stats, those are still easier to meet in 5e than either 1e or 2e: while each of the core classes (Fighter, Magic-User/Mage, Cleric, and Thief) in 1e and 2e had lower base requirements, each of the races that allowed multiclassing had score requirements to meet as well, and in 1e, level limits were exceptionally gimped, unless the PC's prime requisite was ridiculously high (as of Unearthed Arcana). In addition, most sub-classes had multiple score requirements as high as 13-15, with the paladin requiring a 17 in Charisma (not to mention the UA Cavalier and Cavalier-Paladin's obscene score requirements).
> 
> Both earlier systems default generation was 3d6 in order, yielding average scores of 10.5, making it highly unlikely to generate anything beyond a single class PC that's a member of the core four, and little choice in effectiveness of that character, based on scores.
> 
> ...





You completely missed the point. Stats (3d6 vs 4d6) are going to average slightly higher with 4d6, and 4d6 was common back in 1E/2E also.   

The point was that you could get away with lower stats in 1E/2E much easier because the bonuses were almost all smaller (except 18__ damage bonuses) and saves were on the chart, not stat-based. Only a few subclasses were MAD rather than all. The game math, while clunky, wasn't as dependent on high attributes. In other words, unless you were a stickler for encumberance, there was basically no difference between a 9-strength fighter and a 16-strength fighter. 

As for Level Limits, which has no bearing on this point anyway, who actually used those? They were probably the single most ignored rule in the game.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Jan 27, 2016)

Herschel said:


> The point was that you could get away with lower stats in 1E/2E much easier because the bonuses were almost all smaller (except 18__ damage bonuses) and saves were on the chart, not stat-based. Only a few subclasses were MAD rather than all. The game math, while clunky, wasn't as dependent on high attributes. In other words, unless you were a stickler for encumberance, there was basically no difference between a 9-strength fighter and a 16-strength fighter.



I love that 5e, with its bounded accuracy, has managed to curve a great deal back towards that side of the pendulum swing.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 27, 2016)

I'm great with the idea also, math bloat has always been an annoyance, but again, the execution is lacking, which is my issue.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 27, 2016)

Herschel said:


> You completely missed the point. Stats (3d6 vs 4d6) are going to average slightly higher with 4d6, and 4d6 was common back in 1E/2E also.
> 
> The point was that you could get away with lower stats in 1E/2E much easier because the bonuses were almost all smaller (except 18__ damage bonuses) and saves were on the chart, not stat-based. Only a few subclasses were MAD rather than all. The game math, while clunky, wasn't as dependent on high attributes. In other words, unless you were a stickler for encumberance, there was basically no difference between a 9-strength fighter and a 16-strength fighter.
> 
> As for Level Limits, which has no bearing on this point anyway, who actually used those? They were probably the single most ignored rule in the game.




It seems that you've at least one of my points, too: when comparing systems, RAW, the rules do matter, even when houseruling was common.

RAW, it was much more difficult to create the character you wanted in 1E/2E than it is in 5E.

Stat generation was defaulted to 3d6 in order in both 1E and 2E. Regardless of whether it was common to use one of the optional generation methods, or house-rule other options, that was the system rule, as seen in tournament play and otherwise. And I acknowledged in my prior response that yes, the 4d6 generation did offer a higher yield of scores, by approximately 1.75 points. The issue is completely with the default generation of 3d6, and the lack of genuine impact of higher or lower scores within the spread (excepting extreme ends of the spectrum), except in terms of limiting character options. With the exception of multiclassing, 5e doesn't have score requirements for characters - and sure, you may be less effective, depending on score placement, but standard assignable array is the default, followed by assignable 4d6 generation -- players have a high level of control over how effective the characters are, and a few low scores aren't going to prevent a character option outright. 

Sure there was little difference between a 9 Strength and a 16 Strength at face value, when looking at hit and damage, but Ability Scores also arbitrarily meant different things in different situations (encumbrance aside). They were the metric against which non-combat tasks were attempted - direct d20 against the score - someone with a 16 Strength had a 35% higher likelihood of achieving the same task a 9 Strength PC attempted - in this instance it was way more swingy and the higher score held much more meaning. Sure, the 16 didn't have much more impact on to hit and damage, but it did impact other things in combat, especially where level limits are concerned. A PC elf fighter stuck at level 5, with either a 9 or 16 Strength, while the rest of the party had hit level 9 or higher, had, on average, 22 less hit points than than any other fighter in the party. One could argue that the elf player wasn't playing a character suitable for the group, to consider appropriate levels for a given challenge, but then, that player wouldn't be playing the character he or she preferred, either.

And in regards to subclasses and ability scores - with the exception of the core four classes, all the other classes, considered subclasses in 1E, required multiple scores in excess of 12, with some requiring 15 or higher. 

Don't get me wrong - I loved playing the earlier editions, and would still play them, given the opportunity. I just feel that more choices are available and the rules don't outright bar most choices, and bounded accuracy ensures that all characters are effective, though some more than others.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 27, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> /snip
> 
> Stat generation was defaulted to 3d6 in order in both 1E and 2E.
> 
> /snip




This is not true.  3d6 in order wasn't even an option in 1e D&D:



			
				Paraphrased from Page 11 1e DMG said:
			
		

> Method I: Roll 4d6 and drop lowest die six times, arrange freely.
> Method II: Roll 3d6 twelve times and take best six results, arrange freely.
> Method III: Roll 3d6 six times for each stat and take best, arrange in order. (So, roll STR six times, take best number, and so on.)
> Method IV: Roll 3d6 in order for 12 characters, and pick the one you like most.




Note Method V was presented in the Unearthed Arcana and was even more generous.

3d6 in order was the default in Basic/Expert D&D.  

Did 2e change things from 1e?


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 27, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## NotActuallyTim (Jan 28, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> You left out where you think 5e is the best thing ever.
> 
> I'm a little put out, actually.  I was genuinely expecting a lot of self-declared PF fans to come out of the woodwork praising 5e, but instead I get two former/disilusioned PF fans (thanks for your honesty, BTW) praising 5e, and one PF fan not actually getting to the praise.  Unless that's what you meant by "Well I just have," in which case, thanks!




It took me a while to respond to this, since it honestly seems like you refuse to take anything I say seriously.

5E is not the best thing ever. It's pretty darn cool, but it's no Feng Shui, and it never will be. Furthermore, I am not 'disillusioned.' I am a PF fan. I just no longer obsessively demand that all TRPGs be Pathfinder, and nothing else, which was my previous stance from both PF and 3.X. 

You see, before I was a PF fan, I was not a PF fan. I was an anal retentive PF obsessing jerk who firmly believed that any game which claimed to be an RPG, yet wasn't Pathfinder or 3.x, was not a real game, but some kind trick on honest Pathfinder players, trying to steal their precious time from building PF characters and carefully detailing adventurers in proper, Pathfinder approved manner. For a time, I didn't even play games that weren't tabletop. I only played Pathfinder.

Now I'm just a fan. Not 'disillusioned,' just not as much of an  as I used to be.


----------



## delericho (Jan 28, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Did 2e change things from 1e?




Yes. 2nd Ed's options:

Method I was 3d6 in order.

Method II was 3d6 twice (keep best) in order.

Method III was 3d6 six times, arrange to suit.

Method IV was 3d6 twelve times, keep best six, arrange to suit.

Method V was 4d6-drop-lowest six times, arrange to suit. (There was a dire warning in the DMG that this was overpowered. Silly me, I believed it at the time.)

Method VI had each stat start at 8 and had the player roll 7d6. They could then assign those dice to the stats as they wished, with two caveats: they couldn't 'split' a die, and they couldn't go above 18 in any stat. So if you rolled seven '6's, it actually wasn't the best result.  That was the method we used, basically from day one.

Skills & Powers added some more methods, mostly some form of point buy.


----------



## delericho (Jan 28, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> With the exception of multiclassing, 5e doesn't have score requirements for characters - and sure, you may be less effective, depending on score placement, but standard assignable array is the default, followed by assignable 4d6 generation -- players have a high level of control over how effective the characters are, and a few low scores aren't going to prevent a character option outright.




???

I've just checked the Basic Rules, and the 4d6 method is presented first with the standard array following. (Point Buy is called out as a Variant Rule.)

Though I'm not sure I'd necessarily describe either as the default method - the Basic Rules make it clear that you can choose to roll or use the array; obviously, one of them had to be presented first.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 28, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> That's not true.
> 
> A little history. The AD&D PHB was released in 1977, and referenced the non-existent DMG for generation of ability scores. So, the default was to use 3d6 (the accepted and customary method). This happened early and often for two years of play.
> 
> ...




Since we're quoting the books:



			
				Page 11 DMG 1e said:
			
		

> As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:




Even as early as the 1e DMG, they are noting that people basically cheated when they rolled 3d6 in order.  "extended periods of attempts at finding a suitable one" indeed.  IOW, since many people already cheat when they roll 3d6 in order, you might as well use these systems which will give you better results without having to roll and reroll over and over until you get a character you want to play.


I started playing in 1980, so, I can't speak to before that, but, I'm thinking that 1979 is far enough back to pretty much count as pretty much always.  And, I certainly am not going to begin to attempt to claim to know how much "most people" were or were not aware of rolling rules.  I know our group, in the very first session, rolled 4d6 drop lowest, so, it mustn't have been too hard to find the rules.  

So, basically, we're talking about the 2 years from the 1e PHB to the DMG being released where 3d6 may have been the default.  But, since that point, unless you were playing Holmes or Mentzer Basic, there is actually no listing for 3d6 in order in AD&D.

Since we're playing duelling anecdotes, I never saw a single group play 3d6 in order.  Ever.  I'm sure that some did though, I've certainly heard about this mythical beast, but, every where I went, every group I played with, 4d6 drop lowest was always the standard.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 28, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Since we're quoting the books:
> 
> 
> 
> Even as early as the 1e DMG, they are noting that people basically cheated when they rolled 3d6 in order.  "extended periods of attempts at finding a suitable one" indeed.  IOW, since many people already cheat when they roll 3d6 in order, you might as well use these systems which will give you better results without having to roll and reroll over and over until you get a character you want to play.




It wasn't cheating.  It was pretty much required as this from the PHB shows...

"The premise of the game is each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characteristics."

If you used 3d6 in order, you often didn't end up with a character that qualified and had to re-roll.




> Since we're playing duelling anecdotes, I never saw a single group play 3d6 in order.  Ever.  I'm sure that some did though, I've certainly heard about this mythical beast, but, every where I went, every group I played with, 4d6 drop lowest was always the standard.




We periodically tried it, but stopped after making one or two characters that died quickly due to lousy stats.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 28, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 28, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 28, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Since we're quoting the books:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Again, the quote you mention confirms 3d6 as the default method - the 1E DMG just strongly suggests the Methods I-IV as "alternatives" to ensure better score generation.

The game acknowledged houserules practically from he beginning, but they weren't inherent in the system - I played with plenty groups that used each of the alternative systems as well, in addition to other variants, but addressed it as a houserule and left it at that.

Though we keep beating this dead horse, we're digressing from the topic at hand: what 5E got wrong (or what it didn't). I can accept that we're going to continue to disagree on this, which is fine -- I have true appreciation for valid debate on most topics. 

IMHO, 5E, with its more evenly spread ability score modifiers and bounded accuracy has allowed for a more unified task resolution system, as an evolution of the d20 system. While 1E/2E may have seen less of a spread in apparent modifiers (direct combat adjustments being the most readily acknowledged), the scores' effects on multiple aspects of the game went much deeper (Strength was likely the least impacting, in this sense -- on the other hand, Intelligence determined maximum spell level and chance to learn spells, which could be incredibly limiting, and Wisdom determined both maximum spell level and bonus spells, both incredibly impacting).

My initial response was primarily regarding ability score generation and opportunity provided by ability scores to effectively create a preferred character, either with or without multiclassing, and I think it holds. Both score requirements and the impact of scores on being effective in a chosen class and level limits in that class with multiclass characters were simply a matter of fact in 1E/2E, while in 5E, ability generation can be considered after every other aspect of character creation, given the inherent option to assign scores, whether by standard array or rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest die.

Ability scores are neither barrier nor crutch in 5E, which I believe, can be be attributed to one of the design philosophies of 5E - classes and races affording and defining effective archetypes, with ability scores being king in action resolution beyond that. Sure, the score modifiers can affect effectiveness of certain class features to a certain degree, but it doesn't restrict options -- a potential detractor in prior editions of the game.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 28, 2016)

delericho said:


> ???
> 
> I've just checked the Basic Rules, and the 4d6 method is presented first with the standard array following. (Point Buy is called out as a Variant Rule.)
> 
> Though I'm not sure I'd necessarily describe either as the default method - the Basic Rules make it clear that you can choose to roll or use the array; obviously, one of them had to be presented first.




You're right - my bad. 4d6 is the primary for 5e, with standard array as the accepted alternative -- I'm recalling the default for public play. My argument for score generation and definition not being something that 5E got wrong still holds water, though I clearly should have double-checked my references.


----------



## delericho (Jan 28, 2016)

In general, my list of things 5e got wrong has very little to do with _the game_, and is more about things that are around the game. Fortunately some, though not all, of these have been fixed by the community.

For example:

- The index has already been mentioned, as has the community generated version. (And yes, I know 5e actually compares well with other RPGs in terms of an index. But that's no credit to 5e - it's a mark of how badly other games do in this area.)

- The official character sheet is very poor. Again, the community have rectified this.

- I've found the Monster Creation rules to be extremely poorly explained. Here, again, Angry DM did a series of articles that totally turn them around, and make them very useful, but I do wish they'd written them differently (that is, better) in the first place.

But my big, #1 complaint:

- The bindings of the Core Rulebooks are simply not good enough for a $50 book. My DMG had pages coming loose before I completed even a read-through of the book, with no at-table use whatsoever. Given that I have a 1st Ed "Unearthed Arcana" with a solid binding (despite that book being notorious for the same), this really isn't good enough.

Don't get me wrong, WotC have created a great game, but there's just a few things that _really_ grate.


----------



## overbyte (Jan 28, 2016)

I think 5e got several things wrong, but did a LOT more right.  

I think DM's have to work too hard to properly attrition players down. The DMG recommends a day having something like 6-8 fights, which in my opinion is nuts.  

Sorcerers just don't quite fit in right. They're not unique enough, in my opinion, and probably should have just been scrapped.  

The XP table is just flat out screwed up. Basically no one uses it and everyone goes by milestones. If you don't, it's ... well, it sucks. You fly up the table.  

The feats are not balanced, and really needed some more passes before being pulled into the PHB. Some of them are just broken.  

A 4d6 stat roll system can easily set you up with low level characters that can be game-breakingly strong in a system where you get ASI's every 4 levels. The point buy system they came up with is, actually, quite excellent. I'd recommend everyone use point buy as the default in 5e. It makes the decision of "feat vs ASI" much more meaningful.  

Also, I think the game has way too much healing. Overnight healing to 100%, as well as the ability to recover all your HD+CON in an hour is like giving a party two full heals in a day before they touch their healing potions or spells. There's no resource management. I'm not advocating 1e/2e days of 1hp/day, or 3e days of 1hp/level/day, but I think something in-between would have been more reasonable. I think it would have made sense if they made healing potions a little more expensive, and made healing a little less accessible. Then players would have some decent gold sinks (healing potions and healing services!), at least in early game.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 28, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## overbyte (Jan 28, 2016)

Also, initiative.  The initiative system in 5e is broken, but it's been broken in every version of D&D. People just don't know it's broken. It's broken because it stops the flow of the game and forces people to transition from one line of thinking into another.  
I've said this on other forums, but I use an app that computes initiative for everything and rerolls initiative behind the DM screen every round. And I don't tell people when initiative starts. I simply describe the scene in detail and ask people what they are doing. What results is that people simply play their characters, and the immersion is much better. Every round people are watching the combat, not knowing who's going next, not knowing what's going to happen next. It's more exciting and keeps everyone's attention.
I've used this in 7 sessions now, and have already had 3 cases where players were actually in combat (initiative had started), and had no idea. In one situation, the player was in combat and managed to end combat peacefully without ever knowing he was about to be attacked. I play with a group of players who've played everything from OD&D through 4e (one of them has his own published game system), and they've said it's the best version of initiative they've ever played. I said, "That's because initiative is broken, but you never knew it"


----------



## delericho (Jan 28, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> Woah. Which printing?




No idea, sorry.


----------



## OB1 (Jan 28, 2016)

[MENTION=6813023]overbyte[/MENTION] just curious if you've tried to do a session or two using the 6-8 encounter guideline?  If not it's really worth a shot, I feel like it makes a lot of the pieces of 5e fall into place.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 28, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> Okay, since we have established that you were incorrect to begin with, I am not entirely sure why you are continuing to argue. Since you played since 1980, you are no doubt aware that playing back then was decidedly different than modern playing. There was no internet to share information. Players often didn't have (or read) the DMG. Many people started with pre-79 material (or Moldvay) and moved up, while incorporating rules and ideas from other rule sets that they played (not to mention Dragon magazine and supplements).
> 
> It's one thing to assert, incorrectly, what the rules were, as you did in the first post. It's another thing to assert the rules as authority when you are incorrect. If I say, for example, that, elves could never be resurrected - a rule I saw applied precisely *never* I would at least have support in the rules, but I would be careful to note that it was a rule that was rarely applied, and one I didn't see applied.
> 
> You may think 3d6 in order is stupid. That's fine. But you're wrong on the rules. The default listing is 3d6 in order, and the method alternatives listed by Gygax are variations from that. It's better to confess error, and move on, than to keep digging the hole.




Show me where 3d6 in order is listed in AD&D 1e.

Actually, Elves *can* be resurrected, they cannot be raised.  A rule we played with assiduously.  So, again, where are you getting "rarely" from?  Why do you keep trying to pretend that your experience was somehow universal?

That's the point I'm arguing with.  This idea that just because you or I happened to play a certain way, that everyone else did too.  I am only talking about my table and what the rules said, I'm making absolutely no judgements on how other players played the game.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 28, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Curmudjinn (Jan 29, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> 5e was a huge opportunity to do some modernizing to the traditional ruleset of dungeons and dragons. They did a great job with this in certain aspects of the game, like the updated spellcasting rules.  However, my biggest complaint by far about 5e is how they made almost no updates to the traditional attribute system d&D has always used, which frankly has a lot of problems.
> 
> Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced. Not only do the 6 attributes in PoE make more conceptual/thematic sense, but they are also designed with the mantra of being useful independent of class. There's no such thing as a dump stat. Some stats may be more useful for some builds than other stats, but it comes much closer to being class-independent than D&D, which I vastly prefer because it makes character concepting and building much more engaging, with the potential for much more diversity, and opens up interesting role-play options.




While there are flaws, they are only exaggerated by us exploiting them, as we ourselves are flawed. The 6-attribute system is simple enough if you play them as written, using them in their proper form. However, the _dump stat_ ideology is only a flaw because we, looking for mechanical exploits, have made it one. Putting another name on the six attributes doesn't change the flaw, it only modifies the way in which people exploit it.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> For those who don't remember, anything lower than a 15 (16 for strength) basically gave you no numerical advantages, but then the advantages scaled quickly.* And then there were the quirky rules- such as the special strength percentile rules (if you were a non-fighter with an 18, that was one thing, and you had your +1/+2, but a fighter-type got into the lottery for up to +3/+6) which really, really privileged getting an 18 in a key stat.



More specifically, it encouraged anyone who rolled an 18 for Strength to take a race with a Strength bonus, since you skip straight to 19 without having to even play the lottery.


----------



## MostlyDm (Jan 29, 2016)

overbyte said:


> Also, initiative.  The initiative system in 5e is broken, but it's been broken in every version of D&D. People just don't know it's broken. It's broken because it stops the flow of the game and forces people to transition from one line of thinking into another.
> I've said this on other forums, but I use an app that computes initiative for everything and rerolls initiative behind the DM screen every round. And I don't tell people when initiative starts. I simply describe the scene in detail and ask people what they are doing. What results is that people simply play their characters, and the immersion is much better. Every round people are watching the combat, not knowing who's going next, not knowing what's going to happen next. It's more exciting and keeps everyone's attention.
> I've used this in 7 sessions now, and have already had 3 cases where players were actually in combat (initiative had started), and had no idea. In one situation, the player was in combat and managed to end combat peacefully without ever knowing he was about to be attacked. I play with a group of players who've played everything from OD&D through 4e (one of them has his own published game system), and they've said it's the best version of initiative they've ever played. I said, "That's because initiative is broken, but you never knew it"




Sounds neat; what app are you using?


----------



## Lord Twig (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> I already did. They present the bell curve. They state that you can create the character using the 3d6 system. They then present four *alternatives* to the 3d6 system. (DMG, p. 11) It says "3d6." I don't think this is a point worth belaboring, since we have both quoted the relevant sections.  Your methods, which you used to say someone was just wrong, were not the sole methods. They are explicitly listed as alternatives to the 3d6 system. Hole, digging.




I don't have my old rule book handy, but it seems that it was never explicitly stated that you roll 3d6 in order and keep what you get regardless of the rolls. Apparently the books even said you should have at least two 15s. So the implied method was, roll 3d6 in order and keep trying until you get a decent set of rolls.

And honestly, that's how we made characters for my first few games (I also started in 1980). Needless to say this method gets you scores a lot better than 10.5 average on each stat and therefore makes it easier to qualify for whatever class you want. Which I believe was the whole point of this argument?



lowkey13 said:


> Resurrection is a 7th level cleric spell. In Resurrection, the following text is included: See _raise dead_ for limitations on what persons can be raised. (p. 53, PHB). Do you wish to guess what limitations there are? Again, hole, digging.




Just because someone makes a mistake doesn't mean you should be obnoxious in pointing out that mistake.



lowkey13 said:


> No, you started this whole issue by making an incorrect assertion about the rules. That isn't an argument. If you had simply said that your experience was that people you knew rarely used 3d6, I'd have no argument with it. If you had stated that 1e allowed alterantives in the RAW, again, no argument. But responding to someone, as you did, with, "This is not true. 3d6 in order wasn't even an option in 1e D&D" is incorrect. Compounding your error by then misremembering the rule for resurrection and elves is ... understandable. Most people, as I stated, didn't play with it. Still, I would recommend more caution_ since I just pointed it out_. It's ... funny?
> 
> All that said, I don't particularly enjoy arguing about arguing or shifting goalposts. Your experience is your own- but the written rules are there for anyone else to look at.




He asked that you show where it says that you roll 3d6 in order and keep what you get. I believe you have failed to come up with a page number so far. The best you can say at this point was that you were both a little off on remembering the exact method described as the default method of generating characteristics in 1e D&D.

Again, I don't have my books available right now, so I am working off memory and comments in this thread. If it actually is stated somewhere in the 1e PHB or DMG that you roll 3d6 in order and keep the results you get, a polite correction would be most welcome.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 29, 2016)

Lord Twig said:


> I don't have my old rule book handy, but it seems that it was never explicitly stated that you roll 3d6 in order and keep what you get regardless of the rolls. Apparently the books even said you should have at least two 15s. So the implied method was, roll 3d6 in order and keep trying until you get a decent set of rolls.
> 
> And honestly, that's how we made characters for my first few games (I also started in 1980). Needless to say this method gets you scores a lot better than 10.5 average on each stat and therefore makes it easier to qualify for whatever class you want. Which I believe was the whole point of this argument?
> 
> ...




I think you'll be hard pressed to find it explicitly stated in the books -- unfortunately, as has been an ongoing criticism of the 1E rule books, some of the expected rules of the game were either assumed or implicit in some of the language of the rulebooks, such as Hussar's quote of the introduction to the four alternative methods of generation -- in that particular instance, it's at least explicit that those are "alternate methods," which assumes that 3d6 is the default. A large complaint has been that there are gaping holes in the ruleset, due to assumptions like these.

While while E. Gary Gygax was revolutionary in creating D&D and, in turn, AD&D, communicating rules clearly and concisely wasn't his strong suit. Like OD&D made multiple assumptions on players being aware of rules from Chainmail, AD&D carried similar notions forward concerning OD&D rules. One of AD&D 2E's many missions was to codify and clarify what existed in AD&D 1E, to make it more accessible to the novice player. While it may be argued by some that 2E, as a system, made unnecessary changes to certain rules (classes, races, spells, etc.), its organization was at least more coherent than 1E, in most cases (the comparable sparseness of the 2E DMG aside).


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> Well, this was one of those .... things. The RAW in the strength table gave the various percentile strength limits for races.
> 
> Fun fact- humans had the highest possible strength at 18/00, even though 1/2 orcs had the strength modifier (+1). 1/2 orcs maxed out at 18/99. GYGAX!!!!!
> 
> Of course, the whole percentile system was hard to reconcile with the 19-25 abilities you could get with certain magic items. But you managed. Or you just cross-referenced some tables, and then through your hands up in the air, like you just don't care.




It also helped that PC strength scores were still capped at 18, before rolling for Exceptional Strength: scores of 19-25 were outliers to the norm, with assistance from rare items, and not attainable outside of magical assistance. The 19-25 range for scores wasn't even housed in the core books, not appearing until Deities & Demigods, and was solely intended for statting those titular beings, still not PCs.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> I already did. They present the bell curve. They state that you can create the character using the 3d6 system. They then present four *alternatives* to the 3d6 system. (DMG, p. 11) It says "3d6." I don't think this is a point worth belaboring, since we have both quoted the relevant sections.  Your methods, which you used to say someone was just wrong, were not the sole methods. They are explicitly listed as alternatives to the 3d6 system. Hole, digging.




I assume you're referring to page 11 of the 1e DMG.  That's the only place where the bell curve pictured that I know of.  It is an illustration of how probability changes when rolling more than one die.

3d6 in order is not a recommended method.  There is an explicit  recommendation against using it in fact.  There are 4 methods detailed on page 11 that are substantially more generous.

The closest to a default system is Method I: 4d6 drop lowest, player chooses where to place.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> Resurrection is a 7th level cleric spell. In Resurrection, the following text is included: See _raise dead_ for limitations on what persons can be raised. (p. 53, PHB). Do you wish to guess what limitations there are? Again, hole, digging.




Technically, elves can be resurrected, just not with the spell.  I direct you to the awesomely useful _Rod of Resurrection_


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nagol (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> Agreed. But the magic item powers often differed substantially from the powers granted by spell- which is why the Rod of Resurrection even had the "even Elves" disclaimer, and required additional charges for its use.*
> 
> As a side note, no one ever explained why the Rod would work when the rationale behind the whole "spell not working" was the spirit/soul divide, but, you know, Gygax.
> 
> *To move this back to 5e, one of the things I like about 5e is that they don't have wildly different powers from different sources that, supposedly, accomplish the same things. Trouble with 1e, and Gygax specifically, is that he would write versions of things that were incompatible with each other. For example, a 30th cleric couldn't cast raise dead or resurrect on an elf because of the spirit/soul, but a 1st cleric could use a rod as if they were high enough level to _cast_ resurrect to bring back an elf, because ... something something.




That spirit/soul bugged me enough I built a rationale for the whole planar system to account for it.  It informed a bunch of campaign situations over the years, but none of my players ever tried to peek behind the covers to take advantage of it.

The rod thing gets really weird when you realise a cleric who can make the rod still can't resurrect an elf with a spell.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> No, you don't have to assume I'm talking about p. 11 of the DMG, since I cited it. That's what we've been talking about. And the bell curve for 3d6 isn't on page 11, it's on page 10. And method 1 isn't the default method, but, as I indicated, it was Gygax's preferred method - not from p. 11, but from appendix P.
> 
> Good?




I figured he used method I in Appendix P because it was fastest with the least bookkeeping.  The other methods have you rolling 6 or 12 times as often.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> Fun fact- humans had the highest possible strength at 18/00, even though 1/2 orcs had the strength modifier (+1). 1/2 orcs maxed out at 18/99. GYGAX!!!!!



I kept looking for something to invalidate this admittedly-cheesy tactic, but I didn't find anything in the books I had access to. Are you sure that 99 wasn't the maximum for _exceptional_ Strength, with 19 being non-exceptional and thus perfectly allowed?

I mean, there were a lot of books and I wouldn't be surprised if they contradicted each other in places, but I know that I created a half-orc with Strength 19 when I tried to play Baldur's Gate.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 29, 2016)

Saelorn said:


> I kept looking for something to invalidate this admittedly-cheesy tactic, but I didn't find anything in the books I had access to. Are you sure that 99 wasn't the maximum for _exceptional_ Strength, with 19 being non-exceptional and thus perfectly allowed?
> 
> I mean, there were a lot of books and I wouldn't be surprised if they contradicted each other in places, but I know that I created a half-orc with Strength 19 when I tried to play Baldur's Gate.




Baldur's Gate was in the 2E era - in 1E, they had capped all scores at 18, especially as listed in racial min/max tables. 2E was a bit more lax on it, especially once all the "Complete" books started releasing.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 29, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> It also helped that PC strength scores were still capped at 18, before rolling for Exceptional Strength: scores of 19-25 were outliers to the norm, with assistance from rare items, and not attainable outside of magical assistance. The 19-25 range for scores wasn't even housed in the core books, not appearing until Deities & Demigods, and was solely intended for statting those titular beings, still not PCs.




Not entirely true.  The Girdle of Giant Strength in the DMG contained strength ranges up to 24.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 29, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 29, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Not entirely true.  The Girdle of Giant Strength in the DMG contained strength ranges up to 24.




While it could be assumed and was even implied that the Strength scores represented on the Giant type table for the Girdle was a true equation of score to effect, one could have also inferred that those benefits also came from the corresponding size of the related giant, conferred upon the much smaller wearer to great effect, including the ability to hurl rocks, which had not been included on prior Strength tables, and would not be included in the Deities & Demigods Strength table (example: the Hill Giant Girdle was rated at 19, and conferred to hit and damage bonuses, open doors, weight allowance, rock hurling, and bend bars/lift gates). Deities & Demigods (and it's subsequent printings as Legends & Lore) issued the official ability score tables for 19-25, indicating that those were, in fact the benefits for the corresponding Strength scores, except for the rock hurling ability conferred by the Girdle.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 29, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> While it could be assumed and was even implied that the Strength scores represented on the Giant type table for the Girdle was a true equation of score to effect, one could have also inferred that those benefits also came from the corresponding size of the related giant, conferred upon the much smaller wearer to great effect, including the ability to hurl rocks, which had not been included on prior Strength tables, and would not be included in the Deities & Demigods Strength table (example: the Hill Giant Girdle was rated at 19, and conferred to hit and damage bonuses, open doors, weight allowance, rock hurling, and bend bars/lift gates). Deities & Demigods (and it's subsequent printings as Legends & Lore) issued the official ability score tables for 19-25, indicating that those were, in fact the benefits for the corresponding Strength scores, except for the rock hurling ability conferred by the Girdle.




The girdle scores match up to the Deity & Demigods scores, so they were not from size.  If you assumed so prior to that book coming out, that would have been reasonable, but also wrong.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 29, 2016)

lowkey13 said:


> That (like the Rod of Resurrection) is another Gygax-ian weirdness. Both your statement and the one you responded to are true.
> 
> The Girdle of Giant Strength was _sui generis_ in the DMG, and had its own strength tables (!) since the core rules didn't allow PCs to exceed 18.* Because Gygax. Every rule had an exception, and the exception would have an exception, which may or may not have a further exception.
> 
> ...




There are a lot of exceptions to the rules, but this particular case matches up to the scores shown in the Deities and Demigods, so it's not really an exception, but rather a preview of what was to come.


----------



## sydbar (Jan 29, 2016)

Celtavian said:


> I'd also like to add the Critical Role voice actor D&D group moved on from _Pathfinder_ to 5E. That is a fairly well known group of gamers that did not go from 4E to 5E, but from _Pathfinder_ to 5E. They seem to enjoy playing 5E, though I think the only ones that gamed a long time were Matt Mercer and Liam O'brien, and maybe Taliesin Jaffe. They were _Pathfinder_ players prior to 5E. I think one of the best things you can say about 5E is that it is closer to older versions of D&D. That is definitely something 5E got right.




Matt has stated that one of the main reasons he switched to 5E for critical Role because the combats were faster with 8 players.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 29, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> The girdle scores match up to the Deity & Demigods scores, so they were not from size.  If you assumed so prior to that book coming out, that would have been reasonable, but also wrong.




Until explicitly stated in Deities & Demigods, it was was educated conjecture, based on a chart in a magic item description, a general category that repeatedly bent and/or broke the accepted rules at the time. While, yes, in hindsight, it was carried forward to an official table, prior to that it was conjecture at best.  In that case, if the DM said different, there weren't official rules to contradict the ruling. Was it a preview of things to come? Almost certainly. Was it most likely the intent to establish those as the score effects? Assuredly. But we keep coming to another certainty: those original rulebooks lacked the clarity and concision to outright say many things.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 29, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> Until explicitly stated in Deities & Demigods, it was was educated conjecture, based on a chart in a magic item description, a general category that repeatedly bent and/or broke the accepted rules at the time. While, yes, in hindsight, it was carried forward to an official table, prior to that it was conjecture at best.  In that case, if the DM said different, there weren't official rules to contradict the ruling. Was it a preview of things to come? Almost certainly. Was it most likely the intent to establish those as the score effects? Assuredly. But we keep coming to another certainty: those original rulebooks lacked the clarity and concision to outright say many things.




I can agree with that.  Back to the 3d6 default.  We know it was the default because the other methods listed were explicitly called alternative methods.  That means that none of them, 4d6 drop the lowest included, could possibly have been the default.  I don't know why Gygax would make the default worse than the primary alternative method, but he did.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2016)

Nagol said:


> Technically, elves can be resurrected, just not with the spell.  I direct you to the awesomely useful _Rod of Resurrection_




Yeah this is what I was confusing with the spell.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> I can agree with that.  Back to the 3d6 default.  We know it was the default because the other methods listed were explicitly called alternative methods.  That means that none of them, 4d6 drop the lowest included, could possibly have been the default.  I don't know why Gygax would make the default worse than the primary alternative method, but he did.




An alternative interpretation is that 3d6 in order was a holdover from ODnD. It's mentioned in 1e for that fact and players are told that it doesn't work so here are four alternatives to something you shouldn't use.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2016)

Hussar said:


> An alternative interpretation is that 3d6 in order was a holdover from ODnD. It's mentioned in 1e for that fact and players are told that it doesn't work so here are four alternatives to something you shouldn't use.




Something has to be default in order for there to be alternatives.  If there was no default, it would be impossible to offer any alternatives since there would be nothing to be alternative to.  3d6 is all that's left to be default.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Yeah this is what I was confusing with the spell.




1e, like 5e, is an exception based system.  The rule in 1e is that elves cannot be resurrected.  The rod is an exception that does not invalidate that rule.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 30, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> I can agree with that.  Back to the 3d6 default.  We know it was the default because the other methods listed were explicitly called alternative methods.  That means that none of them, 4d6 drop the lowest included, could possibly have been the default.  I don't know why Gygax would make the default worse than the primary alternative method, but he did.




3d6 isn't offered.  It is acknowledged as a system -- probably because of its use in previous versions of the game.  Here's the quote from the DMG:



			
				DMG Pg. 11 said:
			
		

> As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires.
> 
> While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:




As you can see, there are 4 offered systems.  The simplest is 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 30, 2016)

Nagol said:


> 3d6 isn't offered.  It is acknowledged as a system -- probably because of its use in previous versions of the game.  Here's the quote from the DMG:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, there are 4 offered systems.  The simplest is 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired.





Actually, that quote acknowledges that 3d6 is the assumed system, and indicates the four listed methods as alternatives to the standard assumed method - it just does so in the least direct way possible.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2016)

Considering it straight up recommends using methods one to four, and actively discourages you from using a method that isn't even on the list, I'd disagree with that interpretation. 

Note they are listed as "Method I-IV" not "Alternative Methods"

The only way a player would even know about 3d6 in order would be from ODnD. Anyone who never played that wouldn't even know to use it. I first played Moldvay Basic which also doesn't use 3d6 in order. In that system, you can exchange points from one stat to another at a 2:1 rate. 

The idea that there was a "default" system in ADnD is a very large stretch.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jan 30, 2016)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2016)

Nagol said:


> 3d6 isn't offered.  It is acknowledged as a system -- probably because of its use in previous versions of the game.  Here's the quote from the DMG:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, there are 4 offered systems.  The simplest is 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as desired.




There are not 4 offered systems.  There are 4 *alternative* systems offered as your quote rightly points out.  They have to be alternative to something, and that something is 3d6.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2016)

Hussar said:


> Considering it straight up recommends using methods one to four, and actively discourages you from using a method that isn't even on the list, I'd disagree with that interpretation.




And you'd be objectively wrong.  That it recommends using an ALTERNATIVE method does not mean that 3d6 isn't default.  It just means that for some odd reason they chose 3d6 as default.



> Note they are listed as "Method I-IV" not "Alternative Methods"



LOL  Only if you can't read.

"Four alternatives are offered for player characters:"

That better?  The methods are right after that colon showing that they are absolutely alternative methods.  C'mon man.  If you're going to make an argument, make one that at least has even a slim chance of being right.


----------



## MostlyDm (Jan 30, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> And you'd be objectively wrong.  That it recommends using an ALTERNATIVE method does not mean that 3d6 isn't default.  It just means that for some odd reason they chose 3d6 as default.




They didn't really choose 3d6 as default for AD&D. It already was. 

In the quoted passage Gygax acknowledges that 3d6 was the previously established default already. He couldn't change that. It _was_ the default, like it or not. 

Apparently, not. Hence the suggested alternatives. 

Remember, for original AD&D the "A" was relevant. Stat rolling is not the only case where Gygax writes with the baseline assumption that the reader has played a lot of D&D and is now ready for the "advanced" version. 

Over time this assumption may have proved less and less true, but it was still there. 

So...yeah. 3d6 was the default in OD&D and consequently the assumed default in AD&D. Gygax offered some other suggestions because he apparently felt that this default method would be a less appropriate fit for AD&D than it was for basic D&D.


----------



## MostlyDm (Jan 30, 2016)

Also just an aside, guys... No need to get heated or laugh at each other. It's stat generation. Not politics or religion.


----------



## NotActuallyTim (Jan 30, 2016)

MostlyDm said:


> Also just an aside, guys... No need to get heated or laugh at each other. It's stat generation. Not politics or religion.




Stat generation is both politics and religion.

And more importantly, it's an internet argument! FLAMEWAR!


----------



## Nagol (Jan 30, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> Actually, that quote acknowledges that 3d6 is the assumed system, and indicates the four listed methods as alternatives to the standard assumed method - it just does so in the least direct way possible.




I read the quote as acknowledging a system the reader is probably aware of so it outlines the reasons for rejecting it in this edition before presenting appropriate alternatives for character creation.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 30, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> There are not 4 offered systems.  There are 4 *alternative* systems offered as your quote rightly points out.  They have to be alternative to something, and that something is 3d6.




No, what the section is saying is 3d6 is inappropriate, here are systems that are appropriate, the writer does  not care which, if any, you choose to use in your game.  Each is satisfactory and has advantages/disadvantages to the others.  Pick one.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2016)

Nagol said:


> No, what the section is saying is 3d6 is inappropriate, here are systems that are appropriate, the writer does  not care which, if any, you choose to use in your game.  Each is satisfactory and has advantages/disadvantages to the others.  Pick one.




Oooookay.  I guess you don't understand what "alternative" means.  If what you said is true and there is no default 3d6, then it's impossible for "alternative" to apply to any of the four methods.


----------



## TheWriterFantastic™ (Jan 30, 2016)

Nagol said:


> No, what the section is saying is 3d6 is inappropriate, here are systems that are appropriate, the writer does  not care which, if any, you choose to use in your game.  Each is satisfactory and has advantages/disadvantages to the others.  Pick one.





No, what the DMG quote states is that it can be difficult to generate successful characters with the 3d6 default, and explicitly "suggests" 4 "alternative" methods. If any of the 4 listed methods were the default method, they wouldn't be indicated in the text explicitly as suggestions of alternative (not default)  methods.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 30, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Oooookay.  I guess you don't understand what "alternative" means.  If what you said is true and there is no default 3d6, then it's impossible for "alternative" to apply to any of the four methods.




'Alternative' does not require a default: it requires other choices be available.

If I'm asked "What do you want for supper?" and I reply "I don't want steak, but spaghetti, pizza, penne, or linguine would be good."  I have presented 4 alternatives.  But that doesn't make steak the _default_.  It makes steak a rejected option.  There is no default in the list of Italian foods that appeal to me.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 30, 2016)

WalkingCorpse said:


> No, what the DMG quote states is that it can be difficult to generate successful characters with the 3d6 default, and explicitly "suggests" 4 "alternative" methods. If any of the 4 listed methods were the default method, they wouldn't be indicated in the text explicitly as suggestions of alternative (not default)  methods.




I agree there is no default method.  3d6 can't be default since it isn't presented as a method to use; it is presented as method to avoid.  

The closest to default is 4d6 drop lowest because (1) it is listed first and people work that way, (2) it is referenced later in the book, and (3) it is by far the least cumbersome with minimal bookkeeping, requires the least analysis, and is fastest generation method presented.


----------



## MostlyDm (Jan 30, 2016)

Again, the reason Gygax treats it as a "default" is because he is writing the Advanced rule set for an _existing game in which 3d6 is default_. 

He states that for advanced players the default method of D&D is apparently no good, and presents the methods he thinks would work best for AD&D.


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2016)

Nagol said:


> 'Alternative' does not require a default: it requires other choices be available.
> 
> If I'm asked "What do you want for supper?" and I reply "I don't want steak, but spaghetti, pizza, penne, or linguine would be good."  I have presented 4 alternatives.  But that doesn't make steak the _default_.  It makes steak a rejected option.  There is no default in the list of Italian foods that appeal to me.




You gave exactly 0 alternatives there.  What you gave were 4 options, not alternatives, for dinner.  Options =/= alternatives.  The only way to provide alternatives is if there is something already offered up as the default.  Here is a correct dinner analogy.

You: What's for dinner?
Wife: Steak
You: I don't want steak, but spaghetti, pizza, penne or linguine would be good.

There we have a steak default for dinner and you giving alternatives for what was already given.  In 1e 3d6 is the default method, which allows for alternatives.  If it wasn't, then...

This: "Four alternatives are offered for player characters:"

would have been...

This: "Four options are offered for player characters:"


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 30, 2016)

Nagol said:


> I agree there is no default method.  3d6 can't be default since it isn't presented as a method to use; it is presented as method to avoid.




First, you can't agree with him that there is a default and say that there is no default.  Second, your second sentence is a false statement.  3d6 is not given as a method to avoid or not to use.  It is given as a method that is not the best at achieving 1e stat goals, so better alternatives were given.


----------



## overbyte (Feb 24, 2016)

MostlyDm said:


> Sounds neat; what app are you using?




I've switched around. I was using Initiative Tracker, which is good. Then I moved to DM Minion 5e. Right now I'm testing out Improved Initiative.  

Any of those 3 are great. DM Minion 5e is the best out of the box.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 5, 2016)

I always felt that 3d6 in order was the default for the general population.  To ensure heroic characters, the alternative methods were invented - the PCs are a "cut above" the common human (dwarf etc).

aaaaaannyway, to get back on the things that 5e didn't do well: I'm a bit dismayed that the number of encounters per day seems to be so important for class balance.  To me that number is highly variable between groups and scenarios, and shouldn't have been used for balancing.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 5, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Options =/= alternatives.



That's not what a quick Google search for definitions of alternative says.

Alternative, as a noun, is defined as "one of two or more available possibilities." and has the word "option" listed as a synonym.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 5, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> 5e was a huge opportunity to do some modernizing to the traditional ruleset of dungeons and dragons. They did a great job with this in certain aspects of the game, like the updated spellcasting rules.  However, my biggest complaint by far about 5e is how they made almost no updates to the traditional attribute system d&D has always used, which frankly has a lot of problems.
> 
> Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced. Not only do the 6 attributes in PoE make more conceptual/thematic sense, but they are also designed with the mantra of being useful independent of class. There's no such thing as a dump stat. Some stats may be more useful for some builds than other stats, but it comes much closer to being class-independent than D&D, which I vastly prefer because it makes character concepting and building much more engaging, with the potential for much more diversity, and opens up interesting role-play options.



You WANT each character to have a dump stat, otherwise either 
1) you're not running a class-based system
or
2) classes get too similar

Nothing prevents YOU from simply switching out Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha of D&D for the Mig, Con, Dex, Per, Int, Res of Pillars. But note that Obsidian couldn't use D&D terms (unless they bought a license). 

I think you overestimate 1) what problems D&D have and 2) the ability to solve these problems merely by attribute changes.

The fact is: countless people have reacted the way you do, and fiddled about with changes. Most of the time, the only result is a long-forgotten fantasy heartbreaker. Just sayin'....


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 5, 2016)

Ancalagon said:


> I'm a bit dismayed that the number of encounters per day seems to be so important for class balance.  To me that number is highly variable between groups and scenarios, and shouldn't have been used for balancing.



It make more sense if you keep in mind that mechanical class balance wasn't exactly a major goal for 5e.  Mearls did mention that there would be "crystal clear" guidance as to encounters/day to get daily & at-will (1-hr short rests weren't a thing yet, IIRC) to theoretically balance in one L&L.  But, I think it is fairly academic guidance.  It's there if you want to work out balance from a mechanical standpoint.  What 5e, its class designs, and emphasis on DM Empowerment really lends itself to is 'spot light' balance.  The fighter is best at fighting, he shines in encounters where conventional weapon-using combat is the best solution.  The Wizard is best at casting, he shines when spells are the answer.  The Cleric is the best healer/'leader'/support character, he shines when things aren't going the party's way.  The Rogue is the best skill character, he shines when the skills he has Expertise in come up.  Etc.    It's up to the DM to manage that spotlight, keep it moving, and keep the game enjoyable, varying the number of encounters may be part of that, 6-8, a baseline to start with to understand how shorter or longer days/more or fewer rests of each type, might give one PC or another his moment in the spotlight.


----------



## RCanine (Mar 5, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> First, you can't agree with him that there is a default and say that there is no default.  Second, your second sentence is a false statement.  3d6 is not given as a method to avoid or not to use.  It is given as a method that is not the best at achieving 1e stat goals, so better alternatives were given.




BRB, editting The Wikipedia article on Bikeshedding to mention this thread as an example.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 5, 2016)

RCanine said:


> BRB, editting The Wikipedia article on Bikeshedding to mention this thread as an example.




That law explains so many things at work...


----------



## SteveC (Mar 5, 2016)

For me, what 5E got wrong was doing away with the modules concept. The core 5E ... isn't something that I like very much (which shouldn't surprise anyone, it's in my signature). I've played it because it's D&D and that's what a lot of my group want to do.

What would have worked for me is to have the options to make it the kind of game I like baked in as modules. The way the designers talked about it during the launch.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 6, 2016)

Ancalagon said:


> aaaaaannyway, to get back on the things that 5e didn't do well: I'm a bit dismayed that the number of encounters per day seems to be so important for class balance.  To me that number is highly variable between groups and scenarios, and shouldn't have been used for balancing.




Strictly speaking, it's not encounters per day.  Abilities don't usually refresh simply because a day passes.  It's generally the act of taking a long rest that does this.  Additionally, the DMG does give rules for varying rest times.


----------



## Jabborwacky (Mar 6, 2016)

I would say the sorcerer is definitely not up to par, but only due to a lack of elemental spells. Fire spells are so prevalent on their list that red and gold dragon bloodlines for sorcerer are overwhelmingly preferable to that of any other dragon type. This holds true even with the EE player's guide adding more spells to the mix. Frustratingly, some elemental spells are available only to the wizard for no sensible reason. Melf's acid arrow is one such example. If someone told me that sorcerers are exceedingly rare in adventure league games, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## ccs (Mar 6, 2016)

SteveC said:


> For me, what 5E got wrong was doing away with the modules concept. The core 5E ... isn't something that I like very much (which shouldn't surprise anyone, it's in my signature). I've played it because it's D&D and that's what a lot of my group want to do.
> 
> What would have worked for me is to have the options to make it the kind of game I like baked in as modules. The way the designers talked about it during the launch.




5e is quite modular.  The designers have provided some options.  And I'm sure they'll add more  - eventually.  Anything else?  That comes from us, the people playing the game.  Just like it always has....

So why don't you & your group see if there's changes you could all agree upon to make it more to your liking?


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 6, 2016)

Jabborwacky said:


> Frustratingly, some elemental spells are available only to the wizard for no sensible reason. Melf's acid arrow is one such example.



If there's a name attached, the implication has long been that some wizard with that name created the spell.  Sorcerers don't create, write down, and pass down spells.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 6, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> If there's a name attached, the implication has long been that some wizard with that name created the spell.  Sorcerers don't create, write down, and pass down spells.




Someone at some point created every wizard spell.  If a sorcerer can innately know fireball, they should also be able to innately know any other spell, including named spells.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 6, 2016)

Maxperson said:


> Someone at some point created every wizard spell.  If a sorcerer can innately know fireball, they should also be able to innately know any other spell, including named spells.



It's not really on my agenda to defend wizard-privilege, but I suppose the idea is that a wizard spell that isn't shared with sorcerers is 'advanced' or 'more evolved' or 'more refined' in the sense that creating it required having learned and mastered what other wizards had developed over the centuries and built upon.  

Makes wizards sound like engineers & scientists, I know.  ;(


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Mar 6, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Makes wizards sound like engineers & scientists, I know.  ;(



Well, that's fundamentally what they are, albeit perhaps less systematic and more trial-and-error, depending on the campaign.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 6, 2016)

ccs said:


> 5e is quite modular.  The designers have provided some options.  And I'm sure they'll add more  - eventually.  Anything else?  That comes from us, the people playing the game.  Just like it always has....
> 
> So why don't you & your group see if there's changes you could all agree upon to make it more to your liking?



I would say that 5E is not particularly modular, about average as an RPG. The thing is that it was *touted *as being especially modular for people like me who were interested in a different play style than it eventually embraced. That never happened. That's a fail from my perspective.

As for additional options from WotC: this is, for all practical terms, not going to happen. There has been a small amount of material released since launch that's amounted to about 20 pages or so. And we're not going to get much more any time soon, since the staff have been reduced to a skeleton crew.

So I'm back at writing game material out of whole cloth, and I just don't have the time for this. I really don't. Three months from now (give or take) I'm going to have a new little one in the world and be a parent. My wife has graciously allowed me to play in one game session a month at that point... and I don't really want much more than that because I'm excited about being a parent. That means "you can always build it yourself," isn't a solution for me, and it's something that, for me I define as a failure for the edition. Specifically: no additional product is a fail, *for me*.

Now before I sound too negative (I know, too late!) that one game I'm playing in will be a 5E adventure (specifically the new Ravenloft path). I'm playing it because I have one of the best GMs in the world (seriously: Chris Perkins could learn from him) and because I love Ravenloft. I'm expecting to have a blast for the game. The thing is that it will be *despite *the edition rather than *because *of it.

Now I know that many people don't agree with me (of course!) but this is really what 5E got wrong *for me*. So, I'm still with D&D, just frustrated.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 7, 2016)

SteveC said:


> I would say that 5E is not particularly modular, about average as an RPG. The thing is that it was *touted *as being especially modular for people like me who were interested in a different play style than it eventually embraced. That never happened. That's a fail from my perspective.



I also expected more from 5e in terms of being 'modular,' but I think that was just because of the choice of word.  Modular implies, to me, that the modules would be seamlessly interchangeable, which would have been very hard to pull off, indeed.  Rather, it seems they just meant that there would be a number of prefab variants that you could work with, as well as the usual freedom to house-rule the game as needed.  So, sure, maybe 'modular' was over-sold.

OTOH, I think they undersold-just how DM-Empowering 5e was going to be, with it's rulings-over-rules ideal, you don't really need extensive house rules or even 'modules' to get what you want out of the game.  From the DM's perspective, that is, of course.



> As for additional options from WotC: this is, for all practical terms, not going to happen. There has been a small amount of material released since launch that's amounted to about 20 pages or so. And we're not going to get much more any time soon, since the staff have been reduced to a skeleton crew.



So far, we haven't seen a lot of new stuff in print. We have seen more than a few things in UA, though, including the Mystic Class.  Those things are supposed to be in a sort of ongoing playtest status, so we may see them in print, someday.  



> Now before I sound too negative (I know, too late!) that one game I'm playing in will be a 5E adventure (specifically the new Ravenloft path). I'm playing it because I have one of the best GMs in the world (seriously: Chris Perkins could learn from him) and because I love Ravenloft. I'm expecting to have a blast for the game. The thing is that it will be despite the edition rather than because of it.



I just ran the opening event, The Death House, yesterday, and it was fairly successful.  I had signed up for a 4-hr slot, and it wasn't enough time to finish the run - other tables were still going, but I had plans for late that evening.  Most of my players really enjoyed it, the ones that didn't so much, it was because of the venue, which gets a lot of background noise from the other tables (we all had the AL-max of 7 players).  I think it promises to be a particularly good season.  



> Now I know that many people don't agree with me (of course!) but this is really what 5E got wrong *for me*. So, I'm still with D&D, just frustrated.



I get it, but maybe there's still reason to feel hopeful.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Mar 8, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> I also expected more from 5e in terms of being 'modular,' but I think that was just because of the choice of word.  Modular implies, to me, that the modules would be seamlessly interchangeable, which would have been very hard to pull off, indeed.  Rather, it seems they just meant that there would be a number of prefab variants that you could work with, as well as the usual freedom to house-rule the game as needed.  So, sure, maybe 'modular' was over-sold.




Maybe? Try definitely. Even from the beginning they were making "promises"--really, easily-misinterpreted suggestions--that they never delivered on and had to back away from. We had people talking about ultra-simple, at-will-only Wizards. I'm 99% sure Mearls *actually did say* that he wanted to be able to have "old school"-style nearly-empty-character-sheet players at the same table as chock-full-o'-options "new school"-style characters--only to retract it and say he just meant both styles could _exist_, not _coexist_, within the game.



> OTOH, I think they undersold-just how DM-Empowering 5e was going to be, with it's rulings-over-rules ideal, you don't really need extensive house rules or even 'modules' to get what you want out of the game.  From the DM's perspective, that is, of course.




Hence the Standard Fifth Edition Response in help/advice threads: "You're the DM, just make something up!!" Which is, of course, as useless as saying, "That's not a problem at *my* table."



> I get it, but maybe there's still reason to feel hopeful.




Speaking as a major 4e fan? Nah. I gave up back in early 2014, when people started telling me I would need to give the game _a year or two_ after release before I could REALLY say it wasn't for me. I have, since, tried to appreciate 5e for what it does; every time I've done so, it has ended up providing a distinctly less enjoyable experience than I had wanted, and was only worth my time because I shared it with good friends.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 8, 2016)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I'm 99% sure Mearls *actually did say* that he wanted to be able to have "old school"-style nearly-empty-character-sheet players at the same table as chock-full-o'-options "new school"-style characters--only to retract it and say he just meant both styles could _exist_, not _coexist_, within the game.



Yeah, it happened.  The L&L's long since been taken down, but sure, there was a lot of vapor-ware and marketing spin that could be taken like promises, and some more solidly-stated goals that could be taken as such.   (Ironically, given the 6-8 encounter/day threads currently fulminating, one of the more definite promises made in an 'L&L' was that there would "crystal clear guidance" on where the at-will (fighter) types and daily (caster) types would balance.  And they delivered on that promise.  And people are mad at them for it.)



> Hence the Standard Fifth Edition Response in help/advice threads: "You're the DM, just make something up!!" Which is, of course, as useless as saying, "That's not a problem at *my* table."



It's slightly less useless, and at least doesn't imply snide superiority the way the latter can.  

Rule in favor of fun.  You know your table better than we do.  Make the game your own.   They're fascicle answers, sure, but not without a grain of useful advice.



> Speaking as a major 4e fan?



Yes, I think my 4venger cred still stands.  And, yes, I'm happy to accept 5e for what it can already do well, for now while still holding out hope that it'll be able to do more of the thing's we'd like it to going forward.



> Nah. I gave up back in early 2014, when people started telling me I would need to give the game _a year or two_ after release before I could REALLY say it wasn't for me.



It hasn't been 2 years yet.  







> I have, since, tried to appreciate 5e for what it does; every time I've done so, it has ended up providing a distinctly less enjoyable experience than I had wanted, and was only worth my time because I shared it with good friends.



At least your giving it a chance, and not letting it come between you and those friends.  Even if you decide 5e wasn't for you, walk away from it quietly, don't go down that same road that led to the edition war.   And, similarly, take a second look when future supplements finally do come out, don't just grumble 'too little too late' and miss out.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 10, 2016)

I think the list of domains for clerics is too short.  There should be 4-5 more IMO.


----------



## MechaPilot (Mar 10, 2016)

Ancalagon said:


> I think the list of domains for clerics is too short.  There should be 4-5 more IMO.




I agree that a few more are in order, but what those would be will probably vary with each style of game.  For example, I'm currently working on a Love domain for my courtly intrigue game.  That domain is definitely not well represented by the Life domain it gets folded into in the PHB, but whether it's really needed or not definitely depends on the type of game being run.


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 10, 2016)

MechaPilot said:


> I agree that a few more are in order, but what those would be will probably vary with each style of game.  For example, I'm currently working on a Love domain for my courtly intrigue game.  That domain is definitely not well represented by the Life domain it gets folded into in the PHB, but whether it's really needed or not definitely depends on the type of game being run.



I agree too, it certainly seems like there should be more domains... I just can't quite figure out _what_ domains.

I mean, I didn't even realize there wasn't a 'magic' domain until the SCAG came out with one, so I'm probably missing at least 3 more "obvious" choices.


----------



## delericho (Mar 10, 2016)

Ancalagon said:


> I think the list of domains for clerics is too short.  There should be 4-5 more IMO.




To be honest, I feel the list of subclasses for _all_ the classes are too short (except Wizard). It's one of several areas where 5e seems ideally suited for expansion (backgrounds being another prime candidate), and one of the reasons I'm so surprised WotC haven't gone down the splatbook-route with this edition.


----------



## Azurewraith (Mar 10, 2016)

delericho said:


> To be honest, I feel the list of subclasses for _all_ the classes are too short (except Wizard). It's one of several areas where 5e seems ideally suited for expansion (backgrounds being another prime candidate), and one of the reasons I'm so surprised WotC haven't gone down the splatbook-route with this edition.



I was going to say the exact same thing. Didbt want to though someone may of told my opinion was wrong


----------



## psychophipps (Mar 11, 2016)

To be frank, D&D has been used to tell great stories for over four decades now. Many of those years with a far worse dice engine, character options, and ruleset than the current edition. Nothing personal, but if you can't get the job done at the gaming table with the basic three, it's because you choose to fail due to reasons of your choice or lack of ability, not because the game isn't giving you what you need to get the job done.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 11, 2016)

psychophipps said:


> To be frank, D&D has been used to tell great stories for over four decades now. Many of those years with a far worse dice engine, character options, and ruleset than the current edition. Nothing personal, but if you can't get the job done at the gaming table with the basic three, it's because you choose to fail due to reasons of your choice or lack of ability, not because the game isn't giving you what you need to get the job done.




That's kind of a harsh way of expressing that.

I think some people just enjoy having lots of character options to fiddle with, and they are disappointed when they don't have enough buttons and dials to play with.  It doesn't mean they aren't telling good stories and enjoying playing.

However, I agree that the game is first and foremost supposed to be about the telling of the stories, and that could be done perfectly well, forever, with nothing but the basic 4 classes.  If adventures and challenges show variation, you shouldn't need character option variation for the game to always feel fresh.


----------



## psychophipps (Mar 11, 2016)

Elfcrusher said:


> That's kind of a harsh way of expressing that.




Yeah, it was and after 48 pages it was time to get down to brass tacks.

Being a long-time player (30+ years) I have learned that 95%+ of these discussions pivot on three basic steps:
1) I have a great idea for a character.
2) I have noticed that a simple solution like a Capt. Obvious multi-class straight from the book doesn't solve it.
3) I choose to whine about "How the new D&D failed!" online rather than discuss the situation with my DM in a constructive manner with a open mind on maintaining game balance and allowing for other players to maintain their well-deserved spotlights in the story.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 11, 2016)

psychophipps said:


> To be frank, D&D has been used to tell great stories for over four decades now. Many of those years with a far worse dice engine, character options, and ruleset than the current edition.



Yep, it's a matter of 'want' not need.  You can tell a great story freestyle, you don't even need a system.  You could run a game where the PCs are all identically-statted bog-standard MM kobolds, just give 'em names, personalities, a source of conflict, and opportunities for character development (in the storytelling sense, no need for any stats to change)...

Even so, you might not always want to use that kind of approach.


----------



## ChrisCarlson (Mar 11, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep, it's a matter of 'want' not need.



People 'want' all kinds of things. That doesn't necessarily mean the game would be well served trying to meet all those 'wants'.



Tony Vargas said:


> You can tell a great story freestyle, you don't even need a system.  You could run a game where the PCs are all identically-statted bog-standard MM kobolds, just give 'em names, personalities, a source of conflict, and opportunities for character development (in the storytelling sense, no need for any stats to change)...



Would you believe, there is a game systems to emulate that very thing.

The point being, there are different systems that meet different needs. And that's okay.



Tony Vargas said:


> Even so, you might not always want to use that kind of approach.



And I would not expect to try and use the system I linked above to play a game featuring Marvel superheroes.


----------



## Jabborwacky (Mar 11, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> If there's a name attached, the implication has long been that some wizard with that name created the spell.  Sorcerers don't create, write down, and pass down spells.




That is true, but its not helpful in the mechanical sense. They both use the same kind of destructive spells, so they either have to make a unique acid spell specifically for the sorcerer to which the wizard has access, but no real use for given melf's acid arrow, or they give the sorcerer a unique acid spell a wizard cannot cast. I think its a good example of where they should violate their status quo just a bit. The goal was to prevent redundant spells from taking up space in the system, after all.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 11, 2016)

Jabborwacky said:


> That is true, but its not helpful in the mechanical sense. They both use the same kind of destructive spells, so they either have to make a unique acid spell specifically for the sorcerer that the wizard has access to, but no real use for given he has melf's acid arrow, or they give the sorcerer a unique acid spell a wizard cannot cast.
> The later doesn't really make any sense given the lore, but the current status quo makes some sorcerer options significantly less effective than others.



Sure, and in a game as loose as 5e is in it's design & implementation, there's always going to be something like that which shakes out theoretically inferior by the numbers.  Thing is, if your Acidic Sorcerer isn't in a party with the by-the-numbers-superior Flaming Sorcerer, it's not really going to matter - you can't be overshadowed by someone who doesn't show up.  Even if they are juxtaposed in the same party, the DM can still make sure each gets ample splotlight time, just by tailoring challenges to make sure each gets to be useful.  So maybe there'll be a few more fire-resistant monsters than might be statistically predicted...


----------



## Ohillion (Mar 11, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep, it's a matter of 'want' not need.  You can tell a great story freestyle, you don't even need a system.  You could run a game where the PCs are all identically-statted bog-standard MM kobolds, just give 'em names, personalities, a source of conflict, and opportunities for character development.




I've actually done exactly this and we did it successfully.  Sometimes, pulling the players out of what they know and getting them to be creative by using what they know in unique and new ways is very rewarding on both sides of the DM screen.


----------



## Jabborwacky (Mar 11, 2016)

Its not the damage that's really the issue so much as the complete absence of a given element. You can find a fire spell at almost every level, yet the only immediately recognized acid spell on the sorcerer spell list is the acid splash cantrip. So we have the option to play a sorcerer related to a black dragon, but nothing except a cantrip and maybe cloud kill that uses acid. Giving sorcerers some unique spells different from the wizard and warlock could help. After all, sorcerers were the blaster mages of D&D before the warlock came about. Granting them more flexibility in that role would certainly help them stand out from warlocks and wizards.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Mar 11, 2016)

Jabborwacky said:


> Its not the damage that's really the issue so much as the complete absence of a given element. You can find a fire spell at almost every level, yet the only immediately recognized acid spell on the sorcerer spell list is the acid splash cantrip. So we have the option to play a sorcerer related to a black dragon, but nothing except a cantrip and maybe cloud kill that uses acid. There are some definite holes that need to get filled on the sorcerer list, and I think its entirely reasonable to make them unique to the sorcerer. After all, sorcerers were the blaster mages of D&D before the warlock came about. Granting them more flexibility in that role would certainly help them stand out from warlocks and wizards.




I am being genuine when I ask...can't you just reskin almost any fire spell or cold spell to be any other type of elemental/energy damage? 

Instead of fireball, you can have acid burst, or thunder clap. Instead of scorching ray, acid blast, or arctic ray.

Maybe not all will be a perfect fit for other types of elements, but I think there's enough there to work with that it should be a pretty easy fix.


----------



## psychophipps (Mar 11, 2016)

hawkeyefan said:


> I am being genuine when I ask...can't you just reskin almost any fire spell or cold spell to be any other type of elemental/energy damage?
> 
> Instead of fireball, you can have acid burst, or thunder clap. Instead of scorching ray, acid blast, or arctic ray.
> 
> Maybe not all will be a perfect fit for other types of elements, but I think there's enough there to work with that it should be a pretty easy fix.




It's exactly this kind of thinking that I'm talking about. You can "fix" almost anything with just a bit of swapping around and it works out better for everyone involved.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 12, 2016)

Jabborwacky said:


> Giving sorcerers some unique spells different from the wizard and warlock could help. After all, sorcerers were the blaster mages of D&D before the warlock came about. Granting them more flexibility in that role would certainly help them stand out from warlocks and wizards.



Maybe 'generic' more than unique?  

You could have a series of 'Elemental ______' spells.  Bolt, blast, eruption, storm, whatever.  When you learn the spell, you pick a damage type.  

Only issue is that not all damage types are created equal.  Some face more common resistances than others, for instance.


----------



## Awesome Adam (Mar 12, 2016)

They have semi standard special effects for each damage type
Ice Slows
Acid Splashes
Fire does more damage


----------



## Azurewraith (Mar 12, 2016)

On the topic of wizard and sorcerer, I feel they should cast completely differently. The sorcerer should "make" magic it should be as simple as choosing an element and  spell shape(cone, cube etc) and should be able to improv any effect they wish. Sorcery points would become much more like spell points with a table for what effects cost/subtract from a spell it wouldn't be overly complex(I think)

As for wizards their spells should be uber strict a fireball is a fireball and fly is fly. They study magic and practice swishes and flicks to get it right.

Maybe it will be to complex I have a tendency to try a make elaborate complex systems. Would certainly fix the issue that sorcerers are just naff wizards due to this neo-vancian magic.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 12, 2016)

Azurewraith said:


> On the topic of wizard and sorcerer, I feel they should cast completely differently.



Problem is, psionics need that differentiation even more bad.

Perhaps the easiest thing would have been to admit "between wizards and warlocks, there simply is not enough design space for a full class"

...and then remove the Sorcerer, whose main reason de etre was its spontaneous casting in 3E.

Remove Sorcerer the class, that is. Not the character archetype. But to realize that's an archetype best served by combining existing game elements. 

Either that, or they should have withdrawn it from the PHB as not-tested-enough and saved it for, say, the Elemental Evil book.

Though I'm aware they desperately wanted 5e to become a success, so it's easy for me to cut away from the core books now, when it's already a hit.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 12, 2016)

If people need more subclasses (cleric domains especially) and are fine with non-WotC design... go onto the Unearthed Arcana subreddit and just scroll through all the pages.  I've downloaded all manner of good subclasses and domains.  I can't say how well playtested they are (if at all) but through casual eyes they seem good.


----------



## Azurewraith (Mar 12, 2016)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If people need more subclasses (cleric domains especially) and are fine with non-WotC design... go onto the Unearthed Arcana subreddit and just scroll through all the pages.  I've downloaded all manner of good subclasses and domains.  I can't say how well playtested they are (if at all) but through casual eyes they seem good.



A quick eyeball usually shows if something is op or not its all good


----------



## Plaguescarred (Mar 12, 2016)

Einlanzer0 said:


> Pillars of Eternity is a great example of how the 6-score system of D&D could have been easily updated into something more coherent, sensible, modern, and balanced.



Playing with Might and Resolve attributes would have not given me the impression i'm playing D&D anymore but some other games, it would have denature it too much. The D&D attributes to me are a core feature of it.


----------



## delericho (Mar 12, 2016)

Plaguescarred said:


> Playing with Might and Resolve attributes would have not given me the impression i'm playing D&D anymore but some other games, it would have denature it too much. The D&D attributes to me are a core feature of it.




Yeah, like it or not, those six attributes are a _genuinely_ sacred cow for D&D.


----------



## Jabborwacky (Mar 13, 2016)

Tony Vargas said:


> Maybe 'generic' more than unique?
> 
> You could have a series of 'Elemental ______' spells.  Bolt, blast, eruption, storm, whatever.  When you learn the spell, you pick a damage type.
> 
> Only issue is that not all damage types are created equal.  Some face more common resistances than others, for instance.




This and moving them away from the vancian system, perhaps something like the warlock, but with heavier firepower and more squishy. Sorcerers were originally just a spontaneous caster variant of wizards in an edition with so many spells they could feasibly represent almost any bloodline. The spell system here looks the same, but the rules for spell design are different. People are primarily going to play sorcerer to blow things up, so might as well make that the primary class feature of the sorcerer. Then they just need access to some of the neo-vancian support spells and they're good to go.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 13, 2016)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Unearthed Arcana subreddit and just scroll through all the pages



Link?


----------



## AaronOfBarbaria (Mar 13, 2016)

Greg K said:


> Link?



https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/
should do it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Mar 14, 2016)

CapnZapp said:


> Problem is, psionics need that differentiation even more bad.
> 
> Perhaps the easiest thing would have been to admit "between wizards and warlocks, there simply is not enough design space for a full class"
> 
> ...and then remove the Sorcerer, whose main reason de etre was its spontaneous casting in 3E.



So you could have Warlocks who make a Pact with The Great Wyrm or Chaos itself, or an _'Ordo  Draconis'_ Wizard Tradition or a rebellious non-traditional Tradition of Madwands.



Jabborwacky said:


> This and moving them away from the vancian system, perhaps something like the warlock, but with heavier firepower and more squishy. Sorcerers were originally just a spontaneous caster variant of wizards in an edition with so many spells they could feasibly represent almost any bloodline.



That also argues to their being little need for the 5e Sorcerer.  All casters are now spontaneous.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 15, 2016)

Having run 5E now for almost two years, and a total of more than 1.5 years worth of weekly play...

The things it got wrong, IMO:


Travel Mechanics - each role should have its own skill. Lookout is clearly perception. Navigation should be a separate Wis Skill. Survival should be used for Hunting/Foraging.
Better, clearer, and more strictly adhered to non-stacking. Magic as is pretty much almost always stacks, and promptly breaks bounded accuracy.
Fighter bonuses too high. When an 5th level fighter is hitting with a +10 in a weapon (+5 attribute, +3 proficiency, +2 for style) before magic... it's a bit much.
more subclasses for everyone
A generalist wizard should have been included.
Better option sets in the DMG
more allowance for specific common options in D&D AL play.


----------



## Awesome Adam (Mar 15, 2016)

aramis erak said:


> [*]Fighter bonuses too high. When an 5th level fighter is hitting with a +10 in a weapon (+5 attribute, +3 proficiency, +2 for style) before magic... it's a bit much.




Your scenario requires a DEX 20 fighter and only applies to Archery. It also wouldn't be worth taking if it was any lower.


----------



## DrAltaica (Apr 5, 2016)

We all know the 6 attributes to use are Strength, Intellect, Insight, Dexterity, Stamina and Appeal.  

Anyone recognize where those come from?


----------



## CapnZapp (Apr 5, 2016)

You mean Perception. 

Perception is used so much, it trumps any desire to split defensive and offensive willpower.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Apr 5, 2016)

CapnZapp said:


> You mean Perception.
> 
> Perception is used so much, it trumps any desire to split defensive and offensive willpower.




Perception should be it's own stat, splitting wisdom into willpower and perception, imo


----------



## Tinker-TDC (Apr 5, 2016)

Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility, Luck...right?


----------

